+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 48

Thread: Rod Class & his many hoaxes

  1. Link to Post #1
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    30th September 2015
    Age
    45
    Posts
    52
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 29 times in 14 posts

    Default Rod Class & his many hoaxes

    INTRODUCTION: The information below exposes an entire series of LEGAL HOAXES by Rod Class and his charlatan partners. Read them all. They are simply unbelievable!

    TABLE OF CONTENTS:

    1). COMMENT 1- "THE PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL HOAX"

    2). COMMENT 2- "THE 14TH AMENDMENT, SECTION 4 BOUNTY HUNTER HOAX"

    3). COMMENT 3- "THE JUDGE DALE HOAX" (reveals Class' charlatan partners) & "THE DEBRA JONES HOAX"

    4). COMMENT 4- "THE COURT SEALED THE COURT FILE BECAUSE MY AMATEUR 'PAPERWORK' WOULD HAVE OVERTURNED EVERY PRIOR CASE IN HISTORY HOAX" (exposes Class' history of psychiatric illness)

    5). COMMENT 5- THE "BOMBSHELL: ROD CLASS HAS OBTAINED HIS 'FOURTH' ADMINISTRATIVE RULING THAT ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ARE 'PRIVATE ENTITIES' or 'PRIBATE CONTRACTORS' HOAX" & (the related) "A NORTH CAROLINA JUDGE HAS WARNED ALL STATE POLICE OFFICERS TO PUT THEIR PROPERTY INTO OTHER PEOPLES' NAMES HOAX"

    6). COMMENT 6- THE "LAWYERS HAVE NO AUTHORITY HOAX" & OTHER LAWYER HOAXES (exposes many of Class' AMATEUR legal misconceptions and includes "The B.A.R. Hoax", "The Original 13th Amendment Hoax" & "Title of Nobility Hoax", etc.)

    7). COMMENT 7- "THE PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL 'CERTIFICATE' HOAX" (exposes why Rod Class was in Washington, D.C. in the first place and reveals more about Class' D.C. weapons case never before revealed)

    9). COMMENT 9- "THE SUPREME COURT LOVES MY PAPERWORK HOAX" (exposes the falsity of Class' claims that his attorneys took his case before the Supreme Court because his amateur "paperwork" was so good and reveals more about Class' D.C. weapons case never before revealed)

    10). COMMENT 10- "THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL HOAX" & (the related) "THE NO DRIVER'S LICENSE REQUIRED HOAX"

    12). COMMENT 12- "THE UNITED STATES IS A PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT 'CORPORATION' HOAX"

    13). COMMENT 13- "THE SOVEREIGN CITIZEN HOAX" (explains the legal meaning of sovereignty & explains what the government really is, how it actually works and where it gets its authority)

    18). COMMENT 18- "THE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES ARE NOT MONEY HOAX" (exposes many of Class' AMATEUR legal misconceptions and many of his AMATEUR mistakes in the Harold Stanley's IRS case which sent Stanley to prison for 5 to 8 years)

    19). COMMENT 19- "THE NASA WAR DOCUMENT HOAX" (exposes a world famous hoax by Rod Class' chief partner in the "Judge 'DALE' Hoax" and several other Rod Class hoaxes)

    22). COMMENT 22- "THE SILENT WEAPONS FOR QUIET WARS HOAX" & "THE REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN HOAX" (exposes two more world famous hoaxes by Rod Class' chief partner in the "Judge 'DALE' Hoax" and several other Rod Class hoaxes)

    30). COMMENT 30- "TRACK RECORD OF OTHER AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS" (exposes the actual win-loss, court room track record of all of the other famous amateur legal theorists)

    (COMING SOON: "THE EMBEZZLING FEDERAL FUNDS HOAX", "THE COURT REGISTRY INVESTMENT SYSTEM HOAX & "THE FAKE QUOTES FROM CASE LAW HOAX")



    COMMENT 1: "THE PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL HOAX"

    FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE:
    CLASS PRETENDING TO BE A PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL (as he mistakenly defines it):
    https://www.google.com/search?q=%22P...Rod+Class%22&*

    FAKE PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL VEHICLES:
    http://www.nc4x4.com/forum/threads/d...actant.159266/ (SCROLL DOWN TO THE 2ND AND 3RD PHOTOS.).
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ts7CejgSkjc&t=8s (AT :05-:45).

    FAKE PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL "COSTUME":
    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/b8uc33rrk...ower_right.jpg
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jWito8KuFI&t=163s (AT 10:15).

    FAKE PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL COURT FILINGS:
    https://itnj.org/wp-content/uploads/..._18TH_2013.pdf (AT FIRST SEVERAL PARAGRAPHS)
    https://www.scribd.com/document/5219...e-to-AG-Office (AT PARAGRAPHS ACTUALLY NUMBERED "10" and "11" AT ABOUT 30% THROUGH THE TEXT)

    FALSE ALLEGATIONS THAT ROD CLASS IS A PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL:
    https://newearth.media/private-attor...s-on-the-itnj/ (IN THE TITLE AND IN THE 1ST FULL PARAGRAPH)
    https://alternativeaction.wordpress....r-to-the-navy/ (AT THE 3RD FULL PARAGRAPH)
    https://anticorruptionsociety.com/ta...ey-dale-class/ (AT THE 2ND FULL PARAGRAPH. NOTE THE WEBSITE.)
    https://itnjcommittee.org/wp-content...C-Gun-Case.pdf (ON PAGE 2 BEGINNING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE 2ND FULL PARAGRAPH)

    THE HOAX: Rod Class falsely claims to be a "Private Attorney General" and that, as such, he is EXTREMELY powerful, EXTREMELY important and that he represents an EXTREME threat to government agencies and officials in that imaginary capacity. But, none of this is so.

    BACKGROUND: The terms “Attorney General”, “Attorney", “Judge” and “Prosecutor” are all "PROFESSIONAL TITLES" and "POSITIONS" for highly-educated, legal experts in powerful positions. Class wanted other people to think of him as such a person. So, he created for himself an appropriate TITLE, POSITION, EMBLEM, COSTUME, VEHICLE and some imaginary POWERS to help him in this regard. For his title and position, Class picked the term, "Private Attorney General". This is because the term, "Private Attorney General", actually appears in the federal CASE LAW (not in the federal STATUES) and because it would help him create the prestigious IMAGE he wanted. But, Class should have researched this term first. He had absolutely NO IDEA what this term actually meant.

    HOAX CONTINUED: Class falsely claims: 1). That the term, "Private Attorney General", is a "PROFESSIONAL TITLE" and "POSITION" (like "Attorney General", "Attorney", "Judge" or "Prosecutor" are) for a non-attorney who is somehow authorized to practice law without a license; 2). That the purpose of the Private Attorney General is to “DO ACCOUNTABILITY” (sic) against the ELECTED representatives of "We the People" and their appointees for doing their jobs; 3). That his "AUTHORITY" as a Private Attorney General comes from "CONGRESS" (by which he means two FEDERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS statutes and a FORGED Private Attorney General "CERTIFICATE" which he FABRICATED AND ISSUED TO HIMSELF); and 4). That he has the power to "ARREST ROGUE JUDGES" and other governmental officials. http://co-creatingournewearth.blogsp...rod-class.html (at the end of the 1st full paragraph at about 25% through he text). But, none of Class' claims in this regard are true. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/913.

    THE TRUTH:
    1). SUMMARY: Class is not now and has never been a Private Attorney General. Indeed, he doesn't even know the meaning of the term. As used in connection with the two FEDERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS statutes upon which Class relies in pretending to be a Private Attorney General (and throughout this comment), the term "Private Attorney General" is a TEMPORARY, courtroom NICKNAME used by the FEDERAL courts when referring to a FEDERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS "CLIENT" OF AN ATTORNEY who has already WON such client's FEDERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS case in FEDERAL court. But, Class does not know this.

    2). NOT A "PROFESSIONAL TITLE" OR "POSITION": The TEMPORARY, courtroom NICKNAME, "Private Attorney General", is NOT a "professional title" or "position" (like "Attorney General", "Attorney", "Judge" or "Prosecutor" are), much less a "professional title" or "position" for a FAKE, phony, pretend, make-believe, uneducated, unqualified, self-proclaimed, self-appointed "attorney" (or "attorney general") who is somehow authorized to practice law without a license. But, Class does not know this.

    3). NO CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY: Class has NO authority from "Congress" to practice law (or to otherwise represent another person in court). Unknown to Class, Congress has NO POWER to authorize any person (including Class) to practice law. This is because Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution LISTS "ALL" OF THE POWERS OF CONGRESS. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/pa...le-i-section-8. Note that the power for Congress to authorize a person to practice law IS NOT ON THIS TINY LIST of Congressional powers. Under the tenth amendment, ONLY THE STATES have the power to authorize a person to practice law. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/tenth-amendment . But, Class does not know any of this. (Class' FORGED, SELF-ISSUED, Private Attorney General "CERTIFICATE" upon which he relies is fully explained in the SEVENTH (7th) comment below.).

    4). MISUNDERSTOOD PURPOSE: The purpose of a Private Attorney General is NOT to "DO ACCOUNTABILITY" (sic) against the ELECTED representatives of "We the People" or their appointees for doing their jobs.

    5). ACTUAL PURPOSE: As used in connection with the two FEDERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS statutes upon which Class relies in pretending to be a Private Attorney General, THE TERM "PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL" RELATES SOLELY TO PROVIDING PAYMENT TO ATTORNEYS WHO WIN CIVIL RIGHTS CASES FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VICTIMS (for "Private Attorneys General"). Indeed, the official, legal name of Title 42 U.S.C. 1988(b) (upon which class relies) is the "CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY'S FEES AWARDS ACT". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_...rd_Act_of_1976. (This official, legal name ALONE should have given Class some clue about the real purpose of a "Private Attorney General", but it did not.). Under the "concept" of a Private Attorney General, a CIVIL RIGHTS VICTIM who has no money, but who has a meritorious CIVIL RIGHTS case, is still able to hire an attorney to represent him/her in the CIVIL RIGHTS case anyway, because the attorney will be paid by the other side if he/she WINS the case. This encourages CIVIL RIGHTS VICTIMS with meritorious CIVIL RIGHTS cases to hire attorneys and to file (and WIN) such cases. But, Class does not know any of this.

    6). DEFINITION: As used in connection with the two federal, civil rights statutes upon which Class relies in pretending to be a Private Attorney General, a Private Attorney General is the ACTUAL "CLIENT" OF AN ATTORNEY who has already WON such client's federal, civil rights case in federal court. Such a Private Attorney General is the ACTUAL VICTIM of the federal, civil rights violation and is also the ACTUAL PLAINTIFF in the federal, civil rights case in federal court. A potential "Private Attorney General" IS A PERSON WHO IS COMPLETELY POWERLESS WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY. This is why Congress passed the subject statutes in the first place (to provide such COMPLETELY POWERLESS PERSONS with attorneys WHO REALLY DO HAVE SPECIAL POWERS, SPECIAL AUTHORITY, SPECIAL IMPORTANCE, SPECIAL ABILITiES AND SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE).

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006. LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TERMS & PHRASES IN THIS CASE: "CIVIL RIGHTS ACT of 1964" (twice);"RACIAL discrimination" (four separate times!); "NEGROES were discriminated against"; "a reasonable ATTORNEY'S FEE"; "COUNSEL FEES"; "When a PLAINTIFF [read this term again]... obtains an injunction [WINS a court order prohibiting the defendant from committing further CIVIL RIGHTS violations], he [the PLAINTIFF] does so... AS A PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL [Translation: THE WINNING, CIVIL RIGHTS "PLAINTIFF" IS THE PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL!], vindicating a ["CIVIL RIGHTS"] policy that Congress considered [to be] of the highest priority [AS EVIDENCED BY CONGRESS PASSING "THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964"]. If successful [WINNING] PLAINTIFFS [If "PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL"] were... forced to bear [forced to pay] their own ATTORNEY'S FEES [Translation: Private Attorneys General ARE "CLIENTS" REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEYS, otherwise, there would be no "ATTORNEY'S FEES" to pay], few aggrieved parties [few CIVIL RIGHTS VICTIMS] would be in a position to... [fight back using the] powers of the FEDERAL COURTS." (The immediately preceding text begins in the 3rd full paragraph at about 60% through the text of the case.); "It follows that one [a PLAINTIFF] who succeeds [WINS] in obtaining an injunction [thereby becoming a "PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL"] under that title [meaning "THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT of 1964"] should ordinarily recover an ATTORNEY'S FEE [from the violator] [Translation: A Private Attorney General IS A "CLIENT" OF AN ATTORNEY, otherwise, there would be no "ATTORNEY'S FESS" to pay]." (The immediately preceding text is in the 4th full paragraph at about 80% through the text of the case.).

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006. LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND PHRASES IN THIS CASE: "RACIALLY discriminatory reasons"; "black and Hispanic"; "black or Hispanic"; "black children"; "black women"; "black family"; "construction workers were black"; "race"; "[W]ith reference to the specific statutes here relied upon [the statutes upon which Class relies in pretending to be a Private Attorney General], CIVIL RIGHTS PLAINTIFFS [read that term again] act not only in their own interests but also... AS PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL [Translation: the CIVIL RIGHTS "PLAINTIFFS" ARE THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL!]"; "The characterization of the PLAINTIFF [read this term again] AS A PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL [Translation: THE "PLAINTIFF" IS THE PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL!]... first appeared in Newman [the case directly above]... ." (The preceding text is in the 18th full paragraph at about 65% through the text of the case.).; "CIVIL RIGHTS ACT of 1964"; "When a PLAINTIFF [read this term again]... obtains an injunction [WINS], he [the PLAINTIFF] does so... AS A PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL... [Translation: THE WINNING, CIVIL RIGHTS "PLAINTIFF" IS THE PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL!]." (The immediately preceding text is in the block indented portion of the 18th full paragraph at about 68% through the text of the case.); "a PLAINTIFF'S [read this term again] role AS A PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL... [Translation: THE "PLAINTIFF" IS THE PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL!]... ." (The immediately preceding text is in the 19th full paragraph of the case at about 70% through the text of the case.).

    7). What a REAL Private Attorney General actually looks like.
    https://www.google.com/search?q=%22c...&bih=613#spf=1.

    8). What a FAKE Private Attorney General actually looks like.
    https://www.google.com/search?q=%22P...Rod+Class%22&* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLbXtscZBM8

    9). SOURCE OF THE TERM: The term, "Private Attorney General", does not appear a single FEDERAL statute or rule, much less in the FEDERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS statutes upon which Class relies in pretending to be a Private Attorney General. Instead, the term, "Private Attorney General", is a TEMPORARY, courtroom NICKNAME that was created in jest by (and is still used by) the FEDERAL courts. But, Class does not know this.

    10). WHAT THE SUBJECT STATUTES ACTUALLY DO: The two federal, civil rights statutes upon which Class relies (and the statutes to which they refer) ONLY DO TWO THINGS (when combined): a). They permit the actual VICTIM (and ONLY the actual VICTIM) of the federal, CIVIL RIGHTS violation (and ONLY a federal, CIVIL RIGHTS violation) TO SUE the violator in FEDERAL court (and ONLY in FEDERAL court); and b). They permit the FEDERAL judge TO AWARD ATTORNEYS FEES to the winning side's attorney. THAT IS ALL THEY DO.
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/lega...ral%20doctrine;
    http://dictionary.findlaw.com/defini...-doctrine.html;
    https://law.academic.ru/67823/privat...neral_doctrine:
    https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/pr...eral-doctrine/.
    There is NOTHING in either of these two federal, civil rights statutes (or the statutes to which they refer) that authorizes a non-attorney (like Rod Class) to practice law, to represent another person in court or to use the TEMPORARY, courtroom NICKNAME, "Private Attorney General", AS IF it were a "professional title" or "position".
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1988 (See section (b));
    https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUT...E-78-Pg241.pdf (See Section 204(b) at about 20% through the text of the statute).

    The very fact that Congress even passed these two federal, civil rights statues (both of which effectively provide civil rights victims with attorneys) reflects that CONGRESS ITSELF recognized that potential "PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL" ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE COMPLETELY POWERLESS WITHOUT ATTORNEYS. If Private Attorneys General really had the powers that Class claims they have, then there would have been no need to for Congress TO HAVE "REMEDIED" THEIR POWERLESSNESS by passing SPECIAL LEGISLATION which effectively provides such POWERLESS PERSONS with attorneys, WHO REALLY DO HAVE SPECIAL POWERS, SPECIAL AUTHORITY, SPECIAL IMPORTANCE, SPECIAL ABILITIES and SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE.

    11). NO SPECIAL POWERS: A Private Attorney General has NO POWERS, NO AUTHORITY, NO IMPORTANCE, NO ABILITIES and NO KNOWLEDGE that any other person in the entire world does not already have. None. Under the two federal, CIVIL RIGHTS statutes upon which Class relies (and the statutes to which they refer), THE ONLY ABILITIES OF A PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ARE TO "HIRE AN ATTORNEY" (becoming a "client") AND TO "FILE A FEDERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT" (as a "plaintiff") IN FEDERAL COURT (and ONLY in "federal court"). Note that BOTH OF THESE ABILITIES (to hire an attorney and to file a lawsuit) ARE ABILITIES THAT EVERY PERSON IN THE ENTIRE WORLD "ALREADY HAS"! So, there is NOTHING DIFFERENT, UNIQUE or SPECIAL about the abilities of a Private Attorney General WHEN COMPARED TO ANY OTHER PERSON ON PLANET EARTH. NOTHING. So, becoming a Private Attorney General CHANGES NOTHING ABOUT THE POWERS OR ABILITIES OF A PERSON. NOTHING. But, Class does not know this.

    12). LIMITATIONS ON A "PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL" UNDER THE STATUTES UPON WHICH CLASS RELIES: Class mistakenly believes that the: (a). "FEDERAL" (b). "CIVIL RIGHTS" statutes upon which he relies make him a Private Attorney General (as he mistakenly defines it) in "EVERY" type of CASE in the world (ex: criminal, tax, traffic, bankruptcy, foreclosure, etc.) in "EVERY" type of COURT in the world (ex: "STATE" administrative court, "STATE" judicial court, FEDERAL administrative court, FEDERAL tax court, etc.) in "EVERY" state and nation "EVERYWHERE" in the world. But, this is not so. The statutes upon which Class relies are: (a). "FEDERAL" (b). "CIVIL RIGHTS" statutes. That means they "ONLY" apply in: (a) "FEDERAL" (b). "CIVIL RIGHTS" cases and (c). "ONLY" in "FEDERAL" court. (STATE courts have no jurisdiction to preside over FEDERAL, civil rights cases brought under the federal, civil rights statutes upon which Class relies.). But, Class does not know enough to even realize this. It never occurred to Class that the ONLY reason that the: (a). "FEDERAL" (b). "CIVIL RIGHTS" statutes upon which he relies ARE WRITTEN INTO (a) "FEDERAL" (b) "CIVIL RIGHTS" legislation (and NOT into "OTHER" "FEDERAL" or "STATE" legislation) is that they "ONLY" apply in (a). "FEDERAL" (b). "CIVIL RIGHTS" CASES (not in other kinds of cases) and "ONLY" apply in (c) "FEDERAL" court (not in any kind of STATE court). So, under the statutes upon which Class relies, it is legally IMPOSSIBLE for any person (including Class) to be a Private Attorney General UNLESS they are the actual "CIVIL RIGHTS" "VICTIM" and the actual "CIVIL RIGHTS" "PLAINTIFF" and the actual "CIVIL RIGHTS" "CLIENT" OF AN ATTORNEY who has ALREADY WON such client's "FEDERAL", "CIVIL RIGHTS" case, which case is STILL PENDING in "FEDERAL" court (for the award of attorney fees). This is why NO COURT HAS EVER RECOGNIZED CLASS AS A "PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL" and why NO COURT HAS EVER ALLOWED CLASS TO ACT AS A "PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL" (as he mistakenly defines it or otherwise). Note: Class makes this same AMATEUR mistake with respect to hundreds of other statutes (mistakenly believing that a definition or rule in one FEDERAL or STATE statute applies to UNRELATED statutes, to UNRELATED types of cases, in UNRELATED types of courts, in UNRELATED jurisdictions, in UNRELATED states, in UNRELATED nations, to or from UNRELATED periods in history, etc.).

    13). DOES NOT APPLY TO CRIMINAL CASES OR TO DEFENDANTS: Unknown to Class, there no such thing as a Private Attorney General in ANY TYPE OF "CRIMINAL" CASE anywhere (a person can only be a Private Attorney General in a "CIVIL" case). Unknown to Class, there is no such thing as a Private Attorney General who is ANY TYPE OF "DEFENDANT" anywhere (only a "PLAINTIFF" can be a Private Attorney General). This means that Class has never been, and can never be a Private Attorney General in connection with his D.C. weapons case (a "CRIMINAL" case in which he is the "DEFENDANT").

    14). COMPARISON TO AN ATTORNEY: An attorney IS an attorney IN EVERY sense of the word. But, a Private Attorney General IS NOT an attorney IN ANY sense of the word! An attorney represents a party in court. But, a Private Attorney General IS A PARTY IN COURT! An attorney represents a client in court. But, a Private Attorney General IS A CLIENT IN COURT! An attorney acts on behalf of people WHO ARE IN COURT. But, a Private Attorney General acts ONLY on his/her OWN BEHALF and ONLY on behalf of people WHO ARE "OUT" OF COURT! A person’s status as an attorney CONTINUES AFTER THE END OF THE CASE. But, a person’s status as a Private Attorney General ENDS (FOREVER) AT THE END OF THE CASE! But, Class does not know enough to even realize this.

    15). ORIGIN OF TERM: A REAL United States "Attorney General" WINS federal, civil rights lawsuits which benefits society as a whole. Likewise, an ordinary "CLIENT" OF AN ATTORNEY who WINS federal, civil rights lawsuits also benefits society as a whole. Noting the similarity IN FUNCTION between such litigants, FEDERAL courts began jokingly referring to such winning, civil rights "CLIENTS" OF ATTORNEYS as "Private Attorneys General". The FEDERAL courts still use this term to remind the parties that a such a winning, civil rights "CLIENT" OF AN ATTORNEY (a Private Attorney General) has rendered a public service and is, therefore, statutorily eligible for an award of attorney fees from the other side to pay his/her attorney who actually WON the "CLIENT'S" civil rights case in federal court.

    16). EFFECT: Thus, in creating and using the TEMPORARY, courtroom NICKNAME, “Private Attorney General”, the federal courts: a). Were NOT somehow elevating non-attorneys (like Rod Class) to the professional level (or "position") of REAL attorneys (or REAL attorneys general); b). Were NOT somehow recognizing a "special class" of FAKE, phony, pretend, make-believe, uneducated, unqualified, self-proclaimed, self-appointed "attorneys" (or "attorneys general") who were somehow authorized to practice law without a license; and c). Were NOT somehow creating a "professional title" for non-attorneys (like Rod Class) to use in defrauding the public.

    17). CONCLUSION: Rod Class is not now and has never been a Private Attorney General. Indeed, he doesn’t even know the meaning of the term. But, consider this. Even if Rod Class was a Private Attorney General (and he is not), HE WOULD STILL HAVE NO POWERS, NO AUTHORITY, NO IMPORTANCE AND NO ABILITIES THAT EVERY OTHER PERSON IN THE ENTIRE WORLD DOES NOT ALREADY HAVE (the power to hire an attorney and to file a lawsuit). There is nothing different, unique or special about the powers, authority, importance or abilities of a Private Attorney General WHEN COMPARED TO ANY OTHER PERSON IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. But, Rod Class does not know enough to even realize this.

    THE LAW:
    Note in the cases below that the SOLE PURPOSE of the Private Attorney General Doctrine under the two federal, civil rights statutes upon which Class relies is to PROVIDE PAYMENT to ATTORNEYS who WIN cases for FEDERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS VICTIMS/CLIENTS. Also note that the ONLY ABILITIES of the Private Attorney General in the cases below (and every other case brought under the statutes upon which Class relies) are the abilities to HIRE an attorney and to FILE a federal, civil rights lawsuit in federal court, ABILITIES THAT EVERY PERSON IN THE WORLD ALREADY HAS. So, becoming a Private Attorney General CHANGES NOTHING ABOUT THE POWERS OR ABILITIES OF A PERSON. NOTHING.

    1). PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL DEFINED (continued from paragraph 6 above):

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006. LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND PHRASES IN THIS CASE: "reasonable ATTORNEY'S FEE"; "FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS"; "ATTORNEY FEES"; "The statute involved here, 42 U.S.C. 1988 [the statute upon which Class relies in pretending to be a private attorney general], allows for the award of 'a reasonable ATTORNEY'S FEE' to 'prevailing party' [the WINNER] in various types of CIVIL RIGHTS cases [Translation: The "prevailing party" IS A "CLIENT" OF AN ATTORNEY, otherwise, there would be no "ATTORNEY'S FEES" to pay]... ." (The immediately preceding text is at the 11th full paragraph at about 40% through the text of the case.); "When a PLAINTIFF [read that term again] succeeds in remedying a CIVIL RIGHTS violation [WINS THE CIVIL RIGHTS CASE], ...he [the PLAINTIFF] serves AS A PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL [Translation: THE WINNING, CIVIL RIGHTS "PLAINTIFF" IS THE PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL!]. He [the WINNING PLAINTIFF/PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL] therefore 'should ordinarily recover an ATTORNEY'S FEE from the defendant [Translation: A Private Attorney General IS A "CLIENT" OF AN ATTORNEY, otherwise, there would be no "ATTORNEY'S FEES" to pay]... .'" (The immediately preceding text is in the 11th full paragraph at about 40% through the text of the case.). Note that the ONLY ABILITIES of the Private Attorney General in this case (and every other case brought under the statutes upon which Class relies) are the abilities to HIRE an attorney and to FILE a federal, civil rights lawsuit in federal court, ABILITIES THAT EVERY PERSON IN THE WORLD ALREADY HAS.

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006. LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND PHRASES IN THIS CASE: "ATTORNEY'S FEES" (over a dozen times); "reasonable FEE"; "CIVIL RIGHTS PLAINTIFF" (4 times). "CIVIL RIGHTS remedy"; "CIVIL RIGHTS violations" (twice); "...[In 1976,] Congress enacted the CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY'S FEES AWARDS ACT of 1976, 42 U.S.C. 1988 [the statute upon which Class relies in pretending to be a Private Attorney General], which authorized the [FEDERAL] district courts to award reasonable ATTORNEY'S FEES to prevailing parties [THE WINNERS] in specified CIVIL RIGHTS cases [Translation: The "prevailing party' IS A "CLIENT" OF AN ATTORNEY, otherwise, there would be no "ATTORNEY FEES" to pay]." (The immediately preceding text is in the 8th full paragraph, not including block indented quoted portions, at about 15% through the text of the case); "A PLAINTIFF [read that term again] who obtains relief [WINS] in a CIVIL RIGHTS lawsuit 'does so... AS A PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL... [Translation: THE WINNING, CIVIL RIGHTS "PLAINTIFF" IS THE PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL!].'" (The immediately preceding text is at about 30% through the text of the case.).; "CIVIL RIGHTS litigation"; "CIVIL RIGHTS CASES"; "VICTIMS of illegal discrimination"; "CIVIL RIGHTS laws"; "CIVIL RIGHTS claims" (twice); "CIVIL RIGHTS defendant"; "CIVIL RIGHTS attorneys". Note that the ONLY ABILITIES of the Private Attorney General in this case (and every other case brought under the statutes upon which Class relies) are the abilities to HIRE an attorney and to FILE a federal, civil rights lawsuit in federal court, ABILITIES THAT EVERY PERSON IN THE WORLD ALREADY HAS.

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006. LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND PHRASES IN THIS CASE: "ATTORNEY'S FEE" (over a dozen times); "Both FEE AWARD provisions [referring to Title 42 U.S.C. 1988, upon which Class relies, and another statute] are intended to reward the SUCCESSFUL [WINNING] PLAINTIFF [read that term again] ACTING AS 'A PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL'... [Translation: THE WINNING "PLAINTIFF" IS THE PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL and the Private Attorney General IS A CLIENT OF AN ATTORNEY, otherwise, there would be no FEES to pay!]." (The immediately preceding text is in the 11th full paragraph at about 20% through the text of the case.). Note that the ONLY ABILITIES of the Private Attorney General in this case (and every other case brought under the statutes upon which Class relies) are the abilities to HIRE an attorney and to FILE a federal, civil rights lawsuit in federal court, ABILITIES THAT EVERY PERSON IN THE WORLD ALREADY HAS.

    2). EVERY COURT THAT HAS EVER ADDRESSED THE SUBJECT HAS HELD THAT ROD CLASS IS NOT A PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THAT HE MAY NOT REPRESENT ANOTHER PERSON IN COURT (a fact that Class deliberately HIDES from all of his followers.).:

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006. LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND PHRASES IN THIS CASE: "The Debtors [Class' pretend "clients"] asked this court to allow Mr. Rodney Dale Class to appear as a 'Private Attorney General' [the court places quotation marks around this term to make fun of it]... . [But] this court determined that Mr. [Rodney DALE] Class was not an attorney admitted to practice law in this court or in the highest court of any state... . Therefore, this court DENIED the Debtor's [Class' pretend "clients"] request for... [legal] representation by Mr. [Rodney DALE] Class. (The preceding text is in the 31st full paragraph at about 30% through the text of the case.).; "The statute involved here [the statute upon which Class relies in pretending to be a Private Attorney General], 42 U.S.C. 1988, allows the award of a 'reasonable attorney's fee' to the 'prevailing party' [the WINNER] in various kinds of CIVIL RIGHTS cases [Translation: The "prevailing party" IS A "CLIENT" OF AN ATTORNEY, otherwise, there would be no "ATTORNEY'S FEES" to pay]. When a PLAINTIFF [read that term again] succeeds in remedying a CIVIL RIGHTS violation [WINS a CIVIL RIGHTS case], ... he [the PLAINTIFF] serves AS A 'PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL' ... [Translation: THE WINNING, CIVIL RIGHTS "PLAINTIFF" IS THE PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL!"]. He [the PLAINTIFF/PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL] therefore, should ordinarily recover an ATTORNEY'S FEE from the defendant [Translation: The Private Attorney General IS A "CLIENT" OF AN ATTORNEY, otherwise, there would be no "ATTORNEY'S FEES" to pay]... . IT IS CLEAR [read this phrase again] THAT THE CONCEPT [the purpose] OF A 'PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL' IS TO ALLOW FOR THE RECOVERY OF REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES BY A SUCCESSFUL [WINNING] PLAINTIFF [called a "Private Attorney General"] [Translation: a). The Private Attorney General IS A "CLIENT" OF AN ATTORNEY, otherwise, there would be no ATTORNEY'S FEES to pay. Translation: b). A Private Attorney General IS NOT A "PROFESSIONAL TITLE" or "POSITION" (like "Judge", "Prosecutor", "Attorney General" and "Attorney" are) for Rod Class or anyone else.]... . THIS DOCTRINE [The "Private Attorney General Doctrine"] DOES NOT PERMIT A PERSON [who is] NOT ADMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW [referring to Rod Class] TO REPRESENT A PARTY AS AN ATTORNEY IN A COURT PROCEEDING." (The immediately preceding text is in FOOTNOTE 8 of this case at about 90% through the text of this case.).

    ANALYSIS: The preceding text is, by far, the best and most comprehensive, scholarly analysis of the "Private Attorney General" as it relates to amateur legal theory in the entire body of the law.

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006. (Note that this case is the appeal of Class' LOSS in the case immediately above.). LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND PHRASES IN THIS CASE: "In its... order, the bankruptcy court [referring to the court in the case directly above] began its analysis... by addressing the Debtor's [Class' pretend "clients"] oral request...to have [Rodney DALE] Class appear as a 'Private Attorney General' [the court places quotation marks around this term to make fun of it]. Because [Rodney DALE] Class admitted that he was not licensed to practice law in any court in the country, the bankruptcy court DENIED the debtor's 'Private Attorney General' [the court again places quotation marks around this term to make fun of it] request. As recognized by the bankruptcy court [referring to the court in the case directly above] in its... order, 42 U.S.C. 1988 [the statute upon which Class relies in pretending to be a Private Attorney General] allows the award of a 'reasonable ATTORNEY'S FEE' to 'the prevailing party' [the WINNER] in various kinds of CIVIL RIGHTS cases [Translation: The "prevailing party" IS A "CLIENT" OF AN ATTORNEY, otherwise, there would be no "ATTORNEY FEES" to pay]... . When a PLAINTIFF [read that term again] SUCCEEDS in remedying a CIVIL RIGHTS violation [WINS the CIVIL RIGHTS case], ...he [the PLAINTIFF] serves 'AS A PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL'... [Translation: THE WINNING CIVIL RIGHTS "PLAINTIFF" IS THE PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL!]. IN NO WAY DOES THE CONCEPT OF A 'PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL' PERMIT AN INDIVIDUAL [WHO IS] NOT LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW [referring to Rod Class] TO REPRESENT A PARTY IN A COURT PROCEEDING. An unlicensed individual [referring to Rod Class] WHO ATTEMPTS to appear in a representative capacity for a party in a court COMMITS THE UNLICENSED PRACTICE OF LAW which is strictly prohibited [just ask Anthony Williams]." (The preceding text is in the 45th full paragraph at about 50% through the text of the case.).

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006. (Note that this case is effectively an "appeal" of Class' TWO LOSSES above.). LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND PHRASES IN THIS CASE: "[A]s a lay person, he [referring to Rod Class] cannot prosecute a claim on behalf of the Pertusets [Class' pretend "clients"] or any other individuals... . [A] lay person [referring directly to Rod Class] cannot appear as counsel for others [just ask Anthony Williams]... ." (The preceding text is in the 2nd full paragraph at about 100% through the text of this case.).

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006. (Note that this is Class' Washington, D.C. weapons case.). LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND PHRASES IN THIS CASE: "In his motion, Defendant [referring to Rod Class] CLAIMS he has been given authority by the house and senate to act as a private attorney general [Class is referring to his SELF-ISSUED, FORGED Private Attorney General "CERTIFICATE" which is fully explained in the 7th COMMENT below]. [BUT,] THERE IS NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THIS ALLEGATION [Translation: Rod Class is NOT a Private Attorney General.]" (The preceding text is in RULING "35" at about 95% through the text of the case.).

    Note: Several more Rod Class LOSSES with identical rulings (THAT CLASS IS NOT A PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THAT HE MAY NOT REPRESENT ANOTHER PERSON IN COURT) are available on Pacer.gov. which will not allow us to link to its cases. Otherwise, we would have shown you MANY MORE of these Rod Class LOSSES to this same effect.

    3). OTHER FAKE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL:

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006 . LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND PHRASES IN THIS CASE: "The court first addresses [amateur legal theorist] Carver's litigation efforts on... [the Plaintiff's] behalf. Carver is NOT a lawyer, and MAY NOT ASSERT A CLAIM ON BEHALF OF ANYONE ELSE... . CARVER'S SELF-DESCRIPTION [read this term again] AS A 'PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL' [the court places this term in quotes to make fun of it] DOES NOT ALTER THIS ANALYSIS. 'In NO WAY does the concept of a private attorney general permit an individual [who is] NOT licensed to practice law to represent a party in a court proceeding. An unlicensed individual who attempts to appear in a representative capacity for a party in court [like Rod Class does] commits the UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW which is strictly prohibited [just ask Anthony Williams]." (The preceding text is in the 4th full paragraph of this case at about 30% through the text of this case.). The court in this case actually cites (and quotes) Rod Class' LOSS in the Pertuset LOSS above (the bankruptcy case) as legal authority for this decision.

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006. LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND PHRASES IN THIS CASE: "The complaint in this matter... . [along with another filing] was signed by [amateur legal theorist] Anthony Williams, who, while purporting [means "pretending"] to be a PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, is NOT a member of the bar such that he can represent others before this court.... . Williams MAY NOT REPRESENT the Malanays [Williams' pretend "clients"] as their attorney in this matter." (The preceding text is in the 1st and 2nd full paragraphs at about 15% through the text of this case.). "Although a non-attorney [referring to Williams] may appear [on] his own behalf[,]... [h]e has NO AUTHORITY TO APPEAR AS AN ATTORNEY FOR OTHERS... ." (The immediately preceding text is in the 3rd full paragraph at about 30% through the text of this case.). "Hawaii [like every other state] has a statute PROHIBITING THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW... . Williams may NOT use a POWER OF ATTORNEY [in an futile effort] to skirt this prohibition... . [Hawaii, like ALL OTHER STATES, have] recognized that THESE STATUTES WERE ENACTED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM AGAINST [amateur] INCOMPETENCE... . [and] Williams's (sic) pleadings CERTAINLY DO NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPETENCE... . [citing several examples of his INCOMPETENCE, all of which are the very same amateur legal theories that Rod Class peddles]." (The immediately preceding text is in the 6th and 7th full paragraphs at about 70% through the text of this case.). NOTE THAT "ANTHONY WILLIAMS" IN THIS CASE IS THE SAME "ANTHONY WILLIAMS" WHO STARS IN THE VIDEO BELOW.

    PAY FOR A ROD CLASS SEMINAR? GET THREE TIMES YOUR MONEY BACK!
    https://bbsradio.com/cgi-bin/webbbs/...d=read;id=7219
    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/b8uc33rrk...ower_right.jpg;
    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/b8uc33rrk...eHsTCpkma?dl=0

    If you PAID to attend ANY SEMINAR involving Rod Class' IN RELIANCE of his fraudulent claims that: 1). He is a "Private Attorney General"; OR THAT 2). He can "TRAIN" you to be a "Private Attorney General"; OR THAT 3). He knows the law; OR THAT 4). He (rather than an attorney) has EVER "won" ANY case, in ANY court, at ANY time, THEN YOU MAY RECOVER THREE (3) TIMES YOUR MONEY BACK, PLUS ATTORNEY FEES, PLUS OTHER LEGAL COSTS UNDER FEDERAL RICO!

    NOTE: Rod Class markets and solicits money for his seminars by using the "means" of "INTERSTATE commerce" (internet, email, telephone, U.S. Mail, etc.). Rod Class markets and solicits money for his seminars by making the fraudulent representations described above. This fraudulent conduct gives rise to FEDERAL jurisdiction, to claims under FEDERAL RICO and also gives rise to STATE law claims for fraud and misrepresentation.

    THE LAW ON SEMINARS UNDER FEDERAL RICO:

    1). http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006. LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND PHRASES IN THIS CASE: "[THE DEFENDANT HERE] PREYED ON... AMERICANS WITH LITTLE EXPERIENCE IN THE TAX LAWS OR THE LEGAL SYSTEM [exactly like Rod Class does]. AT HIS SEMINARS, ...[the Defendant here] PROMISED those in attendance... that they could lawfully reduce their income tax liability to zero [just like Rod Class promises his own SEMINAR customers]... . [The Defendant also promised those in attendance that he] would PROVIDE... [them with LEGAL DOCUMENT] PREPARATION AND ADVICE... [and] LEGAL PROTECTION...[just like Rod Class promises his own SEMINAR customers]." (The preceding text is in the 3rd full paragraph at about 10% through the text of the case.); "[The Defendant here described his METHODS and his DOCUMENTS as] 'TRIED AND TRUE' [just like Rod Class describes his own METHODS and his own DOCUMENTS to his own SEMINAR customers]"; "Despite... [the Defendant here's] promise that 'nobody ever lost a dime' under... [his] scheme... , [THE DEFENDANT HERE'S] CLIENTS INCURR[ED] SEVERE IRS PENALTIES FOR LATE PAYMENTS AND OVERSTATED DEDUCTIONS" [just like Rod Class' own SEMINAR customers and "clients" incur, such as Harold Stanley, who went to prison for 5 to 8 years]." (The immediately preceding text is in the 6th full paragraph at about 20% through the text of the case.). Translation: The Defendant here, like Rod Class, LIED to his customers about the BENEFITS that his SEMINAR customers would receive from attending his SEMINARS, such as becoming a "Private Attorney General" and "WINNING cases in court", etc. ; "...[T]he jury [here] found...[the Defendant here] LIABLE FOR VIOLATING [FEDERAL RICO] section 1962(d), AWARDING [the Plaintiffs] $259,366 in actual damages trebled [means "TRIPLED"] to $778,098 under [FEDERAL RICO] 18 U.S.C. 1964(c)). It [the jury] also awarded... [the Plaintiffs] $87,000 in damages for FRAUD and MISREPRESENTATION [under state law]. Finally, the jury awarded the... [the Plaintiff's] $500,000 in PUNITIVE DAMAGES under...[state law]." (The immediately preceding text is in the 8th full paragraph at about 25% through the text of the case.). Thus, under the law, Rod Class is liable to his SEMINAR customers for TRIPLE their losses under FEDERAL RICO and liable to his customers for ACTUAL and PUNITIVE DAMAGES under STATE law.

    2). http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006. LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND PHRASES IN THIS CASE: "Defendant [here]... offer[ed] SEMINARS... purporting [means "pretending"] to teach Defendant's 'master strategies' for... SUCCESS [just like Rod Class promises his own SEMINAR customers]." (The preceding text is in the 3rd full paragraph at about 10% through the text of the case.); "Learn from the MASTER [just like Rod Class effectively describes himself to his own SEMINAR customers]". For the law on how FEDERAL RICO law applies to Rod Class under these facts, read the entire "DISCUSSION" section of the case at the 16th and 17th full paragraphs, not including block indented paragraphs for quoted portions, at about 40% through the text of the case.

    3). http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006. LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND PHRASES IN THIS CASE: "[T]he... defendants [here] held themselves out as [being] capable of 'repairing' broken credit... . The... defendants [here] gave public SEMINARS... in Texas. Arkansas, Mississippi and Tennessee... ." (The preceding text is in the 16th full paragraph, immediately below the section entitled "B. Credit Repair Program", at about 25% through the text of the case.).; "[The defendants here] represented [to their customers] that, BY FOLLOWING... [their own methods which they taught their customers], they had [SUCCESSFULLY] improved their [own] credit scores... . [and] that they had received many personal benefits from the... program [which they taught their customers]... [similar to what Rod Class represents to his SEMINAR customers]." (The immediately preceding text is in the 17th paragraph at about 27% through the text of the case.).; "On the basis of these MISREPRESENTATIONS,... . [the defendants' customers] paid [the] defendants $1,698 in... fees [just like Rod Class' own SEMINAR customers pay him based on similar MISREPRESENTATIONS]... ." (The immediately preceding text is in the 18th full paragraph at about 30% through the text of the case.).; "[But] no credit score improvement... occurred... . [Indeed, the defendants' customer's] credit score HAS GOTTEN SIGNIFICANTLY WORSE [similar to what happens to Rod Class' own SEMINAR customers who rely on his advice in their own court cases, such as Harold Stanley, who went to prison for 5 to 8 years]." (The immediately text is in the 19th full paragraph at about 33% through the text of the case.). For an explanation of how FEDERAL RICO applies to Class under these facts, read section "V C. Civil RICO" at about 85% through the text of the case.

    ABOUT ROD CLASS:
    Rod Class is a functionally-illiterate, amateur legal theorist with a high school education WHO HAS A 100% FAILURE RATE IN 76 CONSECUTIVE COURT CASES. Class also has a history of PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS, is a MULTI-CONVICTED FELON and has been placed on the United States TERRORIST WATCH LIST.

    ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH:
    Snoop4truth is a legal expert and whistle blower who exposes online hoaxes. Snoop4truth did not reveal this information to harm Rod Class. Instead, Snoop4truth exposed this information solely to reduce the CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE that such INTENTIONAL FRAUD inflicts upon the American people every single day. Had it not been for Class' role in the "Judge DALE Hoax", Snoop4truth would not have exposed this information here.
    Last edited by snoop4truth; 25th November 2018 at 00:08.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to snoop4truth For This Post:

    gaiagirl (22nd August 2017)

  3. Link to Post #2
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    30th September 2015
    Age
    45
    Posts
    52
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 29 times in 14 posts

    Default Re: Rod Class & his many hoaxes

    COMMENT 2: "THE 14th AMENDMENT, SECTION 4, BOUNTY HUNTER HOAX"

    FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE:
    CLASS PRETENDING TO BE A 14th AMENDMENT, SECTION 4 BOUNTY HUNTER (NOTE FAKE EMBLEMS):
    https://www.google.com/search?q=%22P...Rod+Class%22&*
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/912

    FAKE 14th AMENDMENT, SECTION 4 BOUNTY HUNTER VEHICLES (NOTE FAKE EMBLEMS):
    http://www.nc4x4.com/forum/threads/d...actant.159266/ (SCROLL DOWN TO THE 2ND AND 3RD PHOTOS.).
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ts7CejgSkjc&t=8s (At :05-:20. LOOK IN LOWER RIGHT CORNER OF SCREEN).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_impersonation (Scroll down to about 50% through the text. Note that MARKING these vehicles constitute crimes. Look for BOLD, BLACK and BLUE TYPE).
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/912

    FAKE 14TH AMENDMENT, SECTION 4 BOUNTY HUNTER "COSTUME" (NOTE FAKE EMBLEMS):
    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/b8uc33rrk...ower_right.jpg (Class, posing in his "COSTUME");
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jWito8KuFI&t=167s (at 10:15);
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_impersonation (Scroll down to about 50% through the text. Note that wearing these "COSTUMES"/"UNIFORMS" constitute crimes. Look for BOLD, BLACK and BLUE TYPE).
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/912

    FAKE "14th AMENDMENT, SECTION 4, BOUNTY HUNTER" VIDEOS:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7EVPSf-9gw&t=61s (note the TITLE of this video).
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jWito8KuFI&t=163s (Here, Rod Class describes his IMAGINARY powers, his IMAGINARY duties and his IMAGINARY court room victories while pretending to be a "14th Amendment, Section 4, Bounty Hunter").
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/912

    FAKE 14TH AMENDMENT, SECTION 4 BOUNTY HUNTER FILINGS:
    https://itnj.org/wp-content/uploads/..._18TH_2013.pdf (IN THE FIRST SEVERAL PARAGRAPHS)
    https://www.scribd.com/document/5219...e-to-AG-Office (AT PAGE 11 IN THE PARAGRAPHS ACTUALLY NUMBERED "5" and "6" AT ABOUT 50% THROUGHT THE TEXT)

    FALSE ALLEGATIONS THAT ROD CLASS IS A 14TH AMENDMENT, SECTION 4 BOUNTY HUNTER:
    https://alternativeaction.wordpress....r-to-the-navy/ (AT THE 3RD FULL PARAGRAPH)
    https://itnjcommittee.org/wp-content...C-Gun-Case.pdf (AT PAGE 2 BEGINNING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE 2ND PARAGRAPH)
    https://mainerepublicemailalert.com/...od-class-case/ (AT THE 3RD FULL PARAGRAPH)

    THE HOAX: Rod Class falsely claims to be a "14th Amendment, Section 4, Bounty Hunter" and that, as such, he is EXTREMELY powerful, EXTREMELY important and that he represents an EXTREME threat to government agencies and officials in that imaginary capacity. But, none of this is so.

    BACKGROUND: Class mistakenly believes that all governmental agencies have public money that they should not have (the subject of a different comment). So, he set out to recover that missing public money and created for himself an appropriate TITLE, POSITION, EMBLEM, COSTUME, VEHICLE and some imaginary POWERS to help him in that regard. For his title, Class picked the term, "14 Amendment, Section 4 Bounty Hunter". This is because both the term, "PUBLIC DEBT" and the term, "BOUNTIES" actually appear in the fourteenth amendment, section 4 and because such a title would help create the prestigious IMAGE he wanted. But, Class should have researched these terms first. He had absolutely NO IDEA what these terms actually meant.

    CLASSES AMATEUR LEGAL MISCONCEPTIONS:
    Class mistakenly defines a "14th Amendment, Section 4, Bounty Hunter" as "Public Debt Collector" and/or a "Public Bounty Hunter". These mistaken definitions (along with his description of his imaginary role in that imaginary capacity) reflect TWO FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKES that Class makes about the fourteenth amendment, section 4. First, Class mistakenly believes that the term, "public debt" means MONEY THAT OTHERS OWE TO THE PUBLIC. But, this is not so. (The term, "public debt", ACTUALLY MEANS MONEY THAT THE PUBLIC OWES TO OTHERS). Second, Class also mistakenly believes that the "bounties" referred to in the fourteenth amendment, section 4 are "bounties" that are owed and paid to those who find and recover MONEY THAT IS CURRENTLY OWED TO THE PUBLIC NOW. But, this is also not so. (The term, "bounties", referred to in the fourteenth amendment, section 4 ACTUALLY MEANS THE "BOUNTIES" THAT THE PUBLIC ONCE OWED (AND PAID) TO THOSE WHO HELPED THE UNION DEFEAT THE CONFEDERATE SOUTH DURING THE CIVIL WAR OVER 150 YEARS AGO.). But, Class does not know this. Not surprisingly, Class has NEVER found any missing public money, has NEVER recovered any missing public money and has NEVER been paid a "bounty" in connection with finding or recovering any missing public money.

    HOAX (CONTINUED):
    Regardless, in pretending to be a "14th Amendment, Section 4 Bounty Hunter" (as he mistakenly defines it), Class: 1). Claims to have a number of imaginary "duties" that he is "obligated" to perform in that imaginary capacity; 2). Signs and seals his court papers to that effect; 3). Wears a FAKE, homemade "COSTUME" falsely indicating such; 3). Marked his vehicles with FAKE vinyl decals falsely indicating such; 4). Adorned the "backdrop" of his backyard radio/video studio/set with a FAKE wall plague falsely indicating such; and 5). Files lawsuits and disrupts court proceedings pretending to be such. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/912 (Note that this statute makes TWO DISTINCT ACTS felonies, "acting as such" OR while acting in such pretended character "demanding or obtaining" anything of value. Only one such act is required.).

    THE TRUTH:
    1). The term, “Public Debt” means MONEY THAT THE PUBLIC OWES TO OTHERS (not the other way around).
    https://www.britannica.com/topic/public-debt
    http://www.yourdictionary.com/public-debt
    https://www.thefreedictionary.com/public+debt

    2). The fourteenth amendment, section 4 DOES NOT CREATE OR ENFORCE A "BOUNTY" FOR THOSE WHO RECOVER MONEY THAT IS CURRENTLY OWED TO THE PUBLIC NOW. (See the law below.).

    3). The fourteenth amendment, section 4 ONCE REQUIRED THE PUBLIC TO PAY "BOUNTIES" TO THOSE (AND ONLY TO THOSE) WHO "SUPPRESS[ED]... INSURRECTION... [AND] REBELLION" (REFERRING TO THE CONFEDERATE SOUTH DURING THE CIVIL WAR OVER 150 YEARS AGO). (See the law below.).

    The fourteenth amendment, Section 4 reads:

    "The validity of the public debt of the Unites States [money that the public owes to others],... INCLUDING DEBTS INCURRED [by the public] FOR PAYMENT OF PENSIONS AND BOUNTIES [to others] FOR SERVICES [rendered] IN SUPPRESSING INSURRECTION OR REBELLION [referring to the Confederate South during the Civil War] SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED [means 'must be paid']." https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

    Id. Thus, the fourteenth amendment, section 4 IS EXCLUSIVELY ABOUT MONEY/DEBTS THAT THE PUBLIC ONCE OWED (AND PAID) TO OTHERS, NOT ABOUT MONEY/DEBTS THAT OTHERS CURRENTLY OWE TO THE PUBLIC NOW. Further, the ONLY "bounties" created or enforced by the fourteenth amendment WERE THOSE "BOUNTIES" THAT THE PUBLIC ONCE OWED (AND PAID) TO THOSE WHO HELPED THE UNION DEFEAT THE CONFEDERATE SOUTH DURING THE CIVIL WAR OVER 150 YEARS AGO. The 14th amendment DOES NOT CREATE OR ENFORCE "BOUNTIES" FOR THOSE FIND MONEY/DEBTS THAT OTHERS CURRENTLY OWE TO THE PUBLIC NOW. But, Class does not know this. (See the law below.).

    4). FACT: This provision in the United States Constitution was written immediately following the Civil War in direct response to a specific threat made by the southern states and their sympathizers. At the time (150 years ago), the Union had promised to pay "PENSIONS" and "BOUNTIES" to people who had helped the Union defeat the confederate South during the Civil War (to which the terms "INSURRECTION" and "REBELLION" refer in the 14th amendment, section 4). The Southern states objected to the payment of these "PENSIONS" and "BOUNTIES" (effectively "rewards" to people for defeating the confederate South during the Civil War) and they threatened to pass federal legislation banning the payment of these "PENSIONS" and BOUNTIES" in the event that they ever became a majority in Congress. SO, THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION WAS TO PREEMPTIVELY NULLIFY ANY FUTURE EFFORTS ON THE PART OF THE SOUTHERN STATES TO PASS FEDERAL LEGISLATION BANNING THE PAYMENT OF "PENSIONS" AND "BOUNTIES" TO PEOPLE THAT HAD HELPED THE UNION DEFEAT THE CONFEDERATE SOUTH DURING THE CIVIL WAR OVER 150 YEARS AGO. But, Rod Class does not know this. (See the law below.).

    5). CONCLUSION: Because it is IMPOSSIBLE for Class become a Union civil war soldier and to travel back in time 150 years ago to "SUPPRESS... [AN] INSURRECTION OR REBELLION" DURING THE CIVIL WAR, Class IS NOT now and has never been a "14th Amendment, Section 4, Bounty Hunter". Indeed, he doesn’t even know the meaning of the term. (See the law below.).

    THE REAL "FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, SECTION 4 BOUNTY":

    https://www.google.com/search?q=unio...w=1366&bih=613

    http://www.worldhistory.biz/modern-h...ty-system.html

    https://www.encyclopedia.com/history...nties-military

    https://www.chesco.org/1703/Civil-Wa...ords-1862-1865

    https://www.britannica.com/event/Bounty-System

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounty_jumper

    http://www.cincinnaticwrt.org/data/c...diers_pay.html (SEE PARAGRAPH 8 IN THIS DOCUMENT)

    https://civilwartalk.com/threads/con...-bounty.91497/

    WHAT A REAL "FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, SECTION 4 BOUNTY HUNTER" ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=unio...ivil+war%22+&*

    http://civilwartalk.com/threads/a-ro...unters.110966/

    WHAT A FAKE "FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, SECTION 4 BOUNTY HUNTER" LOOKS LIKE:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=%22P...Rod+Class%22&*

    THE LAW:

    THIS SECTION:
    1). CANNOT be used as the basis for "bounties" for services that DO NOT ARISE OUT OF THE CIVIL WAR.
    2). CANNOT be used to adversely affect the property rights of U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.
    3). DOES NOT even "come into play" UNLESS A GOVERNMENT "questions" (REFUSES TO PAY) a debt THAT THE PUBLIC OWES TO OTHERS.

