+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 3
Results 41 to 50 of 50

Thread: Rod Class & his many hoaxes

  1. Link to Post #41
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    30th September 2015
    Age
    59
    Posts
    169
    Thanks
    76
    Thanked 275 times in 114 posts

    Default Re: Rod Class & his many hoaxes

    (PART 2) RESPONSE TO DYNAMO

    YOUR COMMENT: HUMAN BEINGS ARE TREATED AS SUCH [as CORPORATIONS]...

    MY RESPONSE: Respectfully, this is not so. See here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnSd-E3Hb3Y (at 3:20-4:30 and at 10:40-11:15). In this video, the INDIVIDUAL is actually trying to get the court to accept the amateur legal theory that he has a "split personality" and that one of his personalities, among many, is a "CORPORATION". The INDIVIDUAL wants the court to convict his "CORPORATION" personality, but not his INDIVIDUAL personality. But, the court refuses and does not accept the INDIVIDUAL'S "split personality" defense and REFUSES TO TREAT HIM AS A "CORPORATION".

    U.S. v. Powell, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the defendant, an amateur legal theorist, sought to avoid a criminal conviction and sentencing by asking to be treated as a "corporation". In this regard, the court wrote, "Mr. Powell... [claimed that] he was not a criminal defendant BUT [WAS] RATHER A CORPORATION... . But, the court ruled otherwise and held, 'YOU'RE AN INDIVIDUAL... . YOU'RE NOT A CORPORATION.'" (in the 6th paragraph at about 40% through the text).

    Thus, contrary to the claims of amateur legal theorists, THE LEGAL SYSTEM DOES NOT TREAT INDIVIDUALS AS CORPORATIONS.


    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").


    YOUR COMMENT: ...[individuals are treated as corporations] instead of being treated as what they really are, "SOVEREIGN" sentient beings,

    MY RESPONSE: Respectfully, this is not so. The term, "SOVEREIGN" is a term that ONLY applies to GOVERNMENTS, not to INDIVIDUALS.

    THE AMATEUR MISTAKE:
    Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that a "SOVEREIGN" is an INDIVIDUAL and that the enemy of a "SOVEREIGN" is the GOVERNMENT of "We the People". But, this is not so.

    THE TRUTH:
    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. (REJECTING ALL OF THE PLAINTIFF'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES INCLUDING her amateur legal theory that she is "SOVEREIGN"). 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. (REJECTING ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES INCLUDING his amateur legal theory that he is "SOVEREIGN"). 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 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 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/.

    (MY RESPONSE CONTINUED)

    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.

    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.

    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).

    (RESPONSE CONTINUED)

    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/.

    YOUR COMMENT: ... so that governments can use THEIR "laws" to control said people.

    MY RESPONSE: There is no "us" and "them". "WE THE PEOPLE" ARE THE GOVERNMENT as explained below.

    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".

    YOUR COMMENT: Similar information about control techniques here: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...der-Your-Crown

    MY RESPONSE: I have already addressed this subject in my responses above. I will not duplicate them here.


    I trust this adequately responds to your comments.

    All The Best,

    Snoop
    Last edited by snoop4truth; 25th November 2018 at 21:07.

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

    Bill Ryan (10th August 2018), Satori (10th August 2018)

  3. Link to Post #42
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    30th September 2015
    Age
    59
    Posts
    169
    Thanks
    76
    Thanked 275 times in 114 posts

    Default Re: Rod Class & his many hoaxes

    (PART 1) RESPONSE TO WE-R-ONE:

    NOTE: Because we-R-one agrees with Dynamo (that all governments are "corporations"), part 1 of this response to we-R-one is largely the same as part 1 of my response to Dynamo. But part 2 and 3 of this response to we-R-one are entirely different.

    Dear we-R-one,

    Thank you very much for your comments. I will respond to them individually below.

    PERSONAL NOTE TO WE-R-ONE:
    First on a personal note, I am well aware that THE TRUTH about the REAL law and the legal system is NOT POPULAR with amateur legal theorists, is NOT WELCOMED by amateur legal theorists and that it is INCONSISTENT with the belief system of amateur legal theorists.

    But, none of that will make THE TRUTH about the law and the legal system false. THE TRUTH about the REAL law and the legal system WILL STILL BE THE TRUTH. It does not matter whether that TRUTH is POPULAR. ALL THAT REALLY MATTERS IS THAT IT IS THE TRUTH.


    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)



    YOUR COMMENTS: Yes I have to agree with Dynamo [who said that "governments, be they federal, state or city are corporations"].

    MY RESPONSE: Respectfully, this is NOT TRUE in the way that you and other amateur legal theorists mean it to be true.

    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_c...2&as_sdt=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).

    MY RESPONSE CONTINUED:
    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:

    FACT: 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.


    TWO 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],... Unites States means- ... a federal corporation [this term is a source of the confusion]... ." 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". But, consider this. Even if the "United States" was such a "PRIVATE", "FOR-PROFIT" corporation, and it is not, ALL of the governmental decisions made by that alleged "corporation" WOULD STILL BE MADE BY PEOPLE THAT WE "ELECT" TO RUN IT. For more on this very subject, read comment 12 in this same thread above.


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

    1). Thompson v. Scutt, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&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_c...n&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_c...n&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_c...n&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_c...n&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_c...n&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_c...n&as_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_c...n&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_c...n&as_sdt=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_c...n&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_c...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 [something that Dynamo also falsely claims]. 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_c...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_c...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_c...n&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"[something we-R-one also falsely claims], 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/.


    I trust this adequately responds the first portion of your comments.

    All The Best,

    Snoop

    (CONTINUED ON PART 2)


    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_c...n&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_c...n&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_c...n&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_c...n&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_c...n&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_c...n&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_c...n&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 "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_c...n&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.

    FACT: Just in case you do not already know, all FUTURE DECISIONS on these same amateur legal theories WILL FOLLOW THE DECISIONS SHOWN ABOVE (CALLED "PRECEDENT"). So, the law on these same subjects 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/.


    (CONTINUED ON PART 2)
    Last edited by snoop4truth; 12th November 2018 at 21:02.

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

    Bill Ryan (10th August 2018), Satori (10th August 2018)

  5. Link to Post #43
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    30th September 2015
    Age
    59
    Posts
    169
    Thanks
    76
    Thanked 275 times in 114 posts

    Default Re: Rod Class & his many hoaxes

    (PART 2) RESOPNSE TO WE-R-ONE

    YOUR COMMENT: In reference to the bolded, every city, state, and county [government] in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ALL HAVE EIN NUMBERS which anyone can look up... .

    YOUR COMMENT (CONTINUED ON THE SAME SUBJECT): AN EIN NUMBER DENOTES ... CORPORATE STATUS......

    YOUR COMMENT (CONTINUED ON THE SAME SUBJECT): AND YET HE [referring to snoop4truth] DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THAT EVERY FEDERAL AGENCY IS A CORPORATION AND HAS AN EIN NUMBER??

    LMAO.... .

    MY RESPONSE: Perhaps you should not be laughing your ass off. You are mistaken. But, amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

    FACT: Having an EIN number IS NOT even relevant to the determination of whether an entity (governmental or otherwise) is a corporation.
    An "EIN" number simply means "EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER". It is also known as a "FEIN" number and simply means "FEDERAL EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER"). The IRS assigns an EIN number to every "EMPLOYER" in the same way that the IRS assigns Social Security numbers to every INDIVIDUAL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employ...ication_Number. Having an EIN number DOES NOT mean that such a city, county or state government is a "corporation" (much less a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation).

    Instead, having an EIN number simply means that such a city, county or state government is an "EMPLOYER" and all "EMPLOYERS" have EIN numbers (whether they are corporations or not). Indeed, ALL NON-CORPORATIONS which are "EMPLOYERS" also have EIN numbers. This includes, Sole Proprietorships, General Partnerships, Limited Partnerships, Limited Liability Companies and Unincorporated Associations, NONE OF WHICH ARE CORPORATIONS, much less PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporations. So, having an EIN number HAS NOTHING to do with an "EMPLOYER'S" alleged status as a "corporation", much less a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation. But, amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

    FACT: The reason that all governments have EIN numbers is because all governments are "EMPLOYERS", NOT because all governments are "CORPORATIONS". But, amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

    FACT: As "EMPLOYERS", all cities, counties and state governments are required to withhold federal income taxes and social security taxes from the earnings of their "EMPLOYEES" and are required to pay those withheld taxes to the IRS at regular intervals. The EIN numbers assigned to all such "EMPLOYERS" simply assist the IRS in determining which "EMPLOYERS" have complied with the law and which "EMPLOYERS" have not. It is that simple. So, having an EIN number HAS NOTHING to do with an "EMPLOYER'S" alleged status as a "corporation", much less a PRIVATE, "FOR-PROFIT corporation. But, amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

    FACT: Likewise, having a EIN number DOES NOT mean that the "EMPLOYER" is ITSELF earning "INCOME" or a "PROFIT" (such that it must pay federal income taxes to the IRS on its own "INCOME" or "PROFITS"). Even "EMPLOYERS" that are make NO "PROFITS" at all (and those which actually LOSE MONEY) are STILL required to withhold federal income taxes and social security taxes from the earnings of their "EMPLOYEES" and they are STILL required to pay those withheld taxes to the IRS at regular intervals. It is that simple. So, having an EIN number HAS NOTHING to do with an "EMPLOYER'S" alleged status as a "corporation", much less a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation and having an EIN number does not reflect (much less prove) that the "EMPLOYER" is itself earning "INCOME" or "PROFITS" subject to federal income taxes. But, amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

    BOTTOM LINE: This means that there is NOTHING about a city, county or state government having an EIN number that means it is a "corporation" (much less a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT "corporation") or that it is itself earning "INCOME" "PROFITS" subject to federal income taxes. But, amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

    YOUR COMMENT: I have a list somewhere buried in my files of every EIN numbers for my state and counties and I've personally pulled some of them up on my own RATHER THAN JUST BELIEVING WHAT I HAVE BEEN TOLD.

    MY RESPONSE: Respectfully, this is not so. Respectfully, YOU BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU HAVE EVER BEEN TOLD ABOUT THE LAW, AS LONG AS IT COMES FROM OTHER AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS, rather than from the actual WRITTEN WORDS of the REAL law itself (of the type I to which I have provided you with links and which I have accurately quoted above).

    And respectfully, if you have such a list buried in your files reflecting the EIN numbers of every county government in your state, then you simply have a list of "EMPLOYERS" in your state, nothing more. Such a list DOES NOT reflect (much less prove) that all of the counties in your state are "corporations" (much less PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporations) and such a list DOES NOT reflect (much less prove) that such counties are themselves generating "income" or "profits" subject to federal income taxes.

    SIDE NOTE: DUN & BRADSTREET
    Other amateur legal theorists reach this same mistaken conclusion (that all governments and governmental agencies are "corporations") by noting that governments and government agencies ARE LISTED IN "DUN & BRADSTREET". https://itnjcommittee.org/did-you-kn...s-governments/ (scroll down to about 80% through the text of this article). But, contrary to what amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe, DUN & BRADSTREET DOES NOT REFLECT A LIST OF "CORPORATIONS" EITHER.

    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, as is the case with having an EIN number, being listed in 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.

    YOUR COMMENT (CONTINUED ON THE SAME SUBJECT): if you think about it, they'd have to have EIN numbers in order to be pulled under the jurisdiction of the 'color of law',

    MY RESPONSE: Respectfully, this is not so. There is absolutely NO CORRELATION (much less an inconsistency) between governments (or government agencies) being "EMPLOYERS" (and therefore having EID numbers) on one hand and individuals within the borders of that government's jurisdiction being subject to that government’s laws on the other hand.

    Further, you are using the term "color of law" incorrectly. Example: Amateur legal theorist, Rod Class mistakenly believes he is a "Private Attorney General" under "Title 42 U.S.C. 1988" and mistakenly believes that he "has the power to arrest rogue judges". http://co-creatingournewearth.blogsp...rod-class.html (at the last sentence of the 1st full paragraph). But, this is not so. Rod Class was not ELECTED by "We the People" or appointed to that imaginary position by a person or persons ELECTED by "We the People" to make such an appointment. So, if Rod Class actually arrested a judge falsely claiming as his "legal authority" his imaginary powers under 42 U.S.C. 1988, then he would he would be acting under "color of law". That is the correct use of the term, "color of law". Respectfully, your use of the term is incorrect and based on amateur legal theory.

    YOUR COMMENT: ALL CAPITAL LETTERS ARE USED TO DENOTE A CORPORATE STATUS.

    My RESPONSE: Respectfully, this is not so. The practice of using capital letters in legal and financial documents began during a period when such documents were manually typed on old-fashioned, manual typewriters. At the time, these manual typewriters did not have BOLD type, ITALIC type, different FONTS, colored HIGHLIGHTING features or COLORED TEXT. At the time, there was ONE, AND ONLY ONE way for an author TO EMPHASIZE the actual text being manually typed on a manual typewriter. THAT WAY WAS TO USE CAPITAL LETTERS. So, the authors of these manually-typed, legal and financial documents used capital letters FOR THE SAME REASON THAT I DO---TO EMPHASIZE THE MOST IMPORTANT WORDS, like the NAMES OF THE PARTIES to such documents, for example. The practice of using capital letters to emphasize the most important words in such legal and financial documents, like the NAMES OF THE PARTIES to such documents, became a custom and this custom survives to this very day. But, using capital letters in such legal or financial documents was not then and is not now a "secret code" which "denotes a corporate status" or any other such non-sense AND THE COURTS HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID SO IN WRITING. (See below).

    YOUR COMMENT: You will occasionally see me do the same in my postings when referencing a corporation such as THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; no, I'm NOT SHOUTING AT YOU, lol.

