Latest topics
» POOFness for SEPT 20: HIGHER LEVEL STAFF NEEDS YOUR HELP AND OTHER LIES FROM GHOULKOWSKI
Today at 12:33 am by 4-truth

» Jerzy Babkowski (AKA ZAP) "The Great Scam Reset Via Beijing"
Yesterday at 11:39 pm by RamblerNash

» Bad-clown Rising - SABU
Yesterday at 11:36 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Body Language: You Owe Me!
Yesterday at 7:10 pm by PurpleSkyz

» John Kerry Facing Prison Time For Illegal, Secret Meetings With Hostile Regime
Yesterday at 7:07 pm by PurpleSkyz

» America's #1 Psychic "The War has Started", Michelle Whitedove
Yesterday at 5:57 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Task #1: Merkaba Meditation
Yesterday at 5:54 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Netflix Show ‘Ascension’: Secret Space Program/Nazi Eugenics/Operation Brain Drain/MK Ultra Techniques for starters
Yesterday at 5:50 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Dissident Catholic Clergy in Nine Countries Challenge and Threaten to Separate from the Church of Rome over Child Abuse: ITCCS
Yesterday at 5:43 pm by PurpleSkyz

» It is normally PITCH dark out there...strange luminescence in sky
Yesterday at 5:39 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Erich von Däniken! Everything You Know Will CHANGE!
Yesterday at 5:35 pm by PurpleSkyz

» The RH Negative Blood Type: Atlantis Theory
Yesterday at 5:33 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Graham Hancock Answers Some of the BIGGEST Ancient Mysteries of Our Time
Yesterday at 5:30 pm by PurpleSkyz

» NIBIRU News ~ Black Star Report
Yesterday at 2:10 pm by PurpleSkyz

» POOFness for SEPT 19: MIDWEEK BY ZAP GHOULKOWSKI THE DONATION SCAMMER
Yesterday at 2:06 pm by RamblerNash

» Is Alex Jones Crumbling Before Our Eyes? Looks Like It in THIS Interview…
Yesterday at 10:31 am by PurpleSkyz

» Multi-Dimensional Consciousness Equilibrium (Creation and Extra-Dimensional Storage of Self-Knowledge)
Yesterday at 10:26 am by PurpleSkyz

» #Disclosure Benjamin Fulford Explains Sudden Closure of Seven Solar Observatories
Yesterday at 10:23 am by PurpleSkyz

» UFO News ~ MUFON CASE 95004 Chicago, IL, US plus MORE
Yesterday at 9:57 am by PurpleSkyz

» Nearby Super-Earth Just Discovered - 'Planet Vulcan' Orbits Sun Featured in 'Star Trek'
Yesterday at 9:47 am by PurpleSkyz

» The Ark of the Covenant: The most advanced extraterrestrial technology in the Universe
Yesterday at 9:41 am by PurpleSkyz

» Solar Observatory Clousure, Hackers and Child Porn??
Yesterday at 9:38 am by PurpleSkyz

» Enoch | The Great Pyramid of Egypt
Yesterday at 9:27 am by PurpleSkyz

» Unimaginable! "Can't Believe What We Just Witnessed In Hawaii"
Yesterday at 9:24 am by PurpleSkyz

» Double Star System Blasts Massive Outburst Towards Earth, Spotted by Astronomers
Yesterday at 9:20 am by PurpleSkyz

» Man is literally at eye level with a rare sky phenomenon from a jet above San Francisco!
Yesterday at 9:16 am by PurpleSkyz

» FULL Benjamin Fulford 9-17-18
Yesterday at 8:57 am by PurpleSkyz

» NIBIRU News ~ BREAKING PLANET X NEWS AND VIEWS, NIBIRU IS HERE NOW!! plus MORE
Yesterday at 8:53 am by PurpleSkyz

» Project Camelot - UPDATES RE: JOURNALISM & WHISTLEBLOWERS
Yesterday at 8:48 am by PurpleSkyz

» Mystery in Midway - "Flaming Hole" in ground spawns unusual geological event
Yesterday at 8:43 am by PurpleSkyz