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006 . LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND PHRASES IN THIS CASE: "...[The] Plaintiff... cites... Section[]... IV [means "4"] of the Fourteenth Amendment which... protect[s] the validity of certain 'debts incurred [by the public] for payment of pensions and bounties [to others] for services [rendered] in suppressing insurrection or rebellion [referring to the Confederate South during the Civil War].' ...THE PROVISIONS IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ARE... LIMITED TO THE CONTEXT OF THE IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH OF THE CIVIL WAR [read this phrase again], when officials of the union were concerned about the potential mischief that could result if former agents of the Confederacy and their sympathizers were to take control of Congress... . [The court then quoted the case immediately below in which the court] conclud[ed] that SECTION 4 OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT 'WAS INTENDED TO PREVENT THE QUESTIONING OF THE WAR DEBT INCURRED BY THE UNION IN FIGHTING THE CIVIL WAR' [read this phrase again] and 'IS ONLY BROUGHT INTO PLAY [read this phrase again] when some state or federal government agency QUESTIONS [means "REFUSES TO PAY"] a debt [THAT IT OWES TO OTHERS, SUCH AS FORMER UNION CIVIL WAR SOLDIERS].'... . SECTION... 4 OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES NO BASIS [read this term again] FOR... A[]...BOUNTY IN THIS [MODERN ERA] CASE [read this entire phrase again] OR TO ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF UNITED STATES OFFICIALS OR EMPLOYEES IN ANY WAY [read this entire phrase again]." (The preceding text is in the 5th, 6th and 7th full paragraphs beginning at about 75% through the text of the case.).

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006 . LOOK FOR THE FOLLWING TERMS AND PHRASES IN THIS CASE: "The Fourteenth Amendment provides that '[t]he validity of the public debt of the United States [money that the public owes to others]... including debts incurred [by the public] for payment of pensions and bounties [to others] for services [rendered] in suppressing insurrection or rebellion [referring to the Confederate South during the Civil War], shall not be questioned [means "must be paid"].' THIS LITTLE USED PROVISION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS INTENDED TO PREVENT THE QUESTIONING OF [means "refusing to pay"] THE WAR DEBT INCURRED BY THE UNION IN FIGHTING THE CIVIL WAR BY ANY FUTURE CONGRESS CONTROLLED BY SOUTHERNERS OR THEIR SYMPATHIZERS. [Read this sentence again.] THIS SECTION ONLY COMES INTO PLAY WHEN SOME STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY QUESTIONS [means "REFUSES TO PAY"] A DEBT [THAT THE PUBLIC OWED TO OTHERS, SUCH AS FORMER UNION CIVIL WAR SOLDIERS] [Read that sentence again]." (The preceding text is in the 25th full paragraph, not including block indented portions for quoted text, in the section on the case entitled, "C. Has the Secretary 'Questioned' a Public Debt?" at about 80% through the text of the case.).

    All of this would be funny if it weren't so sad. So very, very sad.

    ANALYSIS:
    Note that Rod Class pathologically IMPERSONATES and IMITATES every type of person that he claims to HATE. For example, Class claims to hate lawyers. So, he IMPERSONATES them by pretending to be a "Private Attorney General" (as he mistakenly defines it) and he IMITATES them by writing FAKE legal papers & filing them in court, by pretending to represent others in court and by otherwise pretending to take action in that imaginary capacity. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22R...w=1366&bih=651. Class also claims to hate law enforcement officers. So, he IMPERSONATES them by wearing a homemade, FAKE law enforcement "COSTUME"/UNIFORM and by driving a fraudulently-marked, FAKE law enforcement vehicle (once actually equipped with an REAL, operable, law enforcement "BLUE LIGHT" system) and he IMITATES them by pretending to enforce imaginary laws and by otherwise pretending to take action in that imaginary capacity. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/b8uc33rrk...ower_right.jpg; http://www.nc4x4.com/forum/threads/d...actant.159266/ (scroll down to the 2ND & 3RD photos.). Class claims to hate other legal authority figures. So, he IMPERSONATES them by pretending to be a legal authority figure in an imaginary, alternative, GLOBAL legal system and he IMITATES them by otherwise pretending to take action in that imaginary capacity. http://houseofpraani.com/portfolio/itnj/; https://scannedretina.com/2015/05/27...itnj-launch-2/ (scroll down to about 35-40% through text of this page where Class describes himself as the "HEAD PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE ITNL", an imaginary, alternative, GLOBAL legal system); http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative...n-3143508.html (Class, pretending to act as a legal authority figure in this imaginary, alternative, GLOBAL legal system); https://www.itnj.org/ (scroll down to the "MISSION" of this imaginary, alternative, GLOBAL legal system). This list could go on and on, but you get the point. Psychiatrists would have a "field day" analyzing this bizarre and delusional pattern of behavior.

    ABOUT ROD CLASS:
    Rod Class is a functionally-illiterate amateur legal theorist with barely a high school education WHO HAS LOST EVERY SINGLE ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL CASE IN WHICH HE HAS EVER BEEN INVOLVED (OVER 76 CONSECUTIVE LOSSES IN A ROW, AND STILL COUNTING). Further, Class has a long history of PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS involving DELUSIONS, PATHOLOGICAL OPPOSITION/DEFIANCE of AUTHORITY FIGURES and PATHOLOGICAL LYING. Moreover, Class is a MULTI-CONVICTED, WEAPONS RELATED, CONVICTED FELON who also has SEVERAL ADDITIONAL MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS, as well. Because of Class’ well-publicized HATRED of our ELECTED representatives, their appointees and our ELECTED REPUBLICAN form of government, because of his HISTORY OF PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS and because of his LENGTHY CRIMINAL HISTORY involving DEADLY WEAPONS, Class has been placed on the United States TERRORIST WATCH LIST.

    More importantly, Class is a PROFESSIONAL HOAXER AND CHARLATAN who is behind a number of legal HOAXES which he created and peddles to INTENTIONALLY DEFRAUD the American people. These hoaxes include the "Judge DALE Hoax", "Debra Jones Hoax", "Private Attorney General Hoax", "14th Amendment, Section 4 Bounty Hunter Hoax", "All Government Agencies Are 'Private Entities' or 'Private Contractors' Hoax" (A.K.A. the "BOMBSHELL: FOURTH Administrative Ruling Hoax"), "Property Into Other Peoples' Names Hoax", "Lawyers Have No Authority Hoax", "Right To Travel Hoax", "My Paperwork Would Have Overturned Every Prior Case Hoax", "The Supreme Court Loves My Paperwork Hoax", "The Private Attorney General 'CERTIFICATE' Hoax" (A.K.A. "Why Was Rod Class In Washington, D.C. In The First Place?"), "The Federal Reserve Notes Are Not Money Hoax" (A.K.A. "The Harold Stanley Case Hoax"), "The United States is a Private, For-Profit Corporation Hoax" (A.K.A. "Title 28 U.S.C. 3002(15)(a) Proves That The United States Is a Private, For Profit Corporation Hoax"), the "Court Registry Investment System Hoax" (A.K.A. The "C.R.I.S. Hoax"), the "Embezzling Federal Funds Hoax" and numerous other hoaxes.).

    ANALYSIS:
    Rod Class (with his inability to read, his lack of education, his complete ignorance of the law, his delusional belief system, his worthless, amateur legal theories, his lack of honesty and his 100% failure rate in court in 76 consecutive losses) IS LIVING PROOF THAT THOSE WHO PRACTICE LAW (AND THOSE WHO TEACH THE LAW) SHOULD:
    1). BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A FOUR-YEAR COLLEGE EDUCATION (a "Bachelor's Degree");
    2). BE REQUIRED TO ALSO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL THREE TO FOUR YEAR LAW SCHOOL EDUCATION (a "Juris Doctor's Degree");
    3). BE REQUIRED TO PASS THE STATE BAR EXAM (takes three days);
    4). BE REQUIRED TO UNDERGO A RIGOROUS STATE CHARACTER AND FITNESS BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION WHICH TAKES SEVERAL MONTHS OR YEARS (NO MENTAL HEALTH HISTORY, NO CRIMINAL HISTORY, honesty, credit history, interviews of employers, teachers, former co-workers, neighbors, relatives, taking finger print samples, taking hand writing samples, etc.).
    5). BE LICENSED BY THE STATE AND BE SUBJECT TO THE CONTINUOUS OVERSIGHT AND DISCIPLINE OF THE HIGHEST OFFICE OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF STATE GOVERNMENT, THE STATE SUPREME COURT (in order to protect the public from INCOMPETENCE and FRAUD of the type demonstrated here).

    ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH:
    Snoop4truth is a legal expert and whistle blower who exposes online hoaxes. Snoop4truth did not reveal this information to harm Rod Class. Instead, Snoop4truth exposed this information solely to reduce the CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE that such INTENTIONAL FRAUD inflicts upon the American people every single day. Had it not been for Rod Class' role in the "Judge DALE Hoax", Snoop4truth would not have exposed this information here.

    The message to all hoaxers and charlatans? Just tell the truth.
    Last edited by snoop4truth; 25th November 2018 at 23:41.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to snoop4truth For This Post:

    gaiagirl (22nd August 2017), Nasu (21st August 2017)

  5. Link to Post #3
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    30th September 2015
    Age
    45
    Posts
    52
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 29 times in 14 posts

    Default Re: Rod Class & his many hoaxes

    COMMENT 3: "THE JUDGE DALE HOAX" & "THE DEBRA JONES HOAX"

    PART I: THE JUDGE "DALE" HOAX:

    FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE:
    TRULY OSCAR WORTHY PERFORMANCES BY DEBORAH TAVARES IN PRETENDING TO REVIEW HER OWN FORGERY:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05o4CpB9I8g&t=260s (A TRULY OSCAR-WORTHY PERFORMANCE OF TAVARES AT 2:25-4:00, 5:25-6:15, 9:05-9:20 IN PRETENDING TO REVIEW SECTIONS OF HER OWN FORGERY)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTRPZD3_w5k (A TRULY OSCAR-WORTHY PERFORMANCE OF TAVARES AT 42:10-49:15 IN PRETENDING TO REVIEW SECTIONS OF HER OWN FORGERY)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKI4zPI504E (A TRULY OSCAR-WORTHY PERFORMANCE OF TAVARES AT 7:15-7:55, 27:00-27:55, 31:15-33:10, 45:05-46:00, 52:35-53:45, 54:35-54:50 IN PRETENDING TO REVIEW SECTIONS OF HER OWN FORGERY)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRnogqeqzxk (A TRULY OSCAR WORTHY PERFORMANCE OF TAVARES AT 6:20-6:45, 7:10-7:55, 25:55-26:45 IN PRETENDING TO REVIEW SECTIONS OF HER OWN FORGERY)

    TRULY OSCAR WORTHY PERFORMANCES BY DEBORAH TAVARES IN PEDDLING HER OWN FORGERY:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQeazE8_Ipk (A TRULY OSCAR WORTHY PERFORMANCE OF TAVARES AT 51:50-53:00 IN PEDDLING HER OWN FORGERY)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81qlF5v3WY8 (A TRULY OSCAR WORTHY PERFORMANCE OF TAVARES AT 7:00-7:25 IN PEDDLING HER OWN FORGERY)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eei6_4dpK4 (A TRULY OSCAR WORTHY PERFORMANCE OF TAVARES AT 2:20-2:40 IN PEDDLING HER OWN FORGERY)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dgYbD6fcw8 (A TRULY OSCAR-WORTHY PERFORMANCE OF TAVARES AT 34:20-36:00 IN PEDDLING HER OWN FORGERY)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAryrdGenL4 (A TRULY OSCAR-WORTHY PERFORMANCE OF TAVARES AT 1:30-1:45 IN PEDDLING HER OWN FORGERY)

    SIDE NOTE:
    FOR THREE MORE WORLD FAMOUS HOAXES BY DEBORAH TAVARES, SCROLL DOWN BELOW TO THE "NASA WAR DOCUMENT HOAX" AT COMMENT NINETEEN (19) AND THE "SILENT WEAPONS FOR QUIET WARS HOAX" & THE "REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN HOAX" AT COMMENT TWENTY TWO (22). THEY ARE SIMPLY UNBELIEVABLE! REMEMBER, SCROLL DOWN TO COMMENT 19 AND COMMENT 22 BELOW. For a condensed summary of SIX (6) entirely different HOAXES of Deborah Tavares, scroll down to COMMENT FORTY FOUR (44) entitled, "RESPONSE TO LOST-N-FOUND".

    THE JUDGE "DALE" FORGERIES (BOOKS):
    http://www.stopthecrime.net/docs/THE...-ADVENTURE.pdf (NOTE THE WEBMASTER OF THIS WEBSITE);
    https://anticorruptionsociety.files....bk-format1.pdf (NOTE THE WEBMASTER OF THIS WEBSITE);
    https://anticorruptionsociety.files....th-edition.pdf (SEE LIST OF AUTHORS AT BOTTOM OF 2ND PAGE).

    OTHER JUDGE "DALE" FORGERIES (ARTICLES):
    Note that most of the other “Judge DALE” FORGERIES posted online are mere re-prints of section five of “The Great American Adventure” UNDER DIFFERENT NAMES (“Legal Advice From A Retired Judge Turned Whistle Blower”, “Retired Federal Judge Spills The Beans”, etc.).

    "WHISTLEBLOWER" FORGERIES:
    http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2012/...turned_22.html (scroll down about 10% through the text of this page to the BOLD RED TYPE);
    http://in5d.com/anonymous-judge-blow...le-are-slaves/ (note the TITLE);
    https://livingintheprivate.blogspot....for-court.html (scroll down to about 50% through the text of this page to the line immediately above the link in ALL BLUE TYPE for the term, "WHISTLEBLOWER" and "JUDGE DALE").

    "SPILLS THE BEANS" FORGERIES:
    https://mainerepublicemailalert.file...-the-beans.pdf (note the TITLE);
    https://ascendingstarseed.wordpress....lavery-system/ (note the TITLE);
    https://twitter.com/opptinnow/status/330437110874140672 (note TITLE).


    THE HOAX:
    Rodney "DALE" Class, Deborah Tavares and their charlatan partner published FAKE legal books ("FORGERIES") online which they FRAUDULENTLY claimed were written by a "retired federal judge" named "Judge DALE".

    THE TRUTH:
    Rodney "DALE" Class, Deborah Tavares and their charlatan partner wrote every single word of these "Judge DALE" FORGERIES.

    EXPLANATION:
    "Judge DALE" is a hoax. This is the reason that you have never actually seen a LIVE APPEARANCE, VIDEO or PHOTOGRAPH of "Judge DALE". He does not exist. The person pretending to be "Judge DALE" in the "Judge DALE forgeries" (and online) is actually Rodney "DALE" Class, a functionally illiterate amateur legal theorist, PROFESSIONAL HOAXER and CHARLATAN with a long CRIMINAL history and a long history of PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS (see comment FOUR directly below). Class does not know it yet, but Deborah Tavares and her charlatan partner in the "Judge DALE" hoax have already privately admitted to us that Rodney "DALE" Class really is "Judge DALE" in the "Judge DALE forgeries" (and online). So, Class' fraudulent denials to his VICTIMS in this regard are pointless and futile.

    In the "Judge DALE Hoax", Rodney "DALE" Class, Deborah Tavares and their charlatan partner published and distributed FAKE legal books online which revealed FAKE legal information WHICH THEY THEMSELVES ACTUALLY CREATED, but which they fraudulently told the American people were written by a FAKE “retired federal judge” named, “Judge DALE” (which uses Rodney DALE Class’ middle name, “DALE”, as an inside joke on the American people).

    SIDE NOTE:
    Impersonating a federal judge is a federal FELONY. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/912. Note that this statute makes TWO separate acts felonies, EITHER "acting as such" OR "demanding or obtaining" something of value while impersonating such. Only one such act is required. Under federal case law, using the term, "former", is NOT effective as a defense to such a charge.

    CLASS' INTERNET RADIO SHOW:
    Class has his own internet radio show on AIB Talkshoe Radio (spelled correctly). http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web...d=48361&cmd=tc. The content of Class' radio show is simply a pre-recorded, telephone "CONFERENCE CALL" that Class made earlier. (Look for BOTH the terms, "JUDGE DALE" and "CONFERENCE CALL" in the 1st full paragraph in the following link.). http://removingtheshackles.blogspot....reset-and.html. (The TWO preceding links show that BOTH Rodney "DALE" Class and "Judge DALE" just happen to host telephone "CONFERENCE CALLS", an amazing coincidence.).

    On his radio show, Class makes intentionally FALSE and FRAUDULENT claims about the law and the legal system to incite hatred and violence against the ELECTED representatives of "We The People" and other innocent Americans. On his radio show, Class falsely claims that all governments and government agencies are private, for-profit "CORPORATIONS". (Look for the term, "ROD CLASS" and the term, "CORPORATION" in the 2nd full paragraph in this link). http://houseofpraani.com/portfolio/itnj/. On his radio show, Class also advocates suing the ELECTED representatives of "We the People" and their agencies in ADMINISTRATIVE COURT using the ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS. (Read the description paragraph BELOW the title IN EACH of the following videos.). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDNogI6nBGU; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdYzJBFfhqU.

    Ironically, "Judge DALE" also just happens to falsely claim that all governments and government agencies are private, for-profit "CORPORATIONS" and also advocates using the "ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS". (Go to 3:00-4:00 in the following video.). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05o4CpB9I8g&t=260s. (Look for the terms, "JUDGE DALE, "ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS" and "CORPORATIONS" in the first 5 full paragraphs in the following link.). http://removingtheshackles.blogspot....d-further.html. (Look for the terms, "JUDGE DALE, "ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS" and "CORPORATIONS" in the first 5 full paragraphs in the following link.). http://abundanthope.net/pages/True_U..._printer.shtml. (The text in these SIX immediately preceding links shows that BOTH Rodney "DALE" Class and "Judge DALE" just happen to falsely claim that all governments and government agencies are private, for-profit "CORPORATIONS" and BOTH of them just happen to recommend the "ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS" in "ADMINISTRATIVE COURT", an amazing set of coincidences.).

    ANALYSIS:
    When combined, the text in the EIGHT immediately preceding links mean that BOTH Rodney "DALE" Class and "Judge DALE" just happen to do and say THE VERY SAME THINGS! Specifically, they BOTH just happen to host "CONFERENCE CALLS", they BOTH just happen to falsely claim that all governments and all government agencies are private, for-profit "CORPORATIONS" and they BOTH just happen to advocate suing our ELECTED representatives and their agencies using the "ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS" in "ADMINISTRATIVE COURT", an amazing set of coincidences.

    SIDE NOTE:
    Not surprisingly, Deborah Tavares and her charlatan partner in this hoax also just happen to falsely claim that all governments and government agencies are private for-profit "CORPORATIONS", another amazing coincidence.

    To understand the extent of THEIR OWN fraud in this regard, YOU MUST SEE THE FOLLOWING VIDEOS! They are simply UNBELIEVABLE! Note that NONE of the private, for-profit corporations referred to in any of the following videos HAVE ANY CONNECTION WHATSOEVER TO ANY FEDERAL OR STATE GOVERNMENT OR AGENCY. Instead, they are all ordinary, private, for-profit corporations with names that SOUND SIMILAR to governments or government agencies (like "Federal Express", for example).

    This means that contrary to the claims of Deborah Tavares and her charlatan partner, the ordinary, private, for-profit corporation named the "United States Corporation Company" (referred to at 2:00-3:10 in the FIRST video below) IS NOT actually the government of the "United States of America". http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/Cor...ATES%201000090 (Scroll all the way down to the very bottom of this link and click on the FINAL document. Deborah Tavares and her charlatan partner refer this document later in the FIRST video below.). Instead, the "United States Corporation Company" is merely a "registered agent" which accepts "service of process" (civil lawsuits) on behalf of other corporations doing business in Florida and is actually listed as such by the Florida Secretary of State, Division of Corporations. http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/Cor...0Company/Page1 (BE SURE TO SCROLL THROUGH ALL OF THE PAGES IN THIS LINK). (Note: Every corporation doing business in the state is required to have a "registered agent" inside the state to accept "service of process" (civil lawsuits) on its behalf. The "United States Corporation Company" is merely an ordinary, private, for-profit company provides that service to other such corporations (which are often out-of-state corporations that do not have an office in the state) for a fee. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...0607.0505.html.).

    Further, at 4:30-4:45 in the FIRST video below, Deborah Tavares and her charlatan partner also FRAUDULENTLY CHANGE THE NAME of one such ordinary, private, for-profit corporation TO MAKE IT SOUND EVEN MORE LIKE A GOVERNMENT AGENCY in order to INTENTIONALLY DEFRAUD the American people. Specifically, they "SWITCH" the name, "Internal Revenue Tax And Audit Service, Inc." (THE REAL NAME) with the name, "Internal Revenue Service" (THE FAKE NAME) in order to INTENTIONALLY DEFRAUD the American people. This is precisely the reason that they do not show an ACTUAL PHOTO of this particular corporation's "corporate charter" in their video as they do with other "corporate charters" of the other corporations referred to in their video (BECAUSE IT WOULD SHOW THE CORPORATION'S "REAL NAME" WHICH WOULD EXPOSE THEIR FRAUD). See the truth about this particular fraud here. https://www.dropbox.com/s/04tmhmd08w...0Inc..pdf?dl=0 (Note that this ordinary, private, for-profit corporation, the "Internal Revenue Tax And Audit Service, Inc.", WAS INCORPORATED IN DELAWARE.); http://www.hovindology.com/?p=80 (THIS LINK IS EXCELLENT. READ IT ALL.).

    VIDEOS BY DEBORAH TAVARES AND HER CHRLATAN PARTNER IN WHICH THEY FALSELY CLAIM THAT ALL GOVERNMENTS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES ARE PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS:
    YOU MUST SEE THIS VIDEO! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRnogqeqzxk (See the WHOLE VIDEO, but be especially certain to listen at 2:00-3:10 (for the "United States Corporation Company Hoax" EXPOSED ABOVE), 4:30-4:45 (for the "Internal Revenue Tax And Audit Service, Inc. Hoax" EXPOSED ABOVE), 4:45-4:55, 5:55-6:10, 6:20-6:45, 7:10-7:55, 9:05-9:45, 22:00-22:50, 24:10-24:25, 25:55-26:45.);
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQeazE8_Ipk (at 43:15-43:50, 52:30-53:00);
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05o4CpB9I8g&t=260s (at 3:00-4:00, 5:25-6:15, 6:40-7:30, 7:55-8:50);
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTRPZD3_w5k (at 42:10-42:35, 47:50--49:00);
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRnogqeqzxk (at 6:20-6:45, 7:10-7:55, 25:55-26:45).

    (THE JUDGE DALE HOAX CONTINUED)

    THE JUDGE "DALE" FORGERIES (BOOKS):
    The “Judge DALE forgeries” include: “The Matrix And the US Constitution” (2010), “The Great American Adventure: Secrets Of America” (2012) and “Lawfully Yours” (2014).

    In all of the “Judge DALE Forgeries”, Rodney "DALE" Class, Deborah Tavares and their charlatan partner confirm their own false claims about the law and the legal system while FRAUDULENTLY pretending to be a FAKE, "retired federal judge" named, "Judge DALE". Like all of their false claims about the law and the legal system, their false claims in the “Judge DALE forgeries” were also designed and intended to incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans. As hard as it is to believe, Deborah Tavares and her charlatan partner still peddle all three of the “Judge 'DALE' forgeries” from their own personal websites DESPITE THAT EVERYONE KNOWS THEY ARE ENTIRELY FAKE.

    LINKS TO THE JUDGE 'DALE' FORGERIES" (BOOKS):
    http://www.stopthecrime.net/docs/THE...-ADVENTURE.pdf (NOTE THE WEBMASTER OF THIS WEBSITE);
    https://anticorruptionsociety.files....format_pdf.pdf (NOTE THE WEBMASTER OF THIS WEBSITE);
    https://anticorruptionsociety.files....bk-format1.pdf (NOTE THE "SIGNATURE" TERM, "MATRIX", IN THE TITLE).

    SIDE NOTE: THE "MATRIX":
    Note that the title of the immediately preceding "Judge DALE forgery" (above) is "The 'MATRIX' And The US Constitution". This term, "MATRIX", is significant because Rodney "DALE" Class, Deborah Tavares and her charlatan partner use this "SIGNATURE" term, "MATRIX", over and over in their online hoaxes. The following links provide EXCELLENT EXAMPLES of their use of the "SIGNATURE" term, "MATRIX", in their online hoaxes.

    "MATRIX" HOAXES BY ROD CLASS:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ts7CejgSkjc&t=22s (First, at :30- :45, see an actual photo of the REAL "Judge DALE" standing inside the "MATRIX" as described in the immediately preceding "Judge DALE forgery" entitled, "The MATRIX and the US Constitution", by "Judge DALE", who is actually Rodney "DALE" Class);
    http://howtoexitthematrix.com/2015/0...by-judge-dale/ (self-explanatory);
    http://www.matrixfiles.com/Dale/TheG...ture-PART1.pdf (NOTE THE NAME OF WEBSITE)
    http://in5d.com/anonymous-judge-blow...le-are-slaves/ (scroll down to the 2nd and 3rd TITLES and note the term "MATRIX");
    http://exitthematrix.org/?reqp=1&req...EvLaE5pv5jLab= (a website no longer used).

    "MATRIX" HOAXES BY DEBORAH TAVARES:
    https://www.google.com/search?biw=13...0.ZhxJPdicCG4;
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKI4zPI504E (at 27:00-27:15);
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sykRuXXNJzU;
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HX5IJMevyP8;
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4eRlBbcFkc;
    http://noliesradio.org/archives/134062 (note "QUANTUM MATRIX RADIO".);
    http://www.globaltruth.net/jeff-rens...g-the-matrix/;
    http://www.oom2.com/t34873-jeff-rens...ing-the-matrix.
    NOTE: Note that Rodney "DALE" Class (in the "MATRIX" VIDEO above), "Judge DALE" (in FORGERY entitled, "The MATRIX And The US Constitution" above), Deborah Tavares and her charlatan partner (in their ARTICLES, WEBSITES and VIDEOS above) ALL just happen to use the same, shared, common, UNIQUE, "SIGNATURE" term, "MATRIX", in the wording of their online HOAXES (and elsewhere, they use the "SIGNATURE" term, "BOMBSHELL", etc.), another amazing coincidence! (See comment FIVE (5) below for their use of the same, shared, common, UNIQUE "SIGNATURE" term "BOMBSHELL" in the wording of their HOAXES.).

    LINKS TO THE "JUDGE 'DALE' FORGERIES" (BOOKS) (CONTINUED)
    https://anticorruptionsociety.com/20...-constitution/
    https://anticorruptionsociety.files....th-edition.pdf
    https://anticorruptionsociety.files....ed-states1.pdf
    https://anticorruptionsociety.com/tag/judge-dale/
    (NOTE IN THE LINKS ABOVE THAT BOTH DEBORAH TAVARES AND HER CHARLATAN PARTNER JUST HAPPEN TO PUBLISH THE CLAIMS OF BOTH "JUDGE DALE" AND RODNEY "DALE" CLASS ON THEIR OWN WEBSITES, another amazing coincidence of SUPPORT AND AFFILIATION.).

    LINKS TO RELATED DOCUMENTS:
    https://anticorruptionsociety.com/rod-class/
    https://anticorruptionsociety.com/ta...ey-dale-class/
    https://anticorruptionsociety.com/20...-with-justice/
    (NOTE IN THE LINKS ABOVE THAT BOTH DEBORAH TAVARES AND HER CHARLATAN PARTNER JUST HAPPEN TO PUBLISH THE CLAIMS OF BOTH "JUDGE DALE" AND RODNEY "DALE" CLASS ON THEIR OWN WEBSITES, another amazing coincidence of SUPPORT AND AFFILIATION.).

    LINKS TO OTHERS DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE "JUDGE DALE HOAX":
    http://removingtheshackles.blogspot....reset-and.html (Note the webmaster of this site.).
    http://removingtheshackles.blogspot....d-further.html (Note the webmaster of this site.).
    http://www.shiftfrequency.com/admira...ee/#more-26988. (Note the webmaster of this site.).

    FACT:
    Rod Class and Deborah Tavares do not lie to those for whom they have respect. They only lie to those for whom they have no respect. The lies reflected in the "Judge DALE Hoax" speak volumes about what these TWO CHARLATANS really think of the American people. They hate the American people. Lying to the American people is a vicious attack on the American people and should be treated accordingly.

    PATTERN OF HOAXES:
    ROD CLASS and DEBORAH TAVARES are behind the “Judge 'DALE' Hoax”, the ”BOMBSHELL: Rod Class Has Obtained His FOURTH ADMINISTRATIVE RULING that All Governmental Agencies are 'PRIVATE ENTITIES' Or 'PRIVATE CONTRACTORS' Hoax”, the “A North Carolina Judge Has WARNED All POLICE OFFICERS To Put Their PROPERTY INTO OTHER PEOPLES' NAMES Hoax”, the “Court Registry Investment System Hoax” and numerous other legal hoaxes, all of which they use to “TRICK” their own followers into believing their intentionally false and fraudulent claims about the law and the legal system.

    SIDE NOTE:
    FOR THREE MORE WORLD FAMOUS HOAXES BY DEBORAH TAVARES AND HER CHARLATAN PARTNER, SCROLL DOWN BELOW TO THE "NASA WAR DOCUMENT HOAX" AT COMMENT NINETEEN (19) AND THE "SILENT WEAPONS FOR QUIET WARS HOAX" & THE "REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN HOAX" AT COMMENT TWENTY TWO (22). THEY ARE SIMPLY UNBELIEVABLE! REMEMBER, SCROLL DOWN TO COMMENT 19 AND COMMENT 22 BELOW. For a condensed summary of SIX (6) entirely different HOAXES of Deborah Tavares, scroll down to COMMENT FORTY FOUR (44) entitled, "RESPONSE TO LOST-N-FOUND".


    ABOUT DEBORAH TAVARES:
    DEBORAH TAVARES is a well-known, PROFESSIONAL CHARLATAN, HOAXER and SELF-PROMOTER. She has long engaged in a pattern of FORGING FAKE, COUNTERFEIT documents and FRAUDULENTLY attributing those FORGERIES to others, like the federal government or its agencies (see comment 44 entitled, "RESPONSE TO LOST-N-FOUND" below). When not FORGING her own FAKE, COUNTERFEIT documents for that purpose, she takes documents written by others THAT SHE KNOWS TO BE POLITICAL "FICTION" and FRAUDULENTLY tells her gullible followers that they are "REAL GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS" written by "REAL GOVERNMENT INSIDERS". Like all of Rod Class' claims, all of DEBORAH TAVARES' claims are intended to incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans.

    DEBORAH TAVARES is behind ALL THREE of the "Judge DALE forgeries" (all of which she co-wrote with Rod Class), including "The MATRIX And The US Constitution" (2010), The Great American Adventure: Secrets of America" (2012) & "Lawfully Yours" (2014), the "Judge DALE Hoax" (with Rod Class), the "BOMBSHELL: Rod Class Has Obtained his "FOURTH" Administrative Ruling That All Government Agencies Are 'Private Entities' or 'Private Contractors' Hoax" (with Rod Class), the "A North Carolina Judge Has Warned State Police Officers To Put Their Property Into Other Peoples' Names Hoax" (with Rod Class), the "Court Registry Investment System Hoax" (with Rod Class), the "Federal Government Is A Private, For-Profit Corporation Hoax" (with Rod Class), the "B.A.R. Card Hoax" (with Rod Class), the "'Esquire' Is A TITLE OF NOBILITY Hoax" (with Rod Class), the "British Accreditation Registry Hoax [B.A.R. Hoax]" (with Rod Class), the "NASA War Document Hoax" (without Rod Class), the "Silent Weapons For Quiet Wars Hoax" (without Rod Class), the "Report From Iron Mountain Hoax" (without Rod Class), the "FAKE Jim Traficant Speech Hoax" (without Rod Class) and numerous other hoaxes, all of which she uses to INTENTIONALLY DEFRAUD the American people for her own selfish purposes.


    PART II: THE DEBRA JONES HOAX:

    FIRST, SEE THE DEBRA JONES HOAX HERE:
    https://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2014/...e-thanks-to-j/ (at the 1st full paragraph).
    http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web...=8&pageSize=15 (Click on Episode 869 dated 07-08-2014.).

    Class has his own homemade, internet radio show. On July 8, 2014, in Episode 869 of his radio show (described above), Class purported (means "pretended") to bring in a "LEGAL INSIDER" as a guest and introduced her as "former attorney" and "former law enforcement officer", "Debra Jones’’. http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web...=8&pageSize=15 (Click on the actual radio show here, dated 07/08/2014. It is simply unbelievable!).

    Not surprisingly, during this 2 hour 43 minute show, Jones made the same type of utterly delusional AMATEUR claims about the law and the legal system that Class himself makes. But, Jones also claimed that: 1). as a “former police woman”, she and her fellow officers did nothing but intentionally break the law to intentionally harm the public; and that 2). as a “former attorney”, she, the judges, the prosecutors and her fellow attorneys did nothing but intentionally break the law to intentionally harm the public.

    Class’ radio audience was understandably SHOCKED and HORRIFIED by the claims of Jones whom they genuinely believed was a REAL "legal insider", a REAL "former police officer" and a REAL "former attorney" who was actually telling them the TRUTH. This radio show became an internet sensation, much to the delight of Class and Jones (because it successfully incited the hatred and violence that is was intended to incite). https://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2014/...e-thanks-to-j/. (Read the comments of the VICTIMS of this hoax here, below this fraudulent article. They are simply unbelievable!).

    THE TRUTH:
    There was only one problem. THE WHOLE THING WAS ONE BIG HOAX! Before putting her on his internet radio show, Class already knew that Jones WAS NOT a “legal insider”, WAS NOT a "former attorney" and WAS NOT a "former law enforcement officer". In fact, Class already knew that Jones was EVERY BIT THE FRAUD AND CHARLATAN THAT HE WAS (otherwise, he would not have had her on his radio which does nothing but peddle FRAUD and HOAXES).

    ABOUT JONES:
    1. Jones’ REAL name is "Debra Jenks Jones";
    2. Jones is 52 years old;
    3. Jones lives in Puyallup, Pierce County, Washington State. (This is why many of her seminars are conveniently held in nearby Yelp, Washington State);
    4. Jones HAS NEVER HAD a professional license of ANY TYPE from ANY STATE (which means that she was NEVER an attorney anywhere at any time). This is why Jones will not reveal the name of the law school from which she allegedly graduated or the name of the state(s) from which she was allegedly received her license to practice law;
    5. Jones was NEVER a "law enforcement officer". This is why Jones will not reveal the name and location of the law enforcement agency/ies at which she was allegedly so employed;
    6. Jones STILL solicits and collects money from her victims for seminars by FRAUDULENTLY claiming to be a "former police officer" and a former "police woman".
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUvcF--JUMs (Note description paragraph below the title).
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxeC_k-765g (Note that the seminar depicted in this video was conveniently held in Yelp, Washington state, near Puyallup, Pierce County, Washington state, where Jones actually lives).
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w-pQeOmY9o (Jones' business name and logo).
    http://protrustacademy.com/contacts/ (Note Jones' FAKE "Oakland, California" address on the "CONTACTS" page on this website. Jones published this FAKE, OUT-OF-STATE ADDRESS on her website in order to prevent angry seminar customers from being able to find her to get their money back upon learning that the truth about her.).

    SIDE NOTE:
    It is a STATE crime to impersonate an "attorney" or a "law enforcement officer”.
    https://nypost.com/2017/10/15/con-ar...-clients-suit/
    https://www.marconews.com/story/news...er/1040139002/

    It is a FEDERAL FELONY to use a "means of INTERSTATE commerce" (like the internet) to commit fraud (like soliciting money for seminars by fraudulently claiming to be a "former attorney", "former police officer" or by fraudulently claiming to be "Private Attorney General" who can "train" others to become the same).
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1343;
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_and_wire_fraud;
    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/b8uc33rrk...ower_right.jpg;
    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/tte81hxii..._6.29.2017.pdf(CLICK ON ALL FOUR LINKS);
    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/b8uc33rrk...eHsTCpkma?dl=0 (CLICK ON ALL FIVE LINKS);
    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/b8uc33rrk...l%20Seals?dl=0(CLICK ON BOTH LINKS);
    http://saynotopas.com/common-law-grand-jury-links/ (scroll down to about 25% through the text of this page);
    http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative...n-3143508.html (scroll down to about 25% through the text of this page);
    http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2015/...es-jun-23.html (scroll down about 10% through the text of this page to the BOLD RED TYPE);
    https://scannedretina.com/2015/05/15...riminal-abuse/ (scroll down to about 5% through the text of the page).

    VICTIMS who have paid for such fraudulent seminars may recover THREE TIMES their money back under FEDERAL RICO (plus attorney fees and costs) and may ALSO recover PUNITIVE DAMAGES for FRAUD and MISREPRESENTATION under STATE law.

    ABOUT ROD CLASS:
    Rod Class is a functionally-illiterate amateur legal theorist with barely a high school education WHO HAS LOST EVERY SINGLE ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL CASE IN WHICH HE HAS EVER BEEN INVOLVED (OVER 76 CONSECUTIVE LOSSES IN A ROW, AND STILL COUNTING). Further, Class has a long history of PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS involving DELUSIONS, PATHOLOGICAL OPPOSITION/DEFIANCE of AUTHORITY FIGURES and PATHOLOGICAL LYING. Moreover, Class is a MULTI-CONVICTED, WEAPONS RELATED, CONVICTED FELON who also has SEVERAL ADDITIONAL MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS, as well. Because of Class’ well-publicized HATRED of our ELECTED representatives, their appointees and our REPUBLICAN form of government, because of his HISTORY OF PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS and because of his LENGTHY CRIMINAL HISTORY involving DEADLY WEAPONS, Class has been placed on the United States TERRORIST WATCH LIST.

    Most importantly, Class is a PROFESSIONAL HOAXER AND CHARLATAN who is behind a number of legal HOAXES which he created and peddles to INTENTIONALLY DEFRAUD the American people. These hoaxes include the "Judge DALE Hoax", "Debra Jones Hoax", "Private Attorney General Hoax", "14th Amendment, Section 4 Bounty Hunter Hoax", "All Government Agencies Are 'Private Entities' or 'Private Contractors' Hoax" (A.K.A. the "BOMBSHELL: FOURTH Administrative Ruling Hoax"), "Property Into Other Peoples' Names Hoax", "Lawyers Have No Authority Hoax", "Right To Travel Hoax", "My Paperwork Would Have Overturned Every Prior Case Hoax", "The Supreme Court Loves My Paperwork Hoax", "The Private Attorney General 'CERTIFICATE' Hoax" (A.K.A. "Why Was Rod Class In Washington, D.C. In The First Place?"), "The Federal Reserve Notes Are Not Money Hoax" (A.K.A. "The Harold Stanley Case Hoax"), "The United States is a Private, For-Profit Corporation Hoax", the "Court Registry Investment System Hoax" (A.K.A. The "C.R.I.S. Hoax"), the "Embezzling Federal Funds Hoax" and numerous other hoaxes.).

    ANALYSIS:
    ROD CLASS (with his inability to read, his lack of education, his ignorance of the law, his delusional belief system, his worthless, amateur legal theories, his lack of honesty and his 100% failure rate in court in 76 consecutive losses) IS LIVING PROOF THAT THOSE WHO PRACTICE LAW (AND THOSE WHO TEACH THE LAW) SHOULD:
    1). BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A FOUR-YEAR COLLEGE EDUCATION (a "Bachelor's Degree");
    2). BE REQUIRED TO ALSO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL THREE TO FOUR YEAR LAW SCHOOL EDUCATION (a "Juris Doctor's Degree");
    3). BE REQUIRED TO PASS THE STATE BAR EXAM (takes three days);
    4). BE REQUIRED TO UNDERGO A RIGOROUS STATE CHARACTER AND FITNESS BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION WHICH TAKES SEVERAL MONTHS OR YEARS (NO MENTAL HEALTH HISTORY, NO CRIMINAL HISTORY, honesty, credit history, interviews of employers, teachers, former co-workers, neighbors, relatives, taking finger print samples, taking hand writing samples, etc.).
    5). BE LICENSED BY THE STATE AND BE SUBJECT TO THE CONTINUOUS OVERSIGHT AND DISCIPLINE OF THE HIGHEST OFFICE OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF STATE GOVERNMENT, THE STATE SUPREME COURT (in order to protect the public from INCOMPETENCE and FRAUD).

    ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH:
    Snoop4truth is a legal expert and whistle blower who exposes online hoaxes. Snoop4truth did not reveal this information to harm Rod Class. Instead, Snoop4truth exposed this information solely to reduce the CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE that such INTENTIONAL FRAUD inflicts upon the American people every single day. Had it not been for Rod Class' role in the "Judge DALE Hoax", Snoop4truth would not have exposed this information here.

    The message to all hoaxers and charlatans? Just tell the truth.
    Last edited by snoop4truth; 4th December 2018 at 21:59.

  6. Link to Post #4
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    30th September 2015
    Age
    45
    Posts
    52
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 29 times in 14 posts

    Default Re: Rod Class & his many hoaxes

    COMMENT 4: "THE COURT SEALED THE COURT FILE BECAUSE MY AMATEUR 'PAPERWORK' WOULD HAVE OVERTURNED EVERY PRIOR CASE IN HISTORY HOAX”

    FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWKEmiMZTOc&t=348s. LISTEN FOR THE FOLLOWING FRAUDULENT CLAIMS BY ROD CLASS IN THIS VIDEO: "Ladies and gentlemen, I want you to use your own common sense. WHY WOULD THEY SEAL MY FILES FROM PUBLIC VIEWING? If they was [sic] worthless, if they had no value and they meant nothing, WHY WOULD THEY SEAL EVERY SINGLE FILE THAT I FILED IN?" (at :45-1:25); "[Class, now pretends to quote an imaginary college professor who Class claims said] 'That one single page' [referring to a single page in a 4 page Rod Class document] WOULD HAVE OVERTURNED EVERY CASE IN THE COUNTRY.'" (at 3:25-3:50); "THIS IS WHY THESE DOCUMENTS ARE SEALED." (at 4:15-4:25); "When they took me back to the back cell... [the government attorney] come [sic] back. I looked at him [and] he said [Class, now pretends to quote a government attorney who Class claims said], 'Rod, YOUR PAPERWORK WOULD HAVE OVERTURNED EVERY COURT CASE IN THIS COUNTRY and they can't allow you to do that.' THAT IS WHY MY PAPERWORK IS SEALED, ladies and gentlemen." (at 5:35-6:05); "Ladies and gentlemen, this [referring to his delusional, amateur legal theories] has been laid out in all my documents. THAT'S WHY MY DOCUMENTS ARE SEALED. This is why... when I was arrested the first time, these people were ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED of me. Now that I have put my documentation in, they are ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED of me. THAT'S WHY THIS PAPERWORK IS SEALED, ladies and gentlemen." (at 8:50-9:20); "[My] knowing how these people operate TERRIFIES these people.... . THIS IS WHY THIS PAPERWORK IS SEALED." (at 12:35-12:42); "They can't afford to have this [worthless, delusional] information out." (at 13:30-13:35): "These people are ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED---ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED [of me and my amateur paperwork]." (at 13:50-14:00); "THEY WOULD NOT SEAL A FILE IF THEY WAS [sic] NOT SCARED OF IT. THEY ONLY SEAL FILES WHEN THERE IS INFORMATION IN THERE THAT THEY DON'T WANT THE PUBLIC TO KNOW." (at 18:55-19:10); "THE PAPERWORK WAS THAT GOOD... AND [if you understood my delusional, amateur legal theories set forth in my paperwork] IT WOULD MAKE ABSOLUTE SENSE TO YOU WHY MY PAPERWORK WAS SEALED." (at 19:35-19:50).

    SIDE NOTE:
    Note that one of Class' "SIGNATURE" acts of fraud (reflected above) is to PRETEND to quote "AUTHORITY FIGURES" (who ALWAYS just happen to AGREE with him and PRAISE him) in connection with imaginary (AND ALWAYS, SECRET AND UNWITNESSED) conversations THAT NEVER ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE. Example: "THE __________(fill in the blank with an "AUTHORITY FIGURE", such as: "attorney from Jenner & Block", "Licensed Psychiatrist", "Judge", "District Attorney", "Prosecutor", "Attorney General", "Professor", CIA, FBI, NSA, etc.) SECRETLY PULLED ME TO THE SIDE WHEN NOBODY WAS LOOKING AND SECRETLY TOLD ME WHEN NOBODY COULD HEAR, __________ (fill the blank with AGREEMENT and PRAISE, such as: "There was nothing wrong with your paperwork."; "You are a legal genius."; "We know that you are right."; "Your paperwork would turn the entire legal world on its head.", "We are terrified of you", "[In terms of global importance,] we put you right up there with Ed Snowden as a whistle-blower." ). Sound familiar? https://itnj.org/wp-content/uploads/..._Two_Month.pdf (Scroll down to the 4th page, 2nd paragraph, FINAL sentence in that paragraph).

    SEE THE HOAX (CONTINUED)
    FRAUDULENT ARTICLES TO THE SAME EFFECT:
    http://sitsshow.blogspot.ca/2014/11/...t-here-is.html. (CLICK ON THE LINK). LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TEXT IN THIS ARTICLE: "COURT SEALS RECORDS DUE TO [the] VORACITY OF ROD'S DEFENSE." (The preceding text is in the title of this article.).; "HIS PAPERWORK HAS BEEN SEALED... [because] IT WOULD HAVE OVERTURNED ALL OF THE COURT CASES THAT CAME BEFORE [it], because of the corruption." (in the 7th full paragraph at about 20% through the text of the article.).

    http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.co...1-25-14/112940 LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TEXT IN THIS CASE: "Rod Class is under 'House-Arrest.' HIS COURT PAPERWORK HAS BEEN SEALED... [because] IT WOULD HAVE OVERTURNED ALL OF THE COURT CASES THAT CAME BEFORE [it], because of the corruption. (in the 1st paragraph.).


    THE HOAX:
    Rod Class falsely claims that the court in his Washington, D.C. case "sealed" the court file in that case because his amateur "paperwork" (contained in that court file) would have "overturned all of the court cases that [ever] came before" it. But, this is not so.

    THE TRUTH:
    As a courtesy to Rod Class, the court "sealed" the court file in that case BECAUSE IT CONTAINED HIS PSYCHIATRIC RECORDS.

    FACT:
    Because court files are public, courts often "seal" court records TO PROTECT THE PRIVACY of certain types of litigants such as juvenile offenders, victims of sexual assault, parties to an adoption AND PERSONS WHOSE PSYCHIATRIC RECORDS ARE CONTAINED IN THE COURT FILE. (1)

    ANALYSIS: Thus, in creating this hoax, Rod Class actually took the court's EXTRAORDINARY ACT OF KINDNESS TO HIM (in sealing the court file TO PROTECT HIS PRIVACY) and FRAUDULENTLY told his followers that this EXTRAORDINARY ACT OF KINDNESS TO HIM was instead AN ACT OF "CORRUPTION" intended to protect the government from the imaginary "threat" of his worthless, delusional, amateur paperwork contained in the court file.

    ANALYSIS:
    The delusional claims that Rod Class made in the video above ("My [amateur] paperwork would have overturned every case that came before [it].", "These people were ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED of me.") reflect just how COMPLETELY DIVORCED Rod Class is from reality, something that the judges in this case IMMEDIATELY RECOGNIZED and repeatedly protected him against (by PAYING FOR him to be examined by a licensed psychiatrist, by PAYING an attorney to represent his interests at the trial level, by AGREEING to a plea deal that he (as a previously convicted felon) WAS NOT LEGALLY ELIGIBLE FOR, wherein he literally walked out of court a "free man" (without even so much as probation) and by actually PAYING Jenner & Block to represent his interests on appeal, despite that he had already PLED GUILTY and already WAIVED his right to appeal to get the plea deal). The courts in this case could not have possibly done more TO PROTECT ROD CLASS from the consequences of his being mentally ill.

    CLASS' D.C. CASE:
    Class was caught "carrying" in his car "dangerous weapons" onto U.S. Capitol "grounds". Class was CHARGED WITH A FELONY and FACED SERIOUS PRISON TIME. What's more, Class (who only has a high school education and who is functionally illiterate) ASKED THE COURT IF HE COULD REPRESENT HIMSELF. To make matters even worse, Class EXHIBITED THE SIGNS OF MENTAL ILLNESS. http://www.coatconference.com.au/res...nts_2017_6.pdf (Class EXHIBITED ALL OF THE SYMPTOMS listed on unnumbered page 6. Look for the four LIME GREEN squares.). Note the SYMPTOM, "NARCISSISTIC" https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...s/syc-20366662 (Scroll down to "SYMPTOMS"); https://www.healthyplace.com/persona...pd-definition/ (Scroll down to 45% through the text of this page for a list of symptoms in and around BOLD PRINT) and note the SYMPTOM, "MENDACIOUS" (CLICK ON BOLD BLUE TYPE HERE) http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/mendacious ; http://vocabulary-vocabulary.com/dic...mendacious.php.

    It is customary in such circumstances for the court to have such a defendant UNDERGO A PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION before making a decision as to whether such a defendant may represent himself. The purpose of such a psychiatric examination is to determine whether such a defendant is mentally competent TO MAKE THE DECISION TO REPRESENT HIMSELF, NOT TO DETERMINE WHETHER SUCH A DEFENDANT IS MENTALLY CAPABLE OF ACTUALLY REPRESENTING HIMSELF. (2) So, on February 3rd, 2014, the court ordered Class to undergo a psychiatric examination and appointed a psychiatrist for that purpose. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...ych-Evaluation (quoting the actual court order). After the psychiatric examination, the clerk filed Class' psychiatric records in the court file. So, the court properly "sealed" the court file TO PREVENT THE PUBLIC FROM HAVING ACCESS TO CLASS' PSYCHIATRIC RECORDS. (3)

    Rod Class exhibited then, and exhibits now EVERY SINGLE SYMPTOM of persons suffering from "Querulous Paranoia", "Litigious Insanity" and "Litigious Schizophrenia". (4)

    PSYCHIATRIC EXAM RESULTS:
    Based on all the evidence, the court determined that Class WAS NOT mentally capable of actually representing himself. While OBVIOUSLY TRUE, this determination was legally irrelevant. (Under the law, the court is only supposed to determine whether such a defendant is mentally competent enough to make the decision to represent himself.). Clearly, the court here was trying to protect Class from the consequences of his being mentally ill. Regardless, the court made a second determination and found that Class was mentally competent ENOUGH to make the decision to represent himself. Yet, because Class was NOT mentally capable of actually representing himself in the case, the court appointed an attorney to represent Class anyway. Because Class wanted to represent himself, the court "HUMORED" Class by calling his court-appointed attorney his "STAND-BY COUNSEL".

    THE "PAPERWORK":
    Amateur legal theories are pure "pretend" AND CANNOT "OVERTURN" ANYTHING. The amateur "paperwork" that Class misguidedly brags about in this hoax was 36 "motions" reflecting classic amateur legal theories ("capital letters", "fictional entities", "natural persons", "corporations", "living flesh and blood man with a soul", "Uniform Commercial Code", "registered trade name", "Coram Nobis", etc.). To see just how likely it was that Class' amateur "paperwork" would have "overturned all of the court cases that [ever] came before [it]", simply click on the first link immediately below. This is the court's ACTUAL RESPONSE to the very amateur "paperwork" that Class misguidedly brags about in this HOAX. Look for the term, "DENIED", after EACH and EVERY such amateur legal theory.