    MY RESPONSE: If you use capital letters when keying in the term, "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" on your computer, then under the REAL law, you have done nothing but EMPHASIZED that term in a text that consists mostly of lower case letters. The law does not now and never has recognized capital letters as a "secret code" which "denotes a corporate status" or any other such non-sense. Claims to the contrary are amateur legal theories and are simply not true. Consider the REAL LAW below.

    THE ACTUAL REAL LAW ITSELF ON WHETHER CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A CORPORATE STATUS:

    1). United States v. Rodney [DALE] Class, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES including the amateur legal theory that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A "CORPORATE STATUS"). In this case, the court wrote, "Defendant [Rodney DALE Class] objects to the appearance of HIS NAME IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS in the indictment, contending that CAPITAL LETTERS apply only to [means "DENOTE"] a 'FICTIONAL' ENTITY OR A CORPORATION and not a 'a living flesh and blood man' such as himself... ." But, the court ruled otherwise and held, "This [CAPITAL LETTER] objection and the related argument that the use of ALL CAPITAL LETTERS somehow deprives the Court of subject matter jurisdiction FIND NO [means "HAVE NO"] SUPPORT IN THE LAW [Translation: These claims are amateur legal theories] and, in fact, HAVE BEEN SQUARELY REJECTED [read this phrase again]... . See United States v. Mitchell, 405 F.Supp. 602, 603 (D.Md.2009) (characterizing similar [CAPITAL LETTER] objections as 'PATENTLY WITHOUT MERIT')[read this phrase again]... . However, the Court now clarifies, to the extent there is any doubt [making fun of Class' CAPITAL LETTER amateur legal theory], the person charged in this case is Rodney [DALE] Class THE HUMAN BEING, AND NOT A CORPORATION OR OTHER 'FICTIONAL ENTITY', as Defendant [Rodney DALE Class] suggests." (at the 10th paragraph at about 15% through the text of the case).

    2). U.S. v. Harding, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including the amateur legal theory that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A "CORPORATE STATUS"). The court wrote, "Harding [an amateur legal theorist] takes issue with the use of ALL CAPITAL LETTERS [depicting his name on court documents], which he argues DENOTES A CORPORATE ENTITY, not a living person." But, the court ruled otherwise and held, "Because THEY ARE CONTRARY TO ESTABLISHED LAW [and are, therefore, amateur legal theories], HARDING’S ARGUMENTS [about CAPITAL LETTERS] WILL... BE REJECTED [read this phrase again]." (beginning at the 4 paragraph and continuing for several paragraphs).

    3). U.S. v. Welch, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including the amateur legal theory that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A "CORPORATE STATUS"). In this case, the defendant/amateur legal theorist claimed that he was not the taxpayer identified in the court documents because HIS NAME WAS SPELLED IN CAPITAL LETTERS WHICH HE CLAIMED DENOTED A CORPORATION. But, the court ruled otherwise and cited the following cases in support, "... Johnson v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo.1999-312, aff'd 242 F.3d 382 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that petitioner's contention that "he was not the taxpayer named in the ...[court documents] because THE NAME ON THE ... [court documents] WAS SPELLED IN CAPITAL LETTERS, AND THAT CORPORATIONS, NOT INDIVIDUALS, SPELL THEIR NAMES WITH CAPITAL LETTERS" WAS FRIVOLOUS [read this phrase again]); United States v. Jagim, 978 F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir.1992) (holding, in response to a similar [CAPITAL LETTER] argument, that "[t]hese [CAPITAL LETTERS] issues are COMPLETELY WITHOUT MERIT, PATENTLY FRIVOLOUS, AND WILL BE REJECTED without expending any more of this Court's resources on their discussion" [read this phrase again]). Elsewhere in the case, the court wrote, "[T]he simple fact that Defendant Welch's [the defendant’s] NAME has appeared on... [court] documents WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS DOES NOT SUGGEST that the... [court documents] apply to any [person] OTHER THAN [the Defendant] Jim Davis Welch, THE INDIVIDUAL [and not a corporation]. See Ford v. Pryor, 552 F.3d 1174, 1179 (10th Cir. 2008) (holding that the argument that a summons did not identify... [the defendant] BECAUSE HIS NAME WAS TYPED IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS WAS 'WHOLLY FRIVOLOUS' [read this phrase again]); ... ." (at the 3rd to last paragraph in the case at about 95% through the text).

    4). U.S. v. Blackburn, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including the amateur legal theory that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A "CORPORATE STATUS"). The court wrote, "Mr. Blackburn [an amateur legal theorist] claims that the case [against him] must be dismissed because the Indictment... SPELLS HIS NAME IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS... . He cites to style manuals and administrative codes [which do NOT have the force of law] demonstrating that ALL CAPITAL LETTERS ARE [sometimes] USED WHEN SPELLING A CORPORATION'S NAME IN LEGAL DOCUMENTS, but [sometimes] not when referring to a living person. Because he is a 'living, breathing, flesh and blood sovereign man,' Mr. Blackburn [the amateur legal theorist] contends that the Indictment CAN ONLY SPELL HIS NAME IN UPPER AND LOWER CASE SPELLING to be [legally] effective against him. This [CAPITAL LETTER] argument has been [futilely] ATTEMPTED by several defendants in federal district court WITHOUT SUCCESS [read this phrase again]. See, e.g., United States v. Mitchell, 405 F. Supp. 2d 602, 604-05 (D. Md. Dec. 19, 2005); United States v. Singleton, 2004 WL 1102322, at *3 (N.D. Ill., May 7, 2004). The courts [referred to in all of these cases cited herein] held that USE OF ALL UPPER CASE LETTERS or a mixture of UPPER and LOWER case letters IS NOT RELEVANT TO... JURISDICTION... . Id. The... use of CAPITAL LETTERS in referring to a defendant in legal documents IS SIMPLY IRRELEVANT [Translation: Capital letters do not denote a corporation or corporate status]. Mitchell, 405 F. Supp. 2d at 604. Here, the government and the Court have addressed Mr. Blackburn, both in court and on paper, IN A... MANNER THAT CLEARLY IDENTIFIES HIM [the individual]... . [Thus,] MR. BLACKBURN'S [the amateur legal theorist's] ARGUMENT [ABOUT CAPITAL LETTERS] IS THUS REJECTED [read this phrase again]." (beginning at the 2nd paragraph in the section entitled "2. Judicial Notice" at about 50% through the text).

    5). U.S. v. Beavers, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES including the amateur legal theory that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A "CORPORATE STATUS"). The court wrote, "The Defendants [both amateur legal theorists] refer to themselves as the "flesh and blood SENTIENT [a term also used by Dynamo] man and woman" and NOT A CORPORATION OR CORPORATE ENTITY, as they assert is suggested [as "denoted"] by the fact that THEIR NAMES APPEAR in the style of the case IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. The Defendants contend that based upon the distinction between the ALL-CAPITALS NAME and the living person, they are not subject to the Court's authority [jurisdiction]." (at paragraph 7, not including block indented portions at about 20% through the text). Later in the text, the court also wrote, "The Defendants [both tax protesters and amateur legal theorists]... appear to argue that because THEIR NAMES ARE LISTED IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, INDICATING [means "DENOTING"] A CORPORATION and not "flesh and blood" persons, they are not subject to the Court's jurisdiction. The Defendants do not cite, nor can the Court find, any [legal] authority [meaning "law"] to support this assertion [Translation: This is an amateur legal theory]. As the Government notes, COURTS... HAVE REJECTED THIS [CAPITAL LETTER] ARGUMENT AS FRIVOLOUS [read this phrase again]. See United States v. Gonzalez, 222 F. App'x 238, 243 (4th Cir. 2007) (finding that the defendants' motions alleging the court lacked jurisdiction because the "indictment SPELLED THEIR NAMES IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, [and] the government failed to properly identify them as `real, live flesh and blood m[en]' were ‘COMPLETELY FRIVOLOUS’ [read this phrase again])... ; United States v. Bradley, 26 F. App'x 392, 393 (6th Cir. 2001) ("Edgar [the defendant in the case cited here] also plays the `name game,' contending that `Edgar Francis Bradley' is a natural born man of the State of Ohio, while `Edgar F. Bradley' is merely a CORPORATE FICTION."). The Court finds these Defendants' [AMATEUR NAME GAME] arguments... [are] UNAVAILING, FRIVOLOUS, AND WITHOUT LEGAL SUPPORT [read this phrase again]." (at the 10th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 25% through the text).

    6). U.S. v. Curry, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES including the amateur legal theory that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A "CORPORATE STATUS"). The court wrote, "Next, Curry [the defendant] contends that... THE USE OF CAPITAL LETTERS MEANS THAT THE DEFENDANT [Curry] 'IS AN ARTIFICIAL OR FICTITIOUS PERSON [meaning a CORPORATION]'." But, the court ruled otherwise and held, "Curry's [the defendant's ] CAPITAL-LETTER ARGUMENT IS ... UNAVAILING AND FRIVOLOUS [read this phrase again]." (at the 5th paragraph at about 95% through the text).

    7). Johnson v. Superintendent, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES including the amateur legal theory that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A "CORPORATE STATUS"). The court wrote, "Johnson [an amateur legal theorist] states that, 'the use of ALL CAPITAL LETTERS in my name indicates that I was brought into this cause AS A CORPORATION without my `consent'.... ." The court ruled otherwise and held, "THESE [CAPITAL LETTER] ARGUMENTS ARE MERITLESS [read this phrase again]." (at the 2nd paragraph at about 30% through the text).

    8). U.S. v. Bowden, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS' AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES including their amateur legal theory that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A "CORPORATE STATUS"). In this case, the Bowdens (both tax protesters and the defendants) claimed that, "there was no contract between the United States and 'wesley d. bowden' [IN ALL LOWER CASE LETTERS], that 'your [referring to the government's] fictitious WESLEY D. BOWDEN [IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS] is your property, but do[es] not include the living man, wesley d. bowden [IN ALL LOWER CASE LETTERS],' that 'betty s. bowden (IN ALL LOWER CASE LETTERS] is a living woman NOT A CORPORATION,'" Thus, the Bowdens (the tax protesters/defendants) mistakenly believed that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A CORPORATE STATUS and that lower case letters denote a living human being. But, the court ruled otherwise and held, " ...[THE] ARGUMENT that the spelling of a defendant's 'NAME IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS... REFERS TO AN ARTIFICIAL ENTITY [meaning a corporation], rather than a natural person' HAS 'BEEN LONG REJECTED [read this phrase again]... . THE TYPEFACE USED... DOES NOT AFFECT THE COURT'S JURISDICTION AND SOMEHOW DIVEST THE COURT'S JURISDICTION')... ." The court also went on to REJECT the "SO-CALLED "STRAW-MAN' [AMATEUR LEGAL] THEORY which falsely claim[s] that ONLY DOCUMENTS USING AN INDIVIDUAL'S NAME WITH STANDARD CAPITALIZATION, [meaning] LOWER-CASE WITH ONLY THE BEGINNING LETTERS OF EACH NAME CAPITALIZED, ARE LEGITIMATE... ." (beginning at the 11th paragraph at about 35%through the text).

    9). Bell v. Tobe, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES including the amateur legal theory that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A "CORPORATE STATUS”). In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued a lender and its lawyer who had won an earlier case against him. The amateur legal theorist complained that in the earlier case, his opponent "misus[ed] THE NAME of this Sovereign American Citizen [referring to himself] by placing it IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, misusing my last name, and referring to me erroneously as a `person,' which is a `term of art' meaning a creature of the law, AN ARTIFICIAL BEING, and a CORPORATION... . He [the defendant] states that he is "NOT A CORPORATION... ." Thus, the defendant mistakenly believed that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A CORPORATE STATUS. But, the court ruled otherwise and dismissed the case on the grounds that it had "NO BASIS IN LAW OR FACT [Translation: This is an amateur legal theory]". (at the 2nd paragraph at about 30% through the text).

    10). U.S. v. Luginbyhl, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES including the amateur legal theory that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A "CORPORATE STATUS”). The court wrote, "Defendant's argument concerning THE USE OF CAPITAL LETTERS in case captions and court documents is not new to the Court. This Court and other courts have... CONSITENTLY REJECTED these [CAPITAL LETTER] arguments as MERITLESS [read this phrase again]. See United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990) (citing numerous cases that have REJECTED 'hackneyed tax protester' arguments); United States v. Lindsay, 184 F.3d 1138, 1144 (10th Cir. 1999) (concluding that the defendant's refusal to review court correspondence on which his name appeared IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS was an obstruction of justice and PROVIDED A BASIS FOR A HARSHER PENALTY); Smith v. Kitchen, 1997 WL 768297 *1 n.1 (10th Cir. Dec. 12, 1997) (concluding that a party was not prejudiced because of the court's practice of captioning all documents WITH A PARTY'S FULL NAME IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS); United States v. Gonzalez, 2007 WL 805992 * 3 (4th Cir. March 14, 2007)... (concluding that defendants' arguments alleging that because the indictment spelled their names using ALL CAPITAL LETTERS that the government failed to properly identify them as "real, live flesh and blood m[en]" [meaning identified them as corporations] were COMPLETELY FRIVOLOUS [were amateur legal theories]). (at the 3rd paragraph at about 35% through the text).

    11). U.S. v. Powell, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES including the amateur legal theory that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A "CORCORPORATE STATUS”). The court wrote, "Mr. Powell [an amateur legal theorist] elaborated that he was not the person charged in the indictment: 'I am Victor Powell,' he told the court at one point, 'but that name on the charging instrument IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS IS A CORPORATE FICTION... . Mr. Powell [also claimed that]... he was not a criminal defendant BUT RATHER A CORPORATION." Thus, the defendant mistakenly believed that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A CORPORATION. But, the court ruled otherwise and held, 'YOU'RE AN INDIVIDUAL... . YOU'RE NOT A CORPORATION.'" (at the 6th paragraph at about 45% through the text).