» White UFO Seen On Live NASA Space Station Cam
Yesterday at 8:38 am by PurpleSkyz

» #Q Anon: CARPET BOMBS !!! MOAB COMING! PEDO ARREST UPDATE! plus more
Yesterday at 8:33 am by PurpleSkyz

» Deep State Unmasked: DOJ Official Resists ‘From Inside’ and ‘Can’t Get Fired’
Yesterday at 8:24 am by PurpleSkyz

CLICK THE SUBSCRIBE BUTTON BELOW TO RECEIVE OUR DAILY NEWSLETTER

A 2ND EMAIL COMPLETES THE ACTIVATION PROCESS




CLICK THE PURPLE BUTTON TO VIEW OUR LATEST POSTS





CONTACT PURPLESKYZ
FOR DETAILS


Key Word Topics:
11:11, Aliens, Angels, Antarctica, Ascension, Assange, Astral Projection, Auras, Bankers, Bitcoin, Blood Type, Booms, BRICS, Cabal, Cannabis, CBD, CERN, Chemtrails, CME's, Consciousness, Conspiracy Theories, Crypto Currency, Crystals, Dinar, Dinar Scam, Disclosure, Earthquakes, EMF, Empaths, Environment, ESP, ET's, False Flags, Federal Reserve, Flooding, Fluoride, Fracking, Fraud, Fukushima,GMO's, Herbs, History, Holistic, Illuminati, IMF, ISS, Ley Lines, Lucid Dreaming, Mandela Effect, Medical, Meteor, MKUltra, Monsanto, Morgellons, NASA, Nature, Nesara, Nibiru, Night Sky, NDE's, Numerology, NWO, OD's, Organic, Paranormal, Pizzagate, Planet X, Predictive Programming, Protests, Psychic, Q Anon, Radiation, Reincarnation, Remote Viewing, RH Negative Blood, RV, Sacred Geometry, Scams, Science, SETI, Shadow People, Shift, Sink Holes, Smart Meters, Space Force, Space X, Spirit Animals, Sun Simulator, Synchronicity, Technology, TDA, THC, UFO, Vatican, Vaccines, Volcano, WIFI, Wikileaks

You are not connected. Please login or register

Out Of Mind » MEMBER ADVERTISING & BLOG FORUMS » SNOOP 4 TRUTH » Rod Class DC Gun Case Master Index

Rod Class DC Gun Case Master Index

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

2 Re: Rod Class DC Gun Case Master Index on Thu Nov 27, 2014 9:06 am

PurpleSkyz

avatar
Admin

Rod Class DC Gun Case Docs Page 6 – 001-007

Posted on November 27, 2014 by arnierosner
Rod Class DC Gun Case Docs Page 6 – 001-007

  1. Cong_McFadden’s_1934_Report_on_the_Federal_Reserve_to_the_House.pdf[url=http:///Users/arniead/Desktop/Rod Class DC Gun Case/Rod Class DC Gun Case Docs, Filings, Laws, Misc./Misc. Docs And Files Mentioned On Calls/Congressional Docs and Misc. Files/Cong_McFadden%27s_1934_Report_on_the_Federal_Reserve_to_the_House.pdf]f[/url]
  2. Cong_Rec_14th_Amend_Explanation_6.13.67_citizen_is_dead.pdf
  3. Emergency_Powers_Sen_Report_93-549_1973_627_pages_with_copy_of_original_Act
  4. Incoming_Congressman_Constitution_Briefing_Book_2002
  5. Rules_of_Practice_of_the_U.S._District_Court_for_the_District_of_Arizona_1912
  6. Sen_Report_on_2nd_Amend_The_Right_To_Bear_Arms_1982
  7. US_Provost_Marshal_David_E_Quantock.pdf


Thanks to: http://scannedretina.com



  