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40003 . LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND PHRASES IN THIS CASE: "[Rod Class'] Motions are... UTTERLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE [A SIGN OF MENTAL ILLNESS]. Furthermore, most of... [his] Motions purport to CITE LEGAL PRINCIPLES THAT... DO NOT EXIST [A CERTAIN SIGN OF MENTAL ILLNESS] or are provisions of CIVIL law [that are] WHOLLY INAPPLICABLE to the issues in this CRIMINAL case [ALSO A SIGN OF MENTAL ILLNESS]." (The preceding text is in the 10th full paragraph of the case at the section entitled, "II. DISCUSSION". To understand just how and DELUSIONAL, IRRELEVANT and INAPPLICABLE Class' amateur legal theories were in this case, read the 2nd sentence of Ruling 6, the 1st sentence of Ruling 10, the last sentence of 4th paragraph of ruling 13, the 1st clause of the 1st sentence of Ruling 14, all of Ruling 16, the 1st sentence of Ruling 21, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th paragraphs of ruling 22, the 2nd sentence of the 3rd paragraph of Ruling 23, all of Ruling 27, all of Ruling 33, Footnote 6, Footnote 7, Footnote 8, Footnote 9 and Footnote 10.); (QUOTES CONTINUED) "Defendant [referring to Rod Class] objects to... his name in all CAPITAL LETTERS... contending that CAPITAL LETTERS only apply to a 'FICTIONAL' [the court places quotation marks around this term to make fun of it] ENTITY or a CORPORATION, and not 'A LIVING FLESH AND BLOOD MAN' [the court places quotation marks around this term to make fun of it] such as himself. This... [delusional amateur legal theory] and the related argument that the use of CAPITAL LETTERS somehow deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction find [means "have"] NO SUPPORT IN THE LAW and, in fact, HAVE BEEN SQUARELY REJECTED by at least one court... [who described such delusional amateur legal theories as being] "PATENTLY WITHOUT MERIT"... . To the extent that there is any doubt [again making fun of Class' delusional amateur legal theory], the person charged in this case is Rodney Class THE HUMAN BEING, AND NOT A CORPORATION OR OTHER "FICTIONAL ENTITY" [the court places quotation makes around this term to make fun of it], AS THE DEFENDANT [Rod Class] SUGGESTS... . [This] MOTION SHALL BE DENIED" (the preceding text is in the 1st, 2nd and 4th paragraphs under Ruling 1 in the case).; "Living man with a (Soul)"; "To the extent that Defendant [Rod Class] argues that the criminal provisions under which he was charged... ONLY APPLY TO BUSINESS ENTITIES, GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS and other CORPORATE 'PERSONS', BUT NOT TO NATURAL PERSONS SUCH AS HIMSELF, this argument [this delusional amateur legal theory] is CONTRADICTED by the plain language of the laws under which he was charged. ONLY NATURAL PERSONS are capable of "CARRY[ING] a firearm [artificial 'persons' cannot "CARRY" a firearm OR "DANGEROUS WEAPONS"]. [The statute under which Class was charged reads] '[an] INDIVIDUAL... MAY NOT CARRY... ON THE GROUNDS... OF THE CAPITOL BUILDINGS... A FIREARM... OR DANGEROUS WEAPON [such a machete in the driver's side door, 14 knives and daggers, 1 completely illegal switch blade knife and 3 more axes]'... . Moreover, ...[the statute under which Class was charged] EXPLICITLY REFERS TO AN 'INDIVIDUAL[']..., thereby making it clear that its prohibitions apply to a NATURAL PERSON such as the Defendant [Rod Class], and not to a CORPORATE PERSON [which cannot "CARRY" a "FIREARM" or OTHER "DANGEROUS WEAPONS" onto CAPITOL GROUNDS]... . DENIED" (The foregoing text is in the 4th, 5th and 8th paragraphs of Ruling 8 in the case.); "[Rod Class] asserts that...[his] BIRTH NAME has been converted to a 'REGISTERED TRADE' NAME in violation of the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE... . These allegations [these delusional amateur legal theories] ARE UNSUPPORTED AND IRRELEVANT [as] to whether [the] Defendant [Rod Class] violated... [the statute in question]... . [This] Motion shall be DENIED" (This text is in the only paragraph in Ruling 34 of the case.).

    FACT:
    Rod Class falsely claims that the very amateur "paperwork" (that the court discredits above) was SO GOOD that it resulted in his case going to the Supreme Court. But, this is not so. Class' attorneys (not Class) took this case to the Supreme Court in an effort to change the law "ON APPEALS" FOLLOWING "GUILTY PLEAS" IN PLEA BARGAINS (a subject that Class never even knew about and never raised anywhere at any time in any case). Class' attorneys merely used Class' case as a "vehicle" to get that ENTIRELY DIFFERENT issue before the Court. Any other case involving "AN APPEAL" AFTER A "GUILTY PLEA" IN A PLEA BARGAIN would have served the same purpose. Class' attorneys won the case at the Supreme Court ONLY BECAUSE neither Class nor his amateur paperwork (or amateur legal theories) were in any way involved with that appeal.

    REALITY CHECK:
    1). The people involved in this case were not "ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED" of paperwork that was "UTTERLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE" (A SIGN OF MENTAL ILLNESS).
    2). The people involved in this case were not "ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED" of "LEGAL PRINCIPLES THAT... DO NOT EXIST" (A CERTAIN SIGN OF MENTAL ILLNESS).
    3). The people involved in this case were not "ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED" of legal principles "[that] are provisions of CIVIL law [that are] WHOLLY INAPPLICABLE to the issues IN THIS CRIMINAL CASE" (ALSO A SIGN OF MENTAL ILLNESS).
    4). The people involved in this case were not "ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED" of a functionally-illiterate, amateur legal theorist, with barely a high school education WHO HAS A 100% FAILURE RATE IN COURT IN 76 FAILED ATTEMPTS.

    FOOTNOTES:
    Footnote 1. COURTS OFTEN SEAL COURT RECORDS TO PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF PERSONS WHOSE PSYCHIATRIC RECORDS ARE CONTAINED IN THE COURT FILE.
    (SAMPLE CASES)
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006 LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TEXT IN THIS CASE: "Plaintiff [a prison inmate who sued government authorities over his MENTAL ANGUISH]... states that he SEEK[S] A COURT ORDER TO SEAL HIS MEDICAL [psychiatric] RECORDS... WHICH ARE TO BE FILED WITH THE COURT [in the court file so as to]... TO PREVENT DISCLOSURE [of those records]... . HE ALSO STATES THAT HE DO[ES] NOT WANT [HIS] MEDICAL RECORDS TO BE DISCLOSED OUTSIDE THE CASE... AND WIND UP ON TV FOR DISCUSSION OR ON THE INTERNET OR FOR PERSONAL USE." (This text is in the 3rd full paragraph, not including block intended portions, in the section of the case entitled, "Section F. Sealing Medical Records" at about 80% through the text of the case.).; "[The court responded by saying] I RECOGNIZE THE PLAINTIFF'S CONCERNS REGARDING THE AVAILABLILITY OF HIS SENSITIVE MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH INFORMATION [read this phrase again] IN A PUBLIC FORUM. I [therefore] CONCLUDE THAT THERE IS GOOD CAUSE TO PLACE [the] PLAINTIFF'S CERTIFIED MEDICAL RECORDS UNDER SEAL... ." (This text is in the 4rd full paragraph, not including block intended portions, in the section of the case entitled, "Section F. Sealing Medical Records" at about 82% through the text of the case.).

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...2&as_sdt=40006. LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TEXT IN THE CASE: "This appeal requires us to... [address] statutory provisions affecting the DISCLOSURE of privileged MEDICAL... RECORDS, PARTICULARLY THOSE PERTAINING TO AN INDIVIDUAL'S MENTAL HEALTH" [read that phrase again]. (The preceding text is in the 1st sentence of the case.). "... [The law] appears to LIMIT THE DISCLOSURE OF COURTORDERED PRIVATE [mental health] REPORTS IN... [court] CASES. It [the law] provides,... that A COURT-ORDERED PRIVATE [mental health] EVALUATION REPORT COMPILED BY A STATE LICENSED MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL [read this phrase again] OF ANY PARTY [such a Rod Class]... 'SHALL BE FILED WITH THE CLERK, WHO WILL [means "shall'] SEAL SUCH [mental health] REPORT [to protect the privacy of that party]... ." (The immediately preceding text is in the 2nd half of footnote 4 near the very end of the case.).

    (SAMPLE RULES)
    https://law.justia.com/cases/florida...5/83927-0.html
    LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TEXT IN THIS CASE: "[Florida Rule 2.051(9)(A)(v)-(vi) reads] The public shall have access to all records of the judicial branch... EXCEPT... 9) ANY COURT RECORD DETERMINED TO BE CONFIDENTIAL IN A CASE... ON THE GROUNDS THAT (A) CONFIDENTIALITY [sealing] IS REQUIRED TO... (vi) AVOID SUBSTANTIAL INJURY TO A PARTY [such as Rod Class] BY DISCLOSURE OF MATTERS PROTECTED A... PRIVACY RIGHT [as a person often has with respect to their confidential psychiatric records]... ." (This text begins in the 12th full paragraph at about 45% through the text of the case.).

    http://www.illinois17th.com/index.ph...=382&Itemid=75. Note: Like Florida, Illinois generally permits public access to court files "[EXCEPT] ... (b) FITNESS REPORTS, PSYCHOLOGICAL AND/OR PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATIONS[.] Fitness reports, PSYCHOLOGICAL and/or PSYCHIATRIC REPORTS [read this phrase again] SHALL BE [must be] IMPOUNDED [means "sealed" and actually "removed" from the court file]... . (d) MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS[.] MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS SHALL BE IMPOUNDED [means "sealed" and actually "removed" from the court file]... ." (The immediately preceding text begins in section 16.02 at about 30% through the text of the rule.).

    Footnote 2: THE PURPOSE OF SUCH A PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION:
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006. LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TEXT IN THIS CASE: "A criminal defendant... MAY NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL... UNLESS HE DOES SO 'COMPETENTLY [this is the key word] AND INTELLIGENTLY.'" (The preceding text is in the 8th full paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 20% through the case.).; "[But,] THE COMPETENCE THAT IS REQUIRED OF A [criminal] DEFENDANT SEEKING TO WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IS THE COMPETENCE TO WAIVE THE RIGHT, NOT THE COMPETENCE TO [actually] REPRESENT HIMSELF [in the case]... . A defendant choosing self-representation must do so 'COMPETENTLY [this is the key word] AND INTELLEGENTLY'... but we made it clear that THE DEFENDANT'S 'TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE' [as to how actually represent himself in the case] IS 'NOT RELEVANT' TO THE DETERMINATION [as to] WHETHER HE IS COMPETENT TO WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL... . (The immediately preceding text is in the 13th full paragraph at about 30% through the text of the case.).

    Footnote 3: ROD CLASS HAD ALREADY UNDERGONE PREVIOUS SIMILAR, COURT-ORDERED PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATIONS. In the “Judge DALE forgery” entitled, "The Great American Adventure: Secrets Of America", Rodney "DALE" Class (while pretending to be "Judge DALE") wrote TWO ENTIRE, SEPARATE PARAGRAPHS about HIS OWN many, previous experiences with similar, past, court-ordered PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATIONS and/or HOSPITALIZATIONS. To read these two separate paragraphs, go to page 107 in this link. http://www.stopthecrime.net/docs/THE...-ADVENTURE.pdf. Rodney "DALE" Class made a similar admission of his PSYCHIATRIC ILLNESS in the “Judge DALE forgery” entitled, “The MATRIX And The US Constitution” (while pretending to be “Judge DALE”) on page 5 in the final sentence of the 2nd paragraph in this link. https://anticorruptionsociety.files....bk-format1.pdf. Class made a similar admission of his PSYCHIATRIC ILLNESS in the following radio show, entitled, "Sorry It Has Come To This" (revealing Class' depression and related mental problems) on page 9 in Episode 917 dated 1-29-15 in this link. http://jurorinlaw.com/talkshoe/rclass/; http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2015/...all-sorry.html (scroll down to BOLD RED TYPE at about 10% through the text of the page).

    OTHER AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS WHO EXHIBIT SIMILAR SIGNS OF MENTAL ILLNESS ARE TREATED THE SAME WAY. Amateur legal theorist, Carl Miller (real name "Richard John Champion") has also undergone INVOLUNTARY, COURT-ORDERED PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATIONS AND INVOLUNTARY HOSPITALIZATIONS IN MENTAL INSTITUTIONS. (Documents available on Pacer.gov. which will not allow our links). Likewise, in 2012, a federal court ORDERED amateur legal theorist, Karl Lentz, TO UNDERGO WEEKLY, PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT FOR HIS PSYCHIATRIC ILLNESS. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. (This text is in at the second half of the 4th full paragraph of this case at about 25% through the text of this case). Other amateur legal theorists have had similar experiences to those of Rod Class, Carl Miller and Karl Lentz. http://privateaudio.homestead.com/__lentz-isms_v2.doc. http://redcatsboards.yuku.com/topic/...n#.WDYUm1KFPIU (at the 3rd complete sentence of the comment). Note that the amateur legal theorist involved in this case is "Lyle Hartford Van Dyke", the REAL author of "Silent Weapons For Quiet Wars". Note also that he was convicted and sentenced to prison for effectively writing checks drawn on his imaginary "trust account" at the U.S. Treasury.

    Footnote 4: ABOUT "QUERULOUS PARANOIA", "LITIGIOUS INSANITY", "LITIGIOUS SCHIZOPHRENIA" AND THE "VEXATIOUS LITIGANT": You cannot possibly understand why Rod Class says what he says or does what he does unless you understand the MENTAL ILLNESS described in the following scholarly publication. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf.

    (HERE, THE AUTHOR PROVIDES A LIST COMMON "ANOMALIES" IN THE "PAPERWORK" OF PEOPLE WITH THIS MENTAL ILLNESS). Look for the following text in this publication:

    a). " ...[Their writings often CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING "ANOMALIES"]... *MANY, MANY pages." (in the 8th full paragraph at about 18% through the text). APPLICATION TO CLASS: http://www.rayservers.com/blog/rod-c...ar-association. Look for the following text in this article: "WE HAD [filed] A 116 PAGE COMPLAINT ["MANY, MANY pages"]... . WE FILED ROUGHLY SEVEN FEET OF DOCUMENTATION ["MANY, MANY pages"].... . THE STACK OF EXHIBITS ["PAGES"] WAS TALLER THAN I CAN STAND ["MANY, MANY pages]." (at about 30% through the text of this page, IN AND/OR NEAR THE UN-HIGHLIGHTED TEXT IN BOLD BLACK PRINT). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40003. Look for the following text in this case: "This [SINGLE Rod Class] motion is comprised of FORTY THREE PAGES ["MANY, MANY PAGES] of block quotes of a variety of statutory provisions that are irrelevant to this case." (at Ruling 10 at about 45% through the text of this case.).

    b). " *ODD OR IRRELEVANT ATTACHMENTS---[OR REFERENCES, LIKE THE]... UN CHARTER ON HUMAN RIGHTS, etc... ." (same list & same place in text). APPLICATION TO CLASS: http://www.akupressllc.com/150121Cri...ourtDenver.pdf. Look for the following text in this document: "UN TREATY, DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS", "LIEBER CODE", "NUREMBERG PROTOCOLS", all "ODD" and "IRRELEVANT" (at the 2nd page marked "3 of 6" in the 2nd to last paragraph below the BOLD subtitle "CHIEF JUDGE ROBERTS"); https://scannedretina.files.wordpres...berts-v-32.pdf. Look for the following text in this document: "UN TREATY, DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS", "LIEBER CODE", "NUREMBERG PROTOCOLS", all "ODD" and "IRRELEVANT" (at page "3 of 5" in the 1st paragraph); https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40003. Look for the following text in this case: "This [SINGLE Rod Class] motion is comprised of forty three pages of block quotes of a variety of statutory provisions THAT ARE IRRELEVANT ["IRRELEVANT"] TO THIS CASE." (at Ruling 10 at about 45% through the text of this case.).

    c). " * REPEATED MISUSE OF LEGAL... TERMS." (same list & same place in text). APPLCATION TO CLASS: https://itnj.org/wp-content/uploads/..._18TH_2013.pdf. Look for Class' REPEATED MISUSE OF THE LEGAL TERMS, "Private Attorney General" and "14th Amendment, Section 4 Bounty Hunter" (in the first several paragraphs). Note that Class also REPEATEDLY MISUSES THE LEGAL TERMS, "Corpus Delicti" (which Class mistakenly believes is an injured party), "Judicial Notice" (which Class mistakenly believes involves routing a document to the judge's office so he/she will "notice" it) and hundreds of other LEGAL TERMS.

    d). " * Referring to self in the third person." (same list & same place in text). APPLICATION TO CLASS: https://itnj.org/wp-content/uploads/..._18TH_2013.pdf. Look for the THIRD PERSON term, "THIS PAG" in this text (in almost every paragraph beginning at about 35%-70% through the text of this page.).
    ...

    e). " * Ultimatums" (same list & same place in text). APPLICATION TO CLASS: http://empower2inspire.com/rod-class....hC2wiTQn.dpbs (just above the signature);
    http://www.akupressllc.com/150121Cri...ourtDenver.pdf (just above the signature). Note that Rod Class directed EACH ONE of these TWO ULTIMATUMS to DIFFERENT TARGETS. Note that writing and sending these two is letters constituted TWO FEDERAL FELONIES. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threat..._United_States (scroll down to "Judges" at about 50% through the text of the article).

    f). " *THREATS OF VIOLENCE DIRECTED AT INDIVIDUALS or organizations" (same list & same place in text). APPLICATION TO CLASS: http://empower2inspire.com/rod-class....hC2wiTQn.dpbs[url]. Look for the following text in this threatening letter: "The giant is awakening. What happens to you then? (just above the signature). http://www.akupressllc.com/150121Cri...ourtDenver.pdf. Look for the following text in this threatening letter. "The giant is awakening. What happens to you then?" (See the whole letter, but pay special attention to pages 4-5 and just above the signature). Note that Rod Class directed EACH ONE of these TWO THREATS to DIFFERENT VICTIMS. Note that writing and sending these two threatening letters constituted TWO FEDERAL FELONIES. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threat..._United_States (scroll down to "Judges" at about 50% through the text of the article). Note also that Rod Class has actually been caught carrying around in his car a fully-loaded, illegally sawed-off Springfield shotgun (to increase its deadly effect), night sticks with concealed razor blades (to increase their deadly effect), one fully-loaded rifle, three fully-loaded handguns (one of which was illegally unsecured and positioned between the front seats for quick and easy access), several hundred rounds of ammunition for all firearms onboard, one machete in the driver's side door for quick and easy access), fourteen knives and daggers of varying size and lethal effect, one completely illegal switchblade, three more axes of varying size and lethal effect, packages of concealed razor blades under his clothing when frisked, etc. Note also that due to Rod Class' well-publicized HATRED of the ELECTED representatives of "We the People" and our Republican form of government, his long CRIMINAL HISTORY involving DEADLY WEAPONS and long history of PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS, Rod Class has been placed on the United States TERRORIST WATCH LIST!

    (THE AUTHOR'S LIST OF "PAPERWORK" "ANOMALIES" ENDS HERE. THE ARTICLE CONTINUES HERE.)

    g). "[Victims of this mental illness] DEMAND... PUBLIC RECOGNITION not only of the justice of their [own] claims BUT THEIR STRUGGLE ON BEHALF OF THE RIGHTS OF ALL." (in the 9th full paragraph at about 25% through the text); APPLICATION TO CLASS: https://newearth.media/private-attor...s-on-the-itnj/. Look for the following phrase in this article: "Rod Class... WAS ACTING ON BEHALF OF ALL U.S. Citizens ["RIGHTS OF ALL"]." (at the 1st full sentence); http://www.rvbeypublications.com/sit...licewarned.pdf. Look for the following phrase in this article: "Mr. Class WAS ACTING... ON BEHALF OF ALL PEOPLE ["RIGHTS OF ALL"]... ." (at 2nd page in 2nd paragraph); https://unmasker4maine.wordpress.com...-traffic-case/. Look for the following phrase in this article: "Mr. Class WAS ACTING... ON BEHALF OF ALL PEOPLE ["RIGHTS OF ALL"]... ." (at 6th full paragraph at about 8% through the text of the page); https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3Cgaz8vo60 (whole video, Class, pretending to struggle for the "RIGHTS OF ALL"); https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnWWdFktV8Q&t=52s (whole video, Class, pretending to struggle for the "RIGHTS OF ALL").

    h). "They... see themselves as CHAMPIONS OF THE COMMON MAN"... (in the 9th full paragraph at about 25% through the text); APPLICATION TO CLASS: https://scannedretina.com/2015/05/27...itnj-launch-2/. Look for the term, "JUSTICE FOR THE COMMON MAN" (in the TITLE),

    (continued) ...whose [own] grievances... [HAVE] BECOME OF NATIONAL, OR EVEN INTERNATIONAL, IMPORT (same paragraph & same place in text). APPLICATION TO CLASS: http://empower2inspire.com/rod-class....p1WFoNdU.dpbs. Look for the phrase, "WORLD-WIDE ATTENTION ["INTERNATIONAL IMPORT]" (in 2nd sentence); https://www.scribd.com/document/2528...ge-Roberts-V-3. Look for the phrase "WORLD-WIDE ATTENTION ["INTERNATIONAL IMPORT"]" (in the 2nd sentence). http://www.akupressllc.com/150121Cri...ourtDenver.pdf. Look the phrase "WORLD WIDE ATTENTION ["INTERNATIONAL IMPORT"]" (on the 2nd page at the 2nd sentence). https://myslide.es/documents/sigmifi...-gun-case.html. Look for the following phrase: "Why the Rod Class D.C. gun case lays the foundation for the INTERNATIONAL ["INTERNATIONAL IMPORT"] TRIBUNAL FOR NATURAL JUSTICE... ." (in the 1st sentence).

    i). "...[They] OFTEN APPEAR AS UNREPRESENTED LITIGANTS... BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE THAT NOBODY ELSE CAN BE TRUSTED TO ADEQUATELY PRESENT THEIR CASE [their delusional, amateur legal theories]." (in the 10th full paragraph at about 25% through the text). APPLICATION TO CLASS: FACT- Except for the recent Supreme Court case (in which Class was represented by counsel) and his 2001 Ohio sawed off shotgun conviction (in which Class was represented by counsel), Class always purports to represent himself (and always LOSES).

    j). "[MANY REGARD THEMSELVES] AS... WHISTLE BLOWER[S]... " (in the 13th full paragraph at about 35% though the text). APPLICATION TO CLASS: "The FBI/CIA told me [that in terms of global importance,] they put me right up there with Ed Snowden AS A WHISTLEBLOWER." (a fraudulent claim Class made on his radio show); http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2012/...turned_22.html (scroll down to about 10% through the text of the page to the BOLD RED TYPE to where Rodney "DALE" Class pretends to be "Judge DALE" and DESCRIBES HIMSELF as a "WHISTLEBLOWER"); https://livingintheprivate.blogspot....-in-court.html (scroll down to at about 50% through the text and look immediately above the link in BLUE TYPE to where Rodney "DALE" Cass pretends to be "Judge DALE" and DESCRIBES HIMSELF as a "WHISTLEBLOWER"); http://in5d.com/anonymous-judge-blow...le-are-slaves/ (Rodney "DALE" Class pretends to be an "ANNONYMOUS JUDGE" and DESCRIBES HIMSELF as a "WHISTLEBLOWER").

    (continued) '...WHO WOULD BE PUBLICALLY RECOGNIZED AS ONE OF THE MAJOR SOCIAL REFORMERS OF HIS GENERATION." (same paragraph & same place in text). APPLICATION TO CLASS: http://www.gatheringspot.net/video/g...m-movement-now (Class, pretending to be one of the "MAJOR SOCIAL REFORMERS OF HIS GENERATION"); https://itnjcommittee.org/projects/contribute/; (a "SOCIAL REFORM" group with which Class is affiliated pretends to operate an IMAGINARY ALTERNATIVE GLOBAL LEGAL SYSTEM); https://www.itnj.org/ (Scroll down to "MISSION" for the goals of this "SOCIAL REFORM" group with which Class is affiliated); https://newearthnation.org/ (another "SOCIAL REFORM" group with which Class is affiliated); https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-AQ...0GGOIepbMeJoDX (another "SOCIAL REFORM" group with which Class is affiliated); https://globalfreedommovement.org/about/ (another "SOCIAL REFORM" group with which Class is affiliated).

    k). "THE MENTAL STATE of these individuals... IS DOMINATED BY THEIR... UNSHAKABLE BELIEFS... [in] THE WIDE SOCIAL IMPORT OF THEIR PURSUIT... ". APPLICATION TO CLASS: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22R...w=1366&bih=651 (Class mistakenly believing in the "WIDE SOCIAL IMPORT" of his pursuit).

    (continued) "...AND [in] THE ORGANIZED AND MALEVOLENT [means "EVILNESS"] OPPOSITION THEY FACE... . (same paragraph and same place in text). APPLICATION TO CLASS:
    https://globalfreedommovement.org/ex...ith-rod-class/ (reflecting Class' "UNSHAKABLE BELIEFS [IN] THE ORGANIZED AND MALEVOLENT OPPOSITION ...[HE] FACES");
    https://www.youarelaw.org/get-a-good...ad-this-first/ (an article actually written by Class reflecting his "UNSHAKABLE BELIEFS [IN] THE ORGANIZED AND MALEVOLENT OPPOSITION ...[HE] FACES");
    https://forestqueen2020.wordpress.co...of-government/ (an article actually written by Class reflecting his "UNSHAKABLE BELIEFS [IN] THE ORGANIZED AND MALEVOLENT OPPOSITION ...[HE] FACES");
    http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/geno...pon-americans/ (at 2nd paragraph is text actually written by Class reflecting his "UNSHAKABLE BELIEFS [IN] THE ORGANIZED AND MALEVOLENT OPPOSITION ...[HE] FACES");
    http://www.akupressllc.com/150121Cri...ourtDenver.pdf (at 50% through the text of the page reflecting Class' "UNSHAKABLE BELIEFS [IN] THE ORGANIZED AND MALEVOLENT OPPOSITION ...[HE] FACES");
    https://www.scribd.com/document/2404...andum-Based-On (reflecting Class' "UNSHAKABLE BELIEFS [IN] THE ORGANIZED AND MALEVOLENT OPPOSITION ...[HE] FACES");
    https://www.nationallibertyalliance....vs-natural-law (reflecting Class' "UNSHAKABLE BELIEFS [IN] THE ORGANIZED AND MALEVOLENT OPPOSITION ...[HE] FACES");
    http://fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/...p?q=1350315108 (reflecting Class' "UNSHAKABLE BELIEFS [IN] THE ORGANIZED AND MALEVOLENT OPPOSITION ...[HE] FACES");
    https://itnjcommittee.org/wp-content...61-6-17-14.pdf (reflecting Class' "UNSHAKABLE BELIEFS [IN] THE ORGANIZED AND MALEVOLENT OPPOSITION ...[HE] FACES");
    http://houseofpraani.com/portfolio/itnj/ (at the 2nd paragraph (reflecting Class' "UNSHAKABLE BELIEFS [IN] THE ORGANIZED AND MALEVOLENT OPPOSITION ...[HE] FACES").

    (continued) "...Many of these individuals HAVE A PLAUSIBILITY AND EVEN INFECTIOUS ENTHUSIASM. They PRESENT THEIR GRIEVANCES... WITH SUPERFICIAL RATIONALITY. THIS CAN DISTRACT THE INEXPERIENCED [person, like his partners in the "Judge DALE Hoax' and his partners in the ITNL, NEN and AIS ] from the... [REALITY that what they actually say IS DELUSIONAL]." (same paragraph & same place in text).

    l). "The central feature clinically is their complete focus on their quest... to which all else is subordinated [means "ignored"]. By the time they reach our clinic THEY HAVE USUALLY LAID WASTE TO THE FINANCIAL AND SOCIAL FABRIC OF THEIR LIVES.... . At issue is no longer just money and esteem BUT THEIR VERY EXISTENCE [their life]." (in the 16th full paragraph at about 35% through the text)

    m). "[With respect to these individuals, there are always] GROSS DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE INITIATING CAUSE AND THE... LEVEL OF COMMITMENT, AND EXPECTATIONS FOR COMPENSATION, REPARATION, [and] RETRIBUTION." (in the 16th full paragraph at about 38% through the text). APPLICATION TO CLASS: Class is caught "CARRYING" in his car "DANGEROUS WEAPONS" onto United States Capitol grounds and agrees to a plea deal wherein he actually walked out of court a "free man" without even so much as probation (the "INITIATING CAUSE"). But, later Class changes his mind and spends the next 5 years of his life fighting and appealing HIS OWN plea deal, despite that he actually walked out of court a "free man" without even so much as probation (A "GROSS DISCREPANCY" BETWEEN THE INITIATING CAUSE AND THE... LEVEL OF COMMITMENT, AND EXPECTATIONS FOR COMPENSATION, REPARATION, [and] RETRIBUTION).

    (continued) "...The ENTHUSIASM [they show for their cause]... CAN OBSCURE [from onlookers, like his partners in the "Judge DALE Hoax", the ITNJ, NEN and AIS] THE ESSENTIAL ABSURDITY [read this phrase again] of these expectations and DISTRACT ATTENTION FROM [THE REALITY OF] THE CHAOS THE PURSUIT HAS CREATED FOR THEMSELVES AND THOSE AROUND THEM." (same paragraph & same place in text)

    n). "Querulousness... involves... A TOTALLY DISPROPORTIONATE INVESTMENT OF TIME AND RESOURCES in grievances THAT GROW STEADILY FROM THE MUNDANE [means "dull"] TO THE GRANDIOS (in the 19th full paragraph at about 47% through the text). APPLICATION TO CLASS: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22R...w=1600&bih=750 (NOTE "THE GRANDIOSE" VISION THAT CLASS HAS OF HIMSELF)

    (continued)... and whose settlement REQUIRES... PERSONAL VINDICATION."

    o). "Querulous behavior IS ALMOST ALWAYS ASSOCIATED WITH CLAIMS OF WIDE SOCIAL IMPORTANCE... ." (in the 20th full paragraph at about 47% through the text). APPLICATION TO CLASS: https://newearth.media/private-attor...s-on-the-itnj/. Look for the following text in this article: "Rod Class, the notorious Private Attorney General, HAS ACTED ON BEHALF OF ALL U.S. CITIZENS ["WIDE SOCIAL IMPORTANCE"]." (in the 1st sentence.); http://www.rvbeypublications.com/sit...licewarned.pdf. Look for the following language in this article: "Mr. Class WAS ACTING as a Private Attorney General... ON BEHALF OF ALL PEOPLE... similarly situated ["WIDE SOCIAL IMPORTANCE"]." (at the 2nd page in the 2nd paragraph); https://www.itnj.org/ (scroll down to "MISSION" reflecting "WIDE SOCIAL IMPORT"); http://www.rayservers.com/blog/rod-c...-record-update ("WIDE SOCIAL IMPORTANCE").

    p). "[Those with this mental illness]... OCCASIONALLY GATHER AROUND THEM SMALL GROUPS OF LIKE MINDED SUPPORTERS, A PROCESS NOW ASSISTED BY THE INTERNET." (in the 22nd paragraph at about 50% through the text). APPLICATION TO CLASS:
    https://rodclassfans.wordpress.com/ ("LIKE MINDED SUPPORTERS");
    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/b8uc33rrk...ower_right.jpg ("LIKE MINDED SUPPORTERS");
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7-9qh5gB1s&t=1597s ("A PROCESS NOW ASSISTED BY THE INTERNET");
    http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web...=48361&cmd=tc; ("A PROCESS NOW ASSISTED BY THE INTERNET");

    q). "... [Those with this mental illness] are usually social isolates OR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE CLOAKED THEMSELVES [means "they pretend to be a person of"]... INTELLECTUAL SUPERIORITY. " (in the 24th full paragraph at about 55% through the text). APPLICATION TO CLASS: SEE PHOTOS below showing that Class pretends to be a person of "INTELLECTUAL SUPERIORITY".
    https://rodclassfans.wordpress.com/ (pretending to be a person who is "INTELLECTUALLY SUPERIOR")
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQDBRq-6FNk&t=3472s (pretending to be a person who is "INTELLECTUALLY SUPERIOR")
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQwFK9AXzJg (pretending to be a person who is "INTELLECTUALLY SUPERIOR")
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqXDrax5_KI (pretending to be a person who is "INTELLECTUALLY SUPERIOR")
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikCMaCF4T8Y&t=4373s (pretending to be a person who is "INTELLECTUALLY SUPERIOR")
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-DJlZp9GN4&t=4403s (pretending to be a person who is "INTELLECTUALLY SUPERIOR")
    https://mainerepublicemailalert.com/...od-class-case/ (at first sentence, Class pretends to be a person who is "INTELLECTUALLY SUPERIOR")

    r). "As time passes the [person with this mental illness] BECOMES MORE... CONVINCED OF THE WIDER SIGNIFICANCE OF THE QUEST. ... SOME... BEGIN TO CONSTRUCT NOTIONS OF... GRANDIOSE DESTINY [like becoming PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES]." (in paragraph 31 at about 61% through the text). APPLICATION TO CLASS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUWOiTtDHqg&t=1332s (Rod Class' "CONSTRUCTED NOTION" of "GRANDIOSE DESTINY"); https://unmasker4maine.files.wordpre...ass-flyer2.pdf (Rod Class' "CONSTRUCTED NOTION" of "GRANDIOSE DESTINY").

    s). "Querulous Paranoia"... "PARANOID MEANS NOT SUSPICIOUSNESS but [means] SUFFERING FROM PARANOIA, AND IMPLIES THE PRESENCE OF DELUSIONS. (in the 33rd paragraph at about 66% through the text).

    OTHER SCHOLARLY PUBLICATIONS ON THIS MENTAL ILLNESS:
    http://www.coatconference.com.au/res...nts_2017_6.pdf (listing the symptoms from which Class suffers)
    http://jaapl.org/content/45/1/62 (See list of symptoms in 5th, 6th & 7th full paragraphs in page 2 beginning at about 15% through the text. Note the symptom, "NOT DETERRED BY REPEATED NEGATIVE OUTCOMES", such as LOSING 73 CONSECUTIVE CASES IN A ROW.).
    http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/...6/ajp.59.2.279
    http://judicialmadness.bitballoon.co...tem/index.html
    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...061-0405020251
    http://www.wtsglobal.com/the-vexatious-litigant/
    http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/184/4/352
    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5483226&page=1
    https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/im...ant_Lester.pdf

    ROD CLASS HAS ALREADY BEEN "JUDICIALLY DECLARED" a "VEXATIOUS LITIGANT" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FOREGOING PSYCHIATRIC LITERATURE.
    The judge made this judicial declaration in Class v. Gwin [the judge in a case that Class had just LOST] et al. [means "and others", including 30 governmental officials], Case No. 5:06-CV-1465, U. S. Dist. Ct. N.D. Ohio (Akron). Filed 06-14-06. Dismissed (means THROWN OUT OF COURT) 07-25-06. (available on pacer.gov.).

    IN THE LINKS BELOW, ROD CLASS SOLICITS OTHER AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS WITH THE SAME DELUSIONS TO HELP HIM CARRY OUT A MISSION THAT IS THE DIRECT RESULT OF THE PSYCHIATRIC ILLNESS DESCRIBED IN THE PSYCHIATRIC LITERATURE ABOVE.
    http://www.topix.com/forum/city/arch...PLIDASAV6NENR8 (at the 1st comment)
    http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2011/...ri-dec-16.html (Scroll down to about 50% through the text of the page)

    THE TAKE AWAY:
    All of this means that the key source of information about the law for thousands of people is a source who is mentally ill. All of this means that every single person who mindlessly "parrots" terms coined by Rod Class ("B.A.R. lawyer"; "Corporate Government", etc.) are not only "parroting" a source who is illiterate, uneducated, ignorant of the law and a pathological liar ("mendacious"), they are also "parroting" a source who is mentally ill.

    ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH:
    Snoop4truth is a legal expert and whistle blower who exposes online hoaxes. Snoop4truth did not reveal this information to harm Rod Class. Instead, Snoop4truth exposed this information solely to reduce the CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE that such INTENTIONAL FRAUD inflicts upon the American people every single day. Had it not been for Rod Class' role in the "Judge DALE Hoax", Snoop4truth would not have exposed this information here.

    The message to all hoaxers and charlatans? Just tell the truth.
    Last edited by snoop4truth; 25th November 2018 at 20:13.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to snoop4truth For This Post:

    Nasu (21st August 2017)

  8. Link to Post #5
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    30th September 2015
    Age
    45
    Posts
    52
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 29 times in 14 posts

    Default Re: Rod Class & his many hoaxes

    COMMENT 5: PART I: THE “BOMBSHELL: ROD CLASS HAS OBTAINED HIS FOURTH ADMINISTRATIVE RULING THAT ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ARE ‘PRIVATE ENTITIES’ OR ‘PRIVATE CONTRACTORS’ HOAX” (A.K.A. “THE BOMBSHELL: FOURTH ADMINISTRATIVE RULING HOAX”)

    FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE:
    VIDEO
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do3eTH-NtSk LISTEN FOR THE FOLLOWING FRAUDULENT CLAIMS IN THIS VIDEO. (NOTE CLASS' FRAUDULENT USE OF PLURAL TERMS, SOMETHING IMPORTANT TO THIS HOAX.). "When THEY came in and THEY declared THEIRSELVES (sic) to be PRIVATE entitIES out of the administrative court [an event that NEVER occurred], and the attorney general’s office had put in (sic) that THEY are PRIVATE contractorS [an event that NEVER occurred], and the city law director [said] THEY are PRIVATE contractorS [an event that NEVER occurred], that means that these POLICE OFFICERS out here in the road ARE PRIVATE contractorS [something that is not so]. THEY are NOT classified as PUBLIC officialS when THEY drag you into THEIR standard court in your community. Because the judge will sit here [and say] this is an upstanding public office. THESE are public officialS. Well, the administrative court says, "no THEY are not." THEY are a private contractor (sic). Now, we got a conflict." (at 7:10-8:00) "The court has classified THEM as PRIVATE contractorS. THEY are NOT PART OF THE STATE. This opens up a big law suit across this country." (at 8:20-8:35) "So, you have an administrative court coming in and defining THESE PEOPLE as PRIVATE contractorS, NON-PUBLIC officialS [an event that NEVER occurred]. Now, when THEY are classifying the Department Of Transportation as a NON-PUBLIC OFFICE [an event that NEVER occurred] the tag agency as a NON-PUBLIC OFFICE, then that means THEY are running EVERY SINGLE AGENCY through that state AS A PRIVATE CONTRACT SET UP, NON-PUBLIC officialS. Some of you are not aware, back in 2006 that there was a class action lawsuit against the court system [which Class LOST and which was THROWN OUT of district court and THROWN OUT of the court of appeals]. The 10th Circuit [Court of Appeals] ruled [when THROWING the case OUT of court] that ALL OF THESE public officialS were CORPORATE APPELLEES [a ruling that NEVER occurred]. THEY belong to the CORPORATION. THEY were NOT PUBLIC officialS. Therefore, the court cannot hold THEM to [a] violation of THEIR oath of office because THEY are NOT PUBLIC OFFICIALS... . THEY are sitting here saying, ‘THESE are NOT PUBLIC officerS. THEY are NOT PUBLIC officialS. But, THEY hold positionS as PRIVATE contractorS and therefore the administrative court has no subject matter jurisdiction over private PEOPLE.' They would only have it over PUBLIC OFFICIALS." (at 9:00-10:50) "Right now, I'm sitting on three documents. I'm sitting on the 10th Circuit [dismissal THROWING the case OUT of court] that admitted that these PEOPLE are CORPORATE APPELLEES [an admission that NEVER occurred]. We're sitting on the paperwork from this administrative court from this law judge sitting here saying that THEY are PRIVATE contractorS or PRIVATE entitIES [something the law judge did not say]. We're sitting on the paperwork from the attorney general’s office and the city law director sitting here saying THEY are PRIVATE contractorS [something the paperwork does not say]. THEY are NON-PUBLIC officialS. ... . I’ve got another case where another administrative law judge has come back in and again has stated that THE POLICE DEPARTMENT- that these PEOPLE are NOT PUBLIC officialS. They are PRIVATE contractorS. THEY don’t work for the state." (at 25:00-25:35) "I got three hearings where it is confirmed [that] THEY are PRIVATE contractorS. We got three hearings. We’ve got an administrative judge saying THEY are PRIVATE entitIES. NON-PUBLIC officialS. (at 36:40-37:00) "The fact that THEY are admitting that police officers are PRIVATE contractorS [something NEVER admitted to]... . THEY are classified as PRIVATE contractorS." (at 43:00-43:25) "Your honor. It is a proven fact that that police officer is NOT A PUBLIC OFFICIAL. It is a proven fact his is a PRIVATE CONTRACTOR. And, he cannot use the state to come into this court room and, he has NO AUTHORITY. As a PRIVATE CONTRACTOR, he only has jurisdiction over those that hire him and I did not hire this man. He has NO AUTHORITY over me." (at 50:35-51:05) "We got the 10th Circuit ruling [THROWING the case OUT of court which said] that THEY are CORPORATE APPELLEES [a ruling that NEVER occurred]. We got the administrative hearing out of North Carolina that THEY are PRIVATE entitIES [a ruling that NEVER occurred]. We got the paperwork form the attorney general’s office [that] THEY are PRIVATE contractorS [something paperwork does not say]. We got the paperwork from the city law director that THEY are PRIVATE contractorS [something paperwork does not say]." (at 53:05-53-20)

    FAKE PRESS RELEASES
    http://fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/...p?q=1350315108;
    https://sherayx.wordpress.com/2013/0...e-contractors/;
    http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.co...tractors/23602.
    http://abundanthope.net/pages/True_U...tractors.shtml;
    https://www.scribd.com/document/1828...ublic-Notice-P;
    http://www.meetup.com/fr-FR/WE-ARE-C...ages/43090012/;
    https://www.meetup.com/es-ES/StLouis...ages/25275652/;
    http://gold-silver.us/forum/archive/...p/t-64278.html;
    http://nesaranews.blogspot.ca/search...-paginate=true (scroll down to 2nd article at about 15% through the text of the page);
    https://peoplestrustmilwaukee.wordpr...013/02/03/364/ (at the 4th full paragraph);.
    https://keystoliberty.wordpress.com/...em-fraudulent/ (at the 5th full paragraph);
    https://scannedretina.com/2012/10/15...es-are-vacant/;
    https://bbsradio.com/cgi-bin/webbbs/...=read;id=27745;
    https://newearth.media/private-attor...s-on-the-itnj/ (at the 1st full sentence).

    SIDE NOTE:
    NOTE THAT THE VERY FIRST WORD IN THE TITLE OF THIS HOAX IS THE "SIGNATURE" TERM, "BOMBSHELL" (SEE LINKS DIRECTLY ABOVE). THIS IS SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE JUDGE "DALE", RODNEY "DALE" CLASS AND HIS TWO CHARLATAN PARTNERS ALL JUST HAPPEN TO ALL USE THE SAME, SHARED, COMMON, UNIQUE, "SIGNATURE" TERMS IN THE WORDING OF THEIR HOAXES, AN AMAZING COINCIDENCE. IN THIS PARTICULAR HOAX, THEY USE THE "SIGNATURE" TERM, "BOMBSHELL". IN OTHER HOAXES, THEY USE THE "SIGNATURE" TERM, "MATRIX" (see comment 3 above) ). BELOW ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF OTHER "BOMBSHELL" HOAXES BY ROD CLASS' CHIEF CHARLATAN PARTNER IN THE JUDGE "DALE" HOAX AND IN THIS VERY HOAX BEING EXPOSED HERE:
    http://www.leclife.com/index.php?ale...orah%20Tavares
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIIw5xhG5Ho.
    http://legacy.staged.com/video?v=ROIh.
    http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative...s-2978738.html.
    http://meetnigerians.net/members/vid...hoTszlL_G6tQ6Q.
    http://trclip.com/video/LIIw5xhG5Ho/...h-tavares.html
    http://mp3yts.com/mp3/red-pill-repor...h-tavares.html (Scroll down to the 30th video at about 60-65% down the page).
    http://www.mp3xd-com.com/bajar-mp3/b...eborah-tavares.

    SIDE NOTE:
    In the following videos, Rod Class' TWO CHARLATAN PARTNERS put their own deceptive spin on this SAME BASIC HOAX (that all federal and state governments and all of their agencies are PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS). YOU MUST SEE THE VIDEOS BELOW! Note that NONE of the private, for-profit corporations referred to in any of the following videos HAVE ANY CONNECTION WHATSOEVER TO ANY FEDERAL OR STATE GOVERNMENT OR AGENCY. Instead, they are all ordinary, private, for-profit corporations with names that SOUND SIMILAR to governments or government agencies (like "Federal Express", for example). This means that contrary to the claims of Rod Class' TWO CHARLATAN PARTNERS, the ordinary, private, for-profit corporation named the "United States Corporation Company" (referred to at 2:00-3:10 in the FIRST video below) IS NOT actually the government of the "United States of America". http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/Cor...ATES%201000090 (Scroll all the way down to the very bottom of this link and click on the FINAL document. Rod Class' TWO CHARLATAN PARTNERS refer this document later in the FIRST video below.). Instead, the "United States Corporation Company" is merely a "registered agent" which accepts "service of process" (civil lawsuits) for other corporations doing business in Florida and is actually listed as such by the Florida Secretary of State, Division of Corporations. http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/Cor...0Company/Page1 (BE SURE TO SCROLL THROUGH ALL OF THE PAGES IN THIS LINK). (Note: Every corporation doing business in the state is required to have a "registered agent" inside the state to accept "service of process" (civil lawsuits) on its behalf. The "United States Corporation Company" is merely an ordinary, private, for-profit company provides that service to other such corporations (which are often out-of-state corporations that do not have an office in the state) for a fee. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...0607.0505.html.). Further, at 4:30-4:45 in the FIRST video below, Rod Class' TWO CHARLATAN PARTNERS also FRAUDULENTLY CHANGE THE NAME of one such ordinary, private, for-profit corporation TO MAKE IT SOUND EVEN MORE LIKE A GOVERNMENT AGENCY in order to INTENTIONALLY DEFRAUD the American people. Specifically, they "SWITCH" the name, "Internal Revenue Tax And Audit Service, Inc." (THE REAL NAME) with the name, "Internal Revenue Service" (THE FAKE NAME) in order to INTENTIONALLY DEFRAUD the American people. This is precisely the reason that they do not show an ACTUAL PHOTO of this particular corporation's "corporate charter" in their video as they do with other "corporate charters" of the other corporations referred to in their video (BECAUSE IT WOULD SHOW THE CORPORATION'S "REAL NAME" WHICH WOULD EXPOSE THEIR FRAUD). See the truth about this particular fraud here. https://www.dropbox.com/s/04tmhmd08w...0Inc..pdf?dl=0 (Note that this ordinary, private, for-profit corporation, the "Internal Revenue Tax And Audit Service, Inc.", WAS INCORPORATED IN DELAWARE.); http://www.hovindology.com/?p=80 (THIS LINK IS EXCELLENT. READ IT ALL.).

    VIDEOS BY ROD CLASS' CHARLATAN PARTNERS PEDDLING THIS SAME BASIC HOAX:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRnogqeqzxk (See the WHOLE VIDEO, but be especially certain to listen at 2:00-3:10 (for the "United States Corporation Company Hoax" EXPOSED ABOVE), 4:30-4:45 (for the "Internal Revenue Tax And Audit Service, Inc. Hoax" EXPOSED ABOVE), 4:45-4:55, 5:55-6:10, 6:20-6:45, 7:10-7:55, 9:05-9:45, 22:00-22:50, 24:10-24:25, 25:55-26:45.);
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05o4CpB9I8g&t=260s (at 2:25-4:00, 5:25-6:15, 6:40-7:30, 7:55-8:50);
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTRPZD3_w5k (at 42:10-42:35, 47:50--49:00);
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRnogqeqzxk (at 6:20-6:45, 7:10-7:55, 25:55-26:45);
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQeazE8_Ipk (at 43:15-43:50, 52:30-53:00).

    THE HOAX:
    Rod Class falsely claims that he obtained “FOUR” “administrative rulings” to the effect that "ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES" (including all law enforcement agencies) are “private entitIES” or “private contractors”. But, this claim in not so.

    THE TRUTH:
    Rod Class NEVER obtained even one single ruling to that effect, much less “FOUR” of them.

    HOAX SIMPLIFIED:
    This HOAX arose out of TWO cases that Class LOST (and the LOSS of the appeals of BOTH of those two LOSSES). In BOTH of these two cases, Class sued BOTH private corporations AND government agencies IN THE SAME CASE. Like all of the cases that Class files, he LOST these two cases too. In their DISMISSALS of these two cases (throwing them out of court), the judges in BOTH OF THESE TWO CASES referred to the private corporations that Class had sued and to the government agencies that Class had sued SEPARATELY (one ruling DISMISSING the government agencies that Class had sued and a different ruling DISMISSING the private corporations that Class had sued). But, in trying to explain away these two LOSSES to his followers, Class fraudulently “SWITCHED” the judges’ words about the private corporations that Class had sued with the judges’ words about the government agencies that Class had sued. By “SWITCHING” the judges’ words about the private corporations with the judges’ words about the government agencies, Class fraudulently created the ILLUSION that when the judges were actually talking about the private corporations, they were instead talking about all of the government agencies. This fraudulent “SWITCH” of the judges words (from one group of defendants TO THE OTHER group of defendants) created the ILLUSION that when the judges were actually referring to THE PRIVATE CORPORATIONS that Class had sued as “corporate appellees” or as a SINGLE “private entitY” as applicable, they were instead referring to “ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES” that Class had sued as “corporate appelleeS” or as “private entitIES”, as applicable. But, that was not so.

    THE TRUTH IN THE FIRST CASE (The 10th Circuit LOSS):
    In this case, Class sued BOTH private corporations AND government agencies IN THE SAME CASE. In his DISMISSAL of the first case (throwing it out of court), the judge used the term, “Corporate Appellees”, when referring BY NAME (ONLY) to a private bank and to two private insurance companies that Class had sued. But, instead of telling his followers the truth, Class fraudulently told his followers that in his DISMISSAL of this case (throwing it out of court), the judge was instead referring to “ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES" that Class had sued as “corporate appellees”. In the link below, scroll down to the BOLD, BLACK TYPE in the YELLOW-HIGHLIGHTED PARAGRAPH at about 35-40% through the text of this page. LOOK FOR THE TERM, "10th Circuit" IN BOLD TYPE. http://www.rayservers.com/blog/rod-c...ar-association (Remember, the BOLD, BLACK TYPE in the YELLOW-HIGHLIGHTED PARAGRAPH at about 35-40% through the text of this page and look for the term, "10th Circuit" IN BOLD TYPE). In the video below, listen to 9:35-10:50, 25:05-25:35, 43:00-44:10, 53:00-53:20. LISTEN FOR THE TERM, "10th Circuit". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do3eTH-NtSk (Remember, 9:35-10:50, 25:05-25:35, 43:40-44:10, 53:00-53:20 and listen for the term, "10th Circuit"). This fraudulent “SWITCH” of the judge’s words (from one type of defendant TO THE OTHER type of defendant) is how Class reached the desired (and entirely fictional) conclusion that the judge had ruled that "ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES" were “corporate appellees”. Unfortunately for Class, the truth about this 10th Circuit DISMISSAL (throwing the case out of court) can be found here. In the link below, scroll down to page 6 at lines 13-15. Look for the following phrase, "Appellees Westfield Insurance Company, CNA Surety, and First National Bank ("Corporate Appellees") have filed a separate motion... ." https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOUR...07-05026-0.pdf (Remember, page 6 at lines 13-15 and identify which defendants the court REALLY refers to as "corporate appellees"). After reading what the judge in this case actually said, ask yourself this. Did the judge in this case really refer to “ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES” that Class sued as “corporate appellees” OR instead, did the judge in this case actually refer BY NAME (ONLY) to the private bank and the two private insurance companies that Class used as “corporate appellees"?

    THE TRUTH IN THE SECOND CASE (The North Carolina Administrative Court LOSS):
    In this case, Class sued a STATE-WIDE government "agency", a “LOCAL unit of government” and a SINGLE “private entitY”, ALL IN THE SAME CASE. Specifically, Class filed an administrative suit against the North Carolina Department of Transportation (a STATE-WIDE government "agency" which was immune from suit by statute), against a “LOCAL” city police department (over which the administrative court had no jurisdiction because it was a "LOCAL" “UNIT OF GOVERNMENT", rather than a STATE-WIDE "agency" under the Governor) and against a SINGLE private contractor that sold vehicle license plates for the State of North Carolina (over which the administrative court had no jurisdiction because it was a SINGLE “private entitY”). In his DISMISSAL of this second case (throwing it out of court), the judge used the SINGULAR term, “private entitY” when referring BY NAME (ONLY) to that SINGLE “private entitY” that Class had sued. But, instead of telling his followers the truth, Class fraudulently told his followers that in his DISMISSAL of the case (throwing it out of court), the judge used the PLURAL term, “private entitIES” and fraudulently told his followers that the judge was instead referring to ALL THREE DEFENDANTS that Class had sued as “private entitIES” (including the LOCAL city police department). In the link below, read the 2nd, 3rd and FINAL paragraphs. LOOK FOR THE FRAUDULENT (PLURAL) TERM, "entitIES" in that text. http://www.rvbeypublications.com/sit...licewarned.pdf (Remember, the 2nd, 3rd and FINAL paragraphs and LOOK FOR THE FRAUDULENT (PLURAL) TERM, "entitIES" in that text). In the video below, listen to 9:00-9:15, 25:15-25:35, 53:05-53:20. LISTEN FOR THE FRAUDULENT (PLURAL) TERMS, "entitIES" and "contractorS" in the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do3eTH-NtSk (Remember, 9:00-9:15, 25:15-25:35, 53:05-53:20 and LISTEN FOR THE FRAUDULENT (PLURAL) TERMS, "entitIES" and "contractorS" in the video.). This fraudulent “SWITCH” of the judge’s actual word, “entitY” (a SINGULAR term) to the FRAUDULENT word, “entitIES” (a PLURAL term) is how Class reached the desired (and entirely fictional) conclusion that the judge had ruled "ALL GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES" (including the LOCAL city police department) were “private entitIES” (a PLURAL term that does not appear anywhere in the DISMISSAL). Unfortunately for Class, the truth about this North Carolina Administrative Court DISMISSAL (throwing the case out of court) can be found here. In the link below, scroll down to the document entitled “Conclusions Of Law” to the text actually numbered paragraph "4" and read the SECOND sentence of that 4th paragraph. Look for the following phrase, "[The] Respondent License Plate Agency [ONLY]... is a private entitY [A SINGULAR TERM]... [and not an agency of] state government." https://unmasker4maine.files.wordpre...y_complete.pdf (Remember, "Conclusions Of Law" in the text actually numbered paragraph "4" in the SECOND sentence of that 4th paragraph and look for the SINGULAR term, "entitY"). After reading what the judge in this case actually said in this case, ask yourself this. Did the judge in this case really refer to “ALL THREE DEFENDANTS” (including the LOCAL city police department) as “private entitIES”, a PLURAL term OR instead, did the judge in this case actually refer BY NAME (ONLY) to the SINGLE private contractor that sold license plates for the State of North Carolina as a SINGLE “private entitY”, a SINGULAR term?

    In fairness to Class, who only has a high school education and who is functionally illiterate, CLASS MISTAKENLY BELIEVED THAT HE HAD SUED THREE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES in this case. That is why he sued all three defendants in state administrative court. (He mistakenly believed that all three defendants were state-wide government "agencies" under the governor over which state administrative courts usually have jurisdiction.). But, in fact in this case, Class had actually sued ONLY TWO GOVERNMENT AGENCIES (OR “UNITS”) and a SINGLE PRIVATE CONTRACTOR that sold vehicle license plates for the State of North Carolina. Class mistakenly believed that the SINGLE “private entitY” that he had mistakenly sued in this case was a government agency because he did not know that FOR MORE THAN HALF A CENTURY, THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA HAS USED PRIVATE CONTRACTORS TO SELL VEHICLE LICENSE PLATES TO NORTH CAROLINA VEHICLE OWNERS.