    12). Defluiter v. Lard, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES including the amateur legal theory that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A "CORPORATE STATUS"). In this case, the plaintiff made the following allegation, "Gary-Lee: Defluiter®®... is not... representing himself. Joseph G. Scoville shall not change to the CORPORATE FICTION —— GARY LEE DEFLUITER [in all CAPITAL LETTERS] ®®". Thus, the plaintiff believed that his name in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTED A CORPORATE STATUS. But, the court ruled otherwise and held, "[T]he use of ALL CAPITAL LETTERS for the name of a party in the caption IS CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE... . Captioning court documents with ALL CAPITAL LETTERS COMPLIES WITH FED. R. CIV. P 10(a). The use of ALL CAPITAL LETTERS in the caption of court documents`is a typographical convention WITHOUT LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE [Translation: does not SIGNIFY anything, much less a corporation].' Similar [CAPITAL LETTER] arguments have been raised in various criminal and civil cases across the country AND HAVE BEEN REJECTED AS FRIVOLOUS [means "are amateur legal theories"]." (beginning in the 4th paragraph at about 40% through the text).

    13). U.S. v. Benabe, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES including the amateur legal theory that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A "CORPORATE STATUS"). In this case, Benabe [the amateur legal theorist] claimed he was not the "ALL-CAPITAL, CORPORATE FICTION... named in the indictment." Thus, the defendant mistakenly believed that CAPITAL LETTERS on court documents DENOTE A CORPORATION. But, the court ruled otherwise and held, "We have REPEATEDLY REJECTED the[se] theories of individual [rather than collective] sovereignty, immunity from prosecution, and their ilk... . 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 [meaning NOT A CORPORATION]," THAT PERSON IS NOT BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS. These [amateur legal] theories SHOULD BE REJECTED, HOWEVER THEY ARE PRESENTED [read this phrase again]." (at the 19th paragraph at about 20% through the text).

    14). U.S. v. Mitchell, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES including the amateur legal theory that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A "CORPORATE STATUS"). In this case, "The defendants [all amateur legal theorists]... persistently claim that they are not properly identified in the caption of the indictments because THEIR NAMES ARE PRINTED IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, thereby failing to properly represent them as "FLESH AND BLOOD" MEN [meaning that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A CORPORATION]." But, the court ruled otherwise and held, "[T]he use of CAPITAL LETTERS in the caption of an indictment IS IRRELEVANT to the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. The government attorneys and the court have addressed the defendants, both in court and on paper, IN A... MANNER THAT CLEARLY IDENTIFIES THEM [AS INDIVIDUALS]... . 'It makes NO SENSE to rest a jurisdictional distinction UPON THE USE OF ALL UPPER CASE LETTERS or a mixture of UPPER and LOWER CASE LETTERS... .' United States v. Singleton, 2004 WL 1102322, *3 (N.D.Ill. May 7, 2004) (denying motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on the argument, in part, that the defendant was 'A FLESH AND BLOOD MAN' [and not a CORPORATION])." (beginning in the 5th paragraph at about 25% through the text).

    15). Thompson v. Scutt, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES including the amateur legal theory that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A "CORPORATE STATUS"). In this case, the court wrote, "Petitioner [an amateur legal theorist] also claims that he is being wrongly imprisoned on behalf of a separate legal entity referred to as ‘CHRISTOPHER BURNELL THOMPSON’ [in all CAPITAL LETTERS]. It appears that Petitioner contends that the court's use of HIS NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS in the criminal complaint and/or judgment REFERS TO [means "DENOTES"] a separate or FICTITIOUS ENTITY [meaning a CORPORATION], and is enforceable only against THAT OTHER [IMAGINARY] ENTITY [a CORPORATION]. This claim is PATENTLY FRIVOLOUS [means "is an amateur legal theory"]. The use of Petitioner's NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS has NO BEARING on the validity of the judgment [means "is irrelevant"]... . " (at the first paragraph in section "F. False imprisonment" at about 80% through the text).

    THE BOTTOM LINE: Note that ALL amateur legal theories (ex: "capital letters denote a corporate status") 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 capital letters denote a corporate status 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/.

    BONUS LAW: Many of the cases linked to above did not just rule against the single amateur legal theory that "capital letters denote a corporate status". Many of 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). United States v. Rodney [DALE] Class, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006
    This case also addressed the following amateur legal theories of Rodney DALE Class (ALL OF WHICH FAILED HERE), claiming that statutes "only apply business entities, government instrumentalities and other CORPORATE 'persons,' but not to natural persons such as himself" citing as support the inapplicable United States Tax Code, the inapplicable Texas Administrative Code and the inapplicable Delaware Administrative Code (all of which are inapplicable in this criminal case), claiming that he registered his name as a "registered trade name" which he claimed the government could not use in prosecuting him, requesting a CIVIL "declaratory judgment" in a CRIMINAL case, claiming that the government failed to name an "indispensable party" (a principle that only applies in a CIVIL case, not a CRIMINAL case such as this), claiming that the government "failed to produce a Corpus Delicti" (which actually means "body of the crime", but which Class mistakenly believes means a "body of a person who was injured"), raising as a defense the following irrelevant statutes: The Smith Act, The Administrative procedure Act, The Taft-Hartley Act, The Federal Reserve Act, The Emergency Relief Appropriations Act, the Copy Right Act, raising the Rules Of CIVIL Procedure in this CRIMINAL case (which rules do not apply in CRIMINAL cases), mistakenly claiming that The Dick Act nullified all laws limiting the possession and use of firearms (The Dick Act merely created the National Guard and did not nullify anything), raising the inapplicable and irrelevant "Clearfield Trust Doctrine" (which Class also cites in the "Judge DALE forgeries" while pretending to be "Judge DALE"), claiming his firearms did not fit the definition of a firearm in the irrelevant National Firearms Act (an irrelevant statute with which he was not charged with violating in this case), raising the Double Jeopardy clause (even though he never faced two trials for the same offense), raising his fraudulently-obtained North Carolina conceal and carry permit as a defense (which permit ALSO made it illegal for him to carry firearms onto federal grounds where, as here, such was prohibited by federal law), raising an executive order on the public works administration as a defense, raising the National Industrial Recovery Act, raising The Privileges And Immunities Clause, raising The Equal Protection Clause, raising the Uniform Commercial Code (which only applies in CIVIL cases, not CRIMINAL cases, such as this), raising the claim that he is a "Private Attorney General" (a term which does not apply in any CRIMINAL case and which NO DEFENDANT, such as Rod Class was in this case, can ever be). The court described Class' amateur legal theories as follows, "[They are] UTTERLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE" (a sign of MENTAL ILLNESS) "purport to cite legal principles that either DO NOT EXIST (a certain sign of MENTAL ILLNESS) or are provisions of civil law [that are] WHOLLY INAPPLICABLE to this criminal case (also a sign of MENTAL ILLNESS)", and holding that Class’ purported defenses "ARE IRRELEVANT", "INAPPLICABLE", TOTALLY UNRELATED", ENTIRELY INAPPLICABLE", have "NO APPARENT RELEVANCE", and are UNSUPPORTED AND IRRELEVANT" (all signs of MENTAL ILLNESS).

    2). U.S. v. Harding, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006 This case also addressed the following amateur legal theories which are also peddled by Rod Class (ALL OF WHICH FAILED HERE): claiming that The United States IS A CORPORATION with no jurisdiction outside the District Of Columbia, claiming that there was no victim which Harding (an amateur legal theorist) mistakenly believed is called a "corpus delicti" (which actually means "body of the crime", NOT "body of the victim injured or killed by the violation"), claiming that "the fringe on the American flag [in the courtroom] denotes ADMRALTY [jurisdiction]" (as if the fringe on the American flag in the courtroom had the power to change the WRITTEN WORDS of the REAL law in the books at the law library several miles away).

    5). U.S. v. Beavers, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006. This case also address addresses several other amateur legal theories which are also peddled by Rod Class (AND ALL OF WHICH FAILED HERE): denying citizenship, denying residency and claiming to be a freeman, claiming sovereign citizenship, claiming foreign citizenship and alleging "a hodgepodge of unsupported assertions, irrelevant platitudes, and legalistic [sounding] gibberish".

    8). U.S. v. Bowden, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006. This case also addresses several other amateur legal theories which are also peddled by Rod Class (ALL OF WHICH FAILED HERE): claiming foreign diplomatic immunity from prosecution on the grounds of being an "ambassador from the Kingdom of God", claiming foreign state immunity from prosecution by claiming to be a foreign "state, rather than a U.S. citizen", claiming that "no contract existed" which required the taxpayer to pay taxes (as if that would make any difference), claiming that the federal court had no jurisdiction because the defendants were "citizens of the sovereign state of... [their home state] over which the IRS had no authority", claiming that the taxpayer was "not a citizen of the United States, but rather a 'Citizen of the Sovereign Body Politic of the Republic state of... [his home state]", claiming to be the victim of [imaginary] "constitutional deprivations, treasons and generalized abuse of power".

    THE BOTTOM LINE: Note that ALL amateur legal theories 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 these same amateur legal theories WILL FOLLOW THE DECISIONS SHOWN ABOVE (CALLED "PRECEDENT"). So, the law on these same subjects 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/.

    YOUR COMMENT: If we were a Republic there would be no need for 'color of law'

    MY RESPONSE : There is no need for "color of law". But amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

    YOUR COMMENT: as we would be following common law.

    MY COMMENT: We currently follow the common law now and we have done so for hundreds of years dating back to the middle ages. But, the term, "common law" means something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT in the REAL legal system as compared to what amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that it means. In the REAL LAW, the term, "common law" simply means CASE LAW (court decisions written by higher judges ELECTED by "We the People" or higher judges APPOINTED by representatives ELECTED by "We the People" to make those APPOINTMENTS).

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

    https://legaldictionary.net/common-law/

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/common-law

    But amateur legal theorists do not know enough to realize this.

    NOTE: Consider this. All of the law above (all of which rules AGAINST all amateur legal theory) IS THE "COMMON LAW" as that term is used in the REAL law and the REAL legal system. That means that the REAL common law IS AGAINST AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, not the other way around.

    YOUR COMMENT: which is why this country is run as a corporation not a Republic.

    MY RESPONSE: This is the very same UNSUCCESSFUL claim made by one of the amateur legal theorists in case 15 above (in the top list of cases in part 1). You also mistakenly believe that the country is "not a Republic" and is run as a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes a "PROFIT" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS". But, this is not so. Our country is a republic because we "ELECT" the people who represent us in the government. Further, our country generates no "PROFITS" for its "STOCKHOLDERS" like a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation does.

    Here is the difference. People who run a REAL PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation ARE NOT SUBJECT TO BEING THROWN OUT OF OFFICE BY THE VOTE OF THEIR OWN "CUSTOMERS" AT REGULAR INTERVALS. But, in a republic such as ours, the people who run our country ARE SUBJECT TO BEING THROWN OUT OF OFFICE BY THE VOTE "WE THE PEOPLE" at regular intervals. There is a world of difference between the two.

    YOUR COMMENT: so Rod Class is NOT giving false information.

    MY RESPONSE: For the reasons explained above, ROD CLASS ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY IS DISSEMINATING FALSE INFORMATION. ROD CLASS DISSEMINATES NOTHING BUT FALSE INFORMATION. But, amateur legal theorists do not know enough to tell the difference.

    (NOW QUOTING SNOOP4TRUTH)

    "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."

    YOUR COMMENT: I FIND THIS VERY FUNNY,... SO THIS POSTER CONSIDERS HIMSELF TO BE A "LEGAL EXPERT"...

    MY RESPONSE: Respectfully, if you knew more about the REAL law, then you would not find that statement very funny at all. Yes. In using the term "LEGAL" in the phrase, "LEGAL EXPERT" (above), I was referring to REAL law of the type actually used in the REAL legal system, by the REAL government of "We the People" and which is used by the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD, except for amateur legal theorists. In using the term, "LEGAL" in the phrase, "LEGAL EXPERT" (above), I was NOT referring to amateur legal theory of the type peddled and mindlessly "parroted" by uneducated, anti-government protesters, tax protesters, malcontents, charlatans and jail house lawyers, like Rod Class.

    In using the term, "EXPERT" in the phrase, "LEGAL EXPERT" (above), I was referring to my JURIS DOCTORATE DEGREE IN LAW and my 30 years’ experience INSIDE (not outside) the REAL legal system as it actually exists in the REAL world (not in the furtile imaginations of amateur legal theorists). In using the term, "EXPERT" in the phrase, "LEGAL EXPERT" (above), I was attempting to distinguish myself from NON-EXPERTS ("amateurs") in the law, like those with no formal legal education, those with no JURIS DOCTORATE DEGREE IN THE LAW, those with NO EXPERIENCE INSIDE THE REAL LEGAL SYSTEM, those with a 100% FAILURE RATE in court, those who mindlessly "PARROT" the claims of other amateur legal theorists without bothering to look up THE WRITTEN WORDS OF THE LAW ITSELF to see if the claims are actually true and those whose only agenda is to incite hatred and violence against our REPUBLICAN form of government, the ELECTED representatives of "We the People" and other innocent Americans.

    I am always fascinated by people who are "OUTSIDERS" to the legal system who purport to teach those of us who are "INSIDERS" to the legal system about what goes on "INSIDE" the legal system (as if such "OUTSIDERS" would know). At the risk of stating the obvious, those of us INSIDE the legal system actually know what we are talking about. Those who are OUTSIDE the legal system have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. That is precisely what I am trying to change by posting these comments.

    YOUR COMMENT: AND YET HE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THAT EVERY FEDERAL AGENCY IS A CORPORATION AND HAS AN EIN NUMBER??

    LMAO....

    MY RESPONSE: Perhaps you should not be laughing your ass off. You are mistaken.