6 Re: Rod Class DC Gun Case Master Index on Thu Nov 27, 2014 9:11 am

PurpleSkyz

avatar
Admin
← Rod Class DC Gun Case Docs Page 1 – 001-125

Rod Class DC Gun Case Docs Page 3 – 001-044

Posted on November 27, 2014 by arnierosner
Rod Class DC Gun Case Docs Page 3 – 001-044

  1. Janet Reno Right To Travel Brief 98-1464.pdf
  2. Lawyer_Renewal_of_DC_Court_Certification_Form.pdf
  3. Judicial_Reform_Camp_Ground_Layout_Map.PDF
  4. Contempt_Of_Constitution_TEST.pdf
  5. Paul_Andrew_Mitchell_aka_Mitchell_Paul_Modeleski_ Info.doc
  6. Paul_Andrew_Mitchell_aka_Mitchell_Paul_Modeleski_BOP_locate_inmate.pdf
  7. Paul_Andrew_Mitchell_Indict.1.16.14.pdf
  8. Whos_Who_In_The_Freedom_Movement_SEDM.pdf
  9. Letter_to_judge_from_State_Rep_on_Right_To_Travel.pdf
  10. Info_on_Ranger_Ron_4.16.14.doc
  11. Ranger_Ron_letter_from_ Jail_to_Dean.doc
  12. 1 READ FIRST EXPOSING THE TRUST FRAUD.doc
  13. [url=http:///Users/arniead/Desktop/Rod Class DC Gun Case/Rod Class DC Gun Case Docs, Filings, Laws, Misc./Misc. Docs And Files Mentioned On Calls/Rod Live Call 1.14.14 Docs For The Trust Exposed/2 Entry of Appearance.doc]Entry of Appearance.doc[/url]
  14. 3 Final In Camera Hearing.doc
  15. 3a AFFIDAVIT LIVE BIRTH CLAIM.doc[url=http:///Users/arniead/Desktop/Rod Class DC Gun Case/Rod Class DC Gun Case Docs, Filings, Laws, Misc./Misc. Docs And Files Mentioned On Calls/Rod Live Call 1.14.14 Docs For The Trust Exposed/3a AFFIDAVIT LIVE BIRTH CLAIM.doc]a AFFIDAVIT LIVE BIRTH CLAIM.doc[/url]
  16. 3b CORPUS DELICTI HEARING.doc
  17. 4 Declaration of Status.doc
  18. 5 A J Kramer Waver For Release.docx
  19. 5a AJ KRAMER WAVIER FOR RELEASE.doc
  20. 2013 Maryland Code Birth Registration.doc
  21. DC Codes Vital Statistics Birth Records.pdf
  22. NC Codes Article 4 130 Birth Records.pdf
  23. Ohio Codes Birth Record.docx
  24. SSA Birth Cert Birth Area Code.doc
  25. Texas Codes Ch. 192 Birth Records.docx
  26. Title 26 Def. of Person.doc
  27. Entry_Of_Appearance_Template.doc
  28. Rules_Of_Engagement_Clean_Hands_Doctrine_Brief_Template.doc
  29. 0_READ_THIS_FIRST…U.S._Attny_Gen_Opinion_of_June_12_1867.doc
  30. 1_12_U.S._Op_Atty._Gen._182_(1867).pdf
  31. 2_Law_of_Land_Warfare_1945.pdf
  32. 3_Army Field Manual 27_10_1956.pdf
  33. 5_Geneva_Convention_on_the_Wounded_Aug_1864.pdf
  34. 6_Lieber_Code_The_Hague_18_Oct_1907_Main_Points_1988.pdf
  35. 7_Hamdan_Brief_for_US_Common_Law_of_War_2012.pdf
  36. 8_US_Army_Doctrine_and_Belligerent_Occupation_circa_2004.pdf
  37. 9_Nuremburg_Principles_1950.pdf
  38. 10_The_Declaration_of_the_Public_Trust_based_on_Lincoln_1863.pdf
  39. 11_Transactions_in_Foreign_Exchange_of_Gold_and_Silver_12_USC_section_95a.pdf
  40. 12_Fallacy_of_Insolvency_Laws_and_their_Baneful_Effects_1885.pdf
  41. 13_1_stat_153_Uniform_Rule_of_Naturalization_1802.pdf
  42. Maine_Rules_Of_Evidence.pdf
  43. NC_Rules_Of_Evidence_Chap_8.pdf
  44. Ohio_Rules_Of_Evidence.pdf