    If Class had bothered to do a little research before filing suit, he would have discovered that the SINGLE “private entitY” that he mistakenly sued (in the mistaken belief that it was a government agency) was a not a governmental agency at all. Unknown to Class, almost all of the vehicle license plate agencies in the State Of North Carolina (outside the Charlotte & Raleigh areas) are now owned and operated by private contractors of the type that he mistakenly sued in this case (in the mistaken belief that it was a government "agency"). But, despite that the State of North Carolina uses private contractors to sell its vehicle license plates, IT DOES NOT USE PRIVATE CONTRACTORS FOR ITS LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY-TYPE FUNCTION. It only uses private contractors to sell vehicle license plates (includes titling services). This has been PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE to everyone except Rod Class for over half a century.

    WHAT CLASS DID NOT KNOW THEN (AND DOES NOT KNOW NOW):

    http://www.ncleg.net/ped/reports/doc...ags_report.pdf (Scroll down to "BACKGROUND" on the 4th page, marked "page 2").

    http://www.wral.com/dmv-defends-syst...ices/11753455/

    http://myfox8.com/2015/01/15/dmv-see...stokes-county/

    http://www.journalnow.com/news/local...a4bcf6878.html

    https://nanopdf.com/download/isaacs-...lpa-office_pdf (Click on window and scroll down.).

    CLASS MAKES MISTAKES ON TOP OF MISTAKES: So, not knowing any better, when the judge in this case DISMISSED (threw out) Class' lawsuit against this SINGLE private contractor on the grounds that it was a SINGLE "private entitY" (and not a STATE-WIDE government "agency" over which the administrative court usually has jurisdiction), Class mistakenly believed he had "forced" the courts to "admit" that a SINGLE "private entitY" was a SINGLE "private entitY" (something that everybody except Class has known for over half a century). This means that Class' own IGNORANCE (of the fact that North Carolina has used private contractors to sell vehicle license plates for more than half a century) led to him reach the mistaken conclusion that he had miraculously become a "legal genius". To this very day, Class does not know that the SINGLE “private entitY” that he mistakenly sued (in the mistaken belief that it was a government agency) had actually been a SINGLE "private entitY" all along. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

    CLOSING NOTE:
    Remember, Class falsely claims to have obtained “FOUR” ADMINISTRATIVE rulings to the effect “all government agencies” (including all law enforcement agencies) are “private entitIES” or “private contractorS”. Here is how Class reaches the IMAGINARY total of "FOUR" such IMAGINARY ADMINISTRATIVE rulings to that effect. According to Class, his two DISMISSALS (his two LOSSES) described above (throwing his two cases out of court) constituted TWO such IMAGINARY rulings to that effect (one of which was NOT an “ADMINISTRATIVE” ruling in the first place, the 10th Circuit DISMISSAL). According to Class, the ruling AGAINST HIM in his LOSS of his APPEAL of his DISMISSAL (LOSS) of the second case (described above) constituted the THIRD such IMAGINARY ruling to that effect (which was likewise NOT an ADMINISTRATIVE ruling either, it was a JUDICIAL ruling as well). (Class' LOSS of his APPEAL of his LOSS of the second case (above) is referred to in the 3rd paragraph in this link. http://www.rvbeypublications.com/sit...licewarned.pdf (Remember, the 3rd paragraph here.)). Finally, according to Class, an ordinary “MOTION To Dismiss” filed by the state Attorney General’s Office in this second case (above) constituted the “FOURTH” such IMAGINARY ADMINISTRATIVE ruling to that effect (which was NOT A RULING OF ANY KIND, ADMINISTRATIVE or JUDICIAL). (In this "MOTION to Dismiss", the Assistant Attorney General, among other things, simply reminded the judge that Class has MISTAKENLY sued a private contractor that sold license plates for North Carolina in administrative court because he MISTAKENLY believed it was a government agency. The judge agreed and DISMISSED (threw out) Class' case and that court's DISMISSAL of the case was upheld on appeal.). In the video below, listen at 53:00-53:20 for Class' "LIST" of these IMAGINARY rulings. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do3eTH-NtSk (Remember, at 53:00-53:20). (Note that contrary to Class' claims in this video, the city law director never claimed that the city police department was a "private contractor". Instead, the city law director actually said that the LOCAL city police department was not STATE-WIDE "agency" under the Governor and, therefore, the administrative court had no jurisdiction over it.). This means that of these "FOUR" IMAGINARY ADMINISTRATIVE rulings (allegedly to the effect that all government agencies are "private entitIES"), CLASS LOST EVERY SINGLE CASE and only ONE such LOSS (a DISMISSAL) was an "ADMINISTRATIVE" DISMISSAL (or "ruling") in the first place. This "FUZZY MATH" is how Class reaches the FRAUDULENT total of “FOUR” IMAGINARY "ADMINISTRATIVE rulings" to the effect that “ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES" (including all law enforcement agencies) are “private entitIES” or “private contractorS”.

    (CONTINUED BELOW)

    PART II: ROD CLASS & THE “A NORTH CAROLINA JUDGE HAS WARNED STATE POLICE OFFICERS TO PUT THEIR PROPERTY INTO OTHER PEOPLES' NAMES HOAX”

    FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE:
    http://hiddensecretsandlies.blogspot...police-to.html
    http://www.gloucestercounty-va.com/2...iable-for.html (at the 1st full paragraph);
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZe9-QDsqG4 (note the title of the video and the misspelled word therein);
    https://adask.wordpress.com/2011/10/...ne-elses-name/.
    http://www.rvbeypublications.com/sit...licewarned.pdf
    https://www.meetup.com/es-ES/StLouis...ages/25275652/ (at the 2nd full paragraph);
    http://2013rainbowroundtable.ning.co...=06v6zf7ohrnts;
    http://landrightsnfarming-landrightn...7_archive.html;
    http://www.city-data.com/forum/north...-patrol-2.html (at comment 8 at about 65% through the text of the page);
    https://www.godlikeproductions.com/f...age1684911/pg1 (click and enter the website if necessary);
    https://videos.peacefmonline.com/tgy...Vsc2UncyBOYW1l;
    http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthre...170&viewfull=1 (at 1st several comments)
    http://www.medialyrics.com/Judge-War...ro-rZe9-QDsqG4 (note misspelled word in title);
    http://www.thetreeofliberty.com/vb/s...n-this-be-true (at the 1st full comment);
    http://tuzmp3.download/mp3/judge-war...se-s-name.html.


    THE HOAX:
    This hoax is unique in that Rod Class created it to support another hoax, the “BOMBSHELL: FOURTH Administrative Ruling Hoax”. (Read that comment DIRECTLY ABOVE in this same comment first.). In this particular hoax, Class falsely claims that, IN DIRECT RESPONSE to his having obtained "FOUR" “Administrative Rulings” to the effect that "ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES” are “private entitIES" (imaginary rulings which Class NEVER obtained), a North Carolina judge “WARNED” ALL NORTH CAROLINA "POLICE OFFICERS" TO PUT THEIR PROPERTY INTO OTHER PEOPLES' NAMES (to protect their property from the consequences of lawsuits that the public would file against such "police officers" now that they would no longer be protected from such lawsuits by governmental immunity). http://www.rvbeypublications.com/sit...licewarned.pdf. But, these claims are not so.

    NOTE:
    First of all, if Class had known ANYTHING at all about North Carolina law at the time, then he would have NEVER created the “Property Into Other People’s Names Hoax” in the first place, because doing so only demonstrates the extent of his own IGNORANCE of North Carolina law (explained below).

    THE TRUTH:
    1. No such “warning” was ever issued BECAUSE CLASS NEVER OBTAINED THE IMAGINARY UNDERLYING RULINGS THAT WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE NECESSITATED SUCH A “WARNING” IN THE FIRST PLACE. (See the "BOMBSHELL: Fourth Administrative Ruling Hoax" DIRCETLY ABOVE.). This is why Class has never published a copy of this imaginary "warning" online (something that he would have certainly done if this imaginary warning had actually been real).

    2. FOR OVER A CENTURY, IT HAS BEEN AN ILLEGAL (AND A LEGALLY INEFFECTIVE) ACT IN NORTH CAROLINA FOR DEBTORS (like police officers facing future lawsuits) TO PUT THEIR PROPERTY INTO OTHER PEOPLES' NAMES IN AN EFFORT TO AVOID PAYING THEIR CREDITORS (like future lawsuit judgment creditors). Here's how the law actually works. In this case, the defendant lost a breach of contract lawsuit and owed the plaintiff $200,000. But, the defendant had no money, so the plaintiff could not collect it at the time. A year later, the defendant became the owner of valuable parcel of real property and, fearing the plaintiff would try to collect the debt by selling his real property, the defendant immediately PURPORTED (means "pretended") TO PUT THE REAL PROPERTY INTO THE NAME OF A TRUST (or, what Rod Class calls putting property "INTO OTHER PEOPLES' NAMES"). No money changed hands. But, the plaintiff moved to have the real property sold anyway and moved to have the sale proceeds applied to what the defendant owed him anyway. The court agreed and did exactly that! http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=2&as_sdt=4,34. LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TEXT IN THIS CASE: "THE TRIAL COURT DETERMINED THAT THE [defendant's] CONVEYANCE [of the real property] TO THE TRUST WAS NOT VALID [not effective] IN THAT IT FAILED TO [legally] CONVEY TITLE [of the real property] TO THE TRUSTEE [of the trust]. THE TRIAL COURT ALSO CONCLUDED THAT EVEN IF THE CONVEYANCE WAS VALID, IT WOULD CONSTITUTE A FRAUDULENT TRANSFER [under the subject statute and under a century of case law] AND [that] IT [the transfer] COULD BE AVOIDED [means "legally undone" if it was ever done in the first place]." (The preceding text is in the 3rd full paragraph of the case.). Thus, any such pretended transfer of property "INTO OTHER PEOPLES' NAMES" in order to avoid paying future lawsuit judgment creditors WOULD BE BOTH "ILLEGAL" AND "WOULD NOT WORK" (to defeat those claims) ANYWAY. So, any such pretended transfer WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY POINTLESS IN THE FIRST PLACE. But, Class does not know enough to even realize this.

    THIS HAS BEEN THE LAW IN NORTH CAROLINA FOR MORE THAN A CENTURY:
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=2&as_sdt=4,34. LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TEXT IN THIS CASE: "Aman v. Wlker, 165 N.C. 224, 81 S.E. 162 [a 1914 case from the Supreme Court of North Carolina] is a 'landmark case' on FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES. It is therein stated: "... If the CONVEYANCE [the pretended transfer of property into other peoples' names] is VOLUNTARY and the grantor [the person pretending to put the property into other peoples' names] did not retain [means "keep"] [other] property fully sufficient and available TO PAY HIS DEBTS [like future lawsuit money judgments]... , it [the conveyance] IS INVALID [means "VOID", "INEFFECTIVE" and "DID NOT WORK"] [to defeat the claims of]... CREDITORS [like future lawsuit judgment creditors];... ." (The preceding text is in the 2nd full paragraph of the case and includes the block indented, quoted section.); "A CONVEYANCE [a pretended transfer of property into other peoples' names] IS VOLUNTARY when it is NOT FOR VALUE [means not "SOLD" to the transferee AT FULL PRICE]... ." (The immediately preceding text is in the 3rd full paragraph of the case, not including the block indented, quoted section.). Thus, any such pretended transfer of property "INTO OTHER PEOPLES' NAMES" in order to avoid paying future lawsuit judgment creditors WOULD BE BOTH "ILLEGAL" AND "WOULD NOT WORK" (to defeat those claims) ANYWAY. So, any such pretended transfer WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY POINTLESS IN THE FIRST PLACE. But, Class does not know enough to even realize this.

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=2&as_sdt=4,34. LOOK FOR THE FOLLWING TEXT IN THIS CASE: "[Over a century ago] in Aman v. Walker, 165 N.C. 224, 81 S.E. 162 (1914), the North Carolina Supreme Court set forth the principles governing fraudulent conveyances as follows: ... ; (2) If the CONVEYANCE [the pretended transfer of property into other peoples' names] is VOLUNTARY, and the grantor [the person pretending to put property into other peoples' names] DID NOT RETAIN [means "keep"] [other] PROPERTY [that was] FULLY SUFFICIENT AND AVAILABLE TO PAY HIS DEBTS [like future lawsuit judgments] ... IT [the pretended transfer of property into other peoples' names] IS INVALID [means "VOID" and "DID NOT WORK" to defeat the claims of]... CREDITORS [like future lawsuit judgment creditors]. (3) If the CONVEYANCE [the pretended transfer of property into other peoples' names] is VOLUNTARY and MADE WITH THE ACTUAL INTENT ON THE PART OF THE GRANTOR [the person pretending to put the property into other peoples' names] TO DEFRAUD CREDITORS [like future lawsuit judgment creditors], IT [the pretended transfer of property into other peoples' names] IS VOID [means "INEFFECTIVE", "IT NEVER HAPPENED" and "IT DID NOT WORK" to defeat the claims of future lawsuit judgment creditors]... ." (The preceding test is in the 3rd full paragraph and includes the block indented quoted section.). Thus, any such pretended transfer of property "INTO OTHER PEOPLES' NAMES" in order to avoid paying future lawsuit judgment creditors WOULD BE BOTH "ILLEGAL" AND "WOULD NOT WORK" (to defeat those claims) ANYWAY. So, any such pretended transfer WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY POINTLESS IN THE FIRST PLACE. But, Class does not know enough to even realize this.

    3. In addition to having been illegal and ineffective for more than a century under case law (above), such FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS have also been illegal and ineffective FOR TWO DECADES, BY NORTH CAROLINA STATUTE. By statute, any attempt by creditors (like police officers facing future lawsuits) to put their property into other peoples' names in an effort to avoid paying their creditors (like future lawsuit judgment creditors) HAS BEEN ILLEGAL AND INEFFECTIVE, which, of course, defeats the purpose of putting property into other peoples' names in the first place (because doing so WOULD NOT protect a debtor’s property from lawsuit judgment creditors ANYWAY). Thus, any such pretended transfer of property "INTO OTHER PEOPLES' NAMES" in an effort to defeat the claims of lawsuit judgment creditors WOULD BE BOTH "ILLEGAL" AND "WOULD NOT WORK" (to defeat those claims) ANYWAY. So, any such pretended transfer WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY POINTLESS IN THE FIRST PLACE. But, Class does not know enough to even realize this.

    THIS IS THE CURRENT STATUTE ON THE SUBJECT IN NORTH CAROLINA:
    https://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Enacted...rticle_3A.html LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TEXT IN THIS STATUTE: "39-23.4. ... . (a) A TRANSFER [of property into other peoples' names] made ... by a DEBTOR [like a police officer facing a future lawsuit] is VOIDABLE [means can be legally "undone"] as to a CREDITOR [like a future lawsuit judgment creditor], whether the creditor's claim [the facts giving rise to the creditor's lawsuit] arose [occurred] BEFORE or AFTER the TRANSFER was made... , IF THE DEBTOR MADE THE TRANSFER... : (1) With the INTENT to HINDER, DELAY, DEFRAUD and CREDITOR of the DEBTOR; OR (2) Without RECEIVING... [FULL PRICE for the property]. (b) In determining INTENT under subdivision (a)(1) of this section [the immediately preceding section above], ... [the court may consider]... whether: (1) The TRANSFER... was made to an insider [like a friend or relative]; (2) [whether] The DEBTOR retained [means "kept"] POSSESSION or CONTROL of the property TRANSFERRED AFTER THE TRANSFER;... (4) [whether] BEFORE THE TRANSFER WAS MADE... , THE DEBTOR HAD BEEN SUED OR THREATENED WITH SUIT [read this phrase again]; (5) Whether the transfer was of SUBSTANIALLY ALL OF THE DEBTOR'S ASSETS [or only part of the debtor's assets]... ." (The preceding text is at section "39-23-4. (a) and (b) at about 45% through the text of the statute.). Thus, any such pretended transfer of property "INTO OTHER PEOPLES' NAMES" in order to avoid paying future lawsuit judgment creditors WOULD BE BOTH "ILLEGAL" AND "WOULD NOT WORK" (to defeat those claims) ANYWAY. So, any such pretended transfer WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY POINTLESS IN THE FIRST PLACE. But, Class does not know enough to even realize this.

    In this case, the defendant was a millionaire whose most valuable asset was a parcel of real property. The defendant owned a company that borrowed money to buy an airplane and the defendant personally guaranteed repayment of the loan. But, neither the defendant or his company repaid the loan. Fearing a lawsuit, the defendant and his wife formed a new company and HE PUT HIS REAL PROPERTY INTO THE NAME OF THAT NEW COMPANY (or, what Rod Class calls putting property "INTO OTHER PEOPLES' NAMES"). No money changed hands. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=2&as_sdt=4,34. LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TEXT IN THIS CASE: "...[In sorting out the case, the court wrote] [O]UR LEGISLATURE [referring to the North Carolina legislature] ENACTED THE UNIFORM FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS ACT, LATER RENAMED THE UNIFORM VOIDABLE TRANSFERS ACT ("UVTA")... NEARLY TWO DECADES GO [note how long ago North Carolina passed this statute]." (The preceding text is in the 1st paragraph below the heading entitled, "B. Interpretation of 'Transfer'", at about 34-40% through the text of the case.).

    4. Unknown to Class, FOR CENTURIES, IT HAS BEEN AN ILLEGAL ACT in North Carolina (and for decades, a violation of the Judicial Code Of Conduct) FOR A JUDGE TO ILLEGALLY “WARN”, COUNSEL, ADVISE OR RECOMMEND that anyone (including police officers facing future lawsuits) "BREAK THE LAW" by putting their property into other peoples' names in an effort to avoid paying their creditors (AN ILLEGAL ACT that would not protect the debtor's property anyway). Any REAL judge who issued such an ILLEGAL "warning" would immediately be removed from office and disbarred. But, Class does not know this.

    ANALYSIS: Thus, in manufacturing the “Property Into Other People’s Names Hoax”, Class was so IGNORANT of North Carolina law that he did not know then and does not know now that ALL OF THE "FACTS" that he alleges in this hoax are LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE UNDER NORTH CAROLINA LAW, which conclusively establish this lie as the hoax that it is. THIS IS BECAUSE NO REAL NORTH CAROLINA JUDGE WOULD "BREAK THE LAW" --- BY "ILLEGALLY" WARNING POLICE OFFICERS TO "BREAK THE LAW" --- BY DOING SOMETHING "ILLEGAL" (PUTTING THEIR PROPERTY INTO OTHER PEOPLES' NAMES IN AN EFFORT TO AVOID PAYING LAWSUIT JUDGMENT CREDITORS)--- IN ORDER TO PROTECT THEIR PROPERTY FROM LAWSUITS WHICH WILL "NEVER SUCCEED" (DUE TO IMMUNITY)--- OR FROM LAWSUIT JUDGMENT CREDITORS WHO WILL "NEVER EXIST" (DUE TO IMMUNITY) --- ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT ANY SUCH "ILLEGAL " ACT IS "REVERSIBLE" ANYWAY AND THEREFORE WOULD NOT PROTECT THE DEBTOR'S PROPERTY FROM LAWSUIT JUDGMENT CREDITORS IN THE FIRST PLACE (MAKING SUCH AN EFFORT ABSOLUTELY POINTLESS). But, Class does not know enough to even realize this.

    5. If more be necessary, North Carolina law already makes the EQUITY IN A HOMESTEAD (a residential property occupied by the owners), VEHICLE AND CERTAIN OTHER PROPERTY “EXEMPT” (“protected”) from the claims of lawsuit judgment creditors up to a certain amount ANYWAY. THUS, IN MOST CASES, THIS EXEMPTION WOULD ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR POLICE OFFICERS TO "ILLEGALLY" PRETEND TO PUT THEIR PROPERTY INTO OTHER PEOPLES' NAMES, EVEN IF THAT "ILLEGAL" ACT WOULD PROTECT THEIR PROPERTY FROM LAWSUIT JUDGMENT CREDITORS (AND IT WOULD NOT). But, Class does not know this. Constitution of the State Of North Carolina Art. 16 § 1C-1601. http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislat...Article_16.pdf

    For more information on the “Property In Other Peoples' Names Hoax”, see Class’ internet radio show, “Episode 966" on Talkshoe (spelled correctly) AIB radio, recorded or posted on 12-12-2015. http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web...=2&pageSize=15 or simply Google “Post Oak Public Relations”. https://www.linkedin.com/in/harvey-wharfield-0b56746. Further, be sure to look into William H. Gilpatric, IV of Middlesex County, Maine (address and contact information withheld). Gilpatric is aware of all the parties involved in the hoax and how it was manufactured and marketed.

    ANALYSIS:
    Suffice it to say, this is one of Class’ more embarrassingly-amateur hoaxes. (In order to manufacture a really good hoax, YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHAT YOU ARE LYING ABOUT --- AND CLASS DOES NOT.). Class does not lie to people for whom he has respect. Class only lies to people for whom he has no respect. The PATHOLOGICAL LIES reflected in this particular hoax speak volumes about what Class REALLY thinks of the American people. Class pretends to be a humble public servant who is only revealing the "hidden truth" about the law and the legal system to the down-trodden masses. But, this is not so. Class is actually a calculating and manipulative charlatan with no conscience whatsoever and no moral compass whatsoever. Class' two missions in life are to glorify himself and to incite hatred and violence against the ELECTED representatives of "We the People" and their appointees for doing their jobs. If he has to lie to the American people and commit fraud upon the American people in the process of inciting this hatred, that is perfectly fine with him. Class has no intention of telling you the truth. None.

    ABOUT ROD CLASS:
    Rod Class is a functionally-illiterate amateur legal theorist with barely a high school education WHO HAS LOST EVERY SINGLE CASE IN WHICH HE HAS EVER BEEN INVOLVED (OVER 76 CONSECUTIVE LOSSES IN A ROW, AND STILL COUNTING). Further, Class has a long history of PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS involving DELUSIONS, PATHOLOGICAL OPPOSITION/DEFIANCE of AUTHORITY FIGURES and PATHOLOGICAL LYING. Moreover, Class is a MULTI-CONVICTED, WEAPONS RELATED, CONVICTED FELON who also has SEVERAL ADDITIONAL MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS, as well. Because of Class’ well-publicized HATRED of our ELECTED representatives, their appointees and our REPUBLICAN form of government, because of his HISTORY OF PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS and because of his LENGTHY CRIMINAL HISTORY involving DEADLY WEAPONS, Class has been placed on the United States TERRORIST WATCH LIST.

    Most importantly, Class is a PROFESSIONAL HOAXER AND CHARLATAN who is behind a number of legal HOAXES which he created and peddles to INTENTIONALLY DEFRAUD the American people. (Google "Judge DALE Hoax", "Debra Jones Hoax", "Private Attorney General Hoax", "14th Amendment, Section 4 Bounty Hunter Hoax", "All Government Agencies Are 'Private Entities' or 'Private Contractors' Hoax" (A.K.A. the "BOMBSHELL: FOURTH Administrative Ruling Hoax"), "Property Into Other Peoples' Names Hoax", "Lawyers Have No Authority Hoax", "Right To Travel Hoax", "My Paperwork Would Have Overturned Every Prior Case Hoax", "The Supreme Court Loves My Paperwork Hoax", "The Private Attorney General 'Certificate' Hoax" (A.K.A. "Why Was Rod Class In Washington, D.C. In The First Place?"), "The Federal Reserve Notes Are Not Money Hoax" (A.K.A. "The Harold Stanley Case Hoax"), "The United States is a Private, For-Profit Corporation Hoax" (A.K.A. "Title 28 U.S.C 3002(15)(a) Proves That The United States Is A Private, For-Profit Corporation Hoax"), the "Court Registry Investment System Hoax" (A.K.A. The "C.R.I.S. Hoax"), the "Embezzling Federal Funds Hoax" and numerous other hoaxes.).

    ANALYSIS:
    ROD CLASS (with his inability to read, his lack of education, his ignorance of the law, his delusional belief system, his worthless, amateur legal theories, his lack of honesty and his 100% failure rate in court in 76 consecutive losses) IS "LIVING PROOF" THAT THOSE WHO PRACTICE LAW (AND THOSE WHO TEACH THE LAW) SHOULD:
    1). BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A FOUR-YEAR COLLEGE EDUCATION (a "Bachelor's Degree");
    2). BE REQUIRED TO ALSO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL THREE TO FOUR YEAR LAW SCHOOL EDUCATION (a "Juris Doctor's Degree");
    3). BE REQUIRED TO PASS THE STATE BAR EXAM (takes three days);
    4). BE REQUIRED TO UNDERGO A RIGOROUS STATE CHARACTER AND FITNESS BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION WHICH TAKES SEVERAL MONTHS OR YEARS (NO MENTAL HEALTH HISTORY, NO CRIMINAL HISTORY, honesty, credit history, interviews of employers, teachers, former co-workers, neighbors, relatives, taking finger print samples, taking hand writing samples, etc.).
    5). BE LICENSED BY THE STATE AND BE SUBJECT TO THE CONTINUOUS OVERSIGHT AND DISCIPLINE OF THE HIGHEST OFFICE OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF STATE GOVERNMENT, THE STATE SUPREME COURT (in order to protect the public from INCOMPETENCE and FRAUD).

    ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH:
    Snoop4truth is a legal expert and whistle blower who exposes online hoaxes. Snoop4truth did not reveal this information to harm Rod Class. Instead, Snoop4truth exposed this information solely to reduce the CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE that such INTENTIONAL FRAUD inflicts upon the American people every single day. Had it not been for Rod Class' role in the "Judge DALE Hoax", Snoop4truth would not have exposed this information here.

    The message to all hoaxers and charlatans? Just tell the truth.
    Last edited by snoop4truth; 31st August 2018 at 01:44.

  9. Link to Post #6
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    30th September 2015
    Age
    45
    Posts
    52
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 29 times in 14 posts

    Default Re: Rod Class & his many hoaxes

    COMMENT 6: THE "LAWYERS HAVE NO AUTHORITY HOAX" AND RELATED HOAXES ABOUT LAWYERS:

    FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE:
    ARTICLES:
    https://govbanknotes.wordpress.com/2...in-courtrooms/ (Class is the REAL author of this article and was effectively so credited in the final paragraph BEFORE THE VIDEO.);
    https://www.youarelaw.org/get-a-good...ad-this-first/ (same as above);
    http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/atto...in-courtrooms/ (same as above);
    https://forestqueen2020.wordpress.co...of-government/ (Class was the REAL author of this article.);
    https://anticorruptionsociety.files....-bar-card3.pdf (Class pretending to be "Judge DALE" and describing his mistaken amateur belief system on this subject).
    http://www.stopthecrime.net/docs/THE...-ADVENTURE.pdf (At pages 7-8 and 75-76, Class pretending to be "Judge DALE" and describing his mistaken amateur belief system on this subject).

    VIDEOS:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vieooNH-SkE (Class explaining his mistaken amateur belief system on this subject);
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTRPZD3_w5k&t=2551s (At 43:50-44:55, Deborah Tavares pretending to quote the imaginary "Judge DALE" in support of this very hoax exposed here);

    CLASS' AMATEUR MISTAKE:
    Rod Class MISTAKENLY BELIEVES that FEDERAL law governs EVERY legal subject. So, when he was unable to find any FEDERAL statute governing the licensing or regulation of lawyers or the practice of law, he MISTAKENLY CONCLUDED that lawyers have "NO LICENSE" and "NO LEGAL AUTHORITY" to practice law.

    THE TRUTH:
    Unknown to Rod Class, the reason that he was unable to find any FEDERAL legislation on the subject is that STATE LAW GOVERNS THE LICENSING AND REGULATION OF LAWYERS AND THE PRACTICE OF LAW. So, Class (as usual) was looking for the law IN THE WRONG PLACE! But, Class doesn't know enough to even realize this.

    THE HOAXES:
    Regardless, this MISTAKEN CONCLUSION infuriated Class. So, he created, manufactured, embellished and/or published an ENTIRE SERIES OF HOAXES to incite hatred and violence against lawyers. These hoaxes are exposed individually below.

    MISUNDERSTANDING FEDERAL LAW:
    Rod Class MISTAKENLY BELIEVES that FEDERAL law governs EVERY legal subject. (This is precisely why he pretended to be a "retired FEDERAL judge" in the "Judge DALE forgeries", why he only cites FEDERAL statutes in support of his false claims and why he uses the phrase, "Congressional [meaning FEDERAL] intent".). Class does not know that FEDERAL law ONLY governs that TINY LIST of legal subjects that were expressly delegated to the FEDERAL government in the U.S. Constitution AND THAT under the tenth amendment, STATE LAW GOVERNS EVERYTHING ELSE (including the licensing and regulation of lawyers, drivers licenses, etc.). http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/tenth-amendment. This means that ALMOST ALL OF THE LAW IN OUR COUNTRY IS STATE LAW, NOT FEDERAL LAW (95-99%? MULTIPLIED BY 50 STATES). Note that if the law really was as Class MISTAKENLY BELIEVED it to be (FEDERAL law governs every legal subject), THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR STATE LAW IN THE FIRST PLACE AND THE TENTH AMENDMENT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY MEANINGLESS.

    Class makes this AMATEUR mistake about FEDERAL law because he misunderstands the "supremacy clause" in the U.S. Constitution. Class MISTAKENLY believes that under the "supremacy clause", FEDERAL LAW GOVERNS EVERY LEGAL SUBJECT AND IS THEREFORE "ALWAYS SUPREME" ON EVERY LEGAL SUBJECT. But, this is not so. Unknown to Class, under the "supremacy clause", FEDERAL LAW IS ONLY "SUPREME" TO STATE LAW IF (AND ONLY IF) THERE IS A DIRECT CONFLICT BETWEEN FEDERAL LAW AND STATE LAW ON THE SAME, EXACT LEGAL SUBJECT. But, such direct conflicts between FEDERAL law and STATE law on the same legal subject are EXTREMELY RARE, because FEDERAL and STATE law govern ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ("OPPOSITE") legal subjects. So, when there is NO DIRECT CONFLICT between FEDERAL law and STATE law on the SAME, EXACT legal subject (which is almost all of the time), STATE LAW IS "SUPREME" AS TO ALL STATE LAW LEGAL SUBJECTS (such as the licensing and regulation of lawyers and driver's licenses, etc.). But, Rod Class does not know enough to even realize this.

    CONSTITUTIONAL LAW BASICS:
    Unknown to Rod Class, the U.S. Constitution "divided the powers" (divided the JURISDICTION to regulate every legal subject) between the FEDERAL government and the STATE governments. This division of powers (division of jurisdiction) WAS BASED ON LEGAL SUBJECT MATTER. The U.S. Constitution LIMITED the FEDERAL government to regulating ONLY A TINY LIST of legal SUBJECTS that were expressly delegated to it in the U.S. Constitution. The tenth amendment reserved to the STATES the exclusive power to regulate EVERYTHING ELSE (ALL OTHER LEGAL SUBJECTS NOT DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, such as the licensing and regulation of lawyers and driver's licenses, etc.).

    SIMPLIFICATION:
    Under this constitutional division of powers (division of jurisdiction) between the FEDERAL and STATE governments, a legal subject must be governed EITHER by FEDERAL law OR by STATE law, BUT NOT BY BOTH. So, if a legal subject IS governed by FEDERAL law, it IS NOT governed by STATE law. Likewise, if a legal subject IS governed by STATE law, it IS NOT governed by FEDERAL law. Thus, FEDERAL law and STATE law GOVERN DIFFERENT ("OPPOSITE") LEGAL SUBJECTS.

    PURPOSE:
    The purpose of this constitutional division of powers (division of jurisdiction) between the FEDERAL and STATE governments was to actually make it "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" for the FEDERAL government to regulate ANY LEGAL SUBJECT RESERVED TO THE STATES, otherwise the STATES would not have joined the union. (Note also that this division of powers (division of jurisdiction) also prevents the FEDERAL and STATE government from "stepping on each others' toes".).

    LIMITED "SCOPE" OF FEDERAL LAW:
    NOT ONLY IS FEDERAL LAW LIMITED "BY SUBJECT" (to those subjects expressly delegated to the FEDERAL government in the constitution), FEDERAL LAW IS ALSO LIMITED "IN SCOPE" (to those subjects expressly delegated to the FEDERAL government in the constitution). STATE LAW GOVERNS EVERYTHING ELSE. Here's how it works.

    The United States Code ("U.S.C.") is a collection of all of the current FEDERAL statutes divided into separate categories, so that all of the statutes on the same subject are organized together (to make research of a particular subject easier). There are currently 54 numbered "TITLES" (or SUBJECTS) in the U.S.C. For example, Title 12 is "COMMERCE", Title 18 is "CRIMES", Title 28 is "THE JUDICIARY" and Title 49 is "TRANSPORTATION". But, the statutes in these four Titles DO NOT GOVERN "ALL COMMERCE", "ALL CRIMES", "ALL JUDICIARIES" or "ALL TRANSPORTATION" in the country. Instead, these statutes ONLY GOVERN THESE LEGAL SUBJECTS ONLY INSOFAR AS THEY RELATE DIRECTLY TO A LEGAL SUBJECT THAT WAS EXPRESSLY DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION (STATE LAW GOVERNS EVERYTHING ELSE).

    So, Title 12 does NOT govern "ALL COMMERCE" in the country. It only governs COMMERCE insofar as it relates directly to legal subjects that were expressly delegated to the FEDERAL government in the U.S. Constitution, like "INTERSTATE" or "INTERNATIONAL" COMMERCE (STATE law governs ALL OTHER COMMERCE in the country). (This is precisely why the Uniform Commercial Code is STATE law, NOT FEDERAL law). Likewise, Title 18 does NOT govern "ALL CRIMES" in the country. It only governs CRIMES insofar as they relate directly to legal subjects that were expressly delegated to the FEDERAL government in the FEDERAL constitution, like CRIMES involving "INTERSTATE" COMMERCE, "INTERNATIONAL" CRIME or CRIMES committed by active-duty U.S. military personnel on U.S. military bases (STATE law governs ALL OTHER CRIMES in the country). Similarly, Title 28 does NOT govern ALL "JUDICIARIES" in the country. It only governs JUDICIARIES and COURTS insofar as they as they relate directly to JUDICIARIES and COURTS that were expressly delegated to the FEDERAL government in the U.S. Constitution, THE FEDERAL COURTS (STATE law governs ALL OTHER JUDICIAL, COURT and LEGAL PROCEDURAL MATTERS in the country). Finally, Title 49 does NOT govern "ALL TRANSPORTATION" in the country. It only governs TRANSPORTATION insofar as it relates directly to legal subjects that were expressly delegated to the FEDERAL government in the FEDERAL Constitution, like "INTERSTATE" TRANSPORTATION, "INTERNATIONAL" TRANSPORTATION or "U.S. MILITARY" TRANSPORTATION (STATE law governs ALL OTHER TRANSPORTATION MATTERS in the country). But, Rod Class does not know enough to even realize this.

    HOAX CONTINUED:
    Class correctly notes that PRIVATE lawyers formed the PRIVATE American Bar Association ("ABA") in 1878. https://www.youarelaw.org/get-a-good...ad-this-first/. LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TEXT IN THIS ARTICLE (at the 1st, 2nd & 3rd paragraphs): "[A private] Connecticut Attorney... invited a group of 100 [private] attorneys from 21 states... to meet on the 21st day of August of 1878, at Saratoga Springs, New York, to organize the [private] American B.A.R. Association." (Note that Class uses the FAKE acronym, "B.A.R.", when referring to the "American B.A.R. Association".). Class also correctly notes that the PRIVATE American Bar Association ("ABA") was never created, authorized or sanctioned “BY CONGRESS” (the LEGISLATIVE branch of the FEDERAL government). https://www.youarelaw.org/get-a-good...ad-this-first/. LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TEXT IN THIS ARTICLE (at the 6th, 7th & 8th paragraphs): "The [American] B.A.R. Association HAS NO [FEDERAL] LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY to have been created. They're [sic] a private corporation... . THERE IS NO SUCH STATUTE IN THE STATUTES AT LARGE [which are "FEDERAL" statutes]!!! The [American] B.A.R. [Association] is a private industry, a private association... . WHERE IN THE STATUTES AT LARGE [which are "FEDERAL" statutes] WERE LAWYERS... EVER GIVEN THE AUTHORITY to practice law in a courtroom... . No [American] B.A.R. [Association] Attorney HAS ANY ["FEDERAL"] LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY to prosecute anyone in court."

    https://forestqueen2020.wordpress.co...of-government/. LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TEXT IN THIS ARTICLE (at the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th & 9th paragraphs): "[We must] take back our courts and judicial branch of government from the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION and getting BAR-LICENSED attorneys out of elected positions... . [O]NLY MEMBERS OF THIS POWERFUL UNION OF LAWYERS, CALLED THE ABA... [ARE ALLOWED TO] PRACTICE LAW... . THE STATE DOES NOT... HOLD BAR EXAMINATIONS, NOR ISSUE STATE LICENSES TO LAWYERS. THE ABA... HOLDS THEIR (sic) PRIVATE [BAR] EXAMINATIONS... AND ISSUES THEM SO-CALLED LICENSE[S] (sic) TO PRACTICE LAW. THE ABA IS THE ONLY... [AUTHORITY] THAT CAN PUNISH OR DISBAR A LAWYER... . Only the ABA... can remove any of these lawyers from... office... . This is a tremendous amount of power for a PRIVATE union... . NO NON-GOVERNMENTAL PRIVATE ASSOCIATION, OTHER THAN THE BAR, ISSUES THEIR (sic) OWN STATE LICENSES. All [other] professional and occupational licenses are issued by the state."

    ANALYSIS:
    Class' words (quoted above) PROVE that:
    1). Class MISTAKENLY BELIEVES that licensing and regulation of lawyers is a legal subject that is governed by "FEDERAL" law ("CONGRESS", "STATUTES AT LARGE");
    2). Class MISTAKENLY BELIEVES that the branch of government with the Constitutional power to license and regulate lawyers is the "LEGISLATIVE" branch (“CONGRESS”, "LEGISLATION", "STATUTES AT LARGE");
    3. Class MISTAKENLY CONFUSES the ABA with the STATE bars. He MISTAKENLY BELIEVES that "THE ABA IS THE BAR" (which he MISTAKENLY BELIEVES is the SINGLE, NATIONAL AUTHORITY that licenses and regulates lawyers and the practice of law). Class does not know that it is the 50 STATE bars that do that.

    On the foregoing basis, Rod Class MISTAKENLY CONCLUDED that lawyers have "NO LICENSE" and "NO LEGAL AUTHORITY" to practice law.

    THE TRUTH:
    1). Under the tenth amendment, ONLY the STATES have the power to license and regulate lawyers and the practice of law (the FEDERAL government does not);
    2). Under the “separation of powers” doctrine, ONLY the JUDICIAL branch of government has the power to license and regulate lawyers and the practice of law (the LEGISLATIVE branch of government does not);
    3). The “ABA” IS NOT THE "B.A.R" OR OTHERWISE THE SINGLE NATIONAL AUTHORITY that licenses and regulates lawyers or the practice of law. There is no single, national authority that does this. Instead, it is the 50 STATES that license and regulate lawyers and the practice of law. But, Class does not know this.

    ANALYSIS:
    This means that Rod Class is WRONG IN EVERY SINGLE WAY that a person can POSSIBLY be WRONG about this subject. Noting is left on this subject for him to be WRONG about.

    WHY THE "STATE SUPREME COURTS" HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO LICENSE AND REGULATE LAWYERS:

    Like the FEDERAL government, STATE governments also have three (3) branches of government, the ELECTED LEGISLATIVE branch (legislature), the ELECTED EXECUTIVE branch (governor) and the ELECTED JUDICIAL branch (the courts). All three branches of the ELECTED state government ARE EQUAL IN POWER to the other two ELECTED branches. But, EACH ELECTED BRANCH of state government IS INDEPENDENT from the other two branches. (The purpose of the "SEPARATION OF POWERS" doctrine is to prevent the concentration of power in any single branch of government.).

    Because EACH ELECTED BRANCH of government is INDEPENDENT of the other two branches, EACH ELECTED BRANCH of state government has the "INHERENT POWER” to manage ITS OWN INTERNAL AFFAIRS (and the HIGHEST AUTHORITY of EACH ELECTED BRANCH is generally charged with that responsibility). For example, the highest authority of the ELECTED LEGISLATIVE branch of state government (such as the speaker of the house and/or the senate majority leader) has the "INHERENT POWER" to pick who will "chair" and who will "sit" on ITS OWN state legislative and investigative committees (WITHOUT INTERFERENCE from the other two branches of state government). Similarly, the highest authority of the ELECTED EXECUTIVE branch of state government (the governor) has the "INHERENT POWER" to appoint the heads of ITS OWN state agencies (WITHOUT INTERFERENCE from the other two branches of state government). Likewise, the highest authority of the ELECTED JUDICIAL branch of state government (The Supreme Court of the state) has the "INHERENT POWER" to license and regulate who will practice law in ITS OWN courts (WITHOUT INTERFERENCE from the other two branches of state government).

    This "INHERENT POWER" of EACH INDEPENDENT branch of state government to regulate THEIR OWN internal affairs (WITHOUT INTERFERENCE from the other two branches) reflects the "SEPARATION OF POWERS” doctrine which is found in the constitution of every STATE and in the U.S. Constitution. But, Class does not know enough to even realize this.

    This means that neither the INDEPENDENT EXECUTIVE branch nor the INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL branch of government needs "LEGISLATION" from the LEGISLATIVE branch to "AUTHORIZE" them to do what they are ALREADY AUTHORIZED TO DO under their own INDEPENDENT "INHERENT POWERS" (under the "SEPARATION OF POWERS" doctrine found in every STATE constitution and in the FEDERAL constitution). Indeed, any "LEGISLATION" from the LEGISLATIVE branch of government PURPORTING TO "LIMIT" the INHERENT POWERS of the INDEPENDENT EXECUTIVE or the INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL branches of government to regulate THEIR OWN internal affairs WOULD ACTUALLY VIOLATE THE "SEPARATION OF POWERS" doctrine which is found in every STATE constitution and in the FEDERAL constitution. (This INDEPENDENCE is precisely why the lawyers are NOT licensed by the LEGISLATIVE branch and NOT listed by the Secretary Of State of the EXECUTIVE branch.). But, Class does not know enough to even realize this. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...en&as_sdt=4,44 (An excellent explanation of the "INHERENT POWER" of JUDICIAL branch of government to license and regulate the lawyers who practice law in ITS OWN courts begins in the 5th full paragraph here, not including block indented quoted portions, at about 20% through the text.); https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...en&as_sdt=4,10[url] (For more on the "INHERENT POWER" of the INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL branch to license and regulate the lawyers who practice law in ITS OWN courts, CLICK ON THE BLUE LINKS in the 12th full paragraph here, not including block indented quoted portions, at about 15% through the text).

    SIDE NOTE:
    Rod Class also MISTAKENLY BELIEVES that "CASE LAW" ("common law") from the "JUDICIAL" branch of government is somehow "INFERIOR" to "STATUTORY LAW" ("legislation") from the "LEGISLATIVE" branch of government. He also MISTAKENLY BELIEVES that "CASE LAW" from the "JUDICIAL" branch is somehow "unconstitutional". https://forestqueen2020.wordpress.co...of-government/. LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TEXT: "Case-Law is Unconstitutional since Case-Law is enacted by the Judicial Branch of Government, not the Legislative Branch." (at the 1st sentence of the 21st paragraph here). But, this Rod Class' MISTAKEN BELIEF in this regard is not so.

    Under the FEDERAL Constitution and the Constitution of every STATE, the JUDICIAL and LEGISLATIVE branches of government are EQUAL IN POWER TO EACH OTHER AND THEIR LAWS ARE EQUAL IN FORCE TO THE LAWS OF THE OTHER. Indeed, because the JUDICIAL branch of government has the ADDITIONAL Constitutional power to declare LEGISLATIVE statutes "unconstitutional" (and strike them down), CASE LAW from the JUDICIAL branch is actually SUPERIOR to STATUTES from the LEGISLATIVE branch, not the other way around.

    POWERS OF THE STATE SUPREME COURTS (CONTINUED):

    ADDITIONAL "CONSTITUTIONAL" & "STATUTORY" POWER:
    IN ADDITION to the "INHERENT POWER” of each STATE Supreme Court to license and regulate lawyers who practice law in ITS OWN courts, some STATE "CONSTITUTIONS" ALSO expressly authorize the STATE Supreme Court to license and regulate lawyers and the practice of law (ex: Florida & New Jersey). http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...ubmenu=3#A5S15 (Click on Article V and scroll down to section 15.); http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/lawscon...nstitution.asp (Scroll down to Article VI, Section 2, paragraph numbered "3", in the FINAL SENTENCE.). Likewise, some STATE "STATUTES" also expressly authorize the STATE Supreme Court to license and regulate lawyers and the practice of law (ex: New York, Texas, Virginia).
    http://codes.findlaw.com/ny/judiciar...-sect-460.html (at the END OF THE 1ST SENTENCE & note that New York's HIGHEST COURT is called the "Court Of Appeals".);
    http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u.../htm/GV.81.htm (Scroll down to "Subchapter B", "Sec. 81.011", subsection "(b)" and "(c)");
    https://law.justia.com/codes/virgini...54.1-3910.html.

    Note that the foregoing CONSTITUTIONAL and LEGISLATIVE provisions (authorizing the STATE Supreme Courts to license and regulate lawyers and the practice of law) DO NOT "LIMIT" the INHERENT POWERS of the JUDICIAL branch of government, THEY ACTUALLY ADD TO THOSE POWERS! Note also that EVERY STATE also has a LEGISLATIVE STATUTE making it a CRIME to practice law without a license issued by the Supreme Court of the STATE, thereby achieving (in reverse) the SAME RESULT as a STATUTE that REQUIRES a person to have a license in order to practice law. https://www.ncbar.gov/media/299201/u...w-statutes.pdf (at 84-4). Thus, it is NOT TRUE that there is "no constitutional" and/or "no legislative" authority for lawyers to practice law. But, it is also true that no "legislative" authority is required in the first place. But, Rod Class does not know this.

    ABOUT THE ABA:
    The ABA (which Class MISTAKENLY BELIEVES "IS THE BAR" and the SINGLE NATIONAL AUTHORITY which licenses and regulates lawyers and the practice of law) is actually an irrelevant, insignificant, voluntary, trade association FOR LAWYERS WHO WANT TO JOIN (and receive a monthly magazine). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bar_Association. LAWYERS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE MEMBERS OF THE ABA and MORE than TWO THIRDS of the lawyers in the United States ARE NOT MEMBERS of the ABA. THE ABA HAS NO POWERS OVER LAWYERS, JUDGES, LAWS, COURTS OR THE PRACTICE OF LAW. But, Rod Class does not know enough to even realize this.

    COMPARISON TO THE "AAA":
    Class' BELIEFS (that "the ABA is the B.A.R" and the SINGLE NATIONAL AUTHORITY which licenses and regulates lawyers and the practice law, that the ABA was never created, authorized or sanctioned by "CONGRESS" and that the ABA has a "MONOPOLY" on the practice of law) IS THE EQUIVALENT OF CLASS BELIEVING that drivers of motor vehicles have "no authority" to drive because they got their "driver's licenses" from the American Automobile Association ("AAA") which was never created, authorized or sanctioned by "CONGRESS" and which association has a "MONOPOLY" on driving of automobiles and on the entire transportation industry. But, of course, none of this is so. THE AAA, like the ABA, DOES NOT ISSUE LICENSES TO ITS MEMBERS, REGULATE DRIVERS, REGULATE DRIVING, MAKE DRIVING LAWS OR HAVE A "MONOPOLY" ON THE ENTIRE TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY. The reality is that the ABA is to lawyers what the AAA is to drivers, "A CLUB" that one is permitted, BUT NOT REQUIRED TO JOIN. But, Class does not know enough to even realize this.

    THE ABA IS A "MONOPOLY" HOAX:
    Class falsely claims that the ABA has a "MONOPOLY" on the practice of law. This is because he MISTAKENLY BELIEVES that "the ABA IS THE BAR" (the SINGLE NATIONAL AUTHORITY which licenses and regulates lawyers and the practice law). https://www.youarelaw.org/get-a-good...ad-this-first/ (Rod Class is the REAL author of this article and was effectively so credited in the final paragraph). LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TEXT IN THIS ARTICLE: "This type of MONOPOLY [referring to the ABA] is against the Taft-Hartley Act, The Clayton trust Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act. They're (sic) [referring to the ABA] a SELF-APPOINTED MONOPOLY." (at the end of the 8th full paragraph).

    But, Rod Class' MISTAKEN BELIEF in this regard is not so. MORE THAN TWO THIRDS OF AMERICAN LAWYERS ARE NOT EVEN MEMBERS IN THE ABA. Thus, the ABA cannot possibly constitute a SINGLE “MONOPOLY” over the practice of law. Likewise, the STATE bars in which all lawyers REALLY ARE MEMBERS are not “MONOPOLIES" either. But, even if STATE bars were "MONOPOLIES", THEN THERE WOULD BE EXACTLY FIFTY (50) SUCH "MONOPOLIES", THEREBY NOT CONSTITUTING A SINGLE "MONOPOLY", BY DEFINITION. But, Rod Class does not know any of this.

    Further, unknown to Rod Class, a "MONOPOLY" in a service industry is NOT determined by whether all members of a service occupation are licensed by the STATE. If this were the case, then ANY person employed in a service industry requiring a STATE license would be engaged in a "monopoly" profession (all hair dressers, all electricians, all dentists, etc.). INSTEAD, A REAL "MONOPOLY" in a service industry IS DETERMINED BY "HOW MANY EMPLOYERS" EMPLOY PERSONS WITH LICENSES ISSUED BY THE STATE. So, if all hairdressers worked for A SINGLE BEAUTY PARLOR, then THAT would be a REAL "monopoly". If all electricians worked for A SINGLE ELECTRICAL COMPANY, then THAT would be a REAL "monopoly". If all dentists worked for A SINGLE DENTIST’S OFFICE, then THAT would be a REAL "monopoly". If all lawyers worked for A SINGLE LAW FIRM, then THAT would be a REAL "monopoly". But, of course, none of that is the case.

    THE "BAR CARD" HOAX:
    Mistakenly believing that the "ABA IS THE BAR" (and THE SINGLE NATIONAL AUTHORITY which licenses and regulates lawyers), Class MOCKINGLY (and misguidedly) refers to a lawyer's license to practice law as a "UNION" or "BAR CARD" (referring to a MEMBERSHIP CARD in the ABA). https://anticorruptionsociety.files....-bar-card3.pdf;https://www.youarelaw.org/get-a-good...ad-this-first/ (Rod Class is the REAL author of this article and was effectively so credited in the final paragraph). LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TEXT IN THIS ARTICLE: "[The ABA is] a private corporation, THEY (sic) ISSUE THEIR OWN UNION CARDS, WHICH THEY DECEPTIVELY CALL "LICENSES"... . THE B.A.R. [ABA] ISSUES ITS OWN B.A.R. [ABA] CARDS, NOT LICENSES... . They [referring to members in the ABA] want to prosecute people for practicing law without a license, WHEN THEY [themselves] DON'T HAVE ONE!!! ALL THEY HAVE IS A STINKING UNION CARD." (in the 8th, 20th and 24th paragraphs). Thus, Class does NOT know that "THE ABA IS NOT THE BAR", that "THE ABA DOES NOT ISSUE LICENSE TO LAWYERS" or that "THE 50 STATES actually do".

    THE "ORIGINAL 13TH AMENDMENT HOAX", "THE TITLE OF NOBILITY HOAX" AND "B.A.R. HOAX":
    BACKGROUND: Thirty-four of the fifty-five (34 of the 55) American founding fathers who actually attended the United States' constitutional convention and who actually wrote the words to the U.S. Constitution were American lawyers. https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us...inating-facts/ (Scroll down to about 80% through text of this page). So, about two out of every three authors of our Constitutional were American lawyers. At the time that the U.S. Constitution was written, our 55 founding fathers, including 34 of which were American lawyers, had two concerns that rose to the level of constitutional importance. First, was the European institution of "NOBILITY" ("ROYALTY"). Second, was the internal threat of European "LOYALISTS".

    At the time, Europe was divided into TWO CLASSES of people, "NOBILITY" ("ROYALS") and "COMMONERS" ("NON-ROYALS"). Under this institution, a person's station in life was determined by their birth and not determined by their individual merit. Our 55 founding fathers, including the 34 of which were American lawyers, did not want the institution of "NOBILITY" ("ROYALTY") to divide Americans into two classes of people as had occurred in Europe. Instead, our 55 founding fathers, including the 34 of which were American lawyers, wanted a person's station in life to be determined by individual merit (and not inherited). Also at the time, the people living in the American colonies were largely either American PATRIOTS or English LOYALISTS. Our 55 founding fathers, including the 34 of which were American lawyers, did not want persons who were LOYAL to England (or to any other FOREIGN country) to hold office in the United States. They correctly believed that persons with FOREIGN-GIVEN titles of nobility, FOREIGN offices (positions) and persons receiving FOREIGN salaries or gifts (effectively "bribes") were more likely to be European "LOYALISTS" than other Americans were.

    So, in actually writing the words to the ORIGINAL U.S. Constitution, these 55 founding fathers, including the 34 of which were American lawyers, actually made it "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" for the United States itself to grant a "title of NOBILITY" ("ROYALTY") to anyone AND made it "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" for a person with a FOREIGN "title of nobility" ("royalty"), FOREIGN office (position) or receiving FOREIGN salaries or gifts (effectively "bribes') to hold office in the United States without the consent of Congress. Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:

    "No TITLE OF NOBILITY ["ROYALTY"] shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding an office or trust under them [the United States], shall, without the consent of Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or TITLE, of any kind whatsoever, from any KING, PRINCE, or FOREIGN STATE."