    I'M NO ATTORNEY, BUT I WOULD CONSIDER THIS TO BE BASIC INFORMATION.

    MY RESPONSE: Amateur legal theories may be "BASIC INFORMATION", but they are NOT the REAL LAW and they are NOT TRUE. Amateur legal theories are completely irrelevant in the REAL legal system. Only the REAL law (of the type I have posted above) is relevant in the REAL legal system. Sadly, amateur legal theorists cannot tell the difference.

    FACT: The ONE and ONLY SOURCE of the REAL law is THE ACTUAL WRITTEN WORDS OF THE REAL LAW ITSELF of the type I have posted above (not the words of charlatans, malcontents and jailhouse layers who peddle amateur legal theories online).

    FACT: REAL LAW comes from ONLY THREE (3) SOURCES: 1). CONSTITUTIONS; 2). LAWS PASSED BY ELECTED LAWMAKERS; and 3). DECISIONS OF HIGHER ELECTED JUDGES (or higher judges appointed by persons who were ELECTED to appoint them).

    FACT: If a legal proposition was written by any person OTHER THAN a CONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATE, an ELECTED LAWMAKER or a HIGHER JUDGE, then IT IS NOT THE LAW REAL LAW. It is that simple.

    FACT: ALL REAL LAW IS ALWAYS IN WRITING. THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS.

    FACT: ALL REAL LAW IS NOW AVAILABLE ONLINE.

    FACT: REAL LAW IS NOT SECRET OR MYSTERIOUS. There is no need to "GUESS" about what it is. You can simply read it yourself (as with the REAL law I have posted above).

    FACT: If a legal proposition cannot be found in the REAL law, THEN IT IS NOT THE LAW. Instead, it is an amateur legal theory (ex: "capital letters denote corporate status).

    YOUR COMMENT: THIS IS LIKE THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK. HOW CAN I NOT THINK THE POSTER MIGHT WANT TO FOLLOW THEIR OWN ADVICE? (referring to the following quote from snoop4truth) "The message to all hoaxers and charlatans? Just tell the truth."

    MY RESPONSE: As the law I have posted above conclusively proves, I do tell the truth. But, thanks all the same.

    YOUR COMMENT: I'M SERIOUSLY WONDERING IF THE INTENTION OF THE POSTER IS TO CREATE CONFUSION BY SPREADING FALSE INFORMATION THEMSELVES.

    MY RESPONSE: My intention is to do exactly THE OPPOSITE. My intention is to ELIMINATE confusion and to STOP (or at least slow down) the spreading of false information of the type peddled by Rod Class and mindlessly "parroted" by other amateur legal theorists. Amateur legal theories ARE LIES. Nothing more.


    YOUR COMMENT: I don't have time or the knowledge base to go through every post with a fine tooth comb.

    MY RESPONSE: If you don't have the time to verify the accuracy of my comments, then simply ask me for a copy of the law on a particular subject and I will provide it to you. Fair enough? Do not believe me or anyone else about the REAL law and the legal system. Believe ONLY the actual WRITTEN WORDS OF THE REAL LAW ITSELF (of the type to which I have provided you with links above and which I have accurately quoted above).

    YOUR COMMENT: Fortunately most [people] don't [have the time] either, so few will read and be able to absorb what's been written.

    MY RESPONSE: Unfortunately, MOST PEOPLE SEEM TO HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO ABSORB FALSE AND FRAUDULENT INFORMATION of the type peddled by Rod Class and mindlessly "PARROTED" by other amateur legal theorists. They just don't seem to have the time to absorb THE TRUTH which can only be found in the actual WRITTEN WORDS of the REAL law itself (of the type I have posted above). That is precisely the problem. I hope to help remedy that problem.

    YOUR COMMENT: And yes, Gripreaper would be perfect for this type of task. If someone knows better please correct me, I'm all ears.

    MY RESPONSE: Listen to yourself. YOU HAVE JUST PROVEN MY POINT! Amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that the law is something that comes from the claims of other amateur legal theorists, like Gripreaper. But, it does not. The REAL law ONLY comes from the actual WRITTEN WORDS of the law itself (like the REAL law posted above). The problem with all amateur legal theorists is that they are looking for the law IN THE WRONG PLACE!

    If what you want is more amateur legal theories to support your own amateur belief system, then Gripreaper would be perfect for that type of task. But, if you want THE TRUTH about the REAL law and the REAL legal system, then Gripreaper would be way, way, way out of his league. Gripreaper is admittedly an expert in amateur legal theories. But, he is not familiar with the REAL law (like the REAL law I have posted above) which is used by the entire rest of the world (except for amateur legal theorists).

    I trust this adequately responds to the second portion of your comments. But, if more is needed, then simply say so.

    All The Best,

    Snoop
    Last edited by snoop4truth; 4th December 2018 at 21:26.

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

    Bill Ryan (11th August 2018)

  7. Link to Post #44
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    30th September 2015
    Age
    59
    Posts
    169
    Thanks
    76
    Thanked 275 times in 114 posts

    Default Re: Rod Class & his many hoaxes

    PART 3: RESPONSE TO WE-R-ONE

    YOUR COMMENT: Adding to my above post...not that anyone truly cares....lol

    YOUR COMMENT: The document below is written by Congressional Research Services for Congress.

    (BEGIN YOUR QUOTE)

    What is CRS?
    "The Congressional Research Service (CRS) serves as shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. CRS experts assist at every stage of the legislative process — from the early considerations that precede bill drafting, through committee hearings and floor debate, to the oversight of enacted laws and various agency activities."Source: https://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/about/

    Snoop4truth says:
    "On his radio show, Class falsely claims that all governments and government agencies are PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT "corporations"

    See underlined [NOTE: The underlines did not copy to the text below.]

    [NOTE: THE WORDS IN BRACKETS BELOW ARE MY WORDS, WHICH I ADDED FOR CLARITY. ALL OTHER WORDS, CAPITALIZED OR NOT, ARE THE ORIGINAL WORDS OF THE TEXT.]

    "To assist Congress in its oversight activities, this report provides an overview of the government [PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFT] corporation as an administrative model. As defined in this report, a government [A PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFT] corporation is a government [PUBLICLY-OWED, NON-PROFIT] agency that is established by Congress to provide a market-oriented public service AND TO PRODUCE REVENUES AND THAT MEET OR APPROXIMATE ITS EXPENDITURES [Translation: PURPOSELY DESIGNED TO NOT MAKE A "PROFIT", MUCH LESS MAKE A "PROFIT" FOR "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS"]. By this definition [A GOVERNMENT AGENCY THAT DOES NOT MAKE A "PROFIT, MUCH LESS A "PROFIT" FOR "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS"], currently there are 17 government [PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT] corporations. [See my explanation of "federal corporations" in part 1 of this response.]

    In the typical contemporary Congress, several bills are introduced to establish government [PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT] corporations. At the time of publication of this report, two bills had been introduced in the 112th Congress to improve U.S. infrastructure by establishing government [PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT] corporations—H.R. 404 and S. 652. Similarly, in the 111th Congress, government [PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT] corporations bills included ones that would have created an Indian Development Finance Corporation (H.R. 1607 ), a Green Bank (H.R. 1698), and a National Infrastructure Development Bank (H.R. 2521).

    The government [PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT] corporation model has been utilized by the federal government for over a century. Today’s government [PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT] corporations cover the spectrum in size and function from large, well-known entities, such as the U.S. Postal Service and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, to small, low-visibility corporate bodies, such as the Federal Financing Bank in the Department of the Treasury and Federal Prison Industries in the Department of Justice.

    The federal government does not possess a general incorporation statute as states do [which regulates the organizational structure of every corporation DEPENDING ON WHICH TYPE OF CORPORATION IT IS]. [As a result] [e]ach government [PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT] corporation is chartered [one-at-a-time] through an act of Congress [WHICH MEANS THERE IS ALWAYS A PUBLIC RECORD OF THEM]. The use of separate acts to charter each corporation has resulted in wide variance in the legal and organizational structure of government [PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT] corporations. That said, the Government [PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT] Corporation Control Act of 1945, as amended, does provide for the standardized budget, auditing, debt management, and depository practices for those [PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT] corporations listed in the act.

    Within the executive branch, no ONE agency is responsible for the oversight and supervision of government [PUBLICLY-OWNED] corporations. Neither the House nor the Senate have [ONE] single committees with the responsibility to oversee all government corporations. Instead, EACH [PUBLICLY-OWNED] CORPORATION IS OVERSEEN BY THE [CONGRESSIONAL] COMMITTEE(S) WITH JURISDICTION OVER ITS POLICY AREA [Translation: Each PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT corporation is overseen by those members of Congress that know the most about what each such PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT corporation is supposed to be doing.]."

    (END QUOTE)

    Source: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30365.pdf

    MY RESPONSE: While NONE of the forging information is the law, it is absolutely correct. UNFORTUNATELY, YOU HAVE TO KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT CORPORATIONS FOR THIS ARTICLE TO MAKE ANY SENSE. As I have already explained above in part 1 of this response, seventeen of our federal government agencies are structured as "PUBLICLY-OWNED", "NON-PROFIT" federal corporations (NO "STOCKHOLDERS", NO "PROFITS"). But, this provides NO SUPPORT for Rod Class' false claims that "ALL" governments are "PRIVATE", "FOR-PROFIT" corporations which are "IN THE BUSINESS" of stealing money from the American people to make a "PROFIT" for their "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS". (THAT IS SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT IN THE LAW.).

    Remember, only ONE (1) type of corporation is a "PRIVATE", "FOR-PROFIT" corporation (the "bad" kind of corporation). But, A "PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT", federal corporation IS NOT ONE OF THEM! But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough about the law (or about corporations) to know the difference. I hope to change that.

    YOUR COMMENT: Additionally to drive the point home take a look at this link and you will see EIN numbers for several federal agencies:

    https://www.scribd.com/doc/154988574...cy-Ein-Numbers

    MY RESPONSE: Congratulations! Now, you have just "driven home the point" that "several federal agencies" are "EMPLOYERS" who have "EMPLOYEES" from which they must with withhold and pay federal income taxes to the IRS at regular intervals. Contrary to your understanding, you have not "driven home the point" that "several federal agencies" are corporations, much less "PRIVATE", "FOR-PROFIT" corporations which make "PROFITS" for their "STOCKHOLDERS" of the type that Rod Class falsely claims they are.

    YOUR COMMENT: Hi Genevieve! Good to see you! Glad to help, wish I could do more on here, but yes time is a factor for me too not to mention limited knowledge.

    MY RESPONSE: I am able to help with both. If you wish, I will take the time to help you and my legal knowledge is not limited.

    YOUR COMMENT: I do wonder if this thread is more intended as a smear campaign rather than based on factual arguments?

    MY RESPONSE: My purpose in posting these comments on this thread and elsewhere is not to harm Rod Class. My purpose in posting these comments on this thread and elsewhere is to reduce the CATASTOPHIC DAMAGE that Rod Class' INTENTIONAL FRAUD inflicts on the American people every single day. Had Rodney DALE Class not been involved in the Judge DALE Hoax, then I would not have exposed him on this thread.

    YOUR COMMENT: Few study or research this type of information and who can blame them,

    MY RESPONSE: Correction: Few amateur legal theorists study or research the REAL law itself. And, this is precisely the problem. Instead, amateur legal theorists ONLY research the claims of other amateur legal theorists. This is the classic example of "the blind leading the blind". Further, amateur legal theorists reject every truth about the law that is inconsistent with their amateur belief system ("If a claim does not serve to discredit and delegitimize the law, the legal system and the ELECTED government of "We the People", then it should be completely ignored.").

    YOUR COMMENT: it's very complicated..intentionally by design to confuse. More "black and white" than what?

    MY RESPONSE: Respectfully the REAL law is not complicated and it is not designed to confuse. Indeed, the opposite is true. The only reason that it appears complicated to you is that you were exposed to amateur legal theories first. Now, you are being exposed to the REAL law and it is the EXACT OPPOSITE of amateur legal theories. It is the fact that REAL law conflicts with amateur legal theories which results in the complication and confusion about which you complain. I hope to remedy that.

    YOUR COMMENT: I was fortunate enough to study under a 'reader of the law' and 'applier of the law' during my patriot days when I was trying to understand wth was going on, lol. It was an eye-opening experience!

    MY RESPONSE: Respectfully, if you studied under an amateur legal theorist, then you actually suffered a EYE-SHUTTING experience and you have been COMPLETELY BLIND ever since.

    YOUR COMMENT: I'm familiar with Rod Class and have listened to some of his audios, however I don't know enough to weed through every bullet point listed on this thread to prove its legitimacy on either side. I respected Rod for what he was attempting to do.

    MY RESPONSE: I am also familiar with Rod Class. I have also listened to his radio shows, watched his videos and read his amateur legal documents. But, I have also done much more. I have also looked up the actual REAL law itself in connection with every single one of Rod Class' claims about the law. I have also looked up every single case in which Rod Class has ever been involved and read every document in those files. I have also obtained his entire criminal and traffic history. I have even become familiar with most of his mental health history. That means I am in a unique position to know the truth about Rod Class and ALL of his claims.

    This is the truth. Rod Class is a professional hoaxer, a charlatan, a chronic habitual liar, a fake, a phony, a poser. He has LOST every single case in which he has ever been involved (76 cases in a row and still counting). Everything that he has ever said about the law is a lie. Class has two missions in life, one is glorifying himself (by lying) and the other is inciting hatred and violence against innocent Americans involved in the law and the legal system (by lying). LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DOES NOT HELP THEM. LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HURTS THEM. For these reasons, I do not share your "respect" for what Rod Class was attempting to do (LYING).

    YOUR COMMENTS: I'm always open to different viewpoints, but in this case one has to have an enormous knowledge base and learning curve to follow along.

    MY RESPONSE: I will help you in this regard if you wish.