Thanks to: http://scannedretina.com



  

7 Re: Rod Class DC Gun Case Master Index on Thu Nov 27, 2014 9:12 am

PurpleSkyz

avatar
Admin

Rod Class DC Gun Case Docs Page 1 – 001-125

Posted on November 27, 2014 by arnierosner

  1. 0_SF95_COMPLAINT_FORM_Info.docx
  2. 0_SF95_Form_Blank.pdf
  3. 0_X_INFO_Judgment_Fund_Transmittal_Form_194_and_196_197_INFO.docx
  4. Abridgment_of_the_Petition_Clause_in_relation_to_the_Tort_Act.doc
  5. ADMINISTRATIVE_COURT_OFFICE_1.pdf
  6. ADMINISTRATIVE_COURT_OFFICE_2.pdf
  7. ARCHITECT_OF_CAPITOL_1.pdf
  8. ARCHITECT_OF_CAPITOL_2.pdf
  9. ARMY_MAJOR_GENERAL_PROVOST_1.pdf
  10. ARMY_MAJOR_GENERAL_PROVOST_2.pdf
  11. ARTICLE_III_JUDGES_DIVISION_1.pdf
  12. ARTICLE_III_JUDGES_DIVISION_2.pdf
  13. CC_PARTIES_NAMES_AND_ADDRESSES.docx
  14. DEPT_OF_JUSTICE_1.pdf
  15. DEPT_OF_JUSTICE_2.pdf
  16. FEDERAL_BAR_ASSOCIATION_1.pdf
  17. FEDERAL_BAR_ASSOCIATION_2.pdf
  18. Form194.pdf
  19. Form196.pdf
  20. Form197.pdf
  21. HOUSE_JUDICIAL_COMMITTE_1.pdf
  22. HOUSE_JUDICIAL_COMMITTEE_2.pdf
  23. HOUSE_SERGEANT_AT_ARMS_1.pdf
  24. HOUSE_SERGEANT_AT_ARMS_2.pdf
  25. JOINT_COMMITTEE_ON_THE_JUDICIARY_1.pdf
  26. JOINT_COMMITTEE_ON_THE_JUDICIARY_2.pdf
  27. SENATE_JUDICIAL_COMMITTEE_1.pdf
  28. SENATE_JUDICIAL_COMMITTEE_2.pdf
  29. SENATE_SERGEANT_AT_ARMS_AND_DOORKEEPER_1.pdf
  30. SENATE_SERGEANT_AT_ARMS_AND_DOORKEEPER_2.pdf
  31. Tort_Claim_TSA_Info_SF95_cover_package_expired_11.30.2011.pdf
  32. UNITED_STATES_DISTRICT_COURT_1.pdf
  33. UNITED_STATES_DISTRICT_COURT_2.pdf
  34. Roberts_Order_Rod_to_DC_page_1_10.29.14.pdf
  35. Roberts_Order_Rod_to_DC_page_2_10.29.14.pdf
  36. 0_Filing_Instructions_and_Mailing_Info.doc
  37. 3rd_Party_Intervenor_Template_including_Entry_Of_Appearance.doc
  38. 4.19.14_Intervenor_Template_Objection_To_Kessler_Denial.doc
  39. 1._SF_95_Generic_28_USC_1350.pdf
  40. 2._SF_95_Generic_28_USC_1350.pdf
  41. 3._SF_95_Generic_28_USC_1350.pdf
  42. 4._SF_95_Generic_28_USC_1350.pdf
  43. 5._SF_95_Generic_28_USC_1350.pdf
  44. 6._SF_95_Generic_28_USC_1350.pdf
  45. 7._SF_95_Generic_28_USC_1350.pdf
  46. 8._SF_95_Generic_28_USC_1350.pdf
  47. 9._SF_95_Generic_28_USC_1350.pdf
  48. 10._SF_95_Generic_28_USC_1350.pdf
  49. 11._SF_95_Generic_28_USC_1350.pdf
  50. MOTION 8 TO REBUT ..pdf