    ANALYSIS:
    What this means is that the 34 American lawyers who actually wrote the foregoing words to the U.S. Constitution not regard "THEMSELVES" as a threat to the United States. But, above all, this means that these 34 American lawyers who actually wrote the foregoing words to the original U.S. constitution did not regard the term, "ESQUIRE" (which most of them used) to be a "title of NOBILITY" ("ROYALTY"), much less a "FOREIGN" "title of NOBILITY" ("ROYALTY"). If these 34 American lawyers who actually wrote these words to the original U.S. Constitution had actually intended to prohibit "lawyers" from holding office, then all 34 of them would have DISQUALIFIED THEMSELVES from ever holding office in their own country. Clearly, this was not their intent as many of them did go on afterwards to hold office in the United States.

    The proposed "original" 13th amendment was intended to strengthen the ORIGINAL constitutional prohibition against FOREIGN "titles of NOBILITY" (above) which was already found in Article I, section 9 of the original U.S. Constitution. It reads:

    "If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain, any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any EMPEROR, KING, PRINCE or FOREIGN POWER, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

    Note that the ONLY material difference between this text and the text of in Article 1, Section 9 of the ORIGINAL U.S. Constitution is that this text deprived those with a "FOREIGN" title "NOBILITY" of their citizenship as well as the possibility of holding office in the country. Not surprisingly, American lawyers ALSO overwhelmingly supported and actually wrote the proposed "original" 13th amendment, which would have actually strengthened the prohibition against FOREIGN "titles of NOBILITY" already found in Article I, section 9 of the ORIGINAL U.S. Constitution (which was itself actually proposed, supported and written by American lawyers).

    ANALYSIS:
    What this means is that the American lawyers who actually wrote the words of the "original" 13th amendment did not regard "THEMSELVES" as a threat to the United States. But, above all, this means that these American lawyers who actually wrote these words of the "original" 13th amendment did not regard the term, "ESQUIRE" (which most of them used) to be a "title of NOBILITY" ("ROYALTY"), much less a "FOREIGN" "title of NOBILITY" ("ROYALTY"). If these American lawyers who actually wrote the words of "original" 13th amendment had actually intended to prohibit "lawyers" from holding office or retaining their citizenship, then all of them would have DISQUALIFIED THEMSELVES from ever holding office in their own country and from retaining their American citizenship. Clearly, this was not their intent as many of them wanted to hold office (or already did hold office by that time) and all of them wanted to retain their American citizenship.

    Thus, it is simply not true that Article I, section 9 of the ORIGINAL U.S. Constitution OR the proposed "original" 13th amendment somehow prohibited American lawyers from holding office or somehow deprived American lawyers of their American citizenship. Neither provision prohibited American lawyers and neither provision was ever intended to prohibit American lawyers. Both provisions (above) were proposed by American lawyers, supported by lawyers and actually written by lawyers.

    The 55 founding fathers, including the 34 of which were American lawyers, were perfectly capable of writing a constitutional prohibition that EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED "lawyers" BY NAME. But, they did not do this in either provision. This is because they DID NOT intend to prohibit "lawyers" ("THEMSELVES") by either provision. Otherwise, they would have simply said so. Instead, they actually intended to prohibit, and did actually prohibit persons with a REAL "FOREIGN" given "titles of NOBILITY" ("ROYALTY") from holding office. The American lawyers who proposed, supported and who actually wrote the words of the "original" 13th amendment thought that we would be intelligent enough today to understand the difference between a "title of NOBILITY" ("ROYALTY") and a title of "OCCUPATION" or "EDUCATION". Sadly, they were mistaken.

    Remember, Rod Class MISTAKENLY BELIEVES that the American "BAR" Association "IS THE BAR" (and is the SINGLE NATIONAL AUTHORITY that licenses and regulates lawyers and the practice of law). So, he MISGUIDEDLY embellished and peddles an ENTIRELY SEPARATE HOAX to discredit that particular (AND COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT) "BAR". https://anticorruptionsociety.com/20...3th-amendment/.

    THE HOAX:
    Class falsely claims that it is illegal for lawyers to hold public office. To reach this absurd result, Class fraudulently claims that the "ORIGINAL" or "MISSING" 13th amendment (which was never ratified) would have prohibited those with a "FOREIGN TITLE OF NOBILITY" from holding public office. So, Class fraudulently claims that the "ORIGINAL" or "MISSING" 13th amendment was ratified and that lawyers have a "FOREIGN" "TITLE OF NOBILITY". Specifically, Class fraudulently claims that the title, "ESQUIRE" which is used by some American lawyers, is bestowed on all American lawyers by the "QUEEN OF ENGLAND" (something "FOREIGN") and that the term, "ESQUIRE", is a "TITLE OF NOBILITY". But, none of this is so.

    For this hoax to work, Class had to CREATE THE ILLUSION that a "FOREIGN" POWER actually bestows a "TITLE OF NOBILITY" upon all American lawyers. So, Class FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMS that when American lawyers are “sworn-in” to the practice of law, THEY SWEAR AN "OATH OF ALLEGIANCE" TO THE "QUEEN OF ENGLAND" (representing a "FOREIGN" POWER), who, IN RETURN, bestows upon such American lawyers a "FOREIGN" "TITLE OF NOBILITY” (the title, “ESQUIRE”). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTRPZD3_w5k&t=2551s (At 44:00-44:55, Rod Class' CHARLATAN PARTNER pretends to quote "Judge DALE" who is actually Rodney "DALE" Class). But, this claim is not so. Below is the oath that American lawyers really make.

    http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.inbar.o...tion/Oaths.pdf (THIS IS A MUST SEE!)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSDTTXjDAoc

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wSFvOu4u0o

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2yfTDGv2z4

    Note that American lawyers actually make an oath to the U.S. Constitution and to the constitution of the state that issues them their license to practice law (not to any person, much less the "QUEEN").

    THE PHONY ACRONYM:
    In order to CREATE THE ILLUSION that American lawyers have a connection to some “FOREIGN” POWER (who allegedly issues them a "FOREIGN TITLE OF NOBILITY"), Class FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMS that the term, "B.A.R" (as it appears in the American B.A.R. Association"), is an "ACRONYM" which stands for "British Accreditation Registry", an IMAGINARY organization which DOES NOT NOW, and NEVER HAS EXISTED. (Google it. There is not now and has never been such an IMAGINARY organization.). Class simply "made up" these three ridiculous words in order to manufacture a FRAUDULENT connection between American lawyers and something "FOREIGN" in support of this hoax. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTRPZD3_w5k&t=2551s (At 44:00-44:55, Rod Class' CHARLATAN PARTNER pretends to quote "Judge DALE" who is actually Rodney "DALE" Class).

    A WORD ABOUT METAPHORS:
    A metaphor is a word symbol. The most common metaphor in the law is the term, "CASE". Originally, this term meant a lawyer's "brief CASE" in which a lawyer carried legal documents reflecting his/her client's legal affairs. But later, the term "CASE" was used to refer to a client's legal affairs themselves. This is because a lawyer's brief "CASE" came to symbolize a client's legal affairs themselves. So today, the term, "CASE", symbolizes a client's legal affairs themselves. But, the term "CASE" is not really as acronym for anything (any more than the term, "bar", is an acronym for anything).

    The legal terms "BAR" and "BENCH" are also metaphors and are directly related to one another. Originally, BOTH terms referred to wooden structures in the courtroom. Originally, the "BAR" was a wooden divider that separated the business portion of the courtroom from the public portion of the courtroom. Those people with business before the court and their lawyers were admitted "through the BAR" to conduct their business before the court. Later, the term, "BAR", was used to refer to attorneys collectively. This is because the "BAR" in the courtroom came to symbolize lawyers themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_(law) (Click on BOLD, BLUE TYPE that reads, "Bar (law)"). The very same thing is true with respect to the term, "BENCH". Originally, judges in the courtroom sat on a wooden "BENCH". Nobody, except judges were allowed to sit on the BENCH. Later, the term, "BENCH" was used to refer to judges collectively. This is because the "BENCH" in the courtroom came to symbolize judges themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bench_(law) (Click on BOLD, BLUE TYPE that reads, "Bench (law)"). But, the term, "BENCH", is not really an acronym for anything either (any more than the term, "bar", is an acronym for anything).

    QUESTION:
    Just out of curiosity, I'd like to know what Rod Class claims the term, "B.E.N.C.H", is an acronym for. How about, "British - Esquire - Nazi - Communist - Homosexuals", perhaps? Sounds good to me. Let's use this FAKE acronym in a hoax too!

    Similar, metaphors apply to other things like, "the COURT" (when actually referring to a judge or a panel of judges collectively), "the CROWN" (when actually referring to the king and/or queen collectively), the "THRONE" (when actually referring to the king and/or queen collectively), the "WHITE HOUSE" (when actually referring to the president), the "CABINET" (when actually referring to the president's advisers collectively), the "CAPITOL" (when actually referring to Congress collectively), the "PENTAGON" (when actually referring to the Department of Defense); "SCOTLAND YARD" (when actually referring to a British intelligence agency) and the term, "DOWNING STREET" (when actually referring to the prime minister of the U.K.). But, none of these metaphors are really acronyms for anything either (any more than the term, "bar", is an acronym for anything).

    The real reason that the term, "BAR", has become so important to CHARLATANS in amateur legal theory is that by FRAUDULENTLY claiming the term, "BAR" is an "ACRONYM" for "British Accreditation Registry" (an IMAGINARY organization which does not now and never has existed), the term, "BAR" allows CHARLATANS to manufacture a FALSE connection between American lawyers and a "FOREIGN head of state" so that, when combined with the FALSE claim that term, "ESQUIRE", is a "TITLE OF NOBILITY", the combination of BOTH FALSE CLAIMS results is the FALSE CONCLUSION that American lawyers have a "FOREIGN TITLE OF NOBILITY", such that, if the "original" 13th amendment had actually been ratified, American lawyers would have been be prohibited from holding office and from holding citizenship in the United States.

    A WORD ABOUT "NOBILITY" ("ROYALTY"):
    At the time of the American revolution, Europe was divided into TWO CLASSES of people, "NOBLES" ("ROYALS") and "COMMONERS" ("NON-ROYALS"). NOBLES did not marry COMMONERS and COMMONERS did not marry NOBLES. "NOBILITY" WAS INHERITED. "NOBLES" were people born to "NOBLE" parents of "NOBLE" blood. "COMMONERS" were people born to "COMMON" parents of "COMMON" blood. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/...lish/nobility; http://www.yourdictionary.com/nobility (scroll down to the definition ACTUALLY NUMBERED "3").

    To distinguish "NOBLES" from "COMMONERS", "NOBLES" INHERITED TITLES OF "NOBILITY", like "King", "Queen", "Prince". "Princess", "Duke" and "Duchess" (to signify their "NOBLE" BLOOD). At the time, "COMMONERS" had titles too. But, the titles of "COMMONERS" had to be EARNED (AND COULD NOT BE INHERITED). So, "COMMONERS" had EDUCATIONAL or OCCUPATIONAL titles, like "Sheriff", "Doctor", "Professor" and "Pastor", none of which were HEREDITARY TITLES OF "NOBILITY" ("ROYALTY") and none of which signified "NOBLE" BLOOD.

    The title "Knight" (or "Sir") was a hybrid title with characteristics of both. Knights could be born as "COMMONERS", but were granted the "NOBLE" title of, "Sir", as a reward for their service to true NOBILITY (usually valor in battle). But, unlike all other "NOBLE" titles, the title "Knight" or "Sir" could NOT BE INHERITED by the Knight's children. As a result, a Knight had the lowest "TITLE of NOBILITY" in rank (because a Knight had NO "NOBLE" BLOOD THAT COULD BE INHERITED BY THE KNIGHT'S HEIRS).

    Ranking far BELOW a Knight (and, therefore, NOT A "NOBLE" AT ALL) was an "ESQUIRE". An "ESQUIRE" was the SERVANT of a Knight in battle, often carrying or holding his SWORD and SHIELD in battle. The title "ESQUIRE" was not a "NOBLE" title at all, could not be INHERITED by the ESQUIRE'S children and did not signify "NOBLE" BLOOD. Instead, the occupational title "ESQUIRE" had to be EARNED like any other TITLE of any other "COMMONER". Thus, not every title in the world is a “FOREIGN TITLE OF NOBILITY” ("Mr." and Mrs." are examples of TITLES that ARE LIKEWISE NOT "FOREIGN TITLES OF NOBILITY" either.).

    In the Unites States, some lawyers use the professional title, "ESQUIRE". This is because lawyers are metaphorically (symbolically) the "SERVANTS" of their CLIENTS in legal "battles" and metaphorically (symbolically) carry their CLIENTS' legal "sword" and legal "shield" into legal "battles" for them. But, lawyers ARE NOT bestowed this EARNED professional title ("ESQUIRE") by any "FOREIGN" POWER, this EARNED professional title ("ESQUIRE") does not signify "NOBILITY" ("ROYALTY") or "NOBLE" ("ROYAL") BLOOD and cannot be inherited by the lawyer's children, like a real "TITLE OF NOBILITY" can.

    This means that the “ORIGINAL” or “MISSING” “13th AMENDMENT” (even if it had actually been ratified) would NOT have prohibited people with “EARNED”, “EDUCATIONAL” or “PROFESSIONAL” titles (including lawyers) from holding office (because such titles ARE NOT "titles of NOBILITY”, much less "FOREIGN" titles of "NOBILITY"). But, Rod Class does not know enough to even realize this. (In order to manufacture a really good hoax, YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHAT YOU ARE LYING ABOUT---AND ROD CLASS DOES NOT.).

    THE TRUTH:
    Thus, while the term, "bar", is a metaphor (a word symbol), the term, "bar", IS NOT an acronym for anything. There is NOT NOW, and there has NEVER BEEN a "British Accreditation Registry" (Google it). American lawyers do NOT swear an oath to ANYTHING “FOREIGN”. The “QUEEN OF ENGLAND” does not bestow the title “ESQUIRE” upon any American lawyer. The term, "ESQUIRE" is NOT a “title of NOBILITY” ("ROYALTY"), much less a "FOREIGN" "title of nobility" and the “ORIGINAL” or “MISSING” “13th AMENDMENT” was NEVER ratified in the first place. Thus, for all these reasons, there is nothing unconstitutional about an American lawyer holding public office or retaining his/her American citizenship.

    CONCLUSION:
    Under the tenth amendment, ONLY the STATES have the power to license and regulate lawyers and the practice of law (the FEDERAL government does not). Under the “separation of powers” doctrine, ONLY the JUDICIAL branch of government has the power to license and regulate lawyers and the practice of law (the LEGISLATIVE branch of government does not). The “ABA” is NOT THE SINGLE NATIONAL AUTHORITY which licenses and regulates lawyers and the practice of law. The 50 STATES that do that. The ABA has no connection whatsoever with any FEDERAL or STATE government or agency. The STATE bars ARE NOT “affiliates” or “franchises” or “subsidiaries” or otherwise "regulated" or "governed" by the ABA. The ABA has NOT "taken over the courts", "taken away the common law" or "taken away the grand jury system". It has no ability to do so.

    ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH:
    Snoop4truth is a legal expert and whistle blower who exposes online hoaxes. Snoop4truth did not reveal this information to harm Rod Class. Instead, Snoop4truth revealed this information SOLELY to reduce the CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE that such INTENTIONAL FRAUD inflicts on the American people every single day. Had it not been for Rodney DALE Class' role in the "Judge DALE Hoax", Snoop4truth would not have revealed this information here.

    The message to all charlatans and hoaxers? Just tell the truth.
    Last edited by snoop4truth; 16th November 2018 at 20:25.

  10. Link to Post #7
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    30th September 2015
    Age
    45
    Posts
    52
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 29 times in 14 posts

    Default Re: Rod Class & his many hoaxes

    COMMENT 7: "THE PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL 'CERTIFICATE' HOAX" (A.K.A. “WHY WAS ROD CLASS IN WASHINGTON, D.C. IN THE FIRST PLACE?”)

    QUESTION: Why was Rod Class in Washington, D.C. in the first place?

    ANSWER: He was manufacturing yet ANOTHER HOAX in an effort to "TRICK" his own followers an others into believing that "Congress" had authorized him to practice law without a license. Class mistakenly believed that Congress had such a power. But, it does not. Class did not know that under Article I, section 8 (which lists all of the powers of Congress) and under the tenth amendment (which reserves TO THE STATES all powers not delegated to the federal government in the U.S. Constitution), ONLY THE STATES HAVE THE POWER TO DO THAT. (1)

    Regardless, based on his MISTAKEN BELIEF, Class FORGED a two-page document (in all Italic font) consisting of a "FAKE" CONGRESSIONAL LETTERHEAD and a FAKE SIGNATURE PAGE (with a FAKE signature line for BOTH the HOUSE and the SENATE "judiciary committees"). (2) Class FRAUDULENTLY calls his FORGERY his "PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL CERTIFICATE" or his "CREDENTIALS", despite that he created it AND ISSUED IT TO HIMSELF (a pattern with Class). In his FORGERY, Class DESIGNATED HIMSELF a "Private Attorney General" under two CIVIL RIGHTS statutes (not realizing that such was actually a CIVIL RIGHTS "CLIENT" of a REAL ATTORNEY who could NOT practice law or represent another person in court). (3) In his FORGERY, Class also DESIGNATED HIMSELF a "14th Amendment, Section 4 Bounty Hunter" (not realizing that such was actually a Union CIVIL WAR SOLDIER 150 years ago). (4) Finally, in his FORGERY, Class also AUTHORIZED HIMSELF to practice law without a license (not realizing that Congress, from whom he would seek a "RECEIVED" stamp on his FORGERY, has no power to provide such an authorization). (No link to this FORGERY is yet available. It was found in a number of Class' cases on Pacer.gov. which will not allow us to link to its cases or documents). Class actually admits to all of this. https://itnj.org/wp-content/uploads/..._Two_Month.pdf (at 2nd page in paragraph 2-4. PAY SPECIAL ATTENTION TO the 4th PARAGRAPH.).


    BACKGROUND I: When ANYONE hand files ANY document with Congress, Congressional aides sign and date-stamp the word, "RECEIVED" on the top page of that document. Then, they provide the person delivering the document with a duplicate of that same signed and date-stamped document for their own records (like a "receipt"). Class then fraudulently uses the signed and date-stamped ("RECEIVED") duplicate of HIS OWN FORGERY to create the illusion that Congress (rather than Class) wrote and issued the FORGERY to Class. (After all, by then Class' FORGERY appears to be on Congressional letterhead, bears Congressional date stamps and has signatures "from Congress").

    But, in truth, no single Congressman (much less ALL OF CONGRESS) ever takes any action on any of the FORGERIES that Class' UNILATERALLY hand files with Congressional aides in this way. Indeed under the U.S. Constitution, Congress has no power to take any such action in the first place. But, Class does not know enough to even realize this.

    MISTAKES ON TOP OF MISTAKES: All of this means that Class was so legally INCOMPETENT that in creating this FORGERY, he actually solicited signatures and date-stamps FROM THE WRONG GOVERNMENTAL BRANCH (legislative instead of judicial) OF THE WRONG GOVERNMENTAL SOVEREIGN (federal instead of state). You cannot possibly be more INCOMPETENT than that. (In order to manufacture a really good hoax, YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHAT YOU ARE LYING ABOUT, and Class does not.).

    BACKGROUND II: Class is pathologically desperate to imitate and impersonate every type of person that he claims to hate. Class claims to hate all law enforcement officers of "We the People". So, Class pathologically imitates and impersonates a law enforcement officer. Specifically, Class FRAUDULENTLY-MARKED his two vehicles with several large, FAKE, vinyl decals to make it LOOK like a law enforcement vehicle. (6)

    FACTS: On May 30th, 2013, Class (in his imaginary capacity as a "Private Attorney General") was en route from North Carolina to Pennsylvania to "help" an unwary victim LOSE his weapons case there. But, Class stopped in D.C. along the way to obtain some Congressional aide signatures and date-stamps on his FORGERY. In so doing, Class illegally parked his conspicuously-marked vehicle on United States Capitol grounds in a parking lot located closest to occupied Congressional office buildings during business hours. This parking lot was clearly marked in such a way as to indicate that Class was not to park there.

    After illegally parking, Class went inside the adjacent Congressional office buildings for the reasons stated. When Class returned to the parking lot (delighted to have obtained what he had come for), he discovered that his conspicuously-marked vehicle was surrounded by a team of uniformed federal law enforcement officers who were busy peering through its windows and counting all of the "dangerous weapons" that were visible inside and located next to occupied Congressional office buildings during business hours. (Think "Timothy McVeigh", the Murrah Federal Building and the Oklahoma City Bombing in a post-911 world.).

    When Class returned to his vehicle, officers asked him if the vehicle was his, he replied, "Yes". When officers asked Class it he had driven his vehicle onto United State Capitol grounds and parked it where it sat, Class replied, "Yes". When officers asked Class if the "dangerous weapons" inside the vehicle were his, he replied, "Yes".

    Based on the foregoing, the officers obtained a search warrant. Inside Class' vehicle, federal officers found one fully-loaded rifle, three fully-loaded handguns, one of which was completely and illegally unsecured and positioned between the front seats for quick and easy access, several hundred more rounds of ammunition for all four firearms on-board, one large machete on the driver's side door for easy access, fourteen large knives & daggers of varying size and lethal effect, one illegal spring-deployed switch blade knife and three more axes of various sizes and lethal effect.

    Based on Class' confessions to officers and based of what officers found using their search warrant, Class was charged and convicted of "carrying" "dangerous weapons" "onto United States Capitol grounds". (7) It's that simple. There was nothing bizarre, unusual, curious, fraudulent, corrupt or illegal about what the officers or the courts did in this case. It could not have possibly been more ordinary and routine.

    Unknown to Class, his conduct (in carrying dangerous weapons onto U.S. Capitol grounds) not only violated federal law, it also violated the terms of his conceal and carry permit from the State Of North Carolina (which prohibits persons with such conceal and carry permits to carry firearms onto federal grounds where such is prohibited by federal law, as its was here). So, unknown to Class, his permit offered him no "defense" to the charges against him here. (8) Indeed, Class' violation of his North Carolina conceal and carry permit constituted AN ADDITIONAL OFFENSE COMMITTED BY CLASS.

    Unknown to Class, even if he had a second amendment defense to "carrying" firearms or handguns onto United States Capitol grounds in a post 9-11 world, he had no second amendment defense to "carrying" the other "dangerous weapons" (including machetes, knives & daggers, switch blades and axes) onto United States Capitol grounds. So, Class is still factually guilty of violating the subject statute (which prohibits individuals from carrying DANGEROUS WEAPONS, not just firearms, onto U.S. Capitol grounds), even if he has a second amendment defense to carrying the firearms onto U.S. Capitol grounds

    NOTE: Class is PATHOLOGICALLY DESPERATE to appear to be something that he is not ("Private Attorney General", "14th Amendment, Section 4 Bounty Hunter", "winning litigator", "legal genius", etc.).

    FACT: If Class had not stopped in D.C. to obtain Congressional aide signatures and a date-stamp "RECEIVED" on his FORGERY (in order to appear to be something that he is not), Class WOULD NOT have been arrested and convicted of "carrying DANGEROUS WEAPONS onto U.S. Capitol grounds".

    FACT: If Class had not ALSO fraudulently-marked his vehicle with FAKE vinyl decals (in order to appear to be something that he is not), Class' vehicle would have likely escaped the attention of federal law enforcement officers and Class WOULD NOT likely have been arrested or convicted.

    ANALYSIS: Many of Class’ legal problems are the direct result of his desperate attempts to appear to be something that he is not ("Private Attorney General", "14th Amendment, Section 4 Bounty Hunter", "winning litigator", "legal genius", etc.).

    FINAL NOTE: You cannot fully appreciate Rod Class' arrest on weapons charges in this case without understanding Rod Class' history involving deadly weapons. Class is a TWICE-CONVICTED, weapons-related, CONVICTED FELON. In 2001, Class was ARRESTED and CONVICTED of possessing in his car an illegally-sawed-off, fully-loaded, Springfield shotgun (to increase its lethal effect). At the time of that ARREST, Class' was also in possession of two night sticks outfitted with concealed razor blades (to increase their lethal effect). In 2013, Class was ARRESTED and later CONVICTIED his Washington, D.C. for possessing in his car of one fully-loaded rifle, three fully-loaded handguns, one of which was illegally unsecured and positioned between the front seats for quick and easy access, several hundred more rounds of ammunition for all four firearms on-board, one large machete on the driver’s side door for easy access, fourteen large knives and daggers of varying size and lethal effect, one illegal spring-deployed switch blade knife and three axes of various sizes and lethal effect. In 2014, in North Carolina, Class was ARRESTED and CONVICTED of RESISTING ARREST and at the time of his arrest, Class was in possession of several packages of concealed razor-type blades which were found beneath his clothing when he was frisked. At the time of Class' 2001 ARREST in Ohio (above), Class was on probation for a previous Ohio, WEAPONS-REALTED, CRIMINAL CONVICTION (meaning Class not only committed a new crime 2001, HE ALSO VIOLATED HIS OHIO PROBATION). At the time of Class' 2013 ARREST in Washington, D.C. (above), Class was on probation for a previous North Carolina CRIMINAL CONVICTION (meaning Class not only committed a new crime in 2013, HE ALSO VIOLATED HIS NORTH CAROLINA PROBATION).


    FOOTNOTES:
    1). Class was mistaken about taking his FORGERY to Washington, D.C. to obtain Congressional aide signatures and a date stamp "RECEIVED" thereon because STATE LAW (NOT FEDERAL LAW) GOVERNS THE PRACTICE OF LAW. See Const., Art. 1, Sec. 8 (WHICH LISTS ALL OF THE POWERS OF CONGRESS). http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/pa...le-i-section-8 (Note that the power to authorize a person to practice law IS NOT ON THE LIST). Unknown to Class, ONLY THE STATES HAVE THE POWER TO DO THAT. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/tenth-amendment. Class makes this very same AMATEUR mistake with respect to driver's licenses which are likewise governed by STATE law (not by FEDERAL law).

    2. THE COURT DOES NOT BUY CLASS' FRAUDULENT CLAIMS THAT THE "HOUSE AND SENATE" AUTHORIZED HIM TO ACT AS A "PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL".;http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006 . (See Ruling 35).

    3. THE "CONCEPT" OF A "PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL" (under the two FEDERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS statutes upon which Class relies in pretending to be a private attorney general) RELATES SOLELY TO PAYING ATTORNEYS WHO WIN CASES FOR VICTIMS OF FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS. THE "PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL" IS THE ACTUAL "VICTIM" OF THE FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION AND IS THE ACTUAL "PLAINTIFF" IN THE FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS CASE AND IS THEACTUAL "CLIENT" OF A REAL ATTORNEY IN FEDERAL COURT (not someone who purports to act on behalf of the victim/plaintiff in court). http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006 .

    WHAT A REAL "PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL" LOOKS LIKE:
    https://www.google.com/search?q=%22c...&bih=613#spf=1.

    WHAT A FAKE "PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL" LOOKS LIKE: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22P...Rod+Class%22&* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLbXtscZBM8

    4. WHAT A REAL "14TH AMENDMENT, SECTION 4 BOUNTY HUNTER" ACTUALLY IS:

    https://www.britannica.com/event/Bounty-System

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounty_jumper

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006 .

    5). HERE, CLASS ACTUALLY ADMITS TO SEEKING AND OBTAINING CONGRESSIONAL AIDE SIGNATURES AND DATE STAMPS ON HIS "FORGERY" (his homemade, FAKE "Private Attorney General 'Certificate'") IN FURTHERENCE OF THIS HOAX: https://itnj.org/wp-content/uploads/..._Two_Month.pdf (AT PAGE 2. PARA 2-4. PAY SPECIAL ATTENTION TO PARAGRAPH 4)

    https://itnj.org/wp-content/uploads/..._Two_Month.pdf (BEGINNING AT PAGE 2 PARA. 2.).
    https://itnj.org/wp-content/uploads/..._18TH_2013.pdf (at the 2nd full paragraph).

    6. FAKE "PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL" VEHICLES:

    http://www.nc4x4.com/forum/threads/d...actant.159266/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ts7CejgSkjc&t=8s (Go to video FIRST. Then, go to :05-:20).

    NOTE: Class was previously CRIMINALLY CONVICTED for illegally installing a REAL police "blue light" on top of his FRAUDULENTLY MARKED vehicle to make it LOOK like a law enforcement vehicle (effectively impersonating a law enforcement officer). Class was sentenced to A YEAR'S PROBATION for that CRIMINAL CONVICTION conditioned on him "not possessing any weapons" of any kind and not committing an offense "in any jurisdiction". Class was actually ON PROBATION for that CRIMINAL CONVICTION when he was arrested in D.C. (with "weapons" here), thereby constituting a VIOLATION OF HIS PROBATION in his North Carolina "blue light" case. But, North Carolina does not yet know this. Otherwise, Class would still be in prison for violation of his North Carolina Probation.

    7. THE COURT EXPLAINS THE STATUTE THAT CLASS WAS CHARGED WITH VIOLATING ("An individual...may not CARRY...on the Grounds...of the Capitol Buildings...a DANGEROUS WEAPON...") AND THE COURT PROVIDES THE RELEVANT DEFINITION OF "FIREARM" FOR THE PURPOSES OF THAT SAME STATUTE ("The definition of firearm in this case is...ANY WEAPON...which is designed to or which will EXPEL A PROJECTILE BY ACTION OF AN EXPLOSIVE..."):

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40003 (SEE BOTH SECTIONS, AT 30% THROUGH THE TEXT and AT 65% THROUGH THE TEXT).

    Note how the truth (at about 30% and at 65% through the text of this case) squarely contradicts Class' FRAUDULENT claims to his followers about the charges against him and about the relevant statutory definition of a firearm in this case.

    8. CLASS VIOLATED HIS NORTH CAROLINA CONCEAL AND CARRY PERMIT BY TAKING HIS RIFLE AND THREE PISTOLS ONTO FEDERAL PROPERTY WHERE SUCH VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW.

    N.C.G.S. 14-415.11(C)(4). http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedL...14-415.11.html. (SEE PARA. 4).

    ABOUT ROD CLASS:
    Rod Class is a functionally-illiterate amateur legal theorist with barely a high school education WHO HAS LOST EVERY SINGLE CASE IN WHICH HE HAS EVER BEEN INVOLVED (OVER 76 CONSECUTIVE LOSSES IN A ROW, AND STILL COUNTING). Further, Class has a long history of PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS involving DELUSIONS, PATHOLOGICAL OPPOSITION/DEFIANCE of AUTHORITY FIGURES and PATHOLOGICAL LYING. Moreover, Class is a MULTI-CONVICTED, WEAPONS RELATED, CONVICTED FELON who also has SEVERAL ADDITIONAL MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS, as well. Because of Class’ well-publicized HATRED of our ELECTED representatives, their appointees and our REPUBLICAN form of government, because of his HISTORY OF PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS and because of his LENGTHY CRIMINAL HISTORY involving DEADLY WEAPONS, Class has been placed on the United States TERRORIST WATCH LIST.

    Most importantly, Class is a PROFESSIONAL HOAXER AND CHARLATAN who is behind a number of legal HOAXES which he created and peddles to INTENTIONALLY DEFRAUD the American people. (Google "Judge DALE Hoax", "Debra Jones Hoax", "Private Attorney General Hoax", "14th Amendment, Section 4 Bounty Hunter Hoax", "All Government Agencies Are 'Private Entities' or 'Private Contractors' Hoax" (A.K.A. the "BOMBSHELL: FOURTH Administrative Ruling Hoax"), "Property Into Other Peoples' Names Hoax", "Lawyers Have No Authority Hoax", "Right To Travel Hoax", "My Paperwork Would Have Overturned Every Prior Case Hoax", "The Supreme Court Loves My Paperwork Hoax", "The Private Attorney General 'Certificate' Hoax" (A.K.A. "Why Was Rod Class In Washington, D.C. In The First Place?"), "The Federal Reserve Notes Are Not Money Hoax" (A.K.A. "The Harold Stanley Case Hoax"), "The United States Is A Private, For-Profit Corporation Hoax" (A.K.A. "Title 28 U.S.C 3002(15)(a) Proves That The United States Is A Private, For- Profit Corporation Hoax"), the "Court Registry Investment System Hoax" (A.K.A. The "C.R.I.S. Hoax"), the "Embezzling Federal Funds Hoax" and numerous other hoaxes.).

    ANALYSIS:
    ROD CLASS (with his inability to read, his lack of education, his ignorance of the law, his delusional belief system, his worthless, amateur legal theories, his lack of honesty and his 100% failure rate in court) IS "LIVING PROOF" THAT THOSE WHO PRACTICE LAW (AND THOSE WHO TEACH THE LAW) SHOULD:
    1). BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A FOUR-YEAR COLLEGE EDUCATION (a "Bachelor's Degree");
    2). BE REQUIRED TO ALSO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL THREE TO FOUR YEAR LAW SCHOOL EDUCATION (a "Juris Doctor's Degree");
    3). BE REQUIRED TO PASS THE STATE BAR EXAM (takes three days);
    4). BE REQUIRED TO UNDERGO A RIGOROUS STATE CHARACTER AND FITNESS BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION WHICH TAKES SEVERAL MONTHS OR YEARS (NO MENTAL HEALTH HISTORY, NO CRIMINAL HISTORY, honesty, credit history, interviews of employers, teachers, former co-workers, neighbors, relatives, taking finger print samples, taking hand writing samples, etc.).
    5). BE LICENSED BY THE STATE AND BE SUBJECT TO THE CONTINUOUS OVERSIGHT AND DISCIPLINE OF THE HIGHEST OFFICE OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF STATE GOVERNMENT, THE STATE SUPREME COURT (in order to protect the public from INCOMPETENCE and FRAUD).

    ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH:
    Snoop4truth is a legal expert and whistle blower who exposes online hoaxes. Snoop4truth did not reveal this information to harm Rod Class. Instead, Snoop4truth exposed this information solely to reduce the CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE that such INTENTIONAL FRAUD inflicts upon the American people every single day. Had it not been for Rod Class' role in the "Judge DALE Hoax", Snoop4truth would not have exposed this information here.

    The message to all hoaxers and charlatans? Just tell the truth.
    Last edited by snoop4truth; 25th November 2018 at 20:50.

  11. Link to Post #8
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    18,310
    Thanks
    58,152
    Thanked 230,796 times in 16,736 posts

    Default Re: Rod Class & his many hoaxes

    Mod note from Bill:

    Thanks for all this, but you've posted (at this time!) 7 separate threads. As best we all know, there may be 20 more to come. This is almost (note: 'almost'!) spamming. I've merged them all into this one.

    Moreover, I don't know who Rod Class is, and my guess is that many other members and viewers might not, either.

    Best would have been for you to explain in your own words what the issues are here, rather than copying and pasting large tracts from other posts on the net that might be too specialized and detailed for most readers to focus on and read carefully.

    Summaries are helpful! This is not a personal criticism, at all: but I've simply got too much on my personal plate right now to read all this, and I'm almost sure I would just never get round to that. But a well-written, three paragraph summary would be genuinely helpful, and maybe interesting, to almost everyone. THX.
    Last edited by Bill Ryan; 21st August 2017 at 17:31.

  12. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    anandacate (23rd August 2017), Hervé (21st August 2017), Kristin (21st August 2017), mgray (22nd August 2017), Satori (21st August 2017), selinam (5th March 2018), Zanshin (7th August 2018)

  13. Link to Post #9
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    30th September 2015
    Age
    45
    Posts
    52
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 29 times in 14 posts

    Default Re: Rod Class & his many hoaxes

    COMMENT 9: ROD CLASS & "THE SUPREME COURT LOVES MY PAPERWORK HOAX"

    FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE: https://claimsoftheliving.blogspot.c...eme-court.html . http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web...d=48361&cmd=tc (See Episode 1004, Dated 05-26-2017 and Episode 1006, Dated 08-12-2017).

    THE HOAX: Rod Class fraudulently claims that the Supreme Court is going to hear "his" case because his amateur "paperwork" was so good. But, this is not so.

    THE TRUTH: Rod Class has NOTHING to do with the Supreme Court hearing “his” case. Class is FRAUDULENTLY taking credit for the success OF HIS OWN ATTORNEYS in getting the Supreme Court to consider an entirely NEW legal question that Class NEVER knew about and NEVER raised anywhere at anytime.

    BACKGROUND: Amateur legal theories are an IMAGINARY ALTERNATIVE to the REAL law that is actually used in the law and the legal system. So, amateur legal theories and the REAL law are the exact OPPOSITES of one another. Class does NOT use REAL law in his cases. Class ONLY uses amateur legal theories in his cases. This is why CLASS HAS LOST EVERY SINGLE CASE IN WHICH HE HAS EVER BEEN INVOVLED (OVER 76 CONSECUTIVE CASES IN A ROW AND STILL COUNTING). But, Class' attorneys (from arguably the best law firm in the country) do NOT use amateur legal theories in any of their cases. They ONLY use REAL law in all of their cases. This is why they win so many of their cases. The Supreme Court ONLY heard the REAL law presented by Class' attorneys (NOT by Class). The Supreme Court did NOT hear a single one of Class' amateur legal theories ("capital letters", "split personality" defense, "flesh and blood" person, "straw man", "yellow fringe" on the flag, etc.).

    BACKGROUND: Class was charged with "CARRYING" "DANGEROUS WEAPONS" in his vehicle onto "UNITED STATES CAPITOL GROUNDS", a FELONY. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40003.

    Class entered into a plea deal whereby he would plead GUILTY to the FELONY charge against him in exchange for the prosecutor recommending a light sentence to the judge. As part of the plea deal, CLASS WAIVED ("GAVE UP") HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL, first in the plea agreement itself and again in open court.

    Thereafter, Class realized that his GUILTY plea to a FELONY (in the plea deal) would make him ineligible for his conceal and carry permit from the State Of North Carolina (which does not allow CONVICTED FELONS to have such permits). So, Class VIOLATED the terms of his own plea agreement (in which he WAIVED his right to appeal) AND FILED AN APPEAL OF HIS CASE ANYWAY.

    In his appeal, Class raised a number of amateur legal theories. Class also MISTAKENLY claimed that the statute that he was convicted of violating HAD ALREADY BEEN DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL and he MISTAKENLY claimed that under the "full faith and credit" clause, he was authorized by his North Carolina conceal and carry permit him to "CARRY" handguns/firearms into Washington, D.C. AND onto United States Capitol grounds (which behavior, unknown to Class, ACTUALLY VIOLATED the terms his conceal and carry permit from that state). BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, CLASS NEVER KNEW TO RAISE (AND DID NOT RAISE) THE ISSUE OF WHETHER HE COULD FILE AN APPEAL OF HIS CASE IN THE FIRST PLACE (a right that he had TWICE unconditionally WAIVED, first in his plea deal and again in open court). THIS IS STILL THE ONLY ISSUE IN THE CASE AND WAS THE ONLY ISSUE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.

    The Court Of Appeals received Class' amateur appellate brief and the entire court file from the trial court below (which contained Class' PSYCHIATRIC records). Both PROVED that Class was ILLITERATE, UNEDUCATED and MENTALLY ILL. So, as the trial court had done below (with "STAND BY" counsel to represent Class), the Court Of Appeals ALSO hired, AT THE GOVERNMENT'S EXPENSE, a law firm to represent Class on appeal and ordered it, in writing, to "act on Class' behalf". Because Class wanted to represent himself on appeal, the Court of Appeals "humored" Class by calling the law firm that it hired to represent Class an "amicus curiae" ("friend of court"). But, the reality is that this law firm was under written court orders to represent Class as his law firm on appeal, regardless of the terminology used. Class' law firm DID NOT TAKE CLASS' CASE "FREE" AS A MATTER OF "PRINCIPLE". IT TOOK CLASS' CASE FOR THE MONEY! And, lucky for Class.

    Class' law firm immediately realized that Class had MISTAKENLY FAILED to raise the "THRESHOLD QUESTION" of WHETHER HE COULD EVEN FILE AN APPEAL OF HIS CASE IN THE FIRST PLACE (after TWICE waiving that right, in the plea agreement and again in open court). Without addressing and disposing of this legal issue, THERE WOULD BE NO APPEAL. But, Class did not know this. So, Class' law firm "COVERED" FOR HIS MISTAKE by raising this omitted legal issue for him (thereby saving the entire appeal). Unfortunately, the Court Of Appeals held that Class HAD WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL. THIS IS STILL THE ONLY ISSUE IN THE CASE AND WAS THE ONLY ISSUE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.

    In response to this adverse ruling, Class' law firm ALONE filed an appeal to the Supreme Court. CLASS WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM (AND WILL NEVER BE SO INVOLVED). The SOLE QUESTION in this new appeal before the Supreme Court is WHETHER A PERSON (ANY PERSON) CAN FILE AN APPEAL OF A CASE challenging the constitutionality of a statute WHICH THEY HAVE ALREADY PLED GUILTY TO VIOLATING. THIS WAS THE ONE AND ONLY ISSUE ON APPEAL BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. See SECOND PAGE, MARKED PAGE "i", BOTTOM PARAGRAPH. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content...petitioner.pdf. THIS ISSUE IS A NEW LEGAL ARGUMENT THAT CLASS NEVER KNEW TO RAISE (AND DID NOT RAISE) ANYWHERE AT ANY TIME. Class' amateur legal theories ARE NOT NOW (AND WILL NEVER BE) BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT TO CONSIDER. ONLY REAL LAW CONCEIVED AND PRESENTED BY CLASS' LAW FIRM (NOT ROD CLASS) WILL BE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT TO CONSIDER.

    THE HOAX II: Class FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMS that the Court Of Appeals hired his law firm to represent him because his amateur "paperwork" WAS SO GOOD. Class also FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMS that his law firm and other interested parties who joined in the current appeal did so to "BACK UP" his amateur "paperwork". But, none of this so.

    THE TRUTH II: The Court Of Appeals hired Class' law firm to represent him because his amateur "paperwork" WAS SO BAD! Further, the Court Of Appeals HAD PROOF in its own files that Class was FUNCTIONALLY-ILLITERATE, UNEDUCATED AND MENTALLY ILL. FACT: COURTS DO NOT PROVIDE ATTORNEYS TO LITIGANTS WHO ARE CAPABLE OF REPRESENTING THEMSELVES. COURTS ONLY PROVIDE ATTORNEYS TO LITIGANTS WHO ARE INCAPABLE OF REPRESENTING THEMSELVES (as was the case here). Further, the other interested parties who joined in the current appeal DO NOT "BACK UP" Class' amateur "paperwork" either! Instead, they ONLY "BACK UP" CLASS' LAW FIRM IN ITS ENTIRELY SEPARATE LEGAL ARGUMENT WHICH CLASS NEVER KNEW ABOUT AND WHICH CLASS NEVER RAISED ANYWHERE AT ANYTIME.

    WHAT THOSE INVOLVED IN CLASS' CASE (AND CLASS' FOLLOWERS) DO NOT YET KNOW:

    1. Class WAS ACTUALLY ON PROBATION at the time of his ARREST in this case for a previous North Carolina CRIMINAL CONVICTION (which PROBATION was conditioned upon Class NOT POSSESSING ANY "WEAPONS" OF ANY KIND for a year ). Lincoln County [North Carolina] Gen. Ct. Of Justice, Dist. Ct. Div. Case No. 13CR050407. Thus, Class WAS IN ILLEGAL POSSESSION of "WEAPONS" at the time of his ARREST in this case (not even considering his additional violation of FEDERAL law). SO, CLASS WAS NOT A "LAW ABIDING CITIZEN" AT THE TIME OF HIS ARREST, as he fraudulently contends.

    2. Class SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD a conceal and carry permit from the state of North Carolina in the first place. This is because Class was ALREADY A CONVICTED FELON before applying for such a permit from that state (and that state DOES NOT issue such permits to CONVICTED FELONS). N.C.G.S. 14_415.12(b)(3). http://ncleg.net/gascripts/statutes/...tute=14-415.12 . Specifically, in 2001, Class was CONVICTED in Ohio of the FELONY POSSESSION (in his car) of a fully-loaded, ILLEGALLY-SAWED-OFF Springfield shotgun. Ct. of Common Pleas, Tuscarawas County, Ohio, Case No. 2001 CR 12 0298. Ironically, Class WAS ALSO ON PROBATION at the time of that FELONY ARREST for a previous Ohio gun-related CRIME (which constituted another PROBATION VIOLATION by Class). Canton [Ohio] Mun. Ct., Case No. 1999CRB05550). Regardless, Class DID NOT fit any exception to the conceal and carry statute and WAS NOT eligible for the "restoration" of his firearm rights (so as to be issued such a permit from that state). N.C.G.S. 14_415.4 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (j). http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislat..._14-415.4.html . Thus, Class apparently obtained his conceal and carry permit from North Carolina by FRAUD (itself a criminal act). N.C.G.S. 14_415.4(l) (this is an "L"). http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislat..._14-415.4.html. Further, the sentencing judge in this case DID NOT KNOW that Class was ALREADY a CONVICTED FELON at the time of sentencing (Class INTENTIONALLY OMITTED this fact from the pre-sentencing statement upon which the judge and prosecutor relied). Incredibly, Class was also ARRESTED AND JAILED TWO MORE TIMES during the pendency of this case, once for refusing to appear at his own trial in this very case and once for "resisting arrest" following a traffic stop in which Class placed his right hand behind his back (pretending to pull a hand gun out of the top of his pants while threatening the officer verbally).

    3. Unknown to Class, IT WAS ALSO ILLEGAL for him to have "CARRIED" handguns or firearms onto United States Capitol grounds UNDER HIS OWN CONCEAL AND CARRY PERMIT FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA. Unknown to Class, his permit from that state EXPRESSLY FORBADE CLASS FROM POSSESSING OR CARRYING HANDGUNS OR FIREARMS ON ANY FEDERAL PROPERTY WHERE, AS HERE, SUCH WEAPONS ARE NOT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. N.C.G.S. 14_415.11(C)(4). http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedL...14-415.11.html . So, contrary to Class' understanding, his having a North Carolina “conceal and carry” permit DID NOT constitute a "defense" to the federal charges against him in this case. Indeed, it constituted AN ADDITIONAL OFFENSE COMMITTED BY CLASS!

    4. Even if Class had a "second amendment" defense to "CARRYING" three loaded handguns and one fully loaded rifle onto United States Capitol grounds, Class HAD NO "SECOND AMENDMENT DEFENSE" to "CARRYING" THE OTHER "DANGEROUS WEAPONS" onto United States Capitol grounds WHICH WERE ALSO PROHIBITED BY THE SAME FEDERAL STATUTE (one machete, fourteen knives and daggers, one illegal switch blade, three axes, etc.).

    5. It is true that Class may not have realized that he had driven and parked his vehicle (loaded with "DANGEROUS WEAPONS") on United States Capitol grounds. Thus, Class may not have had "mens rea" (knowledge of wrongdoing) in connection with that prohibited act. But, Class DID HAVE "MENS REA" ABOUT BEING ON PROBATION AT THE TIME AND THAT HIS PROBATION MADE HIS POSSESSION OF ANY "WEAPON" AT THE TIME ILLEGAL.

    NOTE: None of the foregoing facts (in paragraphs 1-5) have yet been made known to any court or attorney in this case. Likewise, none of the courts, prosecutors or law enforcement officials in Ohio or in North Carolina are yet aware that Class INTENTIONALLY VIOLATED THE TERMS OF HIS PROBATION WITH THOSE RESPECTIVE STATES as explained above.

    ABOUT ROD CLASS:
    Rod Class is a functionally-illiterate amateur legal theorist with barely a high school education WHO HAS LOST EVERY SINGLE CASE IN WHICH HE HAS EVER BEEN INVOLVED (OVER 76 CONSECUTIVE LOSSES IN A ROW, AND STILL COUNTING). Further, Class has a long history of PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS involving DELUSIONS, PATHOLOGICAL OPPOSITION/DEFIANCE of AUTHORITY FIGURES and PATHOLOGICAL LYING. Moreover, Class is a MULTI-CONVICTED, WEAPONS RELATED, CONVICTED FELON who also has SEVERAL ADDITIONAL MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS, as well. Because of Class’ well-publicized HATRED of our ELECTED representatives, their appointees and our REPUBLICAN form of government, because of his HISTORY OF PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS and because of his LENGTHY CRIMINAL HISTORY involving DEADLY WEAPONS, Class has been placed on the United States TERRORIST WATCH LIST.

    Most importantly, Class is a PROFESSIONAL HOAXER AND CHARLATAN who is behind a number of legal HOAXES which he created and peddles to INTENTIONALLY DEFRAUD the American people. (Google "Judge DALE Hoax", "Debra Jones Hoax", "Private Attorney General Hoax", "14th Amendment, Section 4 Bounty Hunter Hoax", "All Government Agencies Are 'Private Entities' or 'Private Contractors' Hoax" (A.K.A. the "BOMBSHELL: FOURTH Administrative Ruling Hoax"), "Property Into Other Peoples' Names Hoax", "Lawyers Have No Authority Hoax", "Right To Travel Hoax", "My Paperwork Would Have Overturned Every Prior Case Hoax", "The Supreme Court Loves My Paperwork Hoax", "The Private Attorney General 'Certificate' Hoax" (A.K.A. "Why Was Rod Class In Washington, D.C. In The First Place?"), "The Federal Reserve Notes Are Not Money Hoax" (A.K.A. "The Harold Stanley Case Hoax"), "The United States Is A Private For-Profit Corporation Hoax" (A.K.A. "Title 28 U.S.C 3002(15)(a) Proves That The United States Is A Private, For-Profit Corporation Hoax"), the "Court Registry Investment System Hoax" (A.K.A. The "C.R.I.S. Hoax"), the "Embezzling Federal Funds Hoax" and numerous other hoaxes.).

    ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH:
    Snoop4truth is a legal expert and whistle blower who exposes online hoaxes. Snoop4truth did not reveal this information to harm Rod Class. Instead, Snoop4truth exposed this information solely to reduce the CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE that such INTENTIONAL FRAUD inflicts upon the American people every single day. Had it not been for Rod Class' role in the "Judge DALE Hoax", Snoop4truth would not have exposed this information here.

    The message to all hoaxers and charlatans? Just tell the truth.
    Last edited by snoop4truth; 25th November 2018 at 21:02.

  14. Link to Post #10
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    30th September 2015
    Age
    45
    Posts
    52
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 29 times in 14 posts

    Default Re: Rod Class & his many hoaxes

    COMMENT 10: ROD CLASS AND THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL HOAX" & THE "NO DRIVER'S LICENSE REQUIRED HOAX"

    FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE:
    VIDEOS:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do3eTH-NtSk
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6SGIfO4ug4&t=69s
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afCz8AjvYdY&t=421s
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us7Q2xP7WXs
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyVt46ppZvw
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hviooqcJb8Y

    DOCUMENTS:
    http://sovereign-citizen-blog.blogsp...rod-class.html
    https://www.scribd.com/document/6148...Driver-License

    THE HOAX I: Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists falsely claim that A PERSON IS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE on the grounds that every person has a "RIGHT TO TRAVEL". Thus, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that the "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is the same thing as the "RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE". But, this is not so.

    THE TRUTH: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is merely the JUDICIALLY-recognized RIGHT TO LEAVE ONE STATE, ENTER ANOTHER STATE AND BE TREATED LIKE ANY OTHER CITIZEN OF THAT OTHER STATE. The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" has NOTHING to do with "DRIVING" anything. Under the law, there is no such thing as an "RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE". But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

    THE HOAX II: Further, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists point out that under FEDERAL law, A PERSON IS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE to drive a motor vehicle UNLESS THAT PERSON IS ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". See Const., Art. 1, Sec. 8 (listing ALL THE POWERS of Congress). READ THE THIRD (3RD) CLAUSE HERE. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/pa...le-i-section-8. This clause is known as the "[INTERSTATE] COMMERCE CLAUSE". https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause. This clause authorizes the FEDERAL (ONLY) government to require driver's licenses (ONLY) for drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE COMMERCE".

    THE TRUTH: But, what Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know is that STATE LAW ALSO APPLIES TO THE SAME PERSON AT THE SAME TIME. This is because, under the tenth amendment, STATE LAW governs the subject of driver's licenses OUTSIDE THE CONTEXT OF "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". See the Tenth Amendment here. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/tenth-amendment. [B]And, under STATE law, a person is required to have a driver’s license to drive a motor vehicle WHEN THAT PERSON "IS NOT" ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". So, when BOTH FEDERAL law and STATE law are COMBINED AND APPLIED TO THE SAME PERSON AT THE SAME TIME, A PERSON IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE IN ALL CONTEXTS, ALL THE TIME, NO MATTER WHAT (whether or not that person is engaged in "INTERSTATE COMMERCE"). But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

    MISUNDERSTANDING FEDERAL LAW:
    Rod Class MISTAKENLY BELIEVES that FEDERAL law governs EVERY legal subject. (This is precisely why he pretended to be a "retired FEDERAL judge" in the "Judge DALE forgeries", why he only cites FEDERAL statutes in support of his false claims and why he uses the phrase, "Congressional [meaning FEDERAL] intent".). Class does not know that FEDERAL law ONLY governs that TINY LIST of legal subjects that were expressly delegated to the FEDERAL government in the U.S. Constitution AND THAT under the tenth amendment, STATE LAW GOVERNS EVERYTHING ELSE (including drivers licenses for those who "ARE NOT" engaged in "interstate commerce".). http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/tenth-amendment. This means that ALMOST ALL OF THE LAW IN OUR COUNTRY IS STATE LAW (95-99% multiplied by 50 states), NOT FEDERAL LAW (which only governs a TINY LIST of legal subjects). Note that if the law really was as Class MISTAKENLY BELIEVED it to be (FEDERAL law governs every legal subject), THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR STATE LAW IN THE FIRST PLACE AND THE TENTH AMENDMENT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY MEANINGLESS.