    YOUR COMMENTS: The majority of the Avalon crowd isn't really focused or concerned about such an in depth look at the legal system,

    MY RESPONSE: Agreed. Amateur legal theorists want to know nothing about the law and the legal system EXCEPT for amateur legal theories which, if believed, would serve to discredit and de-legitimize the ELECTED, Republican form of government of "We the People" and incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans. It is this very form of MENTAL AND INTELLECTUAL LAZINESS that has provided such a fertile ground for CHARLATANS like Rod Class to peddle his LIES about the law and the legal system.

    But, consider this. Project Avalon has a specific forum category for "KNOWN HOAXES AND OTHER BAD INFORMATION". The hoaxes of Rod Class and his partners (exposed above) fit this forum category like a glove. Rod Class' hoaxes are legal hoaxes. So, my discussing the details of the REAL law on this thread was absolutely necessary to debunk Rod Class' hoaxes.

    YOUR COMMENT: however I'm sure that [lack of interest in the law on the part of Project Avalon members] would change if it was easier to understand.

    MY RESPONSE: I am willing to help in that regard. I am willing to provide any Project Avalon member with the answer to any legal question and I am willing to provide a link to the REAL law in support of that answer.

    YOUR COMMENT: Gripreaper and I took an identical path of discovery at the same time back in the days when many were learning about the fraud being perpetuated on 'we the people' by means of interpretive ruling via utilization of the 'color of law'.

    MY RESPONSE: Respectfully, you are mistaken. No such fraud ever existed and does not exist now exist. Your mistaken perception that there is a fraud is being perpetuated is the result of your believing amateur legal theories which are all lies.

    YOUR COMMENT: Both Grip and I have represented ourselves, pro se, with success thanks to people like Rod Class. So I know some of what Rod teaches is correct.

    MY RESPONSE: Respectfully, this is not so. Rod Class has NEVER been correct about anything that he has ever said about the law or the legal system. That is precisely the reason why Rod Class has himself LOST EVERY SINGLE CASE IN WHICH HE HAS EVER BEEN INVOVLED (76 consecutive LOSSES in a row and still counting). If Rod Class himself has NEVER won a single case using the very amateur legal theories that he peddles, then it is logically impossible that you and Grip could have used those same amateur legal theories (all proven failures) and somehow generated a different result in court ("success").

    This is the truth. There is absolutely, positively NO CORRELATION between your using any amateur legal theory and any "success" in any legal matter. Amateur legal theories are FAKE. They are NOT REAL. They are LIES. They DO NOT WORK. If, in fact, you ever "succeeded" in any legal matter, then it was for an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT REASON than for your using the amateur legal theories peddled by Rod Class (all of which are PROVEN FAILURES in court). Please provide me with the case name and case number of your legal "success" so that I might obtain the court file, analyze it and determine the REAL reason for your claimed "success". Thanks.

    YOUR COMMENT: I'm sure had Grip and I lived in the same state, we would have eventually bumped into one another during our quest for understanding the system. The difference between the two us...Grip chews cardboard waaayy better than I do! lmao

    MY RESPONSE: Whew! I'm not touching that one.

    YOUR COMMENT: Thanks Paul, just saw your message, I had a funny feeling about this guy who seems awfully hell bent on discrediting Rod Class.

    MY RESPONSE: I am not hell bent on discrediting Rod Class. I am hell bent on discrediting the LIES and HOAXES of Rod Class. THAT IS SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. MANUFACTURING elaborate HOAXES to INTENTIONALLY DEFRAUD the American people is a VICIOUS ATTACK upon the American people. DELIBERATELY LYING to the American people about their laws and their legal system to INCITE HATRED and VIOLENCE against innocent Americans is an act of TREASON against the American people. I merely exposed the LIES and HOAXES of Rod Class. Should I have awarded Rod Class the medal of honor for his pattern of INTENTIONALLY DEFRAUDING the American people with ELABORATE HOAXES? https://www.google.com/search?q=meda...w=1600&bih=750

    YOUR COMMENT: In fairness, even though dynamo caught one discrepancy,

    MY RESPONSE: Respectfully, Dynamo did not catch one discrepancy. Do not pretend otherwise. I stated that Rod Class falsely claims that all governments are PRIVATE, FOR PROFIT corporations (which Class claims make PROFITS for their PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS). That is a 100% true and correct statement of fact for all of the reasons I have explained above. I am many things. But, a liar is not one of them.

    YOUR COMMENTS: In fairness,... the poster could have some legitimate points,

    MY RESPONSE: "COULD"? Are you kidding me? The truth about the REAL law and legal system is always "legitimate". This is so whether the truth is popular with amateur legal theorists or not. The truth about the REAL law and legal system will always be "legitimate".

    YOUR COMMENT: further research would be needed to make that determination, but not by me, lol.

    MY RESPONSE: I am willing help any Project Avalon member make that determination. I am always happy to help.

    YOUR COMMENT: Pro se means to represent oneself

    MY RESPONSE: Yes it does. But, amateur legal theorists should not attempt to do this. Amateur legal theorists do not know anything about the REAL law or the REAL legal system. Only people familiar with the REAL law should represent themselves pro se. Just ask Rod Class (who has LOST 76 consecutive cases in a row and still counting).

    YOUR COMMENT: yes, this is like chewing on cardboard I get it...truly...not my favorite thing to do either.

    MY REPONSE: Whew! I'm not touching that one.

    YOUR COMMENTS: Oh I know it would have been great to have him on here! I would have enjoyed another 'learning' session compliments of Grip myself! Thanks for popping in and letting us know!

    MY RESPONSE: Unless Grip posts the REAL law itself in this thread here (as I have done above), such "learning sessions" would be complete a waste of time for all parties involved, including Grip. Learning sessions involving more amateur legal theories are not "learning sessions".

    Thank you for your comments. I trust the foregoing has adequately responded to them.

    All The Best,

    Snoop
    Last edited by snoop4truth; 6th September 2018 at 22:17.

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

    Bill Ryan (15th August 2018)

  9. Link to Post #45
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    30th September 2015
    Age
    59
    Posts
    169
    Thanks
    76
    Thanked 275 times in 114 posts

    Default Re: Rod Class & his many hoaxes

    REPLY TO GENEVIEVE

    YOUR COMMENT: we-R-one-- Thanks for doing what I don't have the time to do--RESEARCH--in order to rebut snoop4truth's mis-info or dis-info. You're a gem!

    MY RESPONSE: Yes, we-R-one did research. Here's the problem. WE-R-ONE DID NOT RESEARCH A SINGLE WORD OF THE REAL LAW ITSELF (of the type to which I have posted links above). That is why we-R-one STILL mistakenly believes that all governments are "corporations", that capital letters are a "secret code" denoting "corporate status", that EIN numbers are only assigned to EMPLOYERS which are organizationally structured as "corporations", that the fact that the federal government has structured 17 federal agencies as PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT federal corporations constitutes proof that ALL governments and agencies are PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS which make "PROFITS" for "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS" and so on.

    Further, we-R-one has not "rebutted" anything. No amateur legal theory can ever "rebut" the REAL law on any subject at any time. What's more, THE TRUTH about the REAL LAW is not "misinformation" or "disinformation". Only amateur legal theories are "misinformation" and "disinformation". THE TRUTH ABOUT THE REAL LAW IS STILL THE TRUTH, whether it is popular with amateur legal theorists, whether it is welcomed by amateur legal theorists and whether it is consistent with the amateur belief system of amateur legal theorists.

    All The Best,

    Snoop
    Last edited by snoop4truth; 27th August 2018 at 22:59.

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

    Bill Ryan (15th August 2018)

  11. Link to Post #46
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    30th September 2015
    Age
    59
    Posts
    169
    Thanks
    76
    Thanked 275 times in 114 posts

    Default Re: Rod Class & his many hoaxes

    COMMENT 44: RESPONSE TO LOST N FOUND

    Hello, Lost N Found. Thank you for your interest in this thread. I will try to respond to your comments individually below.

    YOUR COMMENT: Hello we-R-one, long time for me to be here but I could not stay away with this particular thread.

    MY RESPONSE: Me too.

    YOUR COMMENT: First of all I see that this troll was dumped (snoop4truth)

    MY RESPONSE: Admittedly, this is true. I got banned. I let my passion for the truth (and my passionate hatred for lies) cloud my judgment. I over-posted comments rebutting an entirely different hoax on an entirely different Project-Avalon thread. I made a mistake. I will not do it again.

    YOUR COMMENT: and I see that you and several others finally called him out.

    MY REPSONSE: In the sense that several others have opposed my telling the truth about the REAL law, yes, I have been called out. But, in the sense that several others have proven that my information about the REAL law is false, I have not been called out. I never have been. I never will be. I am many things, but a liar is not one of them.

    FACT: Project Avalon itself provided this particular forum category in which this very thread appears. Project Avalon itself entitled this particular forum category "KNOWN HOAXES AND OTHER BAD INFORMATION". Thus, Project Avalon obviously recognized the need for such a forum category to expose KNOWN HOAXES AND OTHER BAD INFORMATION. No doubt, Project Avalon provided this particular forum category AS A SERVICE to Project Avalon members and readers who are victims of (or who are potential victims of) such KNOWN HOAXES AND OTHER BAD INFORMATION.

    I am exposing KNOWN HOAXES AND OTHER BAD INFORMATION in a forum category that Project Avalon specifically provided for that very stated purpose. The fact that some people DESPERATELY CLING to their hardened belief system about amateur legal theories despite my revealing that those beliefs are based on HOAXES AND OTHER BAD INFORMATION does not make me a "troll". Indeed, that is precisely what Project Avalon provided this forum category for in the first place. The KNOWN HOAXES AND OTHER BAD INFORMATION of Rod Class fit this forum category like a glove.

    What is disturbing to me is that the VICTIMS of such KNOWN HOAXES AND OTHER BAD INFORMATION never become angry with the CHARLATANS who INTENTIONALLY DEFRAUD them in the first place. Instead, these VICTIMS only become angry with the people who tell them THE TRUTH about those very KNOWN HOAXES AND OTHER BAD INFORMATION. That is EXACTLY BACKWARDS and OPPOSITE to the way it should be.

    Look, Steve, I am well aware that THE TRUTH about the REAL law and the legal system is NOT POPULAR with amateur legal theorists, is NOT WELCOMED by amateur legal theorists and that THE TRUTH is INCONSISTENT with the belief system of amateur legal theorists. But, that will not make the TRUTH about the REAL law false. The TRUTH about the REAL law and the legal system WILL STILL BE THE TRUTH. My providing that TRUTH about the REAL law to amateur legal theorists does not make me a "troll".

    I may never be popular among amateur legal theorists for revealing the truth about the law and the legal system, but at least I have the satisfaction of knowing that am telling the truth about the law to the people who need it most.


    YOUR COMMENT: I can't believe how the trolls just seem to have nothing better to do other than bash or smear folks that do try and help others as well as themselves when it comes to the CORPORATE bullsh*t.

    MY RESPONSE: If Rod Class was REALLY TRYING TO "HELP OTHERS", then I would be his biggest supporter. But, Rod Class IS NOT TRYING TO HELP OTHERS. Rod Class IS TRYING TO "HURT" OTHERS. It does not "HELP" others to INTENTIONALLY LIE to them. It does not "HELP" others to INTENTIONALLY DEFRAUD them. It does not help others to:

    1). FRAUDULENTLY IMPERSONATE a "retired federal judge" named "Judge DALE" and publish and distribute FAKE legal books, which reveal FAKE legal information in order to INTENTIONALLY DEFRAUD the American people; and to

    2). FRAUDULENTLY CLAIM to have "obtained FOUR [imaginary] Administrative Rulings" to the effect that all governments and governmental agencies are "PRIVATE ENTITIES" and "PRIVATE CONTRACTORS" (when he never obtained even one such imaginary decision to that effect); and to

    3). FRAUDULENTLY CLAIM that as a result of obtaining those "FOUR [imaginary] Administrative Rulings" a "North Carolina Judge has WARNED all North Carolina Police Officers to put their property into other peoples' names" to avoid the consequences of civil suits that the public would file against them now that they would not be protected from such civil suits by governmental immunity (when no such warning was ever issued because Rod Class never obtained the "FOUR" imaginary rulings that would have otherwise necessitated such a warning in the first place);

    ... .

    The list could go on forever. But, you get the point. (Read comment 3, 5 and 6 above.).

    THE BOTTOM LINE: BY INTENTIONALLY LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, ROD CLASS IS NOT "HELPING" ANYONE. HE IS HURTING THEM! WAKE UP!

    YOUR COMMENT: I just happen to be on another site and caught this troll plastering his same crap on there. He really took a nasty jab at Debra Tavaras and Rod Class and Judge Dale and any others that have red pilled the folks about the CORPORATE systems.

    MY RESPONSE: First, you are as mistaken as was Dynamo and we-R-one were about these imaginary "CORPORATE systems". Such "CORPORATE systems" exist only is the fertile, blue-pilled imaginations of amateur legal theorists, not in the REAL world. Read the REAL law on that very subject above in my responses to Dynamo (part 1) and we-R-one (part 1) (above).

    Second, yes, I have not only exposed the hoaxes of Rodney "DALE" Class (who fraudulently pretends to be "Judge DALE" in the "Judge DALE forgeries"), but I have also exposed the hoaxes of his partners in manufacturing and peddling these elaborate hoaxes. Below is what I exposed about Deborah Tavares about which you complain.

    (QUOTE)

    THE DOCUMENTS USED BY DEBORAH TAVARES

    Deborah Tavares is a well-known figure in the conspiracy community. Tavares supports her claims WITH DOCUMENTS. But, unknown to her followers, TAVARES CREATES THESE DOCUMENTS HERSELF. Tavares also ALTERS and CHANGES the WORDS and IMAGES of other documents to make them fit her claims. Finally, Tavares PASSES OFF documents of known political FICTIONAL as if they were "REAL" government documents to support her claims. SEE PROOF OF THIS IN EVERY SINGLE DEBORAH TAVARES HOAX BELOW.