  51. MOTION 11 TO REBUT.pdf
  52. MOTION 22 TO REBUT.pdf
  53. MOTION 23 TO REBUT.pdf
  54. 4.22.14_Objections_to_Kessler_4.16.14_Memorandum_Opinion.doc
  55. 5.1.14_Pros_Rebut_21_pages.pdf
  56. 5.1.14_Pros_Rebut_EXhibit_1.pdf
  57. 5.1.14_Pros_Rebut_Exhibit_2.pdf
  58. 5.1.14_Pros_Rebut_Exhibit_3.pdf
  59. 5.7.14_DC_1_Rod_Class_Rebuttal _To_Prosec_14th_Amndt_Standing_Of_DC.doc
  60. 5.7.14_DC_2_Rod_Class_Request_for_Sanctions.doc
  61. 5.7.14_DC_3_Rod_Class_Disclosure_Of_Status.doc
  62. 8.1.14_Administrative_Office_Answer_to_Rod_Class_Tort_Claims_SF_95.pdf
  63. 8.12.14_Rod_Tort_Claim_Acknowledgment_of_SF_95_Letter_from_Dept_Of_Labor.pdf
  64. 28_USC_Tort_Claims_Rejection_Letters_Explanation.doc
  65. 8.29.14_Motion_To_Continue_Trial_by_Kramer.pdf
  66. 9.5.14_Roberts_Granting_Continuance.pdf
  67. 9.7.14_DC_Court_Affidavit_Of_Non_Consent_75.doc
  68. 9.8.14_Rod_Class_Gov_Plea_Deal_Offer.pdf
  69. 9.13.14_Rod_Summary_Judgment_Motion_76.doc
  70. 9.14.14_Rod_ Constitutional_Issues_And_Questions_78.doc
  71. 9.14.14_Rod_ Obstruction_Of_Justice_77.doc
  72. 9.22.14_Opposition_to_Pearlman_Leave_of_Court_filing_78a.doc
  73. 11.7.2014_Rod_Class_Press_Release_War_Powers_Act_and_DC_Gun_Case.doc
  74. 11.25.14_Rod_Class_Full_DC_Docket.doc
  75. 19_Traditional_Maxims_of_Equity_Explained.pdf
  76. 2.7.14_US_Atty_Response_to_Rod_Class_Ordered_by_judge.doc
  77. 3.7.14_US_Atty_2nd_Response_To_Rod_filings.pdf
  78. DC_Gun_Case_Gov._Doc_51_Omnibus_Response_To_Rod_Motions_4.4.14.doc
  79. DC_Gun_Case_Gov._Doc._50_Other_Crimes_Brought_In_4.3.14.pdf
  80. 8.20.14 _Pearlman_DC_Charge_Dismissal.pdf
  81. 8.20.14_Roberts_DC_Dismissal_Order.pdf
  82. 0_Read_This_First.doc
  83. 1_Prosecution_Pretrial_Statement_8.11.14_PART_1_of_4.pdf
  84. 2_Prosecution_Pretrial_Statement_8.11.14_PART_2_of_4.pdf
  85. 3_Prosecution_Pretrial_Statement_8.11.14_PART_3_of_4.pdf
  86. 4_Prosecution_Pretrial_Statement_8.11.14_PART_4_of_4.pdf
  87. Roberts_7.4_Hand_Signed_Denial_to_Pretrial_Statement.pdf
  88. Roberts_DC_Trial_Order_6.20.14_for_9.9.14_Trial_Date_etc.pdf
  89. DC_Pros._Plea_Deal_for_Rod_Class_5.29.14.pdf
  90. 9.22.14_Judge_Roberts_Order_139_Re-Setting_Trial_for_Oct_27_2014.doc
  91. 9.23.14_Roberts_Order_140_NO_MORE_ROD_FILINGS