    Class makes this AMATEUR mistake about FEDERAL law because he misunderstands the "supremacy clause" in the U.S. Constitution. Class MISTAKENLY believes that FEDERAL LAW GOVERNS EVERY LEGAL SUBJECT and, therefore, MISTAKENLY concludes that, under the "supremacy clause", FEDERAL LAW IS "ALWAYS SUPREME" OVER EVERY LEGAL SUBJECT IN THE LAW. But, this is not so. Unknown to Class, under the "supremacy clause", FEDERAL LAW IS ONLY "SUPREME" TO STATE LAW IF (AND ONLY IF) THERE IS A DIRECT CONFLICT BETWEEN FEDERAL LAW AND STATE LAW ON THE "SAME, EXACT" LEGAL SUBJECT. But, such direct conflicts between FEDERAL law and STATE law on the SAME, EXACT legal subject are EXTREMELY RARE, because FEDERAL and STATE law govern ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ("OPPOSITE") legal subjects. So, when there is NO DIRECT CONFLICT between FEDERAL law and STATE law on the SAME, EXACT legal subject (which is almost all of the time), STATE LAW IS "SUPREME" AS TO ALL STATE LAW LEGAL SUBJECTS (such as driver's licenses FOR THOSE WHO "ARE NOT" ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE").

    NOTE: For a detailed explanation of just how totally irrelevant "COMMERCE" is to STATE driver's license and traffic & transportation law, see the SECOND (2nd) comment in this thread. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...y-sheriff-hoax. Look for "IF NO COMMERCE, NO DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED HOAX".


    THE ACTUAL REAL LAW ITSELF ON THE SUBJECT OF DRIVER'S LICENSES AND THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL":

    OVER A CENTURY AGO, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE STATES HAD THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE ALL DRIVERS OF ALL MOTOR VEHICLES TO HAVE DRIVER'S LICENSES, WHETHER OR NOT THE DRIVER WAS ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

    1). Hendrick v. Maryland, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the United States Supreme Court held, "... A STATE MAY rightfully prescribe uniform regulations... in respect to the operation upon its highways of ALL MOTOR VEHICLES —— those moving in interstate commerce AS WELL AS OTHERS [NOT MOVING INTERSTATE COMMERCE!!!]. And to this end it [THE STATE] MAY REQUIRE the REGISTRATION OF SUCH VEHICLES and THE LICENSING OF THEIR DRIVERS... . This is but an exercise of THE POLICE POWER uniformly recognized AS BELONGING TO THE STATES [under the tenth amendment]... ." (in the 8th paragraph at about 70% through the text).

    FACT: This decision (above) is from the HIGHEST court in the United States. This court is the ONLY court in the United States which has the power to overturn this decision. But, it has NEVER done so. That means this decision is still the SINGLE CONTROLLING LAW on this subject IN EVERY STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN THE UNITED STATES. So, if you find ANY decision from ANY court ANYWHERE in the United States which contains ANY language of ANY type which you interpret as preventing THE STATES from requiring drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses, then YOU HAVE INTERPRETED THAT OTHER DECISION WRONG!]There has NEVER been ANY decision from ANY court in the United States which holds, "STATES may not require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses". But, even if there were such a decision, this decision above would overturn it.

    NOTE: Since this decision, CONGRESS (in compliance with this decision and in compliance with Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause 3, U.S. Const.) passed “NATIONAL” (FEDERAL) legislation regulating ONLY those drivers WHO WERE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE (Title 49).Under the tenth amendment and under this decision (above), this reserved unto THE STATES the power to regulate ONLY those drivers WHO WERE “NOT” ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". In this sense, FEDERAL law and STATE law are now "OPPOSITES" of one another. But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

    FACT: Under the tenth amendment, THE STATES have the CONSTITUTIONAL "RIGHT" to require driver's licenses of all drivers who are “NOT” ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE".

    2). State v. Sullivan, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "THE TENTH AMENDMENT to the Constitution of the United States provides, 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES... .' WITHIN THIS RESERVATION OF POWERS TO THE INDIVIDUAL STATES, is what has been judicially termed 'THE POLICE POWER.' (citation omitted). '[SUCH A] STATE MAY RIGHTFULLY PRESCRIBE UNIFORM REGULATIONS... in respect to THE OPERATION UPON ITS HIGHWAYS OF ALL MOTOR VEHICLES... . And to this end IT [THE STATE] MAY REQUIRE the registration of such vehicles AND THE LICENSING OF THEIR DRIVERS... . This is but an exercise of THE POLICE POWER uniformly recognized AS BELONGING TO THE STATES [under the tenth amendment and NOT belonging to the FEDERAL government under the tenth amendment]... . (quoting the Supreme Court case directly above). (at the 8th paragraph not including block indented portions at about 45% through the text). Translation: STATE LAW GOVERNS THE REQUIREMENT OF DRIVER'S LICENSES for all vehicles and drivers "NOT" engaged in "interstate COMMERCE".

    3). Chaoui v. City Of Glendora, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "The United States Supreme Court has long held that STATES HAVE THE RIGHT TO REGULATE THE USE OF STATE ROADS BY REQUIRING DRIVERS ON THOSE ROADS OBTAIN DRIVER'S LICENSES carry liability insurance, and pay taxes and fees, and that such regulation DOES NOT VIOLATE THE COSTITUTION. (citations omitted). In the absence of national legislation covering the subject, A STATE may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles, — those moving in interstate commerce AS WELL AS OTHERS [NOT MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE!!!]. And to this end IT [THE STATE] MAY REQUIRE the registration of such vehicles AND THE LICENSING OF THEIR DRIVERS... . This is but an exercise of THE POLICE POWER uniformly recognized as BELONGING TO THE STATES [under the tenth amendment and not to the federal government] and essential to the preservation of the health, safety, and comfort of their citizens... ." (quoting the Supreme Court case directly above). (at the 31st paragraph, not including block indented portions at about 75% through the text). Translation: STATE LAW GOVERNS THE REQUIREMENT OF DRIVER'S LICENSES for vehicles and drivers NOT engaged in "interstate COMMERCE".

    4). El v. Richmond Police Officer Opdyke,https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "The Supreme Court has held that STATES MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY REGULATE THE USE OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS. In Reitz v. Mealey, the Supreme Court stated: The use of the public highways by motor vehicles, with its consequent dangers, renders the reasonableness and necessity of such regulation apparent. THE UNIVERSAL PRACTICE [AMONG THE STATES] IS TO register ownership of automobiles AND TO LICENSE THEIR DRIVERS. ANY [read this term again] appropriate means BY THE STATES to insure competence and care on the part of ITS [DRIVER'S] LICENSEES and to protect others using the highway IS CONSANANT WITH [means "complies with"] DUE PROCESS. (citation omitted). [And, contrary to what Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe]... [T]he Supreme Court DID NOT LIMIT ITS HOLDING [ABOUT DRIVER'S LICENSES] TO COMMERICAL USES OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS." (at the 13th paragraph at about 70% through the text).

    FACT: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE UNREGULATABLE "RIGHT TO DRIVE" WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE.

    5). Commonwealth v. Ascenzi, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "THERE IS NO RIGHT TO DRIVE RECOGNIZED BY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION OR BY ANY STATE CONSTITUTION. Because there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DRIVE [driving may be regulated, licensed or prohibited entirely]... ." (beginning in the 2nd TO LAST paragraph at about 95% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

    6). State v. Sullivan, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "Although there is a well established and fundamental RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL, (citation omitted), THERE IS NO CORRESPONDING RIGHT TO OPERATE [means "DRIVE"] A MOTOR VEHCILE [showing that the "right to travel" is NOT THE SAME THING as the alleged "right to drive" a motor vehicle]... .'[T]HERE IS NO RIGHT TO DRIVE an automobile on the roads and highways... .' 'The courts have UNIVERSALLY AGREED THAT AN INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO OPERATE ["DRIVE"'] A MOTOR VEHICLE.'... . 'Driving on the roads of this State is ... NOT A RIGHT, but a privilege.'" (at the 2nd TO LAST paragraph at about 65% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

    7). John Doe No. 1 v. Georgia Dept. Of Public Safety, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held that there is NO SUCH THING AS A "RIGHT TO DRIVE" and cited the following holding of another case with approval, "[THERE IS] NO FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE'... ." The court also cited this holding from another case with approval, "WHILE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL EXISTS, THERE IS NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE [showing that the "right to travel" is NOT THE SAME THING as the alleged "right to drive" a motor vehicle]... ." (at the 4h paragraph from he bottom at about 85% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

    8). Matter Of Acevedo v. State Of New York DMV, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "Although the [U.S.] constitution recognizes a RIGHT TO TRAVEL [INTERSTATE] within the United States, referred to as the "RIGHT OF FREE MOVEMENT [BETWEEN THE STATES]" (citation omitted), IT [THE CONSTITUTION] DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE' [drawing a distinction between these two different legal subjects]. (citations omitted). (at the section entitled "Due Process" at about 80% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

    9). Matter Of Allen v. New York State DMV, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. SAME HOLDING VERBATIM. (at the section entitled "Due Process" at about 80% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

    10). Matter of Matsen v. State of New York DMV, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. SAME HOLDING VERBATIM. (at the section entitled "Due Process" at about 80% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

    11). Matter of Gillman v. State of New York DMV, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. SAME HOLDING VERBATIM. (at the section entitled "Due Process" at about 80% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

    HERE IS THE DEFINITION OF THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" AS PROVIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

    12). Jones v. Helms, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the Supreme Court Of The United States held, "The RIGHT TO TRAVEL... is 'THE RIGHT of a United States citizen TO TRAVEL FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER and to take up residence in the State of his choice [and to be treated like any other citizen of that other state].' (citation omitted). (at the 8th paragraph at about 25% through the text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL has nothing to do with DRIVING anything. Instead, the RIGHT TO TRAVEL is all about being treated the same as the local state citizens, regardless of which state you happen to be in.

    13). Saenz v. Roe, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "THE 'RIGHT TO TRAVEL'... protects THE RIGHT OF A CITIZEN OF ONE STATE TO ENTER AND LEAVE ANOTHER STATE, THE RIGHT TO BE TREATED AS A WELCOME VISITOR... IN [THAT OTHER]... STATE, and for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents [OF THAT OTHER STATE]... THE RIGHT TO BE TREATED LIKE OTHER CITIZENS OF THAT [OTHER] STATE. (at the 16th paragraph at about 25% through he text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL has nothing to do with DRIVING anything. Instead the RIGHT TO TRAVEL is all about being treated the same as the local state citizens, regardless of which state you happen to be in.

    The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" IS NOT ABOUT "DRIVING" ANYTHING.

    14). State v. Sullivan, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "[T]HE RIGHT TO TRAVEL IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH [means "IS NOT THE SAME AS"] THE RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE on the highways of this State. 'THE OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHCILE on such highways IS NOT A NATURAL RIGHT. IT IS A CONDITIONAL PRIVILEGE, which may be suspended or revoked under the [state's] POLICE POWER. The license or permit to so operate [a motor vehicle] IS NOT A CONTRACT or property right in a constitutional sense. (at the 8th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 45% through he text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is not about "DRIVING" anything.

    15). Miller v. Reed, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court quoted another court which wrote, "The plaintiff's argument that the RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE is [somehow protected by]... the fundamental RIGHT OF INTERSTATE TRAVEL IS UTTERLY FRIVOLOUS [read this phrase again]. The plaintiff is not being prevented from TRAVELING INTERSTATE by public transportation, by common carrier [means, plane, train, ship, or bus], or [as a PASSENGER] in a motor vehicle driven by someone with a license to drive it. What is at issue here IS NOT HIS RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE [which is one legal subject], BUT HIS RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE on the public highways [which is an entirely different legal subject], and we have no hesitation in holding that THIS [driving/operating a motor vehicle] IS NOT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT [read that phrase again]. (Citation omitted). Miller [the amateur legal theorist in this case] DOES NOT HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE'." (citation omitted). (at the 13th paragraph at about 60% through he text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL interstate and the PRIVILEGE OF DRIVING a car are NOT the same thing. Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE and the privilege of DRIVING a motor vehicle are not the same thing.

    16). North Carolina v. Howard, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "The RIGHT TO TRAVEL... IS 'THE RIGHT of a United States citizen TO TRAVEL FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER AND TO TAKE UP RESIDENCE IN THE STATE OF HIS CHOICE [and be treated like any other citizen of that other state].' (citation omitted).' ... . [In this case,] [T]here is NO EVIDENCE that [the petitioners] are prohibited from TRAVELING FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER [which might have otherwise violated the RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE]. Petitioners have voluntarily chosen not to disclose their SS [social security] numbers and, thereby, are unable to obtain a drivers license... . Petitioners ARE FREE TO LEAVE THE STATE [under their RIGHT TO TRAVEL]— although THEY MAY NOT DRIVE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE [drawing a distinction between these two different legal subjects]. (at the section entitled, "2. Right To Travel" at about 95% through the text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE and the privilege of DRIVING a motor vehicle are not the same thing.

    17). Thompson v. Scutt, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "... Petitioner claims that the State... violated his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL by enforcing laws PROHIBITING [HIS]... DRIVING WITH A SUSPENDED LICENSE. This claim is WITHOUT MERIT because Petitioner [LIKE ROD CLASS] MISUNDERSTANDS THE NATURE OF THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL. The Supreme Court has recognized a RIGHT TO TRAVEL which is essentially A RIGHT of citizens TO MIGRATE FREELY BETWEEN STATES [not to drive/operate motor vehicles without driver's licenses]. (citation omitted). This right [to travel] includes: [T]HE RIGHT OF A CITIZEN OF ONE STATE TO ENTER AN LEAVE ANOTHER STATE, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor... when temporarily present IN THE SECOND STATE, and, for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents [OF THAT OTHER STATE], the right to be treated like other citizens OF THAT [other] STATE." (at the section entitled, "D. Right to Travel" at about 50% through he text.)

    FACT: STATE requirements for driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL".

    18). Chaoui v. City of Glendora, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "To the extent Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of California's driver's license requirement, ANY SUCH CHALLENGE IS MERITLESS [read this phrase again]. The United States Supreme Court has long held that STATES HAVE THE RIGHT [under the tenth amendment] to regulate the use of state roads BY REQUIRING THAT DRIVERS ON THOSE OBTAIN DRIVER'S LICENSES, carry liability insurance, and pay taxes and fees, AND THAT such REGULATION DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION... ." The court went on to cite the holding of another case with approval which held, "STATE LAWS REQUIRING VALID DRIVER'S LICENSE TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE DO NOT VIOLATE [THE CONSTITUTIONAL] RIGHT TO TRAVEL." (citation omitted). The court also cited with approval another holding of another case which, "REJECTI[ED] [THE] CONTENTION THAT CALIFORNIA'S ENFORCEMENT OF ITS DRIVER'S LICENSE AND VEHILCE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS VIOLATED [THE] RIGHT TO TRAVEL." (beginning in the 6th paragraph of the section entitled, "DISCUSSION" at about 75% through he text). Translation: STATE laws requiring driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" which is something else entirely.

    19). Robinson v. Huerta, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a pilot who lost his pilot's license claimed that revoking his pilot's license violated his RIGHT TO TRAVEL. But, the court ruled otherwise and wrote, "a number of courts have held that an incidental RESTRICTION ON A SINGLE MODE OF TRANSPORTAION [such as driving a motor vehicle] DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL. In support, the court cited a case which, "[FOUND] NO INFRINGEMENT OF THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL... because 'TRAVELERS DO NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE MOST CONVENIENT FORM OF TRAVEL [such as driving a motor vehicle]... ')... ." The court also cited a case which held that a "DENIAL OF [A] DRIVER'S LICENSE ONLY DENIES THE PLAINTIFF THE ABILITY TO DRIVE A CAR [a single mode of travel], AND THUS "DOES NOT IMPERMISSIBLY BURDEN HIS RIGHT TO TRAVEL [INTERSTATE using other MODES of reansportation]." The court then cited another case which held, "A BURDEN ON A SINGLE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION [such as driving a motor vehicle] SIMPLY DOES NOT [VIOLATE]... THE RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL." Finally, the court cited a case which "reject[ed] [a] claim that [the] denial of a driver's license violate[d] [the] RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL because... THERE IS NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DRIVE." (at the 8h paragraph in the section entitled "3. Right To Travel" at about 75% through the text). Translation: STATE laws requiring driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" which is something else entirely.

    20). State v. Williams,https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, WORLD FAMOUS AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIST, ANTHONY TROY WILLIAMS, filed this LOSING appeal following his LOSS at the trial court where he was CRIMINALLY CONVICTED (again) for DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED OR REVOKED DRIVER'S LICENSE, SECOND OFFENSE. Williams was sentenced to SIX MONTHS IN JAIL and a $2,500 FINE. NOTE: This case is one of TEN (10) similar driver's license cases that Williams LOST in the State of Tennessee alone. This number does not even include his many other LOSSES of similar driver's license cases in other states, such as Florida. In this case, the court wrote, "This Court agrees with Appellant's [ANTHONY WILLIAMS'] contention that he enjoys a fundamental RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF TRAVEL. (citation omitted). However, Appellant's [WILLIAMS'] RIGHT TO TRAVEL HAS NOT BEEN INFRINGED UPON BY THE REQUIREMENT BY OUR [STATE] LEGISLATURE THAT AN INDIVIDUAL [LIKE WILLIAMS] HAVE A VALID DRIVER'S LICENSE TO LAWFULLY OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OF THIS STATE... . The same holds true for the requirement that motor vehicles be registered under the motor vehicle registration law. ... . Arguments identical to Appellant's [WILLIAMS'] have been addressed AND DISMISSED by this Court SEVERAL TIMES [actually providing a long list of those DISMISSALS]." The court upheld the conviction and sentence against Williams. But, the court could not resist making fun of some of Williams' amateur legal theories. In footnote 1, the court wrote, "Throughout the events leading up to this appeal, Appellant REFERRED TO HIMSELF as the 'ATTORNEY IN FACT' FOR THE 'LEGAL FICTION' OF 'ANTHONY WILLIAMS' [making fun of the amateur "SPLIT PERSONALITY" defense]. The record even includes an exhibit PURPORTING TO COPYRIGHT THE NAME 'ANTHONY TROY WILLIAMS' and several variations of the name [as if that could be used as a defense in a case]. Appellant is apparently part of the sovereign citizen movement. For the sake of clarity, we will not distinguish between the attorney in fact and the legal fiction, REFERRING TO BOTH as Appellant [making fun of Williams' amateur "SPLIT PERSONALITY" defense]." Translation: STATE laws requiring driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" which is something else entirely. NOTE THAT THIS IS THE SAME WORLD FAMOUS "ANTHONY WILLIAMS" WHO STARS IN THE 3 MINUTE VIDEO BELOW.

    21). John Doe No. 1 v. Georgia Dept. Of Public Safety, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an illegal alien who had not established residency in the state sued the state because it refused to issue him a driver's license. The illegal alien claimed that by so doing, the state had violated his "RIGHT TO TRAVEL". But, the court disagreed and wrote, "[T]he Georgia statutes in question do not violate that right [to travel]... . BURDENS ON A SINGLE MODE OF TRANSPORTAION [such as driving a car] DO NOT [VIOLATE]... THE RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL. (citation omitted). [THERE IS] NO FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE'... . (citation omitted). WHILE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL EXISTS, THERE IS NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE [drawing a distinction between these two different legal subjects]... . REGULATION OF THE DRIVING PRIVILEGE is a quintessential example of the exercise of THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE [under the tenth amendment], AND THE DENIAL OF A SINGLE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION [such as driving a motor vehicle] DOES NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF A VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL [which is something else entirely]." (at the 4h paragraph from he bottom at about 85% through the text). Translation: STATE laws requiring driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" which is something else entirely.

    FACT: A person may freely exercise his/her "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" without "DRIVING" ANYTHING by walking, riding a bicycle or horse, or as a "PASSENGER" in an automobile, bus, airplane or helicopter.

    22. State v. Sullivan, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist appealed his convictions for driving an unregistered car and for driving without insurance. The defendant argued that such STATE laws violated his "RIGHT TO TRAVEL". The court disagreed and wrote, "If defendant does not wish to follow these statutory requirements, we remind him that HE MAY EXERCISE HIS RIGHT TO TRAVEL [INTERSTATE] IN A VARIETY OF WAYS, 'If he wishes, HE MAY WALK, RIDE A BICYCLE OR HORSE, OR TRAVEL AS A PASSENGER in an AUTOMOBILE, BUS, AIRPLANE or HELICOPTER. HE CANNOT, HOWEVER, OPERATE ["DRIVE"] A MOTOR VEHCILE ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS [WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE]... ." (citation omitted). Translation: A person can exercise his/her "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" INTERSTATE without DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE.

    23). Miller v. Reed, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the State of California refused to issue Miller a driver's license because he would not reveal his social security number. Miller argued that in so doing, California had violated his RIGHT TO TRAVEL. But, the court disagreed and wrote, "The plaintiff is NOT being prevented from TRAVELLING INTERSTATE BY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, BY COMMON CARRIER [means plane, bus, train or ship], OR [AS A PASSENGER] IN A MOTOR VEHICLE DRIVEN BY SOMEONE WITH A LICENSE TO DRIVE IT." (at the 4h paragraph, block indented portion, in the section entitled "DISCUSSION" at about 60% through the text). Translation: A person can exercise his/her "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" INTERSTATE without DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE.


    3 MINUTE VIDEO.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLbXtscZBM8

    SNOPES:

    http://m.snopes.com/supreme-court-ru...s-unnecessary/

    ABOUT ROD CLASS:
    Rod Class is a functionally-illiterate amateur legal theorist with barely a high school education WHO HAS LOST EVERY SINGLE CASE IN WHICH HE HAS EVER BEEN INVOLVED (OVER 76 CONSECUTIVE LOSSES IN A ROW, AND STILL COUNTING). Further, Class has a long history of PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS involving DELUSIONS, PATHOLOGICAL OPPOSITION/DEFIANCE of AUTHORITY FIGURES and PATHOLOGICAL LYING. Moreover, Class is a MULTI-CONVICTED, WEAPONS RELATED, CONVICTED FELON who also has SEVERAL ADDITIONAL MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS, as well. Because of Class’ well-publicized HATRED of our ELECTED representatives, their appointees and our REPUBLICAN form of government, because of his HISTORY OF PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS and because of his LENGTHY CRIMINAL HISTORY involving DEADLY WEAPONS, Class has been placed on the United States TERRORIST WATCH LIST.

    Most importantly, Class is a PROFESSIONAL HOAXER AND CHARLATAN who is behind a number of legal HOAXES which he created and peddles to INTENTIONALLY DEFRAUD the American people. For an ENTIRE SERIES of HOAXES by Rod Class, CLICK HERE. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...is-many-hoaxes.

    ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH:
    Snoop4truth is a legal expert and whistle blower who exposes online hoaxes. Snoop4truth did not reveal this information to harm Rod Class. Instead, Snoop4truth exposed this information solely to reduce the CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE that such INTENTIONAL FRAUD inflicts upon the American people every single day. Had it not been for Rod Class' role in the "Judge DALE Hoax", Snoop4truth would not have exposed this information here.

    The message to all hoaxers and charlatans? Just tell the truth.
    Last edited by snoop4truth; 5th November 2018 at 22:21.

  15. Link to Post #11
    Morocco Avalon Member
    Join Date
    8th December 2015
    Location
    Here, now
    Posts
    122
    Thanks
    2,074
    Thanked 480 times in 112 posts

    Default Re: Rod Class & his many hoaxes

    Hi snoopfortruth, I have seen you post this wall of text on YouTube non step it seems. I've been researching this topic for years & it is of great interest to me. Also, I did read everything you posted, as well as the other comments on YouTube regarding Winston Shrout & others in the "sovereign/freeman" niche.

    I don't recall you ever expressing your opinion on any of the material being discussed in the videos or here on Avalon. It seems like you're trolling & have some sort of smear agenda. I'd love to be wrong.

    Can you share on this thread why you feel it is so important that word get out that these guys are scam artists & your opinions of the principles that these guys try to spread awareness of? Please elaborate..
    Last edited by Basho; 21st August 2017 at 17:59.
    ISness is my business..

  16. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Basho For This Post:

    ditting (22nd August 2017), Hervé (21st August 2017), Kristin (21st August 2017), marique3652 (28th August 2017), Zanshin (7th August 2018)

  17. Link to Post #12
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    30th September 2015
    Age
    45
    Posts
    52
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 29 times in 14 posts

    Default Re: Rod Class & his many hoaxes

    COMMENT 12: ROD CLASS & "THE "ALL GOVERNMENTS ARE PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS HOAX".

    FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE:

    ARTICLES:
    https://anticorruptionsociety.com/20...ate-franchise/ (an article actually written by Rodney "DALE" Class while pretending to be "Judge DALE". See paragraphs ACTUALLY NUMBERED "1, 2 & 3")

    https://www.akupressllc.com/150121Cr...ourtDenver.pdf (at page ACTUALLY NUMBERED "3" in the 4th paragraph at about 50% through the text)

    https://scannedretina.com/2014/11/27...erican-people/ (at the first BLOCK INDENTED paragraph IN ALL ITALIC TYPE)

    http://houseofpraani.com/portfolio/itnj/ (at the 2nd paragraph)

    https://globalfreedommovement.org/ex...ith-rod-class/

    VIDEOS:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7DicAWY4P4 (at :1:00-1:15)

    YOU MUST SEE THE FOLLOWING PORTIONS OF THESE VIDEOS!:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05o4CpB9I8g&t=260s (at 2:25-4:00, 5:25-6:15, 6:40-7:30, 7:55-8:50)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTRPZD3_w5k (at 42:10-42:35, 47:50--49:00)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRnogqeqzxk (at 6:20-6:45, 7:10-7:55, 25:55-26:45)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQeazE8_Ipk (at 43:15-43:50, 52:30-53:00)

    THE HOAX:
    Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists falsely claim that all governments and all government agencies are private, for-profit corporations. But, this is not so.

    THE TRUTH:
    No government or government agency is a private, for-profit corporation.


    FACT:
    In amateur legal theory, the "law" comes ONLY from the claims of other amateur legal theorists (NOT from the WRITTEN WORDS of the REAL LAW itself). But, in the REAL law, the law comes ONLY from the actual WRITTEN WORDS of the REAL LAW itself (NOT from the claims of amateur legal theorists). Consider the REAL law below.

    U.S. v Cooper, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1788441780084038901&q="United+St ates+v.+Cooper+Corporation"+++&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_s dt=40006 (HOLDING THAT THE UNTIED STATES IS NOT A "CORPORATION"). In this case, a private corporation sought to sue the United States under a federal statute that authorized civil lawsuits against any "person". The private corporation argued that the United States was such a "person" because it was a "corporation" (an artificial legal person). But, the court ruled otherwise and wrote, "While there may be isolated cases which hold that the different states, and even the United States, are "bodies politic and corporate", THEY DO NOT HOLD THAT THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION EXISTING BY THE LAWS OF THE UNTIED STATES [in the way that amateur legal theorists mean it]... . THE UNITED STATES CANNOT, THEREFORE, BE CLASSIFIED AS A CORPORATION EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES [in the way that amateur legal theorists mean it]... ." (in the 3rd to last paragraph of this case).

    ABOUT CORPORATIONS:
    The term, "corporation" FOOLS Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists. They mistakenly believe that there is only ONE TYPE OF CORPORATION in the whole world and that EVERY CORPORATION in the whole world IS A PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation. https://anticorruptionsociety.com/20...ate-franchise/ (at the paragraph ACTUALLY NUMBERED "3"). But, this is not so.

    One loose, informal definition of a "corporation" is simply "a separate, legal entity which may enter into contracts in its own name and sue and be sued in its own name". Governments happen to have these same basic characteristics. So, in this sense, AND ONLY IN THIS SENSE, all governments are arguably "corporations" (loosely and informally speaking).

    BUT, THIS IS NOT WHAT ROD CLASS AND OTHER AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS MEAN BY CLAIMING THAT ALL GOVERNMENTS ARE "CORPORATIONS". Instead, they mean that ALL governments are corporations WHICH ARE "IN THE BUSINESS" OF STEALING MONEY FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO GENERATE "PROFITS" FOR THEIR "PRIVATE OWNERS". https://anticorruptionsociety.com/20...ate-franchise/ (at the paragraph ACTUALLY NUMBERED "3"). Such IMAGINARY governmental entities would NOT merely be "corporations". Instead, such IMAGINARY governmental entities would actually be PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporations. THAT IS SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT IN THE LAW! NO GOVERNMENT OR GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY IN THE UNITED STATES IS A "CORPORATION" IN THIS SENSE OF THE WORD (in the way that amateur legal theorists mean it) and the courts have repeatedly said so.

    OTHER TYPES OF CORPORATIONS UNDER THE REAL LAW

    Remember, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that every CORPORATION in the whole world is a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation (the "bad" kind of corporation). But, this is not so.

    Unknown to Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists, there are DOZENS and DOZENS of different types of corporations. But, ONLY ONE (1) TYPE of corporation is a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS" (the "bad" kind of corporation). Unknown to Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists, there are COUNTLESS OTHER TYPES of NON-PROFIT corporations WHICH ARE ACTUALLY OWNED BY THE PUBLIC, OPERATED BY THE PUBLIC AND SERVE THE PUBLIC (not "private stockholders") FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD.

    For example, there are PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT corporations (like some publicly-owned hospitals, schools and universities and some electrical and water utilities, NONE of which have "stockholders" and NONE of which make "profits"). There are also PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT MUNICIPAL corporations (like cities and towns, NONE of which have "stockholders" and NONE of which make "profits" and ALL of which are controlled entirely by people ELECTED by "We the People" TO CONTROL THEM). There are countless other different types of PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT corporations which serve the public (not "private stockholders"). But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this. Click on the links below.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonprofit_corporation

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_corporation

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprise

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_corporation

    [https://thestartupgarage.com/corpora...ciations-llcs/

    https://thestartupgarage.com/corpora...fit-religious/

    ABOUT "FEDERAL CORPORATIONS"
    Our federal government has even structured seventeen of our federal government agencies as PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT "federal corporations" (NO STOCKHOLDERS, NO PROFITS, etc.). In general, all of the federal agencies that are structured this way have two things in common, they all have their own customers (or their own source of revenue) and none of them receive any money from Congress.

    Three well-known examples of such federal agencies are the United States Postal Service (The Post Office-U.S. Mail), AMTRAK (a publicly-owned, non-profit railroad) and the Tennessee Valley Authority (a publicly-owned, non-profit ELECTRICAL POWER utility). You will note that ALL THREE of these PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT "federal corporations" have their own customers and none of them receive any money from Congress.

    There are THREE MAIN REASONS why the federal government structured these federal agencies as PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT "federal corporations": 1). To force each such federal agency to work within their own budgets BY USING THEIR OWN REVENUES (received from their own customers/sources) instead of receiving money from Congress; 2). To relieve taxpayers of the burden of paying for governmental services that they might not even use (not everyone uses snail mail, rides trains or lives in the "Tennessee Valley"); and 3). To ensure that each such federal agency provide the highest possible quality of service at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer in order to avoid their own failure and collapse (which, due to this organizational structure, would have no adverse effect on the rest of the federal government or on the taxpayer anyway). IT'S ALL ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY AND FAIRNESS TO THE TAXPAYER. For more on this subject, click here. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30365.pdf

    FACT:
    All corporations are "ARTIFICIAL" persons (NON-human beings).

    FACT:
    No "NATURAL" person (no human being) can be a corporation.

    THE SECRET CORPORATION MYTH:

    Contrary to what Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe, there is no such thing as a "SECRET CORPORATION" of any kind (regardless of what type they are or whom they serve). All corporations (no matter what type they are or whom they serve) ARE PUBLICLY "INCORPORATED" IN A STATE OR PUBLICLY "CREATED" BY STATUTE OR ORDINANCE. All "PRIVATE" corporations ARE PUBLICLY "INCORPORATED" IN A STATE AND ARE PUBLICLY "REGISTERED" IN EVERY STATE WHERE THEY DO BUSINESS. So if they exist, THERE WILL BE A "PUBLIC RECORD" OF THEM, their "articles of incorporation", their creation date, their purpose, their function, their powers, their scope, their addresses, their officers (and often their directors), their trade names, their fictitious names, their trademarks, their service marks, their annual reports, their registered agent for service of civil lawsuits and so forth, ALL OF WHICH ARE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC ONLINE. Further, all "PUBLIC" corporations (no stockholders and no profits) ARE PUBLICLY "CREATED" BY A PUBLIC STATE OR FEDERAL "STATUTE" OR BY A PUBLIC COUNTY OR CITY "ORDINANCE". So, if they exist, THERE WILL BE A "PUBLIC RECORD" OF THEM, their creation date, their purpose, their function, their powers, their scope and so forth, ALL OF WHICH ARE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC ONLINE).

    Translation: ALL CORPORATIONS (regardless of what type they are or whom they serve) ARE PUBLICLY "CREATED" BY A DOCUMENT THAT IS ACTUALLY FILED IN THE "PUBLIC RECORD" FOR ALL THE WORLD TO SEE! There are NO EXCEPTIONS! NONE! Whether an entity is a "corporation" IS "ALWAYS" A MATTER OF "PUBLIC RECORD"! So, there is NO "GUESS WORK" about whether an entity is a corporation or not. If an entity is not PUBLICLY "INCORPORATED" in a state or was not PUBLICLY "CREATED" by a PUBLIC statute or PUBLIC ordinance, THEN IT IS NOT A CORPORATION! It is that simple. There are NO EXCEPTIONS! NONE! This means that there is NOTHING "SECRET" OR "MYSTERIOUS" about the existence of either PUBLIC or PRIVATE corporations. Their documents are IN THE "PUBLIC RECORD" for all the world to see. But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

    Translation: To find out if an entity is a corporation, the ONE and ONLY place to find the answer IS IN THE PUBLIC RECORD (not in Dun & Bradstreet, not on a list of entities with EIN numbers and not on amateur legal theory websites). All "PRIVATE" corporations can be found online at the STATE "SECRETARY OF THE STATE, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS" or the foreign equivalent if a foreign "PRIVATE" corporation. All "PUBLIC" corporations can be found in STATE and FEDERAL STATUTES and in county or city ORDINANCES or the foreign equivalent if a foreign "PUBLIC" corporation. If an entity cannot be found in those places, IT IS NOT A CORPORATION. It is that simple. But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

    THREE SOURCES OF CONFUSION IN AMATEUR LEGAL THEORY:

    Amateur legal theorists are PATHOLOGICALLY DESPERATE to discredit and delegitimize the FEDERAL government of “We the People”. So, if any FEDERAL statute contains the terms, "corporate" or "corporation" in reference to anything FEDERAL, then amateur legal theorists will use that FEDERAL statute in support of their false claim that the FEDERAL government is itself a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS". Two such FEDERAL statutes cited by amateur legal theorists in support of this false claim are the "Act Of 1871" and "Title 28 U.S.C. (15)(a)".

    THE ACT OF 1871:
    The Act Of 1871 reads in pertinent part, "...[We hereby create] a government by the name of [the "CITY" of] THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA [not the ”United States Of America”] by which name it is hereby constituted a BODY CORPORATE [this term is a source of the confusion] for MUNICIPAL [means "CITY"] PURPOSES [not for other purposes]... [and this body is empowered to] exercise all... powers of a MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [this term is also a source of the confusion and actually means "CITY GOVERNMENT"] not inconsistent with [means "CONSISTENT WITH"] the Constitution and the laws of the United States." http://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes.../c41s3ch62.pdf.


    Thus, the Act of 1871 simply created a "CITY" GOVERNMENT for the "CITY" of Washington, D.C., (NOT FOR THE ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT). But, amateur legal theorists are intellectually unable to tell the difference between the two (a "CITY" GOVERNMENT on one hand and the "ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" on the other hand). Remember, if any FEDERAL statute contains the terms, "corporate" or "corporation" in reference to anything FEDERAL, then amateur legal theorists will use that FEDERAL statute in support of their false claim that the FEDERAL government is itself a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS".

    But, because the "CITY" of Washington, D.C. is the seat of the FEDERAL government and because they mistakenly believe that all corporations in the world are PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporations, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists falsely claim that the terms, "body corporate" and "municipal corporation" (contained in the Act Of 1871) prove that the "ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" (rather than merely the "CITY" GOVERNMENT of Washington, D.C.) IS ITSELF A PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS. https://www.akupressllc.com/150121Cr...ourtDenver.pdf (at page ACTUALLY NUMBERED "3" in the 4th paragraph at about 50% through the text). But, this is not so.

    FACT:
    There is NOTHING about the Act of 1871 that has any affect whatsoever on the FEDERAL government itself. Instead, The Act of 1871 only relates to the "CITY" government of Washington, D.C. Likewise, NOTHING about the Act Of 1971 makes the FEDERAL government itself (or the "CITY" of Washington, D.C. for that matter) a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION which makes "PROFITS" for its private "STOCKHOLDERS". But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

    TITLE 28 U.S.C. 3002(15)(a):
    Title 28 U.S.C. 3002 (15)(a) reads in pertinent part, "DEFINITIONS... As used in THIS chapter [ONLY, and not for any other purpose],... United States means- ... a federal corporation [this term is a source of the confusion]... ." FACT: Title 28 U.S.C. 3002 (15) (a) merely provides the definitions (only) SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF A SINGLE FEDERAL CHAPTER (AND THOSE DEFINITIONS DO NOT APPLY TO ANY OTHER CHAPTER AND CANNOT BE USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER PURPOSE). This is why the VERY FIRST WORDS of Title 28 U.S.C. § 3002 read, “As used in THIS chapter [and NOT other chapters or for other purposes]... ." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002 (See the VERY FIRST WORDS at the TOP of this section.). The SINGLE CHAPTER for which Title 28 U.S.C. § 3002 provides definitions is the FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE ACT (chapter 176).

    But remember, if any FEDERAL statute contains the terms, "corporate" or "corporation" in reference to anything FEDERAL, then amateur legal theorists will use that FEDERAL statute in support of their false claim that the United States is itself a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS". So, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists falsely claim that Title 28 U.S.C. 3002(15)(a) proves that the United States is itself a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS". But, this is not so.

    The SINGLE CHAPTER for which Title 28 U.S.C. 3002(15)(a) provides definitions (chapter 176) relates to the "PROCEDURE" ONLY that the "United States" must follow when collecting certain debts. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3001. Title 28 U.S.C. § 3002 (15) (a) DOES NOT actually define the "United States" as a ”federal corporation”. Instead, it actually defines a “federal corporation” (like AMTRAK) as the “United States” SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF THE FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE ACT.

    APPLICATION:
    So, if AMTRAK (a "federal corporation") sought to collect on such a debt, it would have to follow the SAME "PROCEDURE" set forth in the Fair Debt Collection Procedure Act THAT ANY OTHER PART OF THE "UNITED STATES” GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW TO COLLECT SUCH A DEBT. It is that simple. But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

    FACT:
    This definition IN THE FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE ACT does not mean that the entire “United States” is itself a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which generates "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS".


    DUN & BRADSTREET:
    Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists mistakenly conclude that all governments and governmental agencies are "corporations" because governments and government agencies ARE LISTED IN "DUN & BRADSTREET". See the bottom paragraph on page 2 of 6 here. https://anticorruptionsociety.files....c-handout1.pdf. Scroll down to about 80% through the text of this article here. https://itnjcommittee.org/did-you-kn...s-governments/. But, contrary to what amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe, DUN & BRADSTREET DOES NOT REFLECT A "LIST" OR "REGISTRY" OF "CORPORATIONS".

    Instead, Dun & Bradstreet merely reflects the CREDIT WORTHINESS of ANY ORGANIZATION (corporate or otherwise) with which other organizations (corporate or otherwise) might enter into contracts. APPLICATION: So, if you were the CEO of a building contractor that builds highways and if you were contacted by a state government to build a highway in the state, you could look up that state government in Dun & Bradstreet to determine whether it pays its building contractors on time. It is that simple. Thus, Dun & Bradstreet likewise DOES NOT reflect that a government is a "corporation" (much less a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation). But, amateur legal theorist do not know enough to even realize this.


    THE ACTUAL REAL LAW ITSELF ON WHETHER GOVERNMENTS ARE "CORPORATIONS" FOR AMATEUR LEGAL THEORY PURPOSES:

    1). Thompson v. Scutt, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18159286216902234518&q="Thompson +v.+Scutt"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theories that the state and federal government are "CORPORATIONS"). In this case, the court wrote, "Petitioner [an amateur legal theorist] also contends that THE STATE OF MICHIGAN AND THE UNITED STATES ARE CORPORATIONS, and as such, can only "interface" with other artificial entities, not natural persons like Petitioner [a false claim that Rod Class also makes]. In support of his argument, Petitioner [an amateur legal theorist] cites the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act (FDCPA), 28 U.S.C. 3002 et seq [discussed above], and the Michigan Constitution, Article VII, section 1, NEITHER OF WHICH SUPPORTS HIS CLAIM THAT THE STATE OF MICHIGAN AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE CORPORATIONS [read this phrase again]. Petitioner [an amateur legal theorist] contends that, AS CORPORATIONS, the State of Michigan and the federal government cannot "concern [themselves] with anything OTHER THAN CORPORATE, ARTIFICIAL ENTITIES AND INTANGIBLE ABSTRACTIONS [a false claim that Rod Class also makes].... .’' But, the court held otherwise and wrote, “SUCH REASONING IS DEVOID OF LEGAL SUPPORT [Translation: are amateur legal theories] and contrary to common sense." (at paragraph 9 at about 40% through the text of the case). The court continues at footnote 2 near the end of the case as follows, "The FDCPA [discussed above] DOES NOT STATE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS A CORPORATION [much less a private, for-profit corporation]. Article VII of the Michigan constitution merely indicates that 'each organized county shall be a BODY CORPORATE [not a private, for-profit corporation].'" (at footnote 2 near the end of the case).

    2). DuBose v. Kasich, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4379559949396907798&q="DuBose+v. +Kasich"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE PLAINTIFF'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including the amateur legal theory that the state and federal government are "CORPORATIONS"). In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued various government officials. The court wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] sets forth his own versions of various 'sovereign citizen' [amateur legal] theories. Such [amateur legal] theories involve the alleged CORPORATE STATUS OF OHIO AND THE UNITED STATES... ." But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "... [F]ederal courts have routinely recognized that such [amateur legal] theories are MERITLESS and WORTHY OF LITTLE DISCUSSION [read that phrase again]... . " (at the 13th paragraph, just above section "IV" at about 95% through the text).

    3). Florance v. Buchmeyer, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9160057929430622764&q="Florance+ v.+Buchmeyer"+"responds+that+the+State+of+Texas"&h l=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE PLAINTIFF'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the state and federal government are federal "CORPORATIONS".). In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued various government agencies and officials. The court wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] responds that the STATE OF TEXAS is not protected by immunity under the Eleventh Amendment because it is a 'FEDERAL CORPORATION'... ." (at section "D" at about 65% through the text of the case). Later in the text in section "k" the court held otherwise and wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] cites 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) [discussed above] in the paragraph pertaining to his claim against the USA... . To the extent that Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] relies on § 3002(15) [discussed above] to sue the USA, IT DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE § 3002 [discussed above] IS SIMPLY A DEFINITIONS STATUTE IN THE CHAPTER THAT AUTHORIZES THE USA TO... [COLLECT CERTAIN DEBTS]." (in section "k" at about 85% through the text).

    4). U.S. v. Petersen, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4484968305092096232&q="Daniel+Er nest+Petersen"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). The court wrote, "... Defendant [an amateur legal theorist] contends that 'THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS A FEDERAL CORPORATION, and one that is 'located in the ["CITY" of the] District of Columbia'. ... [The Defendant] further claims that the 'United States Government [rather than merely the "CITY" government of Washington, D.C.] was officially [c]ommercialized in 1871,' apparently arguing that this entity's powers 'shall be limited to the ["CITY" limits of the] District of Columbia.' ... . BUT [THE] DEFENDANT'S RELIANCE ON 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) [discussed above] IS MISPLACED [read that phrase again]. That statute is simply a definitional provision DEFINING the "United States" as, among other options, 'a federal corporation' SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF THE CHAPTER WHICH IT IS PART... . The applicability of [this] Chapter... is confined to CIVIL actions [filed] by the United States [against debtors]... to recover a judgment on a debt... . This CRIMINAL action [this case] is not [such a] a CIVIL debt collection action [so that definition is inapplicable in this case]... . In addition, [THE] DEFENDANT'S RELIANCE ON THE... [Act Of 1871 discussed above], IS LIKEWISE MISPLACED [read that phrase again] as that statute simply 'created a ["CITY"] government by the name of the District of Columbia [not "The United States Of America"],' a municipal corporation [which means a "CITY" government] with ‘jurisdiction over all the territory within the [CITY] limits of the District.’... . The present CRIMINAL prosecution of [the] Defendant [in this case] has nothing to do with the powers that Congress delegated to the ["CITY" of the ] District [Of Columbia. So, THAT DEFINITION DOES NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE]." (at the 13th, 14th and 15th paragraphs at about 35% through the text).

    5). U.S. v. Wiggins, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9638202248861590589&q="US+v.++Wi ggins"+"is+a+corporation"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). The court wrote, "Wiggins [an amateur legal theorist]... ERRONEOUSLY CITES 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) [discussed above] to support his assertion that THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION... . [But, t]hat statute governs the collection of federal debt.... . Section 3002(15) [discussed above] merely provides that the term "United States," WHEN USED "IN THIS... [STATUTE]," refers to a federal corporation, agency, entity, or instrumentality of the United States [not a private, for-profit corporation]." (at footnote 18).

    6). Kitchens v. Becraft, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14825357831238654036&q="Kitchens +v.+Becraft"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE PLAINTIFF’S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued a Texas state official]. The court wrote, "Next, Kitchens [an amateur legal theorist] contends that 'THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION' and thus has no sovereign authority." But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "[T]he Plaintiff's [Kitchen's] objections ARE WITHOUT MERIT [read that phrase again]." (at the 6th paragraph at about 50% through the case).

    7). U.S. v. Beavers, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8251887802426142230&q="US+v.+Bea vers"+meritless+"is+a+federal+corporation"&hl=en&a s_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS' AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including their amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). In this case, the court wrote, "The Defendants [both amateur legal theorists] assert that THE "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" IS A FEDERAL CORPORATION that went bankrupt in 1933 [a false claim that Rod Class also makes] and lacks jurisdiction to prosecute criminal matters... .' But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "THE COURT FINDS THE DEFENDANT'S [the amateur legal theorists'] ARGUMENTS TO BE MERITLESS [read this phrase again]." (at the 17th-18th paragraph at about 50% through the text). At footnote 9, the court continues, "As explained [above], the Defendants cite 28 U.S.C. § 3002 [discussed above] to support their claim that THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION. HOWEVER, A COMPLETE READING OF 28 U.S.C. § 3002 BELIES [means "REFUTES"] THIS INTERPRETATION." (at footnote 9).

    8). Kubicki v U.S., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18372121264929306790&q="Kubicki+ v.+US"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). In this case, a tax protester/amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued the United States. The court wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] argues that Defendant [the United States] has no immunity [from his suit], BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES HAS IDENTIFIED ITSELF AS A FEDERAL CORPORATION for purposes of tax collection activity.' But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "To support this proposition, Plaintiff [the amateur legal theorist] cites 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15)[discussed above]. THIS SECTION, HOWEVER, DOES NOT DEFINE THE UNITED STATES AS A FEDERAL CORPORATION for purposes of tax collection. Instead, IT MERELY PROVIDES THE DEFINITION OF THE "UNITED STATES’ FOR PURPOSES OF THE [SAME] STATUTE [IN WHICH IT APPEARS] AS A ‘FEDERAL CORPORATION’ [not a private, for-profit corporation]... ." (at the 8th paragraph not including block-indented portions at about 60% through the text).

    9). U.S. v. Boyce, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15212483763058805690&q="US+v.+Bo yce"+"limited+to+individuals+residing"&hl=en&as_sd t=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE TAX PROTESTERS' AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including their amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). The court wrote, "The Boyces [both tax protesters and amateur legal theorists]... assert that the court's jurisdiction is limited to individuals residing within the ["CITY" limits of the] District of Columbia citing 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) [discussed above], WHICH DEFINES THE "UNITED STATES" AS... A FEDERAL CORPORATION... . [T]hey contend the court's jurisdiction extends only to the section of territory occupied by 'THE ULTIMATE PARENT FEDERAL CORPORATION,' i.e. the ["CITY" of The] District of Columbia." But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "THIS ARGUMENT IS UNAVAILING [is an amateur legal theory]. Section 3002(15) [discussed above] defines 'United States ONLY for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 3001...', which governs 'federal debt collection procedure'. IT DOES NOT DEFINE THE 'UNITED STATES' AS A FEDERAL CORPORATION FOR PURPOSES OF TAX LAWS [much less as a private for-profit corporation], NOR DOES IT CIRCUMSCRIBE [means "LIMIT"] THE COURT'S JURISDICTION. [citing] Kubicki v. United States [the case directly above], ... '[the subject statute]... DOES NOT DEFINE THE UNITED STATES AS A FEDERAL CORPORATION FOR PURPOSES OF TAX COLLECTION [mush less a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation].'" (at the 15th full paragraph at about 25% through the text).

    10). U.S. v. Smith, http://www.vawd.uscourts.gov/OPINION...-10MJ00061.PDF (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION". In this case, the court wrote, "... Smith [the Defendant/amateur legal theorist] stated: '... {I]n no way, shape or form am I an employee of the Federal government or am I an employee of the FEDERAL CORPORATION under the United States Code Title 28, Section 28 Section 3002, Subsection 15, Section A [discussed above] where THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION AND IT'S A FOR PROFIT CORPORATION as spelled out there.'" (at the 1st paragraph on page 7 of this case as it appears in this link). But, the court held otherwise and called the Defendant's amateur legal theories, including this one, "OUTLANDISH" and actually required the Defendant to undergo an INPATIENT PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION (a psychiatric evaluation while a patient incarcerated in a mental institution). Note: Rod Class has been forced to undergo several such psychiatric examinations for similar reasons.

    11). Joiner v. Perry, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5999032368422140072&q="RAYMOND+D AKIM++HArris+Joiner"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE PRISONER'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including the amateur legal theory that the United States is a CORPORATION). In this case, a prisoner/amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued a North Carolina state official. The court wrote, "He [the prisoner/amateur legal theorist] also testified that 'THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION' to which he holds no 'allegiance', and that therefore the United States may not tax him." (at footnote 3 at the very end of the case). But, the court held otherwise and called the prisoner’s arguments "PATENTLY FRIVOLOUS" and NOT ONLY THREW THE CASE OUT OF COURT, but actually FINED THE PRISONER for making such ridiculous claims.

    12). State v. Hartsoe, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=83340477619696621&q="John+L.+Har tsoe"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION"). In this case, the court wrote, "Hartsoe's [the Defendant's] affidavit was based upon his belief that THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION, which created 'straw men,' fictitious persons separate from real individuals, for each man and woman in order TO CONTROL the people of the United States. Hartsoe [the Defendant] refused to submit to the CORPORATE government and filed his affidavit denying his [own imaginary] 'straw man' or [imaginary] CORPORATE existence." But, the court ruled otherwise.

    13). Miles v. U.S., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3357725607032486211&q="Harry+Edw in+Miles"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION"). In this case the Defendant filed what amounted to a Motion For Relief From Conviction. The court wrote, "The grounds [in the Defendant's motion] include... that THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION and does not have the power to prosecute individuals, and that citizens are not subject to statutory jurisdiction under the Constitution [a false claim that Rod Class also makes]." (at footnote 1). But, the court held otherwise and unceremoniously THREW THE CASE OUT OF COURT.

    14). U.S. v. Provost, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17406735750311497964&q="Andre+Pa ul+Provost"+&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION"). In this case, the court wrote, "... Defendant [the tax protester] filed a request to answer [the complaint], claiming that he had 'a good faith belief that the UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION and that there was no parity with the flesh and blood man.'" But, the court ruled otherwise, DENIED the tax protester's request to file a delinquent answer and UPHELD THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM.

    15). Maxwell v. Snow, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15464772622202031639&q="Maxwell+ v.+Snow"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL THE TAX PROTESTER'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a CORPORATION). In this case, a tax protester unsuccessfully sued a U.S. Treasury official and claimed that, "Texas is not part of the United States, and that the United States itself is unconstitutional because it is not a republican form of government", that THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS A "CORPORATION", that "the federal government’s jurisdiction is limited to [within] the ["CITY" limits of the] District of Columbia and [to within the borders of] other federally owned lands". But, the court held otherwise and held that such amateur legal theories were "WITHOUT MERIT", "PATENTLY FRIVOLOUS" and "LIKEWISE FRIVOLOUS."

    THE BOTTOM LINE:
    Note that ALL amateur legal theories (ex: "all governments are corporations") are always EXACTLY BACKWARDS AND OPPOSITE to what the REAL law actually is. There are NO EXCEPTIONS! Amateur legal theories ARE NOT REAL. They are FAKE. They are LIES. Amateur legal theories and the REAL law are the EXACT OPPOSITES of one another. Amateur legal theories are an IMAGINARY ALTERNATIVE to the REAL law that is actually used by the REAL legal system and the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD. Amateur legal theories have a 100% FAILURE RATE in court BECAUSE THEY ARE FAKE. They are NOT INTENDED TO WORK and they DO NOT WORK! They never have. They never will. Their SOLE PURPOSE is to attempt to discredit and delegitimize our REPUBLICAN form of government, the ELECTED representatives of "We the People" and to incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans. Nothing more.

    FACT:
    Just in case you do not already know, all FUTURE DECISIONS on the subject of whether governments are corporations WILL FOLLOW THE DECISIONS SHOWN ABOVE (CALLED "PRECEDENT"). So, the law on this subject will always be the same as reflected in the cases above.

    https://definitions.uslegal.com/b/binding-precedent/.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent.

    https://dictionary.thelaw.com/binding-precedent/.

    BONUS LAW:

    The cases linked to above did not just rule against the amateur legal theory that "all governments are corporations", the cases linked to above ALSO RULED AGAINST EVERY OTHER AMATEUR LEGAL THEORY RAISED IN THOSE CASES. These additional rulings are shown below. (The cases below appear in the same order they appear above.).