    DEBORAH TAVARES HOAX 1: THE NASA WAR DOCUMENT HOAX:

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

    OSCAR WORTHY VIDEO PERFORMANCES OF DEBORAH TAVARES (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
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk4hfIVIoT4

    THE NASA WAR DOCUMENT (AS MODIFIED BY TAVARES' CO-CONSPIRATOR IN THIS HOAX):
    http://www.stopthecrime.net/docs/nas...tureof-war.pdf (NOTE THE WEBSITE).

    In THE NASA WAR DOCUMENT HOAX, Deborah Tavares fraudulently claims that the "NASA War Document" is a "secret" or "leaked" government document which she claims "PROVES" that NASA is killing us all (or "PLANS" to kill us all) with horrific, futuristic high-tech weapons (which Tavares has recently embellished to mean to mean cell phones, cell phone towers, WIFI, microwaves, "smart meters", geo-engineering and HAARP, etc.) in furtherance of the "PLANNED" "extinction of mankind". But, this is not so.

    The original "NASA War Document" (before Tavares and her partner "MODIFIED" it to fit to the hoax) was a POWER POINT PRESENTATION which was used as a "VISUAL AID" for an oral presentation that a NASA chief scientist (Dennis M. Bushnell) gave at an August 13th-16th, 2001 NATIONAL CONVENTION in Orlando, Florida which was attended by THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN MILITARY CONTRACTORS who develop COUNTERMEASURES (defenses) to potential, theoretical, FUTURE, high-tech weapons that OTHER NATIONS could theoretically develop to use AGAINST the American people (AS DEPICTED IN THE ORIGINAL POWER POINT PRESENTATION).

    That means that the horrific, potential, FUTURE, high-tech weapons depicted in the original "NASA War document" (see links above) WERE NOT weapons that NASA itself was using "AGAINST" the American people. Instead, they were horrific, potential, theoretical, FUTURE, high-tech weapons that the NASA chief scientist WAS URGING AMERICAN MILITARY CONTRACTORS (at the convention) TO DEVELOP COUNTERMEASURES "AGAINST". The original power point presentation WAS NEVER POSTED ON ANY NASA WEBSITE. (So, contrary to Tavares' fraudulent claims, it was never "downloaded" or "leaked" from a NASA website). Instead, the original power point presentation was actually POSTED IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN on the "Department of DEFENSE Technical INFORMATION Center" website (A PUBLIC WEBSITE) a month BEFORE the 2001 convention at which the NASA chief scientist was scheduled to speak. IT WAS NEVER POSTED ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE WEB.

    FACT: PDF metadata (see below) of Tavares' 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 Tavares' co-conspirator in this hoax and that it was “LAST MODIFIED” by Tavares' co-conspirator (means last "CHANGED", “ALTERED” or “RE-WRITTEN”) on January 23, 2013 (TWELVE (12) years after Bushnell’s presentation). Tavares and her co-conspirator made these extensive "MODIFICATIONS" to the original document in order to make their HIGHLY "MODIFIED" version of the original document FIT THE HOAX they were peddling (“NASA is killing us all with horrific, futuristic, high-tech weapons, which Tavares has recently embellished to mean cell phones, cell phone towers, WIFI, microwaves, "smart meters", geo-engineering and HAARP, etc.). Not surprisingly, Tavares never disclosed ("revealed") these extensive (AND SECRET) "MODIFICATIONS" of the original document to her followers. Needless to say, the truth does not need "MODIFICATION". Only lies need "MODIFICATION". (Tavares and her partners did the very same type of secret "MODIFICATIONS" with respect to their FAKE government document in the "Court Registry Investment Systems Hoax" described below.).

    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 Tavares' “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 Tavares' 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: Tavares 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 U.S. government does not usually post written proof of its own conspiracies against its own people on ITS OWN PUBLIC “INFORMATION CENTER” WEBSITES). For proof of all the foregoing, click on the links inside comment 19 here. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...is-many-hoaxes.

    THE NASA WAR DOCUMENT "CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS" TEST:
    1). Do you think that, in principle, it is a GOOD IDEA for a NASA chief scientist (who has detailed, technological knowledge of potential, theoretical, FUTURE, high-tech weapons that OTHER NATIONS could potentially develop for use AGAINST the American people) TO INFORM American military contractors about such potential, theoretical, FUTURE threats IN ADVANCE of their deployment and TO URGE them to develop COUNTERMEASURES against them?

    2). In the year 2001, what would have been the BEST WAY for NASA's chief scientist to reach thousands of American military contractors TO INFORM them of such potential, theoretical, FUTURE threats IN ADVANCE of their deployment and TO URGE them to develop COUNTERMEASURES against them (a national convention of American military contractors perhaps)?

    3). Assuming that a NASA chief scientist was asked to speak at a national convention of such American military contractors and assuming that the whole focus (and theme) of the convention was potential, theoretical, FUTURE, high-tech weapons that OTHER NATIONS could theoretically develop for use against the American people in the FUTURE, do you think that it would be a GOOD IDEA, in principle, for that NASA chief scientist TO PREPARE A VISUAL AID (like a power point presentation reflecting technical CONCEPTS and DRAWINGS) to use at the convention to VISUALLY ILLUSTRATE such potential, theoretical, FUTURE threats to those in attendance (GIVEN THAT SUCH POTENTIAL, THEORETICAL, FUTURE THREATS DID NOT EXIST IN 2001 TO BE VISUALLY DEPICTED BY PHOTOGRAPHS)?

    SOURCE DOCUMENTS (ACTUAL PROOF OF THE FOREGOING)

    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 TAVARES' 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 TRUE IDENTITY OF TAVARES' CHARLATAN CO-CONSPIRATOR IN THIS HOAX). Note also that Tavares confirms the TRUE 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).

    CONCLUSION: Contrary to Tavares' claims, THE "NASA WAR DOCUMENT" DOES NOT REFLECT AN EFFORT ON THE PART OF NASA (OR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OR THE ELITE) TO KILL ALL AMERICANS 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 POWER POINT PRESENTATION), exactly backwards to what Tavares claims in her hoax. Tavares knew the truth about the subject original document all along, but nevertheless decided to lie to the American people about it anyway. It is an absolute disgrace.



    DEBORAH TAVARES HOAX 2: THE SILENT WEAPONS FOR QUIET WARS HOAX:

    FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE.

    VIDEOS
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3JfZDyj0KU (at 10:50-59:50);
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXSqgD1KjdY (at 13:50-19:15, 31:40-33:00, 43:00-43:20, 124:00-124:50);
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfG9zljgFh0 (at 3:25-4:20);
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4BNNkEc9Qs (at 14:45-41:05);
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4eRlBbcFkc (at 14:05-16:50);
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfG9zljgFh0 (at 9:55-10:35);
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3JfZDyj0KU (at 10:50-16:00);
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_38tsQ4p0I

    DOCUMENTS
    http://www.stopthecrime.net/docs/SILENT.pdf (NOTE THE WEBSITE).

    In THE SILENT WEAPONS FOR QUIET WARS HOAX, Deborah Tavares fraudulently claims that "Silent Weapons For Quiet Wars" is another "secret" or "leaked" government document which she claims "PROVES" that the government or the Bilderbergs are killing us all (or "PLAN" to kill us all) with "SILENT WEAPONS" (which Tavares has recently embellished to mean to mean cell phones, cell phone towers, WIFI, microwaves, "smart meters", geo-engineering and HAARP, etc.) in furtherance of the "PLANNED" "extinction of mankind". But, this is not so. Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars ("SWFQW") is actually a short, 44 page booklet of political fiction written by Lyle Hartford Van Dyke in 1978-79. (Van Dyke is a convicted felon who spent a decade in federal prison for fraud and for effectively writing checks drawn on his imaginary "trust account at the U.S. Treasury".). SWFQW is not a secret, leaked or suppressed government document. Van Dyke was not a whistle blower. He was a political commentator.

    In 1978-79, Van Dyke wrote and distributed (to Congress) his 44 page document of POLITICAL FICTION entitled, SWFQW. Van Dyke believed (perhaps correctly) that the U.S. had advance knowledge of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and allowed it to happen (killing thousands of American soldiers) in order to draw the U.S. into World War II.

    Van Dyke was outraged by this perceived treasonous ACT OF WAR BY THE U.S. UPON ITS OWN SOLDIERS and wanted to make the HORRORS of this treasonous act of war "PERSONAL" to the American public. So, Van Dyke wrote SWFQW and suggested that instead of intentionally killing ITS OWN SOLDIERS in such a treasonous act of war, the U. S. government was intentionally killing ITS OWN CIVILIAN POPULATION in such a treasonous act of war (a clever twist of the perceived facts). (Note that this claim would indeed make the HORRORS of such a "Pearl Harbor-type" war on Americans "PERSONAL" to the reader.).

    But, Van Dyke realized that the public would not actually believe his premise (of a U.S. war against the American public) without the presence of the usual weapons of war, like those that were present at Pearl Harbor (armed soldiers, trucks, tanks, planes, ships, missiles, bombs, etc.). So, in writing SWFQW, Van Dyke claimed that all of the weapons that the U.S. was using in this FICTIONAL war against the American public were high tech weapons that COULD NOT BE SEEN OR HEARD (which TAVARES has recently embellished to mean cell phones, cell towers, WIFI, microwaves, "smart meters", geo-engineering and HAARP, etc.). Because the readers of SWFQW could not actually see or hear any weapons being used against them, there was no way to dispute Van Dyke's claims of INVISIBLE & INAUDIBLE weapons. Indeed, it was precisely because such weapons could not be seen or heard that Van Dyke's claims appeared to be true. All of this actually made Van Dyke's claims of INVISIBLE & INAUDIBLE weapons MORE (not less) BELIEVABLE to the reader. By using this ruse, VAN DYKE ACTUALLY MADE THE ABSENCE OF WEAPONS EVEN MORE HORRIFYING TO THE READER THAN THEIR PRESENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN. It was absolutely brilliant.

    Van Dyke openly admits that SWFQW was inspired by an earlier book of POLITICAL FICTION which he greatly admired entitled, "The Report From Iron Mountain" (see below). Van Dyke also openly admits to having incorporated sections of REAL scientific and economic TECHNICAL studies into his work (as did "The Report From Iron Mountain") to make his work appear more official-looking. Finally, Van Dyke openly admits that he created SWFQW to read like an official governmental document (as did "The Report From Iron Mountain") in order to make the HORRORS of the U.S. government waging a covert war against its own citizens APPEAR MORE REAL and therefore more terrifying to the reader. It worked. For proof of all the foregoing, click on the links inside comment 22 here. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...is-many-hoaxes.

    SOURCE DOCUMENTS:

    WHAT VAN DYKE HAS TO SAY ABOUT HIS OWN DOCUMENT.
    http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_...uiet_Wars.html (THIS IS A MUST READ.).
    https://henrithibodeau.wordpress.com...al-domination/

    VAN DYKE AS AN AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIST AND CONVICTED FELON.
    http://redcatsboards.yuku.com/topic/...#.WDYUm1KFPIU;
    http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/4wu...v-nolan-et-al/.
    If you have a pacer.gov account, GO TO PACER.GOV. See all five LOSSES filed under the name “Van Dyke, Lyle” or “Van Dyke, Lyle Hartford”.



    DEBORAH TAVARES HOAX 3: THE REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN ON THE POSSIBILITY AND DESIRABILITY OF PEACE HOAX:

    FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE.

    VIDEOS
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXSqgD1KjdY (at 37:50-39:30, 40:45-41:25, 42:40-43:00);
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTRPZD3_w5k&t=2551s (at 59:15-106:05);
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eei6_4dpK4 (at 25:05-26:10)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Yb8...blYwjz6C9ohROj (from the beginning);
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3JfZDyj0KU (102:25-105:40).

    DOCUMENTS:
    http://www.stopthecrime.net/docs/Rep...n_Mountain.pdf (NOTE THE WEBSITE).

    In THE REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN HOAX, Deborah Tavares also fraudulently claims that "The Report Form Iron Mountain ON THE POSSIBILITY AND DESIRABILITY OF PEACE" ("TRFIM") is another "secret" and/or "leaked" and/or "suppressed" government document which she claims "PROVES" that the U.S. government is currently using FAKE WARS AGAINST FAKE ENEMIES to kill us all in furtherance of the "PLANNED" "extinction of mankind" (which FAKE WARS Tavares has recently embellished to mean "global warming", "climate change", "engineered drought", fires, etc.). But, none of this is so.

    TRFIM was a 1967 book of POLITICAL FICTION written by Leonard C. Lewin which was SO POPULAR and SO WIDELY READ that it actually made the "New York Times Best Seller List". (So much for Tavares' "secret", "leaked" or "suppressed" document story.). It is not a secret, leaked or suppressed government document. Lewin was not a whistle blower. He was a political commentator.

    It was 1967. It was the middle of the Vietnam War. Lewin was critical of U.S. policy because the U.S. had been in an almost perpetual state of war for decades and he believed (perhaps correctly) that the U.S. economy was far too dependent upon military spending. In criticizing this U.S policy, Lewin SARCASTICALLY observed that U.S. policy makers "MUST HAVE BELIEVED THAT THE U.S. COULD NOT AFFORD PEACE" (meaning that if the U.S. was not actually engaged in perpetual wars, the U.S. government and the U.S. economy might actually collapse).

    Lewin sought to make a MOCKERY of this U.S. war policy and the ABSURDITY of the beliefs that apparently underlied it. Lewin wanted to publically EMBARRASS and HUMILIATE U.S. policy makers who supported a policy of perpetual war and he wanted them to change U.S. policy. So, he wrote "The Report From Iron Mountain ON THE POSSIBILITY AND DESIRABILITY OF PEACE" (the book's FULL title). (Note that the final seven words to this title reveal Lewin's TRUE thesis statement.).

    So, in writing TRFIM, Lewin pretended to be an imaginary committee of the U.S. government which pretended to "report" to these very same U.S. policy makers (whom he sought to EMBARRASS and HUMILIATE) that "PEACE WAS POSSIBLE, BUT NOT DESIRABLE" (hence, the FULL title to Lewin's book). In writing TRFIM (and in pretending to be an imaginary committee of the U.S. government), Lewin pretended to "report" to U.S. policy makers that the U.S. economy was so dependent on perpetual war that if the U.S. ever found itself at peace, IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE FORCED TO CREATE FAKE WARS (called "credible substitutes") against FAKE ENEMIES (called "alternative enemies") to prop up the U.S. government and the U.S. economy. (Note here how Lewin MOCKS U.S. policy of perpetual war).

    Specifically, in writing TRFIM (and in pretending to be an imaginary committee of the U.S. government), Lewin pretended to "report" to U.S. policy makers that if the U.S. ever found itself with the "misfortune of being at peace", it would be forced, for economic reasons, to create FAKE WARS against FAKE ENEMIES, including FAKE "ALIEN LIFE FORMS" (something that Tavares omits about this book in her hoax) and against FAKE "ENVIRONMENTAL CALAMITIES" (which Tavares has recently embellished to mean "global warming", "climate change", "engineered drought", fires, etc.). (Note here how Lewin MOCKS U.S. policy of perpetual war). It was absolutely brilliant.

    Lewin created TRFIM to read like an official U.S. government committee "REPORT" to U.S. policy makers IN ORDER TO PUBLICALLY EMBARRASS AND HUMILIATE U.S. POLICY MAKERS WHO SUPPORTED PERPETUAL WAR (by making their policy of perpetual war APPEAR EVEN MORE "ABSURD" THAN IT ALREADY WAS). It worked.

    As if to prove that Lewin was the REAL author of TRFIM, when an unauthorized publisher later re-published his book without his permission (and without paying him royalties), HE SUED THE RE-PUBLISHER AND WON A LARGE SETTLEMENT, something that would have been impossible if the book had actually been written by a REAL "committee of the U. S. government" as Tavares falsely claims. For proof of all of the foregoing, click on the links inside comment 22 here. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...is-many-hoaxes.

    SOURCE DOCUMENTS:

    THE TRUTH ABOUT THE REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN ON THE POSSIBILITY AND DESIRABILITY OF PEACE.

    http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/..._iron_mountain
    http://scua.library.umass.edu/umarmot/lewin-leonard-c/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Re..._Iron_Mountain
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonar...ies-at-82.html
    http://articles.latimes.com/1999/feb/01/news/mn-3716
    https://www.biblio.com/leonard-c-lewin/author/560147

    ANALYSIS OF THE THREE FOREGOING DOCUMENTS USED BY TAVARES IN SUPPORT OF HER CLAIMS:

    Of the three documents described above, one was actually written by a NASA scientist in an effort TO PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM HORRIFIC, FUTURE WEAPONS and two were written by private American civilians in an effort (through the clever use of fiction) TO CALL PUBLIC ATTENTION TO POLICIES OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT THAT WERE HARMFUL TO AMERICANS. So, all three documents were written by Americans in order TO FURTHER THE INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE (not the other way around).

    But, Tavares deliberately turned all of this around backwards. Tavares falsely claims that all three documents ARE THEMSELVES secret, leaked or suppressed U.S. government documents which she claims "PROVE" that the U.S. government or the global elite are killing us all (or "PLANS" to kill us all) in furtherance of a "PLANNED" "EXTINCTION OF MANKIND". But, this is not so. And, Tavares knows it.

    Specifically, Tavares falsely claims that the three foregoing documents (all of which were written TO FURTHER THE INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE) "PROVE" that everything around us (cell phones, cell towers, WIFI, microwaves, "smart meters", "geo engineering", fluoride, "chem trails", microwaves, HAARP, etc.) are part of an orchestrated "PLAN" described in these three documents above to cause the "extinction of mankind". But, this claim is not so. The foregoing documents do not reflect any such "PLAN". And, Tavares knows it.

    Certainly, cell phones, cell towers and WIFI emit radiation. Certainly, the chemicals used in geo engineering pollute the air, the ground and the water. Certainly, fluoride is a neurotoxin and so on. All of these things are part of life in our modern society and all of them are harmful. There is no debate about that. The real debate is whether these things (cell phones, cell towers, WIFI, geo-engineering, fluoride, etc.) benefit us more than they harm us. But, that is beyond the scope of this comment.

    The point is simply this. All three documents (above) which Tavares falsely claims "PROVE" a government or elite "PLAN" to cause the "extinction of mankind" DO NOT PROVE ANY SUCH "PLAN". FACT: The author of each one of these three documents above had an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PURPOSE mind when writing his work (AND THAT PURPOSE WAS NOT "REVEALING" OR DESCRIBING" A GOVERNMENT OR ELITE "PLAN" TO CAUSE THE "EXTINCTION OF MANKIND"). And, Tavares knows it.



    DEBORAH TAVARES HOAX 4: THE JUDGE "DALE" HOAX:

    FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE.

    TRULY OSCAR WORTHY VIDEOS BY TAVARES!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05o4CpB9I8g&t=260s (A TRULY OSCAR-WORTHY PERFORMANCE AT 2:25-4:00, 5:25-6:15, 9:05-9:20)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTRPZD3_w5k (A TRULY OSCAR-WORTHY PERFORMANCE AT 42:10-49:15 IN PRETENDING TO REVIEW SECTIONS OF A "JUDGE DALE" FORGERY)
    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).

    In THE JUDGE DALE HOAX, Deborah Tavares, her charlatan partner and amateur legal theorist, Rodney "DALE" Class published (online) a series of FAKE "legal" books 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). 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 the "Judge DALE forgeries", Tavares, her charlatan partner and Rodney "DALE" Class (all while pretending to be Judge "DALE") made intentionally false and fraudulent claims about the law, the courts, judges and lawyers in an effort to fraudulently incite hatred and violence against INNOCENT Americans. Specifically, in the "Judge DALE forgeries", Tavares and her partners claim, among other things, that all governments and all governmental agencies (including the courts) are PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT "CORPORATIONS" and that all American lawyers are TRAITORS and IMPOSTERS with "NO AUTHORITY" and "NO LICENSE" to practice law.

    This hoax is explained in detail in the 3rd comment here. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...is-many-hoaxes. But, to fully understand the scope of Tavares' fraud in legal matters with her charlatan partner and Rodney "DALE" Class, you must also read the 5th and 6th comments here. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...is-many-hoaxes.

    Of all of Tavares' hoaxes, the "Judge DALE" Hoax is perhaps her most diabolical. As a result of this single hoax, countless thousands of Americans WERE INCITED TO THE POINT OF HATRED AND VIOLENCE against INNOCENT Americans. As a result of this single hoax, countless thousands of Americans have WASTED years of their lives, thousands of dollars of their own money, all of their resources and all of their energy FIGHTING AN IMAGINARY ENEMY (an imaginary "evil" justice system described in her forgeries) which is NOT REAL, using IMAGINARY LAWS (described in her forgeries) which are NOT REAL, by employing the legal teachings of an IMAGINARY "RETIRED FEDERAL JUDGE DALE" (described in her forgeries) who is NOT REAL. As a result of this single hoax, countless thousands of Americans HAVE LOST THEIR OWN COURT CASES and as a result, actually LOST their own time, LOST their own homes, LOST their own property, LOST their own money, LOST their own liberty AND PERHAPS EVEN LOST THEIR OWN LIVES IN RELIANCE UPON THE FALSE LEGAL CLAIMS MADE IN THE "JUDGE DALE" FORGERIES.



    DEBORAH TAVARES HOAX 5: THE COURT REGISTRY INVESTMENT SYSTEM HOAX:

    FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxCIJZI74Oo. (Here, Rod Class and two of his charlatan partners pretend to be "shocked" while reviewing their OWN FORGERY WHICH THEY THEMSELVES ACTUALLY CREATED).
    https://anticorruptionsociety.files....-07-2003-b.pdf (A fraudulent article. Note the website.).
    https://itnjcommittee.org/why-the-it...stment-system/ (Note the fraudulent author of this fraudulent article.).
    https://i-uv.com/court-registry-investment-system-cris/.

    In THE COURT REGISTRY INVESTMENT SYSTEM HOAX, Deborah Tavares and her partners (including Rod Class and Jeanette Triplett) fraudulently claim to have "discovered" a "secret" or "leaked" government document which she claims "PROVES" that "ALL OF THE MONEY" that the public ever pays to the courts for FINES and PENALTIES is forwarded on to the "Federal Reserve" in the same way that she claims that the IRS collects money from the public for INCOME TAXES and forwards it on to the Federal Reserve (thereby attempting to draw a FALSE parallel between the courts and the IRS).

    In this hoax, Tavares and her partners manufactured a FAKE document to support of their hoax (just like they did with all three of the "Judge DALE Forgeries" described above in the "Judge DALE Hoax") and they made their forgery LOOK like an official government document. BUT, THEY MADE SOME STUPID MISTAKES!

    Specifically, they created a FAKE "CASH FLOW DIAGRAM" purporting to show money flowing from the courts to the "Federal Reserve BANK". But, Tavares and her partners MISTAKENLY used a drawing OF THE "U.S. TREASURY BUILDING" in their FAKE "CASH FLOW DIAGRAM" (mistakenly believing it was a drawing of the "Federal Reserve Building") AND THEY MISTAKENLY LABELED IT THE "FEDERAL RESERVE BANK" (two stupid mistakes that a REAL government document would not contain). (See proof below.). Tavares and her partners actually used this MISTAKE-RIDDLED "CASH FLOW DIAGRAM" as the COVER of their FAKE GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT. (See proof below.).

    Tavares and her partners ALSO failed to check the lower right hand corner of the page that they used for the COVER of their FAKE government document. The page number in the lower right hand corner of that page is marked page "2". This means that the COVER page that they used for the COVER of their FAKE government document is not only RIDDLED WITH STUPID MISTAKES (described above), it also CAME FROM AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT DOCUMENT which means that TAVARES AND HER PARTNERS ASSEMBLED THEIR FAKE GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT FROM PARTS OF OTHER DOCUMENTS (a stupid mistake that a REAL government document would not contain).

    Finally, Tavares and her partners went through their entire FAKE government document and REPLACED the term, "UST" (for United States Treasury) with the term, "FRB" (for Federal Reserve BANK) to make the interior of their FAKE government document "MATCH" the FAKE cover of their FAKE government document.

    This hoax also reveals that Tavares does not even know what a "Court Registry" actually is. Unknown to Tavares, a "Court Registry" is simply a court-supervised, "escrow-type" account that is typically operated out of a special office at the court house. Litigants in certain types of EXTREMELY RARE cases (when the ownership of money is disputed) VOLUNTARILY deposit money into the "court registry" until the case is over at which time THE JUDGE AWARDS ALL OF THE MONEY DEPOSITED INTO THE "COURT REGISTRY" TO THE WINNING SIDE IN THE CASE. SO, ALL OF THE MONEY THAT IS EVER DEPOSITED INTO A "COURT REGISTRY" ONLY GOES TO THE LITIGANTS THEMSELVES AT THE END OF THE CASE (DEPENDING ON WHICH SIDE WINS).

    Thus, a "Court Registry" works exactly like an "escrow account" (the party with "clean hands" gets all the money deposited). No judge, court or government agency EVER keeps ANY of the money that is ever deposited into any "Court Registry". ONLY THE LITIGANTS THEMSELVES RECEIVE MONEY THAT IS DEPOSITED INTO A "COURT REGISTRY". Less than one percent of all cases involve such a short-term deposit into a "Court Registry". So, such deposits are extremely rare. (Have you ever made such a deposit into a "Court Registry"?).

    This hoax also reveals that Tavares does not even know what a Court Registry "INVESTMENT SYSTEM" actually is. Unknown to Tavares, the "Court Registry INVESTMENT SYSTEM" is a merely a system by which the court earns "INTEREST" on the money that is TEMPORARILY deposited into the "Court Registry" until the case is over. IT IS ALL ABOUT "INTEREST". NOTHING MORE. Thus, Tavares manufactured AN ENTIRE HOAX out of her OWN MISTAKEN UNDERSTANDING of the definition of the term, "COURT REGISTRY INVESTMENT SYSTEM". (In order to manufacture a really good hoax, YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHAT YOU ARE LYING ABOUT---AND TAVARES DOES NOT.).

    The COVER of Tavares' FAKE government document appears on the page actually numbered "5" here.
    http://www.stopthecrime.net/docs/THE...-ADVENTURE.pdf (Note the identity of this website.).

    What the U.S. Treasury Building looks like.
    https://www.google.com/search?q=%22U...w=1366&bih=651. COMPARE THIS IMAGE TO THE DRAWING ON THE COVER OF TAVARES' FAKE GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT ABOVE.

    What the Federal Reserve Building looks like.
    https://www.google.com/search?q=%22F...w=1366&bih=651. COMPARE THIS IMAGE TO THE DRAWING ON THE COVER OF TAVARES' FAKE GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT ABOVE.

    Note here that Tavares uses a drawing of the "U.S. TREASURY BUILDING" (shown above) on the COVER of her FAKE government document, but she fraudulently labels it the "FEDERAL RESERVE BANK" (to make the diagram fit her hoax). Note also the PAGE NUMBER "2" in the lower right corner of the COVER of her FAKE government document here (proving that this mistake-riddled COVER page came from an entirely different document than the one on which it now fraudulently appears).
    https://anticorruptionsociety.files....-07-2003-b.pdf (note that this is the website of Tavares' charlatan partner).