    1). Thompson v. Scutt, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18159286216902234518&q="Thompson +v.+Scutt"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case (also linked to above) ALSO RULED AGAINST ALL OF THE FOLLOWING AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, all of which are also peddled by Rod Class (AND ALL OF WHICH FAILED HERE): claiming to be a "sovereign" and a "citizen/member of [the]... [his home state] Republic", claiming (under the UCC) to have "superior title and claim over the judgment against... [himself]", claiming that "the court’s use of... [a person's name] in capital letters... refers to a separate or fictitious entity, and is enforceable only against that entity", claiming that "the Michigan statutes under which... [he] was convicted do not apply to... [him] because he is 'sovereign' and not a 'person' within the meaning of those statutes", claiming that the "Michigan laws supporting... [his] conviction [for DUI and DWLS-3RD OFFENSE] violate his constitutional right to travel", claiming that "the state lacked jurisdiction because... [he] has a right to removal under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act [as if he was a foreign, sovereign, nation state] and the federal removal statute'' claiming that he "is being wrongfully imprisoned on behalf of another [imaginary] entity [also] called 'CHRISTOPHER BURNELL THOMPSON' [often called the split personality defense]", claiming that his "conviction [for DUI and DWLS-3rd OFFENSE] was the result of fraud and misconduct on the part of the state, the prosecution and defense counsel [as if they forced him to drive drunk—again]", claiming that the state and federal governments are "de facto governments".

    2). DuBose v. Kasich, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4379559949396907798&q="DuBose+v. +Kasich"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case (also linked to above) ALSO RULED AGAINST ALL OF THE FOLLOWING AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, all of which are also peddled by Rod Class (AND ALL OF WHICH FAILED HERE): The Plaintiff (an amateur legal theorist) raised, "the relationship between the yellow fringe on the United States flag and ADMIRALTY jurisdiction and the effect of capitalizing the letters of his name. Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] ultimately maintains that he does not have a contract with either Ohio or the United States and, therefore, does not have to follow government laws [as if that would make any difference]." In response, the court wrote, "... [F]ederal courts have routinely recognized that such [amateur legal] theories are MERITLESS and WORTHY OF LITTLE DISCUSSION [read that phrase again]. 'Other courts have noted the sovereign citizen theory has been CONSISTENTLY REJECTED...' . [and citing another case which] '... REJECT[ED] AS FRIVOLOUS Defendant's argument that he was a 'private natural man and real person' and therefore not subject to the laws of the United States [and citing another case which] 'REJECT[ED] [this] sovereign citizen argument as FRIVOLOUS and UNDESERVING OF 'EXTENDED ARGUMENT [and finally citing another case which] 'h[eld] that a plaintiff's 'yellow fringe flag' arguments were 'INDISPUTABLY MERITLESS' [meaning amateur legal theories]."

    3). Florance v. Buchmeyer, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9160057929430622764&q="Florance+ v.+Buchmeyer"+"responds+that+the+State+of+Texas"&h l=en&as_sdt=40006. This case (also linked to above) ALSO RULED AGAINST ALL OF THE FOLLOWING AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, all of which are also peddled by Rod Class (AND ALL OF WHICH FAILED HERE): suing a judge despite that the judge cannot be sued under "absolute judicial immunity", filing a fraudulent lien against a judge as if the judge owed money to the filer of the lien, claiming that the eleventh amendment immunizes criminals from prosecution (despite that it actually prohibits suits against states in federal court), claiming that a government officer/official can be "personally liable" for official actions taken under "color of law", suing a prosecutor despite that the prosecutor cannot be sued "absolute prosecutorial immunity", suing a government official despite that the government official cannot be sued under "absolute [government] official immunity" and claiming that a county is a "commercial entity engaged in commerce".

    4). U.S. v. Petersen, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4484968305092096232&q="Daniel+Er nest+Petersen"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case (also linked to above) ALSO RULED AGAINST ALL OF THE FOLLOWING AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, all of which are also peddled by Rod Class (AND ALL OF WHICH FAILED HERE): claiming that the entire federal government (rather than merely the CITY of Washington, D.C.) has no jurisdiction outside the borders of the CITY of Washington, D.C., claiming that the Act of 1871 (which created a CITY government for Washington, D.C.) converted the ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (something entirely different) into a commercialized, PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION, claiming that the United States is a "foreign state" inside the borders OF ITSELF, claiming that the 11th amendment (which actually prohibits lawsuits against STATES in FEDERAL court) immunizes all criminals from prosecution, claiming that the professional title, "esquire" (a servant of a knight in battle) is a title of "NOBILITY" (a HEREDITARY title for those BORN OF "NOBLE" BLOOD, like the "KING" or "QUEEN"), claiming that the use of the professional title, "esquire" converts American attorneys into "agents of a foreign government", claiming that the "bar association" (referring to the ABA) is a monopoly, claiming that certain federal statutes were never enacted into positive law and claiming that judges have a "financial interest" in their cases.

    5). U.S. v. Wiggins, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9638202248861590589&q="US+v.++Wi ggins"+"is+a+corporation"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case (also linked to above) ALSO RULED AGAINST ALL OF THE FOLLOWING AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, all of which are also peddled by Rod Class (AND ALL OF WHICH FAILED HERE): claiming that the case is subject to "MARITIME & ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION" in a case that does not actually involve maritime or admiralty, not "consenting" to the law or to the court's jurisdiction (as if that would make any difference), refusing to "stand under" the court's questions, claiming that his name is "his government name" and not his real name, purporting to file a CIVIL "counterclaim" against the government in a CRIMINAL case (which is impossible), attempting to disqualify a judge for a "personal interest" in case and for practicing law, claiming the imaginary right to be represented by a non-lawyer and attempting to use an "attorney in fact" as a substitute for an "attorney at law".

    6). Kitchens v. Becraft, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14825357831238654036&q="Kitchens +v.+Becraft"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case (also linked to above) ALSO RULED AGAINST ALL OF THE FOLLOWING AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, all of which are also peddled by Rod Class (AND ALL OF WHICH FAILED HERE): claiming that there is "no lawful money for the payment of debts" because of the "[imaginary] national bankruptcy of 1933" and because of the "abolition of the gold standard", claiming that there is a "secret state of war" that exists between THE 'FEDERAL UNITED STATES,' WHICH IS A 'FEDERAL CORPORATION', and the people of the several states, claiming that "Federal Reserve Notes are not legal tender", claiming to be a "secured creditor" in a case which has NO "CREDITORS" AT ALL ("secured" or otherwise) and which imaginary "creditor" has no collateral allegedly "securing" the imaginary debt, claiming that "the Supreme Court has determined that all codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, and not [for] human beings in accordance with God's laws", claiming that "all codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lack due process", claiming that "the supreme law of the land is the Constitution for the united States, and not the Constitution of the United States [pretending that there are two different Constitutions]", claiming that the only "lawful money of the Constitution for the united States is gold or silver coin of specific fineness and weight [a Constitutional provision actually applies ONLY TO THE STATES and not to the United States itself]", claiming that "the only lawful jurisdiction of a de jure common law court is under the American flag of peace, and not the Vice ADMIRALTY Court, military jurisdiction, which the Magistrate is treasonously imposing", claiming that "the only lawful jurisdiction is under common law, and not under vice ADMIRALTY, as signified by the U.S. battle flag with gold fringe and eagle on the flagpole currently displayed within the CORPORATE de facto court," claiming to have already "lawfully exercised his remedy" under Public Law 73-10 by "redeeming his birth certificate bond" and "captur[ing] his [imaginary] straw man", claiming "not [to be] a party or signatory to, nor being named in, any statute, code, law, or rule, nor having the provided power of attorney to any government agent or employee to enter him into such compacts” (as if that would make any difference), claiming to be exempt from all laws except those to which he voluntarily assents (as if individual "assent" is required) and claiming that a "military tribunal exercising ADMIRALTY jurisdiction, lacks jurisdiction over his claims, which jurisdiction may only be exercised by a constitutional common law court under the American flag of peace."

    7). U.S. v. Beavers, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8251887802426142230&q="US+v.+Bea vers"+meritless+"is+a+federal+corporation"&hl=en&a s_sdt=40006. This case (also linked to above) ALSO RULED AGAINST ALL OF THE FOLLOWING AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, all of which are also peddled by Rod Class (AND ALL OF WHICH FAILED HERE): claiming that "CAPITAL LETTERS" refer only to CORPORATIONS and not to "flesh and blood persons", claiming that the court is just a division of THE UNITED STATES CORPORATION and therefore lacks jurisdiction, playing the "name game" as a defense ("split personality" and "corporate fiction" verses "flesh and blood" persons), claiming that the ”name game" can deprive the court of jurisdiction, doing the following in a futile effort to avoid the court's jurisdiction, denying citizenship, claiming sovereign citizenship, claiming foreign citizenship, claiming freeman status and claiming that the IRS is really a private, for-profit, Puerto Rican CORPORATION.

    8). Kubicki v U.S., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18372121264929306790&q="Kubicki+ v.+US"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case (also linked to above) ALSO RULED AGAINST ALL OF THE FOLLOWING AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, all of which are also peddled by Rod Class (AND ALL OF WHICH FAILED HERE): putting property owned by the tax protesters into the names of other people in an effort to avoid paying taxes, claiming that IRS tax laws do not apply outside the borders of Washington, D.C. and other federal territories, claiming that "wages are not income" for purposes of U.S. income tax laws, claiming sovereign and foreign state immunities as a defense and denying citizenship in an effort to avoid the jurisdiction of the court.

    CASE 9-15 (ABOVE IN THE TOP LIST OF CASES) DID NOT MAKE ADDITIONAL RULINGS OF THE TYPE LISTED IN CASE 1-8 HERE.


    ABOUT ROD CLASS:
    Rod Class is a functionally-illiterate amateur legal theorist with barely a high school education WHO HAS LOST EVERY SINGLE CASE IN WHICH HE HAS EVER BEEN INVOLVED (OVER 76 CONSECUTIVE LOSSES IN A ROW, AND STILL COUNTING). Further, Class has a long history of PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS involving DELUSIONS, PATHOLOGICAL OPPOSITION/DEFIANCE of AUTHORITY FIGURES and PATHOLOGICAL LYING. Moreover, Class is a MULTI-CONVICTED, WEAPONS RELATED, CONVICTED FELON who also has SEVERAL ADDITIONAL MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS, as well. Because of Class’ well-publicized HATRED of our ELECTED representatives, their appointees and our REPUBLICAN form of government, because of his HISTORY OF PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS and because of his LENGTHY CRIMINAL HISTORY involving DEADLY WEAPONS, Class has been placed on the United States TERRORIST WATCH LIST.

    ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH:
    Snoop4truth is a legal expert and whistle blower who exposes online hoaxes. Snoop4truth did not reveal this information to harm Rod Class. Instead, Snoop4truth exposed this information solely to reduce the CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE that such INTENTIONAL FRAUD inflicts upon the American people every single day. Had it not been for Rod Class' role in the "Judge DALE Hoax", Snoop4truth would not have exposed this information here.

    The message to all hoaxers and charlatans? Just tell the truth.
    Last edited by snoop4truth; 4th December 2018 at 22:36.

  18. Link to Post #13
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    30th September 2015
    Age
    45
    Posts
    52
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 29 times in 14 posts

    Default Re: Rod Class & his many hoaxes

    COMMENT 13: ROD CLASS & THE "SOVEREIGN CITIZEN" HOAX

    FIRST SEE THE HOAX HERE:
    http://removingtheshackles.blogspot....udge-dale.html (contains 100% FAKE case law and a series of LIES written by Rodney DALE Class while pretending to "Judge DALE").

    THE HOAX:
    Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists mistakenly claim that a "SOVEREIGN" is an INDIVIDUAL and that the enemy of a "SOVEREIGN" is "We the People" COLLECTIVELY in the form of the GOVERNMENT of "We the People". But, this is not so.

    THE TRUTH:
    "We the People" COLLECTIVELY in the form OF THE GOVERNMENT of "We the People" IS THE "SOVEREIGN". The INDIVIDUAL IS NOT "SOVEREIGN".

    THE ACTUAL REAL LAW ITSELF ON WHETHER INDIVIDUALS ARE "SOVEREIGN"

    1). Lozano v. Bank of America Loans, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the plaintiff (an amateur legal theorist) sued a lender and claimed to be "SOVEREIGN". But, the court ruled otherwise and held, "First, SHE [the plaintiff] IS NOT A "SOVEREIGN". A SOVEREIGN IS THE GOVERNMENT, OR THE LEADER OF A GOVERNMENT [a Monarch]. SHE [the plaintiff] IS NIETHER [a government or a leader of a government]." TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").

    2). U.S. v. Crawford, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "Defendant [an amateur legal theorist] asserts in his motion that HE IS A... SOVEREIGN, and as such is ENTITLED TO SOVEREIGN [GOVERNMENTAL] IMMUNITY from prosecution." But, the court ruled otherwise and held, "Defendant... IS NOT A SOVEREIGN [meaning a GOVERNMENT], BUT [IS] AN INDIVIDUAL. As with ANY INDIVIUAL criminal defendant, Crawford [the INDIVIDUAL defendant] is NOT ENTITLED TO SOVEREIGN [GOVERNMENTAL] IMMUNITY despite his claims to the contrary [because he is NOT a GOVERNMENT]... ." TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").

    3). Cooper v U.S., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006 (HOLDING THAT ONLY THE UNTIED STATES AND THE INDIVIDUAL STATES ARE "SOVEREIGN"). In this case, the court held, "It is fundamental that THE UNITED STATES EXISTS AS A SOVEREIGN of delegated powers; DELEGATED TO IT BY THE "SOVEREIGNS" MAKING UP THE UNITED STATES, THE INDIVIDUAL STATES [not individual human beings]." (in the 3rd to last paragraph of this case). TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").

    4). Chisolm v. Georgia, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (HOLDING THAT ONLY THE STATES AND THE UNITED STATES ARE SOVEREIGN). The court wrote, "EVERY STATE IN THE UNION in every instance where ITS SOVEREIGNTY has NOT been delegated to THE UNITED STATES, [IS]... COMPLETELY SOVEREIGN, AS THE UNITED STATES ARE [SOVEREIGN] IN RESPECT TO THE POWERS SURRENDERED [TO THEM BY THE STATES]. THE UNITED STATES ARE SOVEREIGN AS TO ALL POWERS OF GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY SURRENDERED [TO THEM BY THE STATES]: EACH STATE IN THE UNION IS SOVEREIGN AS TO ALL POWERS RESERVED. " (at the 14th paragraph at about 15% through the text). TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").

    SIDE NOTE: Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that the STATES are franchises or subsidiaries of the FEDERAL government. https://scannedretina.com/2014/11/27...erican-people/. But, this is exactly BACKWARDS and OPPOSITE to the truth. The FEDERAL government is a franchise and subsidiary of THE STATES. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. This case reads, "The powers of the general [FEDERAL] Government ARE MADE UP OF CONCESSIONS [GIFTS] FROM THE STATES." (at the 24th paragraph at about 35% through the text).

    5). Parker v. Brown, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (HOLDING THAT STATES ARE SOVEREIGN). The court wrote, "Under the Constitution, THE STATES ARE SOVEREIGN, SAVE ONLY [means "EXCEPT"] AS CONGRESS MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY [under Article 3, Section 8] SUBTRACT FROM THEIR AUTHORITY [their SOVEREIGNTY]." (at the 16th paragraph at about 30% through the text). TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").

    6). Feldman v. Gardner, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. (HOLDING THAT THE STATES ARE SOVEREIGN). The court wrote, "Inherent in our system of government is the concept of DUAL [meaning FEDERAL and STATE] SOVEREIGNTY; EACH STATE IS SOVEREIGN, except to the extent that ITS SOVEREIGNTY is curtailed by the [United States] Constitution or validly restricted by Congress [as set forth in Article 3, Section 8]." (at the 1st paragraph in "Section B" at about 25% through the text). TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").

    7). Dred Scott v. Sandford (rev'd other grounds) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the Chief Justice of The United States Supreme Court held that the terms "SOVEREIGN" and "SOVEREIGNTY" refer ONLY to "We the People" COLLECTIVELY in the form of the GOVERNMENT and NOT TO INDIVIDUALS. He wrote, "The words 'people [a PLURAL term] of the United States' and 'citizens' [a PLURAL term] are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe THE POLITICAL BODY [a SINGULAR term] who, according to our republican institutions, FORM THE SOVEREIGN [MEANING FORM THE GOVERNMENT], and who [COLLECTIVELY] hold the power and conduct the Government THROUGH THEIR [A PLURAL TERM] [ELECTED] REPRESENTATIVES [meaning the SOVEREIGNTY of "We the People" is exercised COLLECTIVELY through our ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, not INDIVIDUALLY], They [a PLURAL term] are what we familiarly call the "SOVEREIGN PEOPLE [a PLURAL term]," and every [INDIVIDUAL] citizen is ONE of this [SOVEREIGN GROUP OF] PEOPLE [a PLURAL term], and a constituent member of this SOVEREIGNTY [the GOVERNMENT of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY]." (at the 24th paragraph at about 5% through the text). TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").

    8). Republic Of Panama v. BCCI Holdings, Inc. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "The rules of personal jurisdiction protect an INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHTS, NOT A SOVEREIGN'S RIGHTS [drawing a stark contrast between an INDIVIDUAL and a SOVEREIGN]." (in the 24th paragraph). Translation: An INDIVIDUAL has entirely DIFFERENT RIGHTS when compared to the rights of a SOVEREIGN. So, a SOVEREIGN cannot logically be an INDIVIDUAL.

    THE BOTTOM LINE: Note that ALL amateur legal theories (ex: "individuals, rather than governments, are sovereign") are always EXACTLY BACKWARDS AND OPPOSITE to what the REAL law actually is. There are NO EXCEPTIONS! Amateur legal theories ARE NOT REAL. They are FAKE. They are LIES. Amateur legal theories and the REAL law are the EXACT OPPOSITES of one another. Amateur legal theories are an IMAGINARY ALTERNATIVE to the REAL law that is actually used by the REAL legal system and the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD. Amateur legal theories have a 100% FAILURE RATE in court BECAUSE THEY ARE FAKE. They are NOT INTENDED TO WORK and they DO NOT WORK! They never have. They never will. Their SOLE PURPOSE is to attempt to discredit and delegitimize our REPUBLICAN form of government, the ELECTED representatives of "We the People" and intended to incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans. Nothing more.

    FACT: Just in case you do not already know, all FUTURE DECISIONS on the subject of whether individuals rather than governments are "sovereign" WILL FOLLOW THE DECISIONS SHOWN ABOVE (CALLED "PRECEDENT"). So, the law on this same subject will always be the same as reflected in the cases above.
    https://definitions.uslegal.com/b/binding-precedent/.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent.
    https://dictionary.thelaw.com/binding-precedent/.


    FACT: Thus, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists who oppose their own government ACTUALLY OPPOSE THE VERY "SOVEREIGN" AND THE VERY "SOVEREIGNTY" THAT THEY CLAIM TO SUPPORT. This means that Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists who oppose their own government ARE ACTUALLY THE ENEMIES of the "SOVEREIGN" and ACTUALLY THE ENEMIES of "SOVEREIGNTY", not their supporters. But, they do not know enough to even realize this. This is why many such amateur legal theorists (like Rod Class) find themselves on the United States TERRORIST WATCH LIST (because they actually oppose the "SOVEREIGN" and because they actually oppose "SOVEREIGNTY").

    This fundamental mistake (the mistaken belief that the INDIVIDUAL is "SOVEREIGN" and that the GOVERNMENT of "We the People" IS NOT "SOVEREIGN") reflects that the terms, "SOVEREIGN" and "SOVEREIGNTY" are perhaps the single most misused and misunderstood terms in all of amateur legal theory.

    ABOUT SOVEREIGNTY

    BACKGROUND: Originally in politics, a "SOVEREIGN" was a SINGLE "MONARCH" (King or Queen) GOVERNMENTAL HEAD OF STATE who GOVERNED a nation state and all of the INDIVIDUALS in the nation state. Originally, the RIGHT of a SINGLE "MONARCH" GOVERNMENTAL HEAD OF STATE to GOVERN his/her own nation state and all of the INDIVIDUALS in its own nation state WITHOUT OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE was that MONARCH's right of "SOVEREIGNTY".

    Then and now, a "SOVEREIGN" meant/means a "GOVERNMENT" OF ITS OWN NATION STATE and all of the individuals in its own nation state. Then and now, "SOVEREIGNTY," meant/means that GOVERNMENT’S RIGHT TO GOVERN ITS OWN NATION STATE and all of the individuals in its own nation state WITHOUT OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE.

    THE STATES: But, here in the United States, we rejected the notion of a SINGLE "MONARCH" GOVERNMENTAL HEAD OF STATE to GOVERN the state and all of the INDIVIDUALS in the state. Here in our country, we adopted a republican form of government whereby "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) GOVERNED our own states and all of the INDIVIDUALS in our own state COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) through our ELECTED representatives of our own STATE.

    So, here in our country, THE STATE ITSELF, which consists of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) became "SOVEREIGN" (which still means THE GOVERNMENT OF A STATE). This means that in our country THE STATE ITSELF legally stands in the shoes of the SINGLE MONARCH of yesteryear. So, in our country, THE STATE ITSELF GOVERNS the STATE and all of the INDIVIDUALS in the state (instead of the SINGLE MONARCH of yesteryear). But, the right, power and authority of THE STATE ITSELF as a "SOVEREIGN" and the right, power and authority of the MONARCH of yesteryear as a "SOVEREIGN" ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. In our country, a "SOVEREIGN" IS STILL A "GOVERNMENT" OF A STATE, but a "SOVEREIGN" is no longer a SINGLE MONARCH.

    Medvedieff v. Cities Service Oil Co., CLICK HERE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...40006&as_vis=1. This case reads, "The term`citizen,' as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term 'subject' in the common law [when MONARCHS ruled supreme], and the change of phrase [from "subject" to "citizen"] has entirely resulted from the change [in the form] of government [from a "MONARCHY" to a "REPUBLICAN" form of government]. The SOVEREIGNTY has been transferred from one man [a "MONARCH"] to the COLLECTIVE BODY OF THE PEOPLE [CALLED THE "STATE"] —and HE WHO BEFORE WAS A 'SUBJECT' OF A KING 'IS NOW A CITIZEN OF THE STATE.'" [CLICK HERE http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictiona...overeign.aspx; https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/...lish/sovereign]. TRANSLATION: SOVEREIGNTY (THE RIGHT TO RULE) HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM ONE MAN (A "MONARCH") TO THE COLLECTIVE BODY OF THE PEOPLE AS A WHOLE (CALLED THE "STATE") —AND HE WHO BEFORE WAS A "SUBJECT" OF A SOVEREIGN MONARCH IS NOW A CITIZEN OF THE SOVEREIGN "STATE.'"

    DEFINITION OF "SOVEREIGN":

    http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/Sovereign.aspx

    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/...lish/sovereign

    THE BOTTOM LINE: Thus, In our country, the term, "SOVEREIGN" is a term THAT ONLY APPLIES TO A GOVERNMENT OF "WE THE PEOPLE" COLLECTIVELY (AS A WHOLE) AND NOT TO A SINGLE "CITIZEN", INDIVIDUAL OR PERSON INDIVIDUALLY. But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

    Here in the United States, the INDIVIDUAL did not become a "GOVERNMENT" OF A STATE. So, here in the United States, the INDIVIDUAL did not become a "SOVEREIGN" (a GOVERNMENT OF A STATE). As a result, here in the United States, the INDIVIDUAL does not GOVERN the STATE or any of the INDIVIDUALS in the state.

    THE UNITED STATES: The United States ITSELF is also a SOVEREIGN nation state consisting of a union of MEMBER SOVEREIGN STATES. So, here in the United States, THE STATES and the United States are both "SOVEREIGN" GOVERNMENTAL HEADS OF STATE (WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS AS DIFFERENTIATED BY SUBJECT MATTER IN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION).

    This means that here in the United States, THE STATE AND THE UNITED STATES OCCUPY THE SAME EXACT LEGAL POSITION (AND HAVE THE SAME LEGAL RIGHT, POWER AND AUTHORITY TO GOVERN THE STATE AND ALL OF THE INDIVIDUALS IN THE STATE) AS DID THE SINGLE MONARCH OF YESTERYEAR, except that the powers of the United States (as distinguished from the individual STATES) are limited to those powers expressly delegated to it BY THE STATES in the United States Constitution (a tiny list of subjects), whereas the powers of the individual STATES (as distinguished from the United States) have no such limitation.

    Cooper v U.S., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "It is fundamental that THE UNITED STATES EXISTS AS A SOVEREIGN of delegated powers; delegated to it BY THE "SOVEREIGNS" MAKING UP THE UNITED STATES, THE INDIVIDUAL STATES [not individual human beings]." (in the 3rd TO LAST paragraph of this case).


    Here in the United States, "We the People" exercise our "SOVEREIGNTY" COLLECTIVELY (NOT INDIVIDUALLY) through our VOTES. ---Thomas Jefferson (see below). Thus, "We (a PLURAL term) the People (also a PLURAL term)" exercise our "SOVEREIGNTY" (COLLECTIVELY, not INDIVIDUALLY) through our ELECTIONS.

    Jenkins v. Williamson-Butler, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. The court quoted Thomas Jefferson and wrote, "IT IS BY THEIR [a PLURAL term] VOTES [also a PLURAL term] THAT THE PEOPLE [also a PLURAL term] EXERCISE THEIR [also a PLURAL term] SOVEREIGNTY [AND NOT BY ANY OTHER MEANS]. ---Thomas Jefferson." (at the 12th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 60% through the text). TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "WE THE PEOPLE" COLLECTIVELY IN THE FORM OF "THE GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL ACTING OUTSIDE THE GOVERMENT CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").

    Note that the term "the governed' (below) IS A PLURAL TERM (not an INDIVIDUAL term).

    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/co...f-the-governed

    But, as INDIVIDUALS, none of us are “SOVEREIGN” (which still means the GOVERNMENT of a state) and as INDIVIDUALS, none of us can exercise any "SOVEREIGNTY" (which still means the right to GOVERN the state and all of the INDIVIDUALS in the state). In our country, we no longer recognize a SINGLE INDIVIDUAL (or “MONARCH”) as “SOVEREIGN”. In our country, no single INDIVIDUAL is the GOVERNMENT OF A STATE. This is why, in our country, no INDIVIDUAL can be "SOVEREIGN" (WHICH STILL MEANS A GOVERNMENT OF A STATE).

    Lozano v. Bank of America Loans, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. The court held, "First, she [the plaintiff] IS NOT A "SOVEREIGN". A SOVEREIGN IS THE GOVERNMENT, OR THE LEADER OF A GOVERNMENT [such as the Queen Of England]. She [the plaintiff] is neither [a government or a leader of a government]." TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").

    APPLICATION: This is why every amateur legal theorist who claims to be "SOVEREIGN" (a GOVERNMENT) ALWAYS LOSES on that issue with ALL law enforcement officers and with ALL courts. This is why ALL law enforcement officers and ALL courts ALWAYS treat such amateur legal theorists as the mere INDIVIDUALS that they really are. Amateur legal theorists who claim to be "SOVEREIGN" (a GOVERNMENT) to law enforcement officers and in court do nothing but demonstrate their IGNORANCE of the law and their IGNORANCE of history--- AND THEY ALWAYS LOSE!

    WHAT YOU CAN DO: If you do not like the laws, the ELECTED legislators, the ELECTED executive officers or the ELECTED judges or the ELECTED prosecutors, then do something about it. VOTE OR RUN FOR OFFICE. Pretending to be an INDIVIDUAL, GOVERNMENT OF A STATE (a “SOVEREIGN” MONARCH) has never, and will never work for you as a “defense” to the application of any law, the jurisdiction of any law enforcement officer or court or to the consequences any arrest, charge or conviction.

    CONCLUSION: IN OUR COUNTRY, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN BE A "SOVEREIGN CITIZEN" (OR OTHERWISE "SOVEREIGN"). HERE, AND ELSEWHERE, ONLY A GOVERNMENT CAN BE A "SOVEREIGN".

    THE ACTUAL REAL LAW ON WHETHER AN "INDIVIDUAL" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN" AND THEREFORE BE "IMMUNE" FROM PROSECUTION FOR VIOLATING STATUTES WRITTEN BY LAWMAKERS ELECTED BY "WE THE PEOPLE":

    1. U.S. v. Benabe,https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, several defendants (all of whom were amateur legal theorists) falsely claimed to be "SOVEREIGN" and therefore claimed that they were not subject to the court's jurisdiction. But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "We [the courts] have REPEATEDLY REJECTED their [referring to amateur legal theorists'] theories of INDIVIDUAL [rather than collective] SOVEREIGNTY, immunity from prosecution, and their ilk." (citations omitted). The court then cited a number of other decisions with approval which. " ... REJECT[ED] the 'shop worn' argument that a[n] [INDIVIDUAL] DEFENDANT IS A SOVEREIGN [a GOVERNMENT] and is beyond the jurisdiction bounds of the district court. (citation omitted)... [and another case] describing defendant's proposed 'SOVEREIGN CITIZEN defense as having 'NO CONCEIVABLE VALIDITY IN AMERICAN LAW' (citation omitted)... [and another case] DISMISSING [SOVEREIGN CITIZEN] jurisdiction arguments as FRIVOULOUS... ." In the case at bar, the court held, "Regardless of an INDIVIDUAL'S claimed status of descent, be it as a 'SOVEREIGN CITIZEN,' a 'secured-party creditor,' or a 'flesh-and-blood human being [rather than a corporate fiction],' THAT [INDIVIDUAL] PERSON IS NOT BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS. These [amateur legal] theories SHOULD BE REJECTED summarily [means "without any delay"], however they are presented." (at paragraph 23 at about 50% through the text). TRANSLATION: Claiming to be "SOVEREIGN" ("a GOVERNMENT") WILL NOT BENEFIT YOU IN ANY WAY IN ANY TYPE OF CASE. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a GOVERNMENT (a "SOVEREIGN").

    2. Williams v, Georgia Dept. Of Corrections, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "[The Plaintiff's]... claims are brought under a 'SOVEREIGN CITIZEN' [amateur legal] theory. THIS IS A FRIVOLOUS [AMATEUR LEGAL] LEGAL THEORY THAT IS CONSISTENTLY REJECTED BY... [THE] COURTS [read this phrase again]." (citations omitted). The court went on to cite the holdings of other courts in support, "The ... [amateur legal] theories of `SOVEREIGN CITIZENS' are NOT ESTABLISHED LAW IN THIS COURT OR ANYWHERE IN THIS COUNTRY'S VALID LEGAL SYSTEM (citations omitted)... [and another decision] finding the SOVEREIGN CITIZEN argument to be to 'WHOLLY INSUBSTANTIAL AND FRIVOLOUS' (citation omitted)... [and another decision which] REJECT[ED] THE SOVEREIGN CITIZEN ARGUMENT as 'SHOP WORN' and FRIVOLOUS.'" In the case at bar, the court held, "The Court [referring to itself] therefore finds that [the Plaintiff's SOVEREIGN CITIZEN]... LEGAL THEORY is also 'INDISPUTABLY MERITLESS' [read this phrase again]." (at paragraph 8 in this case at about 90% through the text). TRANSLATION: Claiming to be "SOVEREIGN" ("a GOVERNMENT") WILL NOT BENEFIT YOU IN ANY WAY IN ANY TYPE OF CASE. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a GOVERNMENT (a "SOVEREIGN").

    3. Paul v. State Of New York, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. This case reads, "It is clear [that the Plaintiff]... is an adherent of the 'SOVEREIGN CITIZENS' movement (citations omitted) which the Second Circuit has described as 'a loosely affiliated group who [mistakenly] believe that the state and federal governments [of "We the People"] lack constitutional legitimacy and therefore have no authority to regulate their behavior.'" (citations omitted)... . The court cited other cases with approval and continued, "So-called SOVEREIGN CITIZENS [mistakenly] believe that they are not subject to government authority [of "We the People"] and [UNSUCCESSFULLY] employ various tactics in an attempt to, among other things, avoid paying taxes, extinguish debts, and derail criminal proceedings. (citation omitted). The `SOVEREIGN CITIZEN MOVEMENT' is well documented. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has classified`SOVEREIGN CITIZENS' as domestic terror threats BECAUSE THEY ARE ANTI-GOVERNMENT [of "We the People"] EXTREMISTS... ." In the case at bar, the court wrote, "The gravamen [core of] of plaintiff's amended complaint is that as a SOVEREIGN CITIZEN, he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the ... courts... . [But] contrary to plaintiff's contentions, 'SOVEREIGN CITIZENS,' like ALL... [INDIVIDUALS in] the United States, ARE SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE JURISDICTION IN WHICH THEY [FIND THEMSELVES]... ." (citations omitted). The court cited other decisions with approval which found "similar [SOVEREIGN CITIZEN] claims by Moorish Nationals... [to the effect] that they are not subject to... state laws, to be 'MERITLESS'. Plaintiff's purported [means "pretended"] status as a 'SOVEREIGN CITIZEN' 'does NOT enable him to violate state and federal laws [of "We the People"] without consequence.'" (citations omitted). Since... plaintiff's factual allegations in the amended complaint are CLEARLY BASELESS, and "[t]he conspiracy and legal revisionist [amateur legal] theories of 'SOVEREIGN CITIZENS' are NOT ESTABLISHED LAW IN THIS COURT OR ANYWHERE IN THIS COUNTRY'S VALID LEGAL SYSTEM,"... , plaintiff's amended complaint is both FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY FRIVOLOUS. Accordingly, the amended complaint is sua sponte [means "on the court's own motion"] DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS." (at paragraph 10 at about 75% through the text of the case.). TRANSLATION: Claiming to be "SOVEREIGN" ("a GOVERNMENT") WILL NOT BENEFIT YOU IN ANY WAY IN ANY TYPE OF CASE. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a GOVERNMENT (a "SOVEREIGN").

    4. Frye v. Barbour, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued various government officials who he mistakenly blamed for his many criminal convictions and incarcerations. The court wrote, "[The]... Plaintiff [claims]... that this court lacks jurisdiction over him [because]... he is a SOVEREIGN CITIZEN, not subject to the laws of the United States of America... . However, the courts that have [already] considered such 'SOVEREIGN' CITIZEN' claims have found them to be FRIVOLOUS." The court cited other decisions is support which held, "[C]ourts ROUTINELY REJECT "SOVEREIGN CITIZEN' claims as FRIVOLOUS. (citation omitted). 'Regardless of an individual's claimed status of descent, be it as a `SOVEREIGN CITIZEN' , a `secured-party creditor,' or a `flesh-and-blood human being [rather than as a corporate fiction],' that person is not beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. These [amateur legal] theories SHOULD BE REJECTED summarily, however they are presented.' (citation omitted). '[S]OVEREIGN CITIZEN claims are WHOLLY FRIVOLOUS [read that phrase again].'" (at the 12th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 85% through the text). TRANSLATION: Claiming to be "SOVEREIGN" ("a GOVERNMENT") WILL NOT BENEFIT YOU IN ANY WAY IN ANY TYPE OF CASE. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a GOVERNMENT (a "SOVEREIGN").

    5. Dudley v. Eggert, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued a government official for "seeking to incarcerate a SOVEREIGN and NATURAL FREE-MAN of the land [referring to himself] and extort [his] money without a contract threatening [his] liberty [as if a contract were necessary]." The court held that "[courts have]... "REPEATEDLY REJECTED... [such amateur legal] theories of INDIVIDUAL [rather than collective] SOVEREIGNTY, immunity from prosecution, and their ilk." (citation omitted). SOVEREIGN CITIZEN [amateur legal] theories are typically raised by defendants in criminal prosecutions or by tax protestors, but courts in this Circuit HAVE [ALSO] SUMMARILY REJECTED THEM in other contexts as well. (citation omitted). The court cited another case in support which "REJECT[ED] the plaintiff's SOVEREIGN CITIZEN challenge to state child support proceedings as "SHOP WORN" and "FRIVOLOUS." (at the 3rd to last paragraph at about 85% through the text). TRANSLATION: Claiming to be "SOVEREIGN" ("a GOVERNMENT") WILL NOT BENEFIT YOU IN ANY WAY IN ANY TYPE OF CASE. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a GOVERNMENT (a "SOVEREIGN").

    6. Hoglund v. Indiana, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a prisoner (and amateur legal theorist) unsuccessfully sued various state agencies and officials for imaginary misconduct that he mistakenly claimed resulted in his convictions. He alleged that government officials created laws "meant to control the people a as [fictional] legal entities, but not the SOVEREIGN man [referring to himself]... ." But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "The court of appeals has "REPEATEDLY REJECTED... [amateur legal] theories of INDIVIDUAL [rather than collective] SOVEREIGNTY, immunity from prosecution, and their ilk." (citation omitted). Even if an individual claims the status of "a `SOVEREIGN CITIZEN,' a `secured-party creditor,' or a `flesh-and-blood human being,' that person is not beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. These [amateur legal] theories SHOULD BE REJECTED summarily, however they are presented." (citation omitted). The court also cited another case in support which "describe[ed] defendant's 'SOVEREIGN CITIZEN' defense as having "NO CONCEIVABLE VALIDITY IN AMERICAN LAW.'" The court ruled, "Because all three of Plaintiff's claims rest on his [amateur legal] theories of SOVEREIGN CITIZENSHIP, this complaint must be DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS." (at the 3rd and 4th paragraph at about 85% through the text). TRANSLATION: Claiming to be "SOVEREIGN" ("a GOVERNMENT") WILL NOT BENEFIT YOU IN ANY WAY IN ANY TYPE OF CASE. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a GOVERNMENT (a "SOVEREIGN").

    7. U.S. v. Johnson, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the Defendant was charged with filing a fraudulent lien against a federal employee. The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charges and claimed to be "a SOVEREIGN CITIZEN" and thus [claimed] the court ha[d] no jurisdiction over him." But the court held otherwise and wrote, "[T]he Seventh Circuit HAS READILY REJECTED such arguments alleging the SOVEREIGNTY OF [INDIVIDUAL] CITIZENS, finding such arguments to be FRIVOLOUS." (citation omitted). The court also cited other cases in support, one of which, "REJECT[ED] the 'SHOP WORN' argument that a defendant is a SOVEREIGN ["a GOVERNMENT"] and is beyond the jurisdiction bounds of the district court'... [and another case which] "DISMISS[ED] [a] lack of personal jurisdiction argument as FRIVOLOUS because [federal district] COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION OVER [ALL] DEFENDANTS [charged with]... VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL LAW. A [FEDERAL] DISTRICT COURT HAS PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A DEFENDANT WHO 'IS WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES.' (citation omitted). Thus [A] DEFENDANT... WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES [IS] ...SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.' (citation omitted)... . Therefore, the Court REJECTS Defendant's argument that he is somehow a SOVEREIGN ["a GOVERNMENT"]... WHO IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT." TRANSLATION: Claiming to be "SOVEREIGN" ("a GOVERNMENT") WILL NOT BENEFIT YOU IN ANY WAY IN ANY TYPE OF CASE. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a GOVERNMENT (a "SOVEREIGN").

    8. U.S. v Schneider, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the Defendant was convicted and sentenced to prison for five years for mailing a threatening letter to a judge (just like Rod Class routinely does). His sole defense to the charges was that "he is a FREE, SOVEREIGN CITIZEN and as such not subject to the jurisdiction of the federal courts." But, the court disagreed and wrote, "[T]hat defense has NO CONCEIVABLE VALIDITY IN AMERICAN LAW... ." (at the 2nd paragraph at about 40% through the text). TRANSLATION: Claiming to be "SOVEREIGN" ("a GOVERNMENT") WILL NOT BENEFIT YOU IN ANY WAY IN ANY TYPE OF CASE. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a GOVERNMENT (a "SOVEREIGN").

    9. Bey v. Indiana, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist sued the state to stop it from taxing his real property. This case reads, "Bey says he's a 'SOVEREIGN CITIZEN' and therefore can't lawfully be taxed by Indiana or its subdivisions in the absence of a contract between them and him [as if a contract were necessary]." (citations omitted). But, the court wrote, "We have REPEATEDLY REJECTED such claims. (citations omitted). We do so [REJECT SUCH CLAIMS] in this case as well... ." (at the 2nd paragraph at about 35% through the text). TRANSLATION: Claiming to be "SOVEREIGN" ("a GOVERNMENT") WILL NOT BENEFIT YOU IN ANY WAY IN ANY TYPE OF CASE. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a GOVERNMENT (a "SOVEREIGN").

    10. Osoria v. Connecticut" https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist who was convicted for sexually molesting a child sued the state that convicted and imprisoned him. The court wrote, "... Plaintiff's complaint MUST BE DISMISSED as... FAILING TO STATE A PLAUSIBLE CLAIM... and AS "FRIVOLOUS"... because it is based on an "INDISPUTABLY MERITLESS LEGAL THEORY [referring to SOVEREIGN CITIZEN THEORY]. (citation omitted). Given the language of Plaintiff's Complaint — declaring himself a "real flesh and blood man," "a natural born, free, living, breathing, flesh and blood human with SENTIENT [a term also used DYNAMO] and more existence... upon the soil, and "the living man,"... Plaintiff appears to consider himself a 'SOVEREIGN CITIZEN'... . Numerous Circuits have ... REJECTED [the]... underlying premise [of SOVEREIGN CITIZENS to the effect] that federal courts lack jurisdiction over all 'LIVING MEN.'" (citations omitted). In support, the court cited a number of holdings from other cases as follows, "[T]o the extent that the plaintiff argues that he is a SOVEREIGN CITIZEN and not subject to... [state] laws, [such an argument is]`WHOLLY INSUBSTANTIAL AND FRIVOLOUS.' (citations omitted). Defendants claiming to be 'SOVEREIGN CITIZENS' assert that the federal government [of "We the People"] is illegitimate and insist that they are not subject to its jurisdiction. [But] [t]he [SOVEREIGN CITIZEN] defense has `NO CONCEIVABLE VALIDITY IN AMERICAN LAW.'... ." The court then wrote, "[Federal and state courts]... have SIMILARLY DISMISSED "SOVEREIGN CITIZEN" claims." Then, in citing those other courts, the court wrote, "...[A]rguments common to the "SOVEREIGN CITIZEN" movement[]... have been CONSISTENTLY REJECTED by federal courts." (citation omitted). The court then cited another case which held, "This Court adds its voice TO THE JUDICIAL CHORUS [means hundreds of other courts] REJECTING, AS LEGALLY UNSUPPORTABLE, SOVEREIGN-CITIZEN-BASED challenges to federal law." (citation omitted). The court cited another case which held, "The`SOVEREIGN CITIZEN' BELIEF SYSTEM has been described by other courts as `COMPLETELY WITHOUT MERIT, 'PATENTLY FRIVOLOUS', and HAVING 'NO CONCEIVABLE VALIDITY IN AMERICAN LAW. (citations omitted)... ." In the case at bar, the court wrote, "[t]he crux of Osorio's Complaint is that [courts]... have no 'jurisdiction over living men.' [He argues that]... because... SOVEREIGN [CITIZENS]... are not named in the codes, [they]... are not subject to the codes... . He explicitly asserts that he, the "Secured Party/Plaintiff is not a subject of, or to . . . the United States Constitution, its Ordinances, Statutes, Codes, or Regulations... . Because Plaintiff's claims are ALL PREMISED on this "SOVEREIGN CITIZEN"... theory, THEY [ALL] FAIL TO STATE A PLAUSIBLE CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED. (citation omitted). Accordingly, they [the Plaintiff's claims] are "FRIVOLOUS" and WILL BE DISMISSED... ." (at the 25th, 26th, and 27th paragraph beginning at about 75% through the text, and at the 2nd to LAST paragraph at about 95% through the text). TRANSLATION: Claiming to be "SOVEREIGN" ("a GOVERNMENT") WILL NOT BENEFIT YOU IN ANY WAY IN ANY TYPE OF CASE. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a GOVERNMENT (a "SOVEREIGN").

    THE BOTTOM LINE: Note that ALL amateur legal theories (ex: "individuals are sovereign and exempt from the law") are always EXACTLY BACKWARDS AND OPPOSITE to what the REAL law actually is. There are NO EXCEPTIONS! Amateur legal theories ARE NOT REAL. They are FAKE. They are LIES. Amateur legal theories and the REAL law are the EXACT OPPOSITES of one another. Amateur legal theories are an IMAGINARY ALTERNATIVE to the REAL law that is actually used by the REAL legal system and the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD. Amateur legal theories have a 100% FAILURE RATE in court BECAUSE THEY ARE FAKE. They are NOT INTENDED TO WORK and they DO NOT WORK! They never have. They never will. Their SOLE PURPOSE is to attempt to discredit and delegitimize our REPUBLICAN form of government, the ELECTED representatives of "We the People" and intended to incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans. Nothing more.

    FACT: Just in case you do not already know, all FUTURE DECISIONS on the subject of whether individuals are "sovereign" an exempt from the law WILL FOLLOW THE DECISIONS SHOWN ABOVE (CALLED "PRECEDENT"). So, the law on this same subject will always be the same as reflected in the cases above. https://definitions.uslegal.com/b/binding-precedent/. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent. https://dictionary.thelaw.com/binding-precedent/.

    HOW THIS MISTAKE CAME ABOUT:

    Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists are unable to distinguish between PLURAL terms and SINGULAR terms. This inability results in much of their confusion about the law. In a republican form of government, such as ours, "WE" (a PLURAL term) the "PEOPLE" (also a PLURAL term) exercise our power and control over our own government COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY). But, as INDIVIDUALS, we exercise no such power or control. In a republican form of government, such as ours, the authority of a government depends on the COLLECTIVE (not INDIVIDUAL) "consent" of the "governed" (also a PLURAL term) COLLECTIVELY. But, as INDIVIDUALS, our "consent" to our government (contractual or otherwise), to its jurisdiction or to our laws IS NOT REQUIRED.

    7TH GRADE CIVICS: In a republican form of government such as ours, there are THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT. This prevents tyranny from any single branch of government. This legal principle is called the "SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE" which is found in the constitution of every state and in the constitution of the United States. Our three branches of government are the ELECTED LEGISLATIVE branch (the ELECTED statutory law makers), the ELECTED EXECUTIVE branch (the ELECTED law enforcement officials and their appointees) and the ELECTED JUDICIAL branch (the ELECTED judges, the ELECTED prosecutors and the ELECTED public defenders of the courts). Through the ELECTION process, "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) control ALL THREE BRANCHES of our own government. But, as INDIVIDUALS, we have no such control.

    In a republican form of government such as ours, if "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) do not like our state statutes, then "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) have the power and ability to ELECT DIFFERENT ELECTED state LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES to change or repeal the state statutes that we do not like. This ELECTION process works the same way with our nationally ELECTED LEGISLATORS (our SENATORS and CONGRESS MEN & WOMEN) as well as our locally ELECTED law/ordinance makers (county commissioners, city commissioners and city council members, etc.).

    In a republican form of government such as ours, if "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) do not like our ELECTED state law enforcement officials, their appointees or their practices, then "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) have the power and ability to ELECT DIFFERENT state ELECTED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS to change the appointees and/or practices that we do not like (different Governor, different County Sheriffs, different City Police Chiefs, etc.). This ELECTION process works the same way with our nationally ELECTED law enforcement officer (our PRESIDENT ).

    In a republican form of government such as ours, if "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) do not like our ELECTED state judges, their practices or their rulings , then "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) have the power and ability to ELECT different ELECTED state JUDGES (different Supreme Court Justices, different appellate judges, different circuit judges, different county judges, different city judges, etc.). This ELECTION process works the same way with respect to our ELECTED state prosecutors (state attorneys and district attorneys) and our ELECTED state public defenders. NOTE: In the federal courts, judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, both of which are ELECTED by "We the People". But, those ELECTED representatives of "We the People" (who do the nominating and confirming of our federal judges) can be removed from office by the ELECTION process as well. The ELECTED President also appoints the federal prosecutors. But, the President can be removed from office by the ELECTION process too. Some state jurisdictions even use a combination of BOTH systems whereby judges are first APPOINTED to the bench by ELECTED representatives of "We the People", but then must withstand a "retention" vote by "We the People" every single ELECTION cycle thereafter in order to remain on the bench.

    Regardless, EVERY single person in EVERY single branch of our STATE and FEDERAL government is put into office DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY by "We the People" COLLECTIVELY through the ELECTION process.

    The fundamental mistake made by ALL AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS is their inability to comprehend the difference between the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (which is almost absolute) and the ABSENCE of power of the SINGLE INDIVIDUAL (which is almost nothing) when opposing the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (which is almost absolute). Every single amateur legal theory ever promoted reflects a basic misunderstanding of this simple legal principle, "THE MAJORITY RULES and the INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT." All amateur legal theorists get this simple legal principle exactly BACKWARDS (or OPPOSITE) to what the law really is (a common problem in amateur legal theory).

    It is the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) that empowers our ELECTED state LAW MAKERS to pass our state statutes and to make them binding upon all of the INDIVIDUALS in the state without the INDIVIDUAL'S "consent" (“contractual” or otherwise), etc.

    It is the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) that empowers our ELECTED state LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS to ticket, arrest and charge any INDIVIDUAL in the state who violates our state statutes without the INDIVIDUAL'S "consent" (“contractual” or otherwise), etc.

    It is the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) that empowers our ELECTED state JUDGES to preside over state court proceedings of such an INDIVIDUAL without that INDIVIDUAL’S "consent" (“contractual or otherwise”).

    This means that in a republican form of government such as ours, an INDIVIDUAL'S "consent” (“contractual” or otherwise) is NOT REQUIRED in such matters. Instead, in a republican form of government such as ours, "CONSENT” TO THE LAW COMES FROM “WE THE PEOPLE” COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE, THROUGH THE ELECTION PROCESS, NOT FROM THE SINGLE INDIVIDUAL OUTSIDE THE ELECTION PROCESS.

    THROUGH THE ELECTION PROCESS, OUR THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT ALREADY HAVE THE COLLECTIVE “CONSENT” OF “WE THE PEOPLE” TO MAKE OUR LAW, TO ENFORCE OUR LAW AND TO PUNISH FOR VIOLATIONS OF OUR LAW.

    Under our federal and state constitutions, OUR THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT DO NOT ALSO NEED THE INDIVIDUAL “CONSENT” OF ANY INDIVIDUAL TO CARRY OUT THOSE FUNCTIONS.

    So, every single legal burden placed on the INDIVIDUAL in a republican form of government such as ours is a legal burden that is placed upon the INDIVIDUAL directly or indirectly by the majority of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY through the ELECTION process.

    In a republican form of government such as ours, the power of the INDIVIDUAL is limited to VOTING, RUNNING FOR OFFICE and to enforcing what few INDIVIDUAL rights and protections that "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) allow the INDIVIDUAL to have (such as those INDIVIDUAL rights and protections listed in the Bill Of Rights). In a republican form of government such as ours, these INDIVIDUAL rights and protections of the INDIVIDUAL are determined by the majority of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (NOT BY THE INDIVIDUAL). This is why in a republican form of government, such as ours, ELECTIONS ARE SO IMPORTANT. In a republican form of government such as ours, ELECTIONS (which reflect the will of the majority of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY) DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY CONTROL EVERYTHING ABOUT OUR OWN GOVERNMENT. THESE ELECTIONS DETERMINE WHAT OUR LAWS ARE, WHO OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS ARE, WHO OUR JUDGES ARE, WHO OUR PROSECUTORS ARE, WHO OUR PUBLIC DEFENDERS ARE AND THEY DETERMINE WHAT ANY DESIRED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS OR REPEALS MIGHT BE.

    FACT: THESE ELECTIONS BY "WE THE PEOPLE" MAKE OUR STATUTES VALID. THESE ELECTIONS BY "WE THE PEOPLE" MAKE OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS VALID. THESE ELECTIONS BY "WE THE PEOPLE" MAKE OUR COURTS VALID, OUR JUDGES VALID, OUR PROSECUTORS VALID AND OUR PUBLIC DEFENDERS VALID.

    FACT: In a republican form of government such as ours, every conviction of a single INDIVIDUAL involves the efforts of ALL THREE ELECTED BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT (the ELECTED LAW MAKERS who write the statutes, the ELECTED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS whose appointees make the arrests and who file the charges, the ELECTED JUDGES who preside over proceedings in court AND the ELECTED PROSECUTORS who attempt to convict the statutory violators in court). In a republican form of government such as ours, NO SINGLE ELECTED BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT CAN CONVICT AN INDIVIDUAL WITHOUT THE PARTICIPATION OF THE OTHER TWO ELECTED BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.

    FACT: The people who oppose, defy and seek the overthrow our ELECTED government, our ELECTED legislatures, our ELECTED executive (law enforcement) officials, our ELECTED judges, our ELECTED prosecutors and our ELECTED public defenders ACTUALLY OPPOSE, DEFY AND SEEK THE OVERTHROW OF OUR REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT ITSELF and in so doing, SEEK TO OVERTHROW THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY OF "WE THE PEOPLE" OURSELVES. This desire to overthrow our ELECTED republican form of government and the will of the majority of "We the People " COLLECTIVELY, along with his long history of PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS and his MULTIPLE weapons-related FELONIES are the reasons that Rod Class, has been placed on the United States "TERRORIST WATCH LIST".

    ABOUT ROD CLASS:
    Rod Class is a functionally-illiterate amateur legal theorist with barely a high school education WHO HAS LOST EVERY SINGLE ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL CASE IN WHICH HE HAS EVER BEEN INVOLVED (OVER 76 CONSECUTIVE LOSSES IN A ROW, AND STILL COUNTING). Further, Class has a long history of PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS involving DELUSIONS, PATHOLOGICAL OPPOSITION/DEFIANCE of AUTHORITY FIGURES and PATHOLOGICAL LYING. Moreover, Class is a MULTI-CONVICTED, WEAPONS RELATED, CONVICTED FELON who also has SEVERAL ADDITIONAL MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS, as well. Because of Class’ well-publicized HATRED of our ELECTED representatives, their appointees and our ELECTED REPUBLICAN form of government, because of his HISTORY OF PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS and because of his LENGTHY CRIMINAL HISTORY involving DEADLY WEAPONS, Class has been placed on the United States TERRORIST WATCH LIST.

    More importantly, Class is a PROFESSIONAL HOAXER AND CHARLATAN who is behind a number of legal HOAXES which he created and peddles to INTENTIONALLY
    DEFRAUD the American people.