    NOTE: Because she knew that I was going to expose this particular hoax, Tavares took down her epic YouTube video wherein she spends hours peddling this hoax, pretending to review her own FAKE government document and pretending to be "shocked" by the contents of her own FAKE government document. It was absolutely priceless.



    DEBORAH TAVARES HOAX 6: ALL GOVERNMENTS AND ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ARE "PRIVATE FOR PROFIT CORPORATIONS" HOAX:

    In this hoax, Tavares and her partners (including Rod Class) falsely claim that all governments and all government agencies are private for-profit "CORPORATIONS". To understand the extent of this fraud, 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 Tavares' claims, the ordinary, private, for-profit corporation named the "United States Corporation Company" (referred to at 2:00-3:10 in her 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. Tavares refers to this document later in her 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 that, for a fee, provides that service to other such corporations (which are often out-of-state corporations that do not have an office inside the state). http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...0607.0505.html.).

    Further, at 4:30-4:45 in he FIRST video below, Tavares also FRAUDULENTLY CHANGES 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, she "SWITCHES" 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 she does not show an ACTUAL PHOTO of this particular corporation's "corporate charter" in her video below as she does with other "corporate charters" of the other corporations referred to in her video (BECAUSE IT WOULD SHOW THE CORPORATION'S "REAL NAME" WHICH WOULD EXPOSE HER FRAUD). See the truth about this particular fraud here. https://www.dropbox.com/s/04tmhmd08w...0Inc..pdf?dl=0 (Note here 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 TAVARES IN WHICH SHE CLAIMS THAT ALL GOVERNMENTS AND ALL 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).

    For more on Deborah Tavares and her charlatan partners in hoaxes, click here and read the entire thread. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...is-many-hoaxes. But, be especially certain to read comments 3, 5 & 6 in this link.

    ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH: Snoop4truth is a legal expert and whistle blower who exposes online hoaxes. Snoop4truth did not reveal this information to harm Deborah Tavares. Instead, Snoop4truth revealed 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 Tavares' 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. The truth does not fear investigation. Only lies fear investigation. The truth can be supported by using the truth. Only lies must be supported by using hoaxes (other lies). There is no such thing as a "good reason" to intentionally defraud the American people, not even to make a popular (and sensational) conspiracy theory appear to be true.

    (END QUOTE)

    I stand on every single word above. Perhaps you yourself should look at the evidence posted above and then draw your own conclusions.

    ITS NOT ABOUT WHETHER YOU LIKE THE INFORMATION. IT IS ABOUT WHETHER IT IS TRUE.

    YOUR COMMENT: Thank you [referring to we-R-one] for saying what you did and [for] doing your great research into the roads of truth.

    MY RESPONSE: I also applaud we-R-one's research. While it was NOT the law, it supports what I have already stated on the same subjects in my responses to her above.

    YOUR COMMENT: Gripreaper and I had many a dinner of cardboard boxes over this stuff and still chew on it.

    MY RESPONSE: Perhaps you and Gripreaper should have many more such dinners of cardboard boxes and chew on the REAL law that I have provided to you above. Otherwise, you are wasting your time on amateur legal theories and you will remain in the dark forever.

    YOUR COMMENT: Yes it would have been a very interesting thing to see Grip rip this guy a new ash hole.

    MY RESPONSE: Listen to yourself. YOU HAVE JUST PROVEN MY POINT! Amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that the law is something that comes from the claims of other amateur legal theorists (like Gripreaper). But, it does not.

    The REAL law ONLY comes from the actual WRITTEN WORDS of the REAL law itself (like the REAL law posted above). The problem with all amateur legal theorists is that they are looking for the law in the WRONG PLACE. They are looking for the law in the claims of their CHAMPIONS, their IDOLS, their GURUS. But, that is NOT where the REAL law comes from. That is where amateur legal theories come from.

    Further, Grip would have to use he REAL law to "rip" me in such a fashion. Amateur legal theories will not do the trick. Gripreaper cannot "rip" me with amateur legal theories any more than the amateur legal theorists "ripped" their opponents in the cases I posted above.

    YOUR COMMENT: In and out... Steven

    I trust that this adequately responds to all of your comments. If not, let me know.

    All The Best,

    Snoop
    Last edited by snoop4truth; 3rd January 2019 at 19:20.

  12. Link to Post #47
    Avalon Member genevieve's Avatar
    Join Date
    10th May 2012
    Age
    69
    Posts
    514
    Thanks
    23,040
    Thanked 1,817 times in 427 posts

    Default Re: Rod Class & his many hoaxes

    snoop4truth:

    You are quite the researcher! I'm wondering if you would be willing to contrast your "REAL LAW" to Common Law?

    Thank you.

    Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
    genevieve

    P.S. Again, I wish I had more hours in the day....

  13. Link to Post #48
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    30th September 2015
    Age
    59
    Posts
    169
    Thanks
    76
    Thanked 275 times in 114 posts

    Default Re: Rod Class & his many hoaxes

    RESPONSE TO GENEVIEVE'S 3rd COMMENT:

    Hello genevieve,

    Thank you very much for your comments. My response is below.

    YOUR COMMENT: ... [Please] contrast ...[the] "REAL LAW" to [the] COMMON LAW.

    MY RESPONSE: REAL LAW does not stand in "contrast" to the REAL COMMON LAW. Instead, the REAL LAW includes the REAL COMMON LAW.

    The REAL LAW is comprised of THREE types of REAL LAW (DEPENDING ON THE "SOURCE" OF THE LAW):
    1). SOURCE: CONSTITUTION. Constitutional Law (which is written by Constitutional delegates and which is interpreted and applied by the courts);
    2). SOURCE: LEGISLATURES/CONGRESS. Statutory Law (which is written by lawmakers ELECTED by "We the People" to write those statutes); and
    3). SOURCE: JUDICIARY. COMMON LAW, also called CASE LAW (which is written by higher judges ELECTED by we the people to write it or who are appointed by those ELECTED by "We the People" to make those appointments).

    FACT: This means all of the REAL LAW that I have listed above (all of which refutes amateur legal theories) IS THE "COMMON LAW" (case law) from the judiciary. THIS MEANS THAT THE "COMMON LAW" IS "AGAINST" AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

    IN THE REAL LAW, THE TERM, "COMMON LAW" SIMPLY MEANS "CASE LAW".

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

    https://legaldictionary.net/common-law/

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/common-law

    HERE'S THE PROBLEM:
    The term, "common law", means something entirely different in amateur legal theory than it means in the REAL law and legal system. In the REAL law and legal system, the "common law" simply means "case law".

    FACT: In the REAL legal system the "common law" ("case law") cannot be "flipped on" or "switched on" to decide cases. In the REAL law and legal system, the "common law" is never "off" to be "flipped" or "switched" back "on" to decide cases. (It is always "on" all the time.).

    FACT: In the REAL law and legal system the "constitutional law", "statutes" and the "common law" ("case law") WORK TOGETHER TO FORM A SINGLE BODY CALLED "THE LAW".

    FACT: In the REAL law and legal system, BOTH the "common law" and "statutes" are equally valid, equally binding and both are in full force and effect at all times (neither one is ever "off" and both are always "on" all the time). This may be hard for amateur legal theorists to understand, but courts, lawyers and governments understand this simple legal principle very well. It works great if you know enough to understand it.

    FACT: The ONE and ONLY SOURCE of the REAL law is THE ACTUAL WRITTEN WORDS OF THE REAL LAW ITSELF (not the words of charlatans, malcontents and jailhouse layers who peddle amateur legal theories online).

    FACT: REAL LAW comes from ONLY THREE (3) SOURCES: 1). CONSTITUTIONS; 2). LAWS PASSED BY ELECTED LAWMAKERS; and 3). DECISIONS OF HIGHER ELECTED JUDGES (or higher judges appointed by persons who were ELECTED to appoint them).

    FACT: So, if a legal proposition was written by any person OTHER THAN a CONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATE, an ELECTED LAWMAKER or a HIGHER JUDGE, then IT IS NOT THE LAW REAL LAW. It is that simple.

    FACT: ALL REAL LAW IS ALWAYS IN WRITING. THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS.

    FACT: ALL REAL LAW IS NOW AVAILABLE ONLINE.

    FACT: REAL LAW IS NOT SECRET OR MYSTERIOUS. There is no need to "GUESS" about what it is. You can simply read it yourself (as with the REAL law I have posted above).

    FACT: If a legal proposition cannot be found in the REAL law, THEN IT IS NOT THE LAW. It is an amateur legal theory (ex: "capital letters denote corporate status). It is that simple.

    FACT: REAL law means law that ACTUALLY WORKS all the time.

    FACT: REAL law means law that is ACTUALLY BINDING all the time.

    FACT: REAL law means law that ACTUALLY APPEARS, IN WRITING, in the law library and online, in APPLICABLE (not inapplicable) Constitutions, Statutes and Court Decisions (not on amateur legal theory websites).

    FACT: REAL law means authentic law that was actually written by those that "We the People" ELECT to write it (such as our ELECTED lawmakers and our ELECTED judges, not amateur legal theorists).

    FACT: REAL law means law that is NOT IMAGINARY (in the way the amateur legal theory is completely imaginary).

    FACT: REAL law means law that is NOT FAKE (in the way that amateur legal theory is completely FAKE).

    FACT: REAL law means law of the type that is taught in REAL law schools and in REAL universities (not as taught by amateur legal theorists).

    FACT: REAL law means law of the type that is USED BY THE ENTIRE WORLD except by amateur legal theorists.

    FACT: Not one single amateur legal theory is included in the REAL law and legal system.

    FACT: In short, REAL law is the entire body of law, except for amateur legal theory.

    I hope this helps.

    All The Best,

    Snoop
    Last edited by snoop4truth; 22nd August 2018 at 18:06.

  14. Link to Post #49
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    30th September 2015
    Age
    59
    Posts
    169
    Thanks
    76
    Thanked 275 times in 114 posts

    Default Re: Rod Class & his many hoaxes

    This comment is a work in progress.


    https://cases.justia.com/federal/app...?ts=1525874447. This case reads, "Class argues on appeal that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the action pursuant to local rules because he, as a non-attorney, was permitted to represent Mines as counsel in federal court... . Here, the district court’s local rules provided, in relevant part, that “[n]o person shall be permitted to appear or be heard as counsel for another in any proceeding in this [c]ourt unless first admitted to practice in the [c]ourt pursuant to this rule,” and that “[o]nly those persons who are members in good standing of the Florida Bar shall be eligible for general admission to the bar of the [c]ourt.” M.D. Fla. R. 2.01(a), (b)... . Individual parties in federal court “may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1654. “The right to appear pro se, however, is limited to parties conducting ‘their own cases,’ and does not extend to non-attorney parties representing the interests of others.”...
    Class’s pleadings in the district court made unmistakably clear that he was attempting to represent Mines as his counsel. He stated twice in boldface type that he was acting as counsel on behalf of the actual injured claimant, and he filed an entry of appearance on behalf of Mines. He [Class] also acknowledged that he was not a licensed attorney, arguing at length that any requirement that he possess a “[b]ar [c]ard” to represent clients in federal court violated federal law. Accordingly, Class undoubtedly violated the district court’s Local Rules 2.01 and 2.02... . As a non-attorney, Class could not represent Mines in federal court as a client. (citations omitted). Class has not identified any authority establishing that non-lawyers may represent other individuals as counsel. Specifically, nothing about the “private attorney general” doctrine’s fee-shifting provision authorizes non-attorneys to bring claims on behalf of others."


    class, Rodney-dale, [FAKE] P.A.G. and mines, Joseph-Washington, the actual [FAKE] injured claimant v. Judge Timothy J. Corrigan and U.S. Bank National Association, et all,

  15. Link to Post #50
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    25th May 2011
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    1,257
    Thanks
    730
    Thanked 7,728 times in 1,225 posts

    Default Re: Rod Class & his many hoaxes

    THIS is the mentality of the extremist radical group of people known as JUDGE DALE – RODNEY DALE CLASS, DEBORAH TAVARES, AND PARTNERS.

    If the following is disturbing to you, then STOP, and think:
    Is this the right way forward?
    Are these the types of people I should be listening to, supporting, and funding?

    http://64.62.227.27/v3/food-and-farm...10/261873.html

    The following is just ONE disturbing extract.

    Quote IX. MOST LAWYERS are OUR ENEMY:

    The small handful that are good must get on the right side and help us win our war, or they are not on our side. There can be no more sitting on the fence, people must decide which side they are on and fight.

    Lawyers that claim to be on our side and are later found out to be traitors, must be put to death as this is just what they have planned for all Americans, who do not abide by their rules and regulations. Americans cannot win the war if they allow traitors to infiltrate our tanks and get away with it. The enemy Americans are fighting is a deadly enemy, that care nothing for anyone out of their own ranks, and if you turn your back on them, you could be their next victim.

    […]
    WALK SOFTLY AMERICANS AND CARRY A BIG STICK

    Most importantly don’t be afraid to use it. We are under vicious assault and we must make use of every resource we have, or give into their slavery.
    COPY AND SPREAD WIDELY, SEND COPIES TO THE CRIMINAL LAWYERS AND LAWYER-JUDGES.

    Luke 11: 52 “Woe unto you lawyers”

    […]
    The first part of this Article is written by
    CW
    Private Attorney General
    privateattorneygeneral.spruz.com an associate of herein author, each author also an associate of ;Rodney Dale; [Class], all of whom are researchers gathering the necessary evidence to make the claims as stated herein, but by no means limited to.

    Woe be to you Lawyers Luke 11; 46-52
    I am not a lawyer but I know some and I have family members who are. These types of extreme comments inciting hatred and violence against a group of people, in this case, lawyers, are terrorist statements.

    They must be outed to prevent a radically extreme movement popping up that believes it is their duty to go into a law firm, court house, etc and shoot/bomb/burn lawyers, all in the name of saving the world.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 3

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