    ANALYSIS:
    Rod Class (with his inability to read, his lack of education, his complete ignorance of the law, his mental illness, his delusional belief system, his worthless, amateur legal theories, his lack of honesty and his 100% failure rate in court in 76 consecutive losses) IS LIVING PROOF THAT THOSE WHO PRACTICE LAW (AND THOSE WHO TEACH THE LAW) SHOULD:
    1). BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A FOUR-YEAR COLLEGE EDUCATION (a "Bachelor's Degree");
    2). BE REQUIRED TO ALSO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL THREE TO FOUR YEAR LAW SCHOOL EDUCATION (a "Juris Doctor's Degree");
    3). BE REQUIRED TO PASS THE STATE BAR EXAM (takes three days);
    4). BE REQUIRED TO UNDERGO A RIGOROUS STATE CHARACTER AND FITNESS BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION WHICH TAKES SEVERAL MONTHS OR YEARS (NO MENTAL HEALTH HISTORY, NO CRIMINAL HISTORY, honesty, credit history, interviews of employers, teachers, former co-workers, neighbors, relatives, taking finger print samples, taking hand writing samples, etc.).
    5). BE LICENSED BY THE STATE AND BE SUBJECT TO THE CONTINUOUS OVERSIGHT AND DISCIPLINE OF THE HIGHEST OFFICE OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF STATE GOVERNMENT, THE STATE SUPREME COURT (in order to protect the public from INCOMPETENCE and FRAUD of the type demonstrated here).

    ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH:
    Snoop4truth is a legal expert and whistle blower who exposes online hoaxes. Snoop4truth did not reveal this information to harm Rod Class. Instead, Snoop4truth exposed this information solely to reduce the CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE that such INTENTIONAL FRAUD inflicts upon the American people every single day. Had it not been for Rod Class' role in the "Judge DALE Hoax", Snoop4truth would not have exposed this information here.

    The message to all hoaxers and charlatans? Just tell the truth.
    Last edited by snoop4truth; 28th November 2018 at 22:32.

  19. Link to Post #14
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    30th September 2015
    Age
    45
    Posts
    52
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 29 times in 14 posts

    Default Re: Rod Class & his many hoaxes

    Bill,

    Thank you for your kind words and for your timely correction. I am new to posting comments on your website. So, if I am posting my comments incorrectly (by posting them as separate threads), then I apologize. It was not my intent to break the rules or to violate policy.

    I thought that each one of my comments should be posted as a separate thread because each comment addresses an entirely separate Rod Class hoax (an entirely separate subject).

    I also thought that by posting each one of my comments as a separate thread, then those followers of Rod Class doing research on a particular Rod Class claim (or hoax) would be able to find my comment (my research) much, much easier (because I used Rod Class' own words in the title of each separate comment and those words would likely be the same words used by those doing research on Rod Class' claims).

    The original titles to my comments may explain why you were getting so many hits on them in such a short amount of time (these individual titles make sense to those doing research on specific Rod Class claims). But, that trend may not continue under a single title like "many hoaxes". Regardless, if have done something incorrect (by posting each of my comments under a new thread), then I sincerely apologize.

    From now on, should I post my "Rod Class" comments as "replies" to the previous comment of mine?

    I do not have 20 more comments prepared to post. I may have one or two more prepared.

    My intent is not to spam you or your website. My intent is to reduce the damage that Rod Class' hoaxes cause the American people every single day. I do not know of any other way to reduce that damage except to show proof that EACH one of his claims are simply hoaxes.

    Rod Class is a pseudo-legal "guru" with a following in the "sovereign citizen" (anti-government) movement. He holds himself out as a legal expert. But, he is not. His goal is to incite hatred and violence against all authority figures, including law enforcement, lawyers, the courts and the legal system. You may not know who Rod Class is. But, his followers do know who he is (as demonstrated by the large number of hits that these comments have already gotten in a very short amount of time they have been posted).

    Everything that I have posted on your website (except for the links) are my own words. Nothing of what I have posted are the cut and pasted words of others (except for the links). Indeed, I even provided the highlighting in the text of the case law to which I linked in my comments. So, even the links inside my comments reflect my original work. I am many things, but a plagiarizer is not one of them.

    While my posts are longer than most, they are as short as I can make them and still include the links and other information necessary to debunk the hoax being debunked therein. Please note that almost every comment of mine begins with a one or two sentence description of the hoax and a one or two sentence explanation debunking the hoax. So, each comment includes a summary at the very beginning. But, I agree with you. Your point about brevity is well-taken.

    If there is anything else that I might do to improve my work, please let me know.

    Best Regards,
    Snoop

  20. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to snoop4truth For This Post:

    Basho (22nd August 2017), Bill Ryan (21st August 2017), Blacklight43 (21st August 2017), Kristin (21st August 2017)

  21. Link to Post #15
    Moderator Kristin's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2010
    Age
    49
    Posts
    3,517
    Thanks
    15,238
    Thanked 14,036 times in 2,439 posts

    Default Re: Rod Class & his many hoaxes

    Snoop,

    I just sent you a PM about this, however, you have explained this admirably here. Thank you.

  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Kristin For This Post:

    Basho (22nd August 2017), Bill Ryan (21st August 2017)

  23. Link to Post #16
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    18,310
    Thanks
    58,152
    Thanked 230,796 times in 16,736 posts

    Default Re: Rod Class & his many hoaxes

    Quote Posted by snoop4truth (here)
    From now on, should I post my "Rod Class" comments as "replies" to the previous comment of mine?
    Yes, please do. You don't have to quote yourself... just enter new text in the 'Quick Reply' box below.

    There's a thread here about Sean David Morton, who (by coaching people on this stuff and charging for it) not only ripped a bunch of people off — and got some in to serious trouble — but was convicted on a bunch of counts and, if he'd turned up for his sentencing, would have been put away for over 8 years.
    Also this thread:

  24. Link to Post #17
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    30th September 2015
    Age
    45
    Posts
    52
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 29 times in 14 posts

    Default Re: Rod Class & his many hoaxes

    Hello Basho,
    Thank you for your timely reply. It is very good to hear from you. I am glad to hear that you have read my work. I put a lot of effort into it.

    Yes. I have posted similar comments on YouTube.

    Yes. The subject of the law and legal hoaxes is of great interest to me too. So, we have that in common.

    Actually, I have posted comments on Avalon before. But, not in this number.

    I am not a troll. I am a truther. I have an agenda. It is to tell the truth and to expose hoaxes. Some regard me telling the truth and exposing hoaxes as bad things for me to do. But, I regard those things as good things for me to do. I believe that truth deserves equal editorial space to the lies that are posted online. As you know, there are hundreds (perhaps thousands) of lies about the law posted online. I could post forever and never equal the number of lies posted online. Regardless, that is why I post what I do.

    I regard deliberately lying to the American people about their law and their legal system as an act of treason against the American people. I regard a person manufacturing and marketing an elaborate hoax (like the "Judge DALE Hoax") as committing a deliberate attack upon the American people. I will respond to such an attack with an attack of my own. That is why I post what I post.

    As to your final question, here are my thoughts. If Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists were REALLY spreading "AWARENESS", I would be their biggest supporter. But, they are not. They are spreading lies, fraud and hoaxes. That is not "awareness".

    Not every amateur legal theorist realizes that the information they peddle is a lie, a fraud or a hoax. Many of them obtained their bad information from others who they trusted and who they believed. But, Rod Class is not one them.

    What sets Rodney DALE Class apart from all other amateur legal theorists is that he KNOWS that the information he peddles is a lie, a fraud and a hoax. Why? Because he is the original source of the lie, the fraud and the hoax that he peddles (not somebody else).

    The "Judge DALE Hoax" is a classic example. This hoax fooled thousands of victims. Rodney DALE Class did not "accidently" write and publish the "Judge DALE forgeries". This was a scheme that he invested years in pulling off. This was a scheme that had no purpose except to defraud and to dupe the American people. This scheme had no purpose except to incite hatred and violence against the ELECTED government of "We the People".

    The only way to truly judge a man is by his deeds (not by his words). Motivational posters say that every job is a self-portrait of the person who did it (demonstrating what kind of person he or she is). What do Rod Class' deeds (in creating and peddling the "Judge DALE Hoax") say about him? What does Rod Class' job (in creating and peddling the "Judge DALE Hoax") say about him? They say that Rod Class is a hopeless, chronic, habitual, pathological liar with no conscience whatsoever and no moral compass whatsoever. They say that it is infinitely more important to Rod Class to incite hatred and violence against his perceived enemies than to simply tell his followers the truth. That shows how little value Class places on the truth.

    Now, I ask you, who loses in such a scheme? Rod Class? No. Rod Class benefits by lying and defrauding his followers. Only his followers lose in such a scheme. Only the American people lose in such a scheme. It is those people that I am trying to help by simply telling them the truth about Class' false claims.

    That is why I do what I do.
    Last edited by snoop4truth; 28th September 2018 at 19:33.

  25. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to snoop4truth For This Post:

    Basho (22nd August 2017), Bill Ryan (21st August 2017), Hervé (21st August 2017), marique3652 (28th August 2017)

  26. Link to Post #18
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    30th September 2015
    Age
    45
    Posts
    52
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 29 times in 14 posts

    Default Re: Rod Class & his many hoaxes

    COMMENT 18: ROD CLASS & THE "FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES ARE NOT MONEY HOAX" (A.K.A. THE HAROLD STANLEY HOAX")

    FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCisCCMQqng&t=610s .

    BACKGROUND:
    Rod Class unsuccessfully attempts to "represent" other people in court in his imaginary capacity as a "Private Attorney General" and as a "14th Amendment, Section 4 Bounty Hunter" (see comments on these two subjects elsewhere on this website). But, no court has ever allowed him to do this. In truth, all Class actually does for these people IS LOSE THEIR CASE FOR THEM (as he did in this case).

    THE HOAX:
    In BRAGGING about LOSING Harold Stanley's case. Class BRAGS that he testified in court that "FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES ARE NOT MONEY". Class falsely claims that he LOST Harold Stanley's case because the judge excluded (or later "struck") that "EVIDENCE". Further, Class falsely claims that when the judge excluded (or "struck") that "EVIDENCE", that ruling constituted the “crime” of suppressing or withholding exculpatory “EVIDENCE”. So, Class (in his imaginary capacity as a "Private Attorney General") purported to sue the judge, the prosecutors and others on behalf of Stanley for this imaginary "crime".

    THE TRUTH:
    Class did not know then (and does not know now) that SUCH TAX PROTESTER ARGUMENTS: 1). ARE NOT "EVIDENCE" in the first place (they are "ARGUMENT"); 2). WERE NOT LEGALLY “RELEVANT” (to the actual claims or defenses of the parties); and 3). WERE LEGALLY ERRONEOUS (opposite to what the law actually is/was). MOST IMPORTANTLY, CLASS DID NOT KNOW THEN AND DOES NOW KNOW NOW THAT THIS TAX PROTESTER ARGUMENT HAS BEEN PUTTING TAX PROTESTERS IN PRISON FOR MORE THAN 40 YEARS.

    ROD CLASS' AMATEUR MISTAKES WHICH SENT HAROLD STANLEY TO FEDERAL PRISON FOR 5 to 8 YEARS!

    1. MISTAKE 1- Class had no idea what Harold Stanley’s case was actually about. Class mistakenly believed that Stanley’s case was about the IRS claiming that Stanley owed income taxes to the IRS. (But, it was not.). So, Class mistakenly set out to prove that Stanley did not owe income taxes to the IRS (something that, unknown to Class, was completely IRRELEVANT to Stanley’s case).

    In order to prove that Stanley did not owe income taxes to the IRS (something that, unknown to Class, was completely IRRELEVANT to Stanley’s case), Class claimed that he testified (or sought to testify) that "Federal Reserve Notes ("FRNs") are not money".

    NOTE: The “reasoning” behind this particular tax protester argument is that if "FRNs are not money", then a tax protester (like Stanley) who is paid in the form of “FRNs” can argue that he did not receive any “MONEY” and therefore incurred no "INCOME" tax liability to the IRS. Further, if “FRNs are not money”, then it would be “impossible” for a tax protester (like Stanley) to “PAY” any "INCOME" taxes to the IRS since all he/she has to “PAY” "INCOME" taxes with are FRNs which “are not money” making true “PAYMENT” of income taxes “impossible”, etc.

    To make matters worse, Class could not understand why Harold Stanley's case was filed in the Federal Court For The Western District of Missouri, instead of being filed in a "Tax Court" (where Class usually LOSES his IRS cases). Class even erroneously claimed that the district court "did not have jurisdiction" over Stanley’s case because the case was filed in the “wrong court”. But, this was not so.

    Unknown to Class, the reason that this case was filed in in federal district court was that the United States DID NOT merely charge Stanley with not paying income taxes (in which event, the case would have been filed in "Tax Court", where Class usually LOSES his IRS cases). Instead, in this case, the United States charged Stanley with federal CRIMES which can only be filed in federal district court (not in "Tax Court" where Class usually LOSES his IRS cases). Specifically, in this case, the United States charged Stanley with: SUBMITTING FAKE MONEY ORDERS TO THE IRS; SUBMITTING FALSE DOCUMENTS TO THE IRS FALSELY INDICATING THAT HIS TAX DEBTS WERE "SATISFIED" BECAUSE THEY HAD BEEN "ACCEPTED FOR VALUE"; SUBMITTING FAKE PAYMENT VOUCHERS TO THE IRS WITHOUT SUBMITTING THE PAYMENT "VOUCHED" FOR and SUBMITTING A FALSE COMPLAINT TO A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY FALSELY ACCUSING THE IRS OF A CRIME (something that Class likely had a hand in himself).

    This means that even if Class had been allowed to testify that “FRNs are not money” (and even if that testimony had been legally correct, and it was not), STANLEY WOULD HAVE STILL BEEN CONVICTING OF SUBMITTING FAKE MONEY ORDERS TO THE IRS, SUBMITTING FALSE DOCUMENTS TO THE IRS FALSELY INDICATING THAT HIS TAX DEBTS WERE PAID, SUBMITTING FAKE PAYMENT VOUCHERS TO THE IRS WITHOUT SUBMITTING THE PAYMENT “VOUCHED” FOR AND FILING A FALSE COMPLAINT WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES, ETC. This is because whether or not FRNs are "money" has no bearing whatsoever ON WHETHER HAROLD STANLEY SUBMITTED FAKE MONEY ORDERS TO THE IRS, WHETHER HE SUBMITTED FALSE DOCUMENTS TO THE IRS FALSELY INDICATING THAT TAX DEBTS WERE PAID, WHETHER HE SUBMITTED FAKE PAYMENT “VOUCHERS” TO THE IRS WITHOUT SUBMITTING THE PAYMENT “VOUCHED” FOR OR WHETHER HE FILED A FALSE COMPLAINT WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES.

    So, Class’ proffered testimony about FRNs was NOT LEGALLY ”RELEVANT” to the ACTUAL claims and defenses of the parties and was therefore legally “INADMISSIBLE” under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the judge PROPERLY EXCLUDED IT. But, Class does not know ANY of this.

    2. MISTAKE 2- Unknown to Class, TAX PROTESTER ARGUMENTS ARE NOT “EVIDENCE” IN THE FIRST PLACE (they are "ARGUMENT").

    "FACTS" are "EVENTS" that can be "WITNESSED". But, AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, TAX PROTESTER ARGUMENTS and the "LAW" ARE NOT "EVENTS" that can be "WITNESSED".

    "FACT WITNESSES" (of the type that Class was in this case) can ONLY testify as to RELEVANT “EVENTS” that they actually "WITNESSED" (ex: "I saw him crawl out the window."). But, “FACT WITNESSES”, of the type that Class was in this case, cannot testify as to “OPINIONS”, the “LAW” or “LEGAL ARGUMENTS OR CONCLUSIONS” about the “LAW” (because those things are not “EVENTS” that Class actually "WITNESSED"). But, Class does not know ANY of this.

    ALL APPLICABLE “LAW” IS ALWAYS PRESENTED TO THE JURY IN EVERY SINGLE JURY TRIAL, AS IT WAS IN THIS CASE. But, such “LAW” is not presented to the jury by mere “FACT WITNESSES” of the type that Rod Class was in this case. It is the JUDGE who presents all applicable “LAW” to the jury in all jury trials (meaning “LAW” that actually relates to the claims and/or defenses of the parties). But, Class does not know any of this.

    Further, it is the attorneys at law or the pro se parties themselves who make all legal ARGUMENTS (like tax protester ARGUMENTS) to the jury, not mere “FACT WITNESSES” of the type that Rod Class was in this case. Because legal theories, legal arguments and legal conclusions are NOT "EVENTS" that Class actually "WITNESSED", the judge properly "excluded" or "struck" Class' proffered testimony about FRNs. But, Class does not know ANY of this.

    3. MISTAKE 3- Unknown to Class, under the law itself, FRNs ARE MONEY! (See links below.). This means that Class was so ignorant of the law that he did not even know then, and does not know now that his "excluded" or "stricken" and ERRONEOUS "testimony" about FRNs WAS EXACTLY BACKWARDS (OPPOSITE) TO WHAT THE LAW ACTUALLY WAS! But, Class does not know ANY of this.


    THE REAL LAW ITSELF ON WHETHER FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES ARE MONEY (IN THE TAX PROTESTER CONTEXT):


    Proponents of this contention assert that Federal Reserve Notes currently used in the United States are not money and cannot be taxed because Federal Reserve Notes are not gold or silver and may not be exchanged for gold or silver. This argument misinterprets Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution. The courts have rejected this argument on numerous occasions.

    The Law: Congress is empowered “[t]o coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.” U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 5. Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution prohibits THE STATES from declaring as legal tender anything other than gold or silver, but does not limit Congress’s power to declare the form of legal tender. See 31 U.S.C. § 5103; 12 U.S.C. § 411.


    1. White v. U.S., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14753248592698700360&q="has+esta blished+that"+"Congress,+in+full+accordance+with+i ts+authority+under"+"the+constitution"+"do+not+con stitute+money"+"are+legal+tender"+"is+clearly+with out+merit"+"clearly+baseless"+"Federal+reserve+not es"+"are+not+money"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a tax protester was convicted of a tax-related offense and moved to vacate the judgment against him. He argued that he incurred no tax liability because he was paid in the form of Federal Reserve notes. On appeal, he argued he had "ineffective assistance of counsel" on the grounds that "his lawyer should have argued that Federal Reserve Notes do not constitute 'money' under federal statute because they are not backed by gold or silver." But the court disagreed and wrote, "As explained by the Fourth Circuit, 'Congress, in full accordance with its authority under article I, section 8, clause 5 of the Constitution, has established that Federal Reserve notes are legal tender.'" (citation omitted). The Court in [an identical case]... rejected the defendant's arguments that "hinge upon his belief that Federal Reserve notes are not money," characterizing such arguments as "clearly baseless under any conceivable set of facts." (in the 21st paragraph at about 50% through the text).


    2. Cauvel II v. Commisioner, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4823644493408609770&q="federal+r eserve+notes"+"are+not+money"+rejected+frivolous+g roundless+"repeatedly+considered+and"+universally+ "other+protester-type+arguments"+ambassador+"who+accepts+no+governm ental+privileges"+exempt+"was+improperly+ratified" +"sixteenth+amendment"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a tax protester argued "that he is not liable for the deficiencies and additions to his [tax obligations]... because the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was improperly ratified; there is no taxable gain from the receipt of wages or other compensation for personal services because the personal services have a basis equal to the wages or other compensation received in exchange; federal reserve notes are not money because they are not backed by gold; petitioner is exempt from income taxation because he is neither a corporation nor a governmental employee but instead is a natural, private, nonenfranchised individual who accepts no governmental privileges and is an ambassador from the Kingdom of God; and other protester-type arguments which have been universally rejected by the Courts." The court ruled against the tax protester and held the tax protester liable for the original deficiencies and additions, and then assessed an additional $5,000.00 penalty against the tax protester for his behavior. (at the 7nd paragraph at about 65% through the text).


    3. Lee v. Commisioner, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3006283153837357387&q="we+will+n ot+waste+our+time+discussing+such+hollow+arguments "+"not+reportable+as+income"+"which+have+been+cons idered+and+rejected+on+numerous+occasions"+"consti tute+income"+"federal+reserve+notes"+"not+money"+" It+has+been+consistently+held+however+that"&hl=en& scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006. In this case, tax protesters seeking to avoid paying income taxes argued "that the Federal Reserve notes they received in the years in issue are not reportable as income at their face value. It has been consistently held, however, that Federal Reserve notes [do] constitute income at face value. (citations omitted). We will not waste our time discussing such hollow arguments which have been considered and rejected on numerous occasions." (at the section entitled "OPINION" at about 15% through the text). Elsewhere in the case the tax protestors argued "... that Federal Reserve notes are not legal dollars." In the following paragraph, the tax protester argued that, "... Federal Reserve notes are not United States dollars as defined by law... ." But, the court ruled otherwise and required the tax protesters to pay income taxes on the Federal Reserve Notes they received in the subject tax years. (at the end of "Issue 5" and the beginning of "Issue 6" at about 80% through the text).


    4. Tiffany v. Commissioner, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10850436806728706662&q="They+mus t+be+rejected+again"+"all+of+these+tired+allegatio ns+have+been+considered+by+the+courts+and+rejected +repeatedly"+"are+not+income"+"federal+reserve+not es"+"are+not+money"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a tax protestor argued, "... that he had no "income" within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because he received his compensation in [the form of] Federal Reserve Notes; such notes are not "money" in that they are not redeemable in gold or silver coin, and therefore, they are not income." But, the court ruled otherwise and wrote, "All of these tired allegations have been considered by the courts and rejected repeatedly. They must be rejected again." (in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs beginning at about 50% through the text).

    5. Harrell v. Commissioner, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4117162275911214916&q=valueless+ "Not+redeemable"+"constitutional+money"+"not+dolla rs"+"lawful+money"+unredeemable+fraudulent+fraud+w orthless+imposed+penalty+additional++sanctions+"pr otester+allegations"+misguided+groundless+frivolou s+"Federal+Reserve+Notes"+"are+not+money"&hl=en&as _sdt=40006. In this case, a tax protestor who sought to avoid paying income taxes on his income argued, "... that he was not obligated to file tax returns, because the 'unredeemable Federal Reserve notes he may have received' are 'valueless' [meaning they were "not money"] and so did not 'trigger any involuntary requirement to report such U.S. obligation activity to the [IRS]... .'" But, the court disagreed and not only found the tax protestor liable for back taxes, but also ordered him to pay a $10,000 penalty his behavior. (in the 2nd paragraph below "OPINION" and about 50% though the case).

    6. United States v. Rifen, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the tax protester appealed his criminal conviction for willfully failing to file a return. The court rejected the defendant's argument that Federal Reserve Notes are not subject to taxation". But, the court held otherwise and wrote, “Congress has declared federal reserve notes legal tender . . . and federal reserve notes are taxable dollars.” (at the 3rd and 4th paragraph at about 50%).


    7. United States v. Condo, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, The 9th Circuit upheld the tax protester's criminal conviction and rejected as “frivolous” the argument that "Federal Reserve Notes are not valid currency, cannot be taxed, and are merely 'debts.'” (at the 2nd paragraph at about 25% through the text).

    8. United States v. Rickman, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a tax protestor appealed his conviction and argued that "the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, § 8, United States Constitution." But the court held otherwise and wrote "We have held to the contrary. (citation omitted). We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between 'lawful money' and 'legal tender.' Money is a medium of exchange. Legal tender is money which the law requires a creditor to receive in payment of an obligation. The aggregate of the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution includes broad and comprehensive authority over revenue, finance, and currency. (citation omitted). In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money. Defendant received Federal Reserve Notes when he cashed his pay checks and used those notes to pay his personal expenses. He obtained and used lawful money. (in the 10th paragraph not including block indented portions at about 85% through the text).

    9. United States v. Daly, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a tax protester appealed his convictions for failing to file a tax return and for failing to pay his federal income taxes. Among other things, he argued that federal reserve notes are not money. Specifically, he argued that only [B]"Legal Tender Dollars" are those which contain a mixture of gold and silver and that only those dollars may be constitutionally taxed." But, the court disagreed and held, "This contention is clearly frivolous." (in the 2nd TO LAST paragraph at about 95% through the text).

    10. United States v. Molen, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a tax protester sought to avoid filing and paying federal income taxes by arguing that "federal reserve notes, i.e., U.S. dollars, are 'worthless securities' such that the receipt or exchange of federal reserve notes cannot create taxable income or a taxable event." But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "Mr. Molen's argument is plainly at odds with Congress's legislative declaration that "[B]United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues... . Additionally, Mr. Molen's argument that federal reserve notes are not taxable legal tender has been thoroughly rejected by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as "frivolous." (citation omitted) (summarily rejecting the taxpayer's argument that federal reserve notes are not taxable, and imposing an award of attorney's fees and double costs on taxpayer for filing a "frivolous" appeal); (citation omitted). (affirming as "CLEARLY PROPER" the district court's EXCLUSION in a criminal tax trial defendant's evidence "to the effect that Federal Reserve Notes did not constitute legal tender"); (citation omitted). (citation omitted). (rejecting defendant's argument that federal reserve notes are not taxable dollars because they are not presently payable in gold or silver, and holding that federal reserve notes are taxable legal tender (citation omitted). (rejecting as "frivolous" defendant's argument that he had no income upon which he could be taxed because he was paid in federal reserve notes that were not lawful money), (citations omitted). ("By statute it is established that federal reserve notes... shall be legal tender for all debts, public and private, including taxes."), (citations omitted). (summarily rejecting as "without merit" defendant's argument that federal reserve notes he received were not "lawful money" such that he did not receive "money" for the two tax years in question, (citation omitted). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has also rejected as "frivolous" Mr. Molen's related argument premised on the theory that federal reserve notes are merely "debts" that cannot be taxed. (citations omitted). Mr. Molen's derivative argument that the Molens only suffered "net losses" by receiving U.S. dollars, which necessarily resulted in no taxable events, is misplaced for the reasons stated above." (in the 9th paragraph at about 65% through the text).

    THE REAL LAW ITSELF ON WHETHER FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES ARE MONEY (OUTSIDE THE TAX PROTESTER CONTEXT):


    11. Hightower v. Capital One Finance, et al, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8617227736829971139&q="constitut ional+form"+"are+not+money"+"legal+tender"+"prohib iting+states"+"preventing+states"+rejected+"has+be en+rejected"+"finding+untenable"+dismissing+"is+me ritless"+"does+not"+"Federal+reserve+notes"&hl=en& as_sdt=40006. In this case, a debtor sought to avoid re-paying a lender by arguing: 1). that he was loaned Federal Reserve notes which are not money; and 2). that the lender created the Federal Reserve notes he received. But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "The theory that Federal Reserve notes are not legal tender is meritless as a matter of law, as another district court in this circuit has explained:

    In arguing that the system of lending money in the United States is unconstitutional, Plaintiff cites Sections 8 and 10 of Article I in the United States Constitution. . . . Nonetheless, ever since the Supreme Court ruled in "The Legal-Tender Cases," in 1884, Courts have consistently held that neither of these provisions of the Constitution renders the country's current money-lending system unconstitutional. See Julliard v. Greenman ("The Legal-Tender Cases"), 110 U.S. 421, 447-48, 4 S. Ct. 122, 28 L. Ed. 204 (1884) (holding that Congress has the power of making the notes of the United States a legal tender in payment of private debts, and that such power is not restricted by the fact that its exercise may affect the value of private contracts); United States v. Ri[f]en, 577 F.2d 1111, 1113 (8th Cir. 1978) (art. I, § 10 of the Constitution does not "limit Congress' power to declare what shall be legal tender for all debts," and the fact that the type of money in use is neither gold nor silver does not render a loan unconstitutional); Foret v. Wilson, 725 F.2d 254 (5th Cir. 1984) (dismissing plaintiff's argument that only gold and silver coin may be constituted legal tender by the United States); Edgar v. Inland Steel Co., 744 F.2d 1276, 1277 (7th Cir. 1984) (finding untenable plaintiff's argument that federal reserve notes are not "money" because they are not backed by gold and silver specie); L.R. Nixon v. Phillipoff, 615 F. Supp. 890 (N.D. Ind. 1985) (finding that plaintiff's [sic] misinterpreted art. I, §§ 8 and 10 of the Constitution, and holding that Section 10 acts only to "remove from the states the inherent sovereign power to declare currency, thus leaving Congress the sole declarant of what constitutes legal tender"); Kolb v. Naylor, 658 F. Supp. 520 (N.D. Iowa 1987) (finding that the loans to plaintiffs constituted the lending of money and the creation of a debt, rather than the creation of money); United States v. Schiefen, 926 F. Supp. 877 ([]D.S.D. 1995) (noting that Schiefen's argument that United States currency is unconstitutional "unbacked paper" has been rejected by numerous courts); State ex rel. White v. Mack, 93 Ohio St. 3d 572, 757 N.E.2d 353, 355 (Ohio 2001) (citing Baird v. Cty. Assessors of Salt Lake & Utah Ctys., 779 P.2[2d] 676, 680 (Utah 1989)) (finding that the provision in art. I, § 10 of the United States Constitution is not a directive to states to use only gold or silver coins, but is "merely a restriction preventing states from establishing their own legal tender other than gold or silver coins").


    Nixon v. Phillipoff provides a thorough analysis of why courts consider federal reserve notes to be a constitutional form of legal tender." In Nixon, a debtor sued a lender that had foreclosed on him. "The court, however, rejected Nixon's argument, concluding ...

    Nixon has misinterpreted the import of § 10's prohibition. Courts have uniformly interpreted § 10 as prohibiting [THE] STATES from declaring anything other than gold or silver coin as legal tender ... yet ["The Legal-Tender Cases"] do not interpret § 10 as requiring states to accept only gold and silver coin as tender, nor could they, as they both recognize the unrestricted power of Congress to declare what shall constitute legal tender, including bills of credit, treasury notes, and federal reserve notes. In short, § 10 acts only to remove from THE STATES the inherent sovereign power to declare currency, thus leaving Congress the sole declarant of what constitutes legal tender. Thus ... the states are constitutionally compelled to accept [federal reserve notes] as legal tender.


    In this case, where Plaintiff's arguments all rest on his assertion that, according to art. I, §§ 8, and 10 of the constitution, Defendant created money, his argument fails as a matter of law. Private parties may enter into transactions to trade whatever they agree upon as having equal value, and they are not limited to gold and silver coins. . . . Though Plaintiff asserts that Defendants' loans were unlawful because they did not provide him with any "real, gold or silver backed money" as constitutionally mandated, as evidenced above, Courts have long held that such transactions are both legal and constitutional. Hence, Plaintiff's claims are entirely without merit. (citations omitted). (at section "a." beginning at about 45%).


    12. New Century TRS Holdings, Inc. v. new Century Mortgage, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7559490608550942578&q=untenable+ baseless+dismissed+insufficient+"absolutely+no+mer it"+rejected++frivolous+hopeless+"federal+reserve+ notes"+"not+money"+"are+legal+tender"+"as+legal+te nder"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a debtor sued a lender and asked the court to relieve his debt. The court wrote:


    It is Petitioner's contention that the United States is and has been in a bankruptcy since at least 1933 and evidence of such can be found in the Congressional Record and the United States Code. As part of the "New Deal" the United States borrowed 33 million non-redeemable Federal Reserve Notes from the Federal Reserve and at that time a new form of currency entered into circulation in the system of commence.

    As a result today, as contained in numerous case decisions, a debt can no longer be discharged as a matter of law. Meaning, Federal Reserve Notes have no intrinsic value [meaning are "not money"], and as such, are negotiable instruments under the negotiable instruments law and when used to, in the common vernacular, "pay" a debt it is like paying a $2 debt owed with a $2 I.O.U. The net result is that one ends up with $4 of debt and therefore, the debt is not paid but merely discharged as a matter of law. The original debt still exists but the nature of debt changes and is no longer collectible.

    As a matter of practice and usage the only functional currency in circulation and use today is non-redeemable Federal Reserve Notes. When Petitioner applied for a loan and was funded on the loan he understood and believed he was being loaned "money", meaning money of exchange, that was redeemable and had intrinsic value when in reality he was purchasing credit from the Federal Reserve through the lender in the form of Negotiable Instruments or specifically Federal Reserve Notes.


    But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "Faced with similar arguments in Sneed v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, 2007 WL 1851674 (S.D.Cal. June 27, 2007), the Court determined that such arguments are "legally frivolous," writing:


    It has long been established that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and that legal tender need not consist of silver or gold coin. See generally Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 294 U.S. 240, 303, 55 S.Ct. 407, 414, 79 L.Ed. 885 (1935) (explaining the validity and effect of federal acts providing for the issuance of currency, and affirming the status of Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations as legal tender); Foret v. Wilson, 725 F.2d 254, 254-55 (5th Cir.1984) ("[The] argument, that only gold and silver coin may be constituted legal tender by the United States, is hopeless and frivolous, having been rejected by the United States Supreme Court one hundred years ago.") (citing Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, 4 S.Ct. 122, 28 L.Ed. 204 (1884)). Furthermore, it is equally well established that checks and instruments redeemable for Federal Reserve notes have value. United States v. Wangrud, 533 F.2d 495, 495 (9th Cir.1976) (affirming conviction of defendant who refused to pay taxes on the ground that he received checks, not money, and noting that the defendant's arguments had "absolutely no merit.").


    Sneed, 2007 WL 1851674 at *3. Similarly, in Rene v. Citibank NA, 32 F.Supp.2d 539 (E.D.N.Y.1999),.. ..See also Khangura v. American Mortgage Express, 2009 WL 1604764, *2 (E.D.Cal. June 5, 2009) (The Court dismissed a complaint because the underlying claims, based on an assertion that the bank had failed to lend the plaintiff "real money," were "untenable, frivolous and must be rejected outright."); Tuttle v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, 2008 WL 4919263 (D.Utah Nov.17, 2008) (The Court dismissed a complaint asserting that the mortgagee failed to lend valuable consideration to the plaintiffs because the plaintiffs theory and similar theories "have been dismissed by the courts as baseless and insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).").


    13. Callow v. Amerace Corp., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13457230164550911078&q="the+awar d+of+attorney+fees+was+an+appropriate+deterrent+to +future+frivolous+suits"+"has+been+rejected+by+eve ry+court+considering+the+claim"+"the+claim+that"+" federal+reserve+notes"+"are+not+valid+money"&hl=en &scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an employee sued his employer for a refund of income taxes that the employer had withheld from the employee's paychecks. The employee argued that he incurred no tax liability to the IRS because he was paid with Federal Reserve notes which are "not money". But, the court ruled otherwise and wrote, "The claim that federal reserve notes are not valid money, presented under a variety of theories, has been rejected by every court considering the claim. See, e.g., Stonecipher v. Bray, 653 F.2d 398 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 102 S.Ct. 1006, 71 L.Ed.2d 297 (1982); United States v. Carlson, 617 F.2d 518 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1010, 101 S.Ct. 564, 66 L.Ed.2d 468 (1981); United States v. Smith, 484 F.2d 8 (10th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 978, 94 S.Ct. 1566, 39 L.Ed.2d 874 (1974); Eagle v. Kenai Peninsula Burough, 489 F.Supp. 138 (D.Alaska, 1980); Rap v. Peper, 80-1 U.S. Tax Cases § 9204 (D.Alaska, 1979); Chandler v. Perini Power Constructors, Inc., 520 F.Supp. 1152 (D.N.H.1981). " (in the 4th paragraph at about 70% through the text).


    ABOUT ROD CLASS:
    Rod Class is a functionally-illiterate amateur legal theorist with barely a high school education WHO HAS LOST EVERY SINGLE CASE IN WHICH HE HAS EVER BEEN INVOLVED (OVER 76 CONSECUTIVE LOSSES IN A ROW, AND STILL COUNTING). Further, Class has a long history of PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS involving DELUSIONS, PATHOLOGICAL OPPOSITION/DEFIANCE of AUTHORITY FIGURES and PATHOLOGICAL LYING. Moreover, Class is a MULTI-CONVICTED, WEAPONS RELATED, CONVICTED FELON who also has SEVERAL ADDITIONAL MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS, as well. Because of Class’ well-publicized HATRED of our ELECTED representatives, their appointees and our REPUBLICAN form of government, because of his HISTORY OF PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS and because of his LENGTHY CRIMINAL HISTORY involving DEADLY WEAPONS, Class has been placed on the United States TERRORIST WATCH LIST.

    Most importantly, Class is a PROFESSIONAL HOAXER AND CHARLATAN who is behind a number of legal HOAXES which he created and peddles to INTENTIONALLY DEFRAUD the American people. (Google "Judge DALE Hoax", "Debra Jones Hoax", "Private Attorney General Hoax", "14th Amendment, Section 4 Bounty Hunter Hoax", "All Government Agencies Are 'Private Entities' or 'Private Contractors' Hoax" (A.K.A. the "BOMBSHELL: FOURTH Administrative Ruling Hoax"), "Property Into Other Peoples' Names Hoax", "Lawyers Have No Authority Hoax", "Right To Travel Hoax", "My Paperwork Would Have Overturned Every Prior Case Hoax", "The Supreme Court Loves My Paperwork Hoax", "The Private Attorney General 'Certificate' Hoax" (A.K.A. "Why Was Rod Class In Washington, D.C. In The First Place?"), "The Federal Reserve Notes Are Not Money Hoax" (A.K.A. "The Harold Stanley Case Hoax"), "The United States is a Corporation Hoax" (A.K.A. "Title 28 U.S.C 3002(15)(a) Proves That The United States Is A Private, For Profit Corporation Hoax"), the "Court Registry Investment System Hoax" (A.K.A. The "C.R.I.S. Hoax"), the "Embezzling Federal Funds Hoax" and numerous other hoaxes.).

    ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH:
    Snoop4truth is a legal expert and whistle blower who exposes online hoaxes. Snoop4truth did not reveal this information to harm Rod Class. Instead, Snoop4truth exposed this information solely to reduce the CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE that such INTENTIONAL FRAUD inflicts upon the American people every single day. Had it not been for Rod Class' role in the "Judge DALE Hoax", Snoop4truth would not have exposed this information here.

    The message to all hoaxers and charlatans? Just tell the truth.
    Last edited by snoop4truth; 11th December 2018 at 23:03. Reason: additional case lawin support

  27. Link to Post #19
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    30th September 2015
    Age
    45
    Posts
    52
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 29 times in 14 posts

    Default Re: Rod Class & his many hoaxes

    COMMENT 19: “THE NASA WAR DOCUMENT HOAX”
    THIS IS A WORLD FAMOUS HOAX BY ROD CLASS' CHIEF CHARLATAN PARTNER IN THE "JUDGE DALE HOAX" AND SEVERAL OTHER ROD CLASS HOAXES". READ IT. IT IS SIMPLY UNBELIEVABLE!

    FIRST, SEE HOAX HERE.
    https://www.google.com/search?q=%22N...w=1366&bih=651
    https://www.google.com/search?q=%22N...w=1366&bih=651
    https://www.pinterest.com/pin/290622982177625257/

    OSCAR WORTHY VIDEO PERFORMANCES (Note: Jeff Rense is not involved in this hoax. Indeed, he is a victim of this hoax.):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5vLuGPV-lU
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrzEwYlb5CU
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXSqgD1KjdY (at 43:30-44:20, 46:00-46:55);
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfG9zljgFh0 (at 7:35-8:00);
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc8U...LK7aGdoz08UWiF
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuGL...LK7aGdoz08UWiF
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUVx...F&index=3&t=0s

    THE NASA WAR DOCUMENT (AS MODIFIED BY THE PROMOTER'S CO-CONSPIRATOR IN THIS HOAX):
    http://www.stopthecrime.net/docs/nas...tureof-war.pdf
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk4hfIVIoT4


    THE HOAX:
    The promoter of this hoax falsely claims that the “NASA War Document” is a “secret” government document that was "discovered" and "downloaded" (or “leaked”) from a “NASA website” which she claims proves that NASA and/or the United States government are developing and using terrifying, horrific, futuristic, high-tech weapons AGAINST the American people. But, these claims are not so.

    THE TRUTH:
    The “NASA War Document” is NOT what promoter claims it is, was NEVER on a NASA website, was NEVER “secret” and does NOT reflect existing or future high-tech weapons that NASA and/or the United States government are developing or using AGAINST the American People.

    FACT:
    Instead, what the promoter calls the “NASA War Document” is simply her HIGHLY-“MODIFIED” version of an original 2001 power point slide show presentation (WITHOUT THE ACCOMPANYING ORAL COMMENTARY THAT EXPLAINED IT). A NASA scientist created the original power point slide show for his use as a "VISUAL AID" for his ORAL presentation AT A 2001 CONVENTION OF AMERICAN MILITARY CONTRACTORS THAT WERE IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING COUNTERMEASURES TO POTENTIAL, FUTURE, HIGH-TECH WEAPONS THAT OTHER NATIONS COULD THEORETICALLY DEVELOP IN THE FUTURE TO USE AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE (OVER THE NEXT 25 YEARS). The purpose of the original power point slide show presentation was to introduce the thousands of American military contractors in attendance at the convention to such potential, future, high-tech weapons that OTHER NATIONS could theoretically develop for use against the American people over the next 25 years (AS DEPICTED IN THE ORIGINAL POWER POINT PRESENTATION) AND TO ENCOURAGE THOSE AMERICAN MILITARY CONTRACTORS IN ATTENDANCE TO DEVELOP COUNTERMEASURES AGAINST THEM. Nowhere in the subject original document does it imply, suggest or state that NASA itself or the United States Government were developing or using any of these horrific, potential, future weapons AGAINST the American people themselves. THAT FRAUDULENT CLAIM IS THE HOAX!

    ANALYSIS:
    Obviously, the FIRST such military contractors to develop successful COUNTER MEASURES to use AGAINST such theoretical, potential, future, high-tech weapons (as depicted in the original slide show presentation) would be more likely to be awarded profitable government contracts to manufacture them. This is why the thousands of American military contractors in attendance at the convention would have been so interested in this particular subject.

    BACKGROUND:
    Dennis M. Bushnell was NASA's Chief Scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center in Langley, Virginia. As NASA's chief scientist, Bushnell was an EXPERT on potential, future, high-tech, military technology that OTHER NATIONS could theoretically develop for use against the American people in the future. For this reason, a TRADE ASSOCIATION of American military contractors (which were in the business of developing COUNTERMEASURES to such threats) asked Bushnell to speak at their upcoming CONVENTION. Bushnell created the original power point slide show presentation for his use at that convention.

    The title of the Bushnell’s presentation at the upcoming convention was “FUTURE Strategic Issues/FUTURE Warfare (CIRCA 2025)" (note the YEAR, "2025"). Bushnell first PUBLISHED his original power point slide show presentation TO THE PUBLIC on the “US Department of Defense’s Defense Technical INFORMATION CENTER" website (a PUBLIC website) in July 2001, a month BEFORE the convention at which he was to speak on the subject. (So much for the promoter's “secret” or “leaked” document story.).

    Bushnell actually gave his power point slide show presentation on August 14th, 2001 at the “4th Annual Testing and Training FOR READINESS ["having successful COUNTERMEASURES"] Symposium and Exhibition" which was held at the Rosen Centre Hotel (then, the OMNI Rosen Hotel) in Orlando, Florida. The theme of the convention/symposium/exposition was “EMERGING CHALLENGES [potential FUTURE weapons] AND OPPORTUNITIES ["BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES"] (its REAL name)”. The convention was hosted by the National DEFENSE Industrial Association ("NDIA"), a trade association for American military contractors. It was this group that asked Bushnell to appear at the convention and give a presentation on potential, future, high-tech military technology that OTHER NATIONS could theoretically develop for use against the American people in the future (over the next 25 years).

    FACT:
    PDF metadata (see below) of the promoter’s HIGHLY “MODIFIED” version of the original document indicates that it was actually “CREATED” on “March 27, 2011 (TEN (10) years AFTER Bushnell’s presentation), that it was "CREATED" by the promoter’s co-conspirator in this hoax and that it was “LAST MODIFIED” by the promoter's co-conspirator (means last "CHANGED", “ALTERED” or “RE-WRITTEN”) on January 23, 2013 (TWELVE (12) years after Bushnell’s presentation). The promoter and her co-conspirator made these extensive "MODIFICATIONS" to the original document in order to make the promoter’s HIGHLY "MODIFIED" version FIT THE HOAX they were peddling (“NASA is killing us all with horrific, futuristic, high-tech weapons.”). Not surprisingly, the promoter never disclosed ("revealed") these extensive (AND SECRET) "MODIFICATIONS" to her followers. Needless to say, the truth does not need "MODIFICATION". Only lies need "MODIFICATION".

    FACT:
    Archive.org (which records everything ever posted online) indicates that Bushnell’s original power point slide presentation was posted in the “PUBLIC DOMAIN” FOR THE PUBLIC TO SEE on the “US Department of Defense’s Defense Technical INFORMATION CENTER website" (a PUBLIC website). (So much for the promoter's “secret” document story.). Archive.org indicates that the subject original document WAS NEVER POSTED ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE WEB (including any NASA website). This means that the promoter's claim that the subject document was "discovered and downloaded from a NASA website" IS A LIE intended to INTENTIONALLY DEFRAUD the American people and intended to incite HATRED and VIOLENCE against innocent Americans.

    ANALYSIS:
    The promoter had very good reason for LYING to the American people about the TRUE SOURCE of the original document. If she truthfully admitted that the original document was downloaded from the PUBLIC website of the “US Department of DEFENSE’S DEFENSE Technical INFORMATION CENTER” (a PUBLIC website), then the original document would not appear to be "secret", nefarious or otherwise part of a "conspiracy" to kill us all. This is because, as a general rule, the government does not usually post written proof of its own conspiracies against its own people on ITS OWN PUBLIC “INFORMATION CENTER” WEBSITES).

    CONCLUSION:
    Contrary to the promoter's claims, THE "NASA WAR DOCUMENT" DOES NOT REFLECT AN EFFORT ON THE PART OF NASA (OR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT) TO KILL ALL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WITH HORRIFIC, FUTURISTIC, HIGH-TECH WEAPONS. To the contrary, the ORIGINAL "NASA WAR DOCUMENT" actually reflects an effort on the part of a single NASA scientist (and thousands of American military contractors) TO PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM POTENTIAL, FUTURE, HIGH-TECH WEAPONS THAT OTHER NATIONS COULD THEORETICALLY DEVELOP FOR USE AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN THE FUTURE (AS DEPICTED IN THE ORIGINAL PRESENTATION), exactly backwards to what the promoter claims in her hoax. The promoter of this hoax knew the truth about the subject original document all along, but nevertheless decided to lie to the American people about it anyway. Sadly, this hoax is but a small part of a much larger pattern of fraud on the part of this same promoter to defraud the American people and to thereby incite HATRED and VIOLENCE against innocent Americans.

    SOURCE DOCUMENTS

    ARCHIVE.ORG’S RECORDS ON THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT:
    https://archive.org/details/FutureSt...rfareCirca2025 (SCROLL DOWN TO BELOW THE WINDOW)

    ONLY WEBSITE WHERE THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT WAS EVER POSTED (DTIC):
    http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/

    TRADE ASSOCIATION THAT SPONSORED THE SUBJECT CONVENTION (NDIA):
    http://www.ndia.org/Pages/default.aspx

    RECORD OF THE SUBJECT 2001 NDIA CONFERENCE ON THE DTIC WEBSITE:
    http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADM002244

    COMPUTER ANALYSIS OF PDF METADATA OF THE PROMOTER’S HIGHLY-“MODIFIED” VERSION OF THE SUBJECT DOCUMENT (Scroll down and read the comments of senior member, “Flamesong” beginning with the comment posted on “26-06-2013, 09:02 PM” and the following comment posted on “26-06-2013, 09:39 PM”):
    https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...=248938&page=2 (NOTE THAT THIS METADATA REVEALS THE REAL IDENTITY OF THE PROMOTER'S CHARLATAN CO-CONSPIRATOR IN THIS HOAX). Note also that the promoter confirms the REAL IDENTITY of her charlatan co-conspirator in this hoax at 43:10-43:20 in the following video.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQeazE8_Ipk (Remember, at 43:10-43:20).





    SIDE NOTE:
    FOR TWO MORE WORLD FAMOUS HOAXES BY ROD CLASS' CHIEF CHARLATAN PARTNER, SCROLL DOWN TO THE "SILENT WEAPONS FOR QUIET WARS HOAX" & THE "REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN HOAX" AT COMMENT TWENTY TWO (22) BELOW. THEY ARE SIMPLY UNBELIEVABLE! REMEMBER, SCROLL DOWN TO COMMENT 22 BELOW.

    THE "JUDGE DALE HOAX"
    BELOW, THE PROMOTER IS ACTUALLY CAUGHT ON TAPE WHILE ENGAGED IN THE "JUDGE DALE HOAX". In the "Judge DALE Hoax", this promoter and amateur legal theorist, "Rodney DALE Class", disseminated FAKE legal books that revealed FAKE legal information WHICH THEY THEMSELVES ACTUALLY CREATED, but which they fraudulently told the American people were written by an imaginary "retired federal judge" named, "Judge DALE" (which uses Rodney "DALE" Class' middle name, "DALE", as an inside joke on the American people). Jeff Rense is NOT involved in the hoax. Indeed, he is a victim of the hoax.

    TRULY OSCAR WORTHY PERFORMANCES!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05o4CpB9I8g&t=260s (A TRULY OSCAR-WORTHY PERFORMANCE AT 2:25-4:00, 5:25-6:15, 9:00-9:20)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTRPZD3_w5k (A TRULY OSCAR-WORTHY PERFORMANCE AT 42:10-49:15)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKI4zPI504E (A TRULY OSCAR-WORTHY PERFORMANCE AT 7:15-7:55, 27:00-27:55, 31:15-33:10, 45:05-46:00, 52:35-53:45, 54:35-54:50)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dgYbD6fcw8 (A TRULY OSCAR-WORTHY PERFORMANCE AT 34:20-36:00)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAryrdGenL4 (A TRULY OSCAR-WORTHY PERFORMANCE AT 1:30-1:45)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRnogqeqzxk (A TRULY OSCAR WORTHY PERFORMANCE at 6:20-6:45, 7:10-7:55, 25:55-26:45)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQeazE8_Ipk (A TRULY OSCAR WORTHY PERFORMANCE at 51:50-53:00)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81qlF5v3WY8 (A TRULY OSCAR WORTHY PERFORMANCE at 7:00-7:25)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eei6_4dpK4 (A TRULY OSCAR WORTHY PERFORMANCE at 2:20-2:40).

    THE JUDGE "DALE" FORGERIES (BOOKS):
    http://www.stopthecrime.net/docs/THE...-ADVENTURE.pdf (NOTE THE WEBMASTER OF THIS WEBSITE);
    https://anticorruptionsociety.files....bk-format1.pdf (NOTE THE WEBMASTER OF THIS WEBSITE);
    https://anticorruptionsociety.files....th-edition.pdf (SEE LIST OF AUTHORS AT BOTTOM OF 2ND PAGE).


    ABOUT THE PROMOTER OF THIS HOAX:
    The promoter is Rodney "DALE" Class' partner in the "Judge DALE Hoax" and several other Rod Class hoaxes. She is a well-known, PROFESSIONAL CHARLATAN, HOAXER and SELF-PROMOTER. She does nothing but create, manufacture and publish online hoaxes (her specialty). She has long engaged in a pattern of FORGING FAKE, COUNTERFEIT documents and FRAUDULENTLY attributing those FORGERIES to others (like the federal government or its agencies). When not FORGING her own FAKE, COUNTERFEIT documents for that purpose, she takes documents written by others THAT SHE KNOWS TO BE POLITICAL "FICTION" and FRAUDULENTLY tells her followers that they are REAL documents written by "GOVERNMENT INSIDERS". Like all of Rod Class' claims, all of the claims of this promoter are intended to incite HATED and VIOLENCE against innocent Americans and against the ELECTED representatives of "We the People" and our Republican form of government.

    This woman is behind ALL THREE of the "Judge DALE forgeries" (all of which she co-wrote with Rod Class), including "The Matrix And The US Constitution" (2010), The Great American Adventure: Secrets of America" (2012) & "Lawfully Yours" (2014), the "Judge DALE Hoax" (with Rod Class), the "All Government Agencies Are 'Private Entities' [or 'Private Contractors'] Hoax" (with Rod Class), the "Property Into Other Peoples' Names Hoax" (with Rod Class), the "Court Registry Investment System Hoax" (with Rod Class), the "Federal Government Is A Private, For-Profit Corporation Hoax" (with Rod Class), the "B.A.R. Card Hoax" (with Rod Class), the "'Esquire' Is A Title Of Nobility [Royalty] Hoax" (with Rod Class), the "British Accreditation Registry Hoax [B.A.R. Hoax]" (with Rod Class), the "NASA War Document Hoax", the "Silent Weapons For Quiet Wars Hoax", the "Report From Iron Mountain Hoax", the "FAKE Jim Traficant Speech Hoax" and numerous other hoaxes, all of which she uses to INTENTIONALLY DEFRAUD the American people.

    ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH:
    Snoop4truth is a legal expert and whistle blower who exposes online hoaxes. Snoop4truth did not reveal this information to harm the promoter. Instead, Snoop4truth exposed this information solely to reduce the CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE that such INTENTIONAL FRAUD inflicts upon the American people every single day. Had it not been for the promoter's role in the "Judge DALE Hoax", Snoop4truth would not have exposed this information here.

    The message to all hoaxers and charlatans? Just tell the truth.
    Last edited by snoop4truth; 3rd March 2018 at 23:43.

  28. Link to Post #20
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    30th September 2015
    Age
    45
    Posts
    52
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 29 times in 14 posts

    Default Re: Rod Class & his many hoaxes

    Bill,

    Thanks for the tip on Sean David Morton and the "Income Tax is Voluntary" article.

    I'll look into them.

    Sounds like they are right up my alley. LOL!

    Best Regards,

    Snoop

    NOTICE: THIS THREAD IS CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Last edited by snoop4truth; 30th December 2017 at 16:09.

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to snoop4truth For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (22nd August 2017)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 3 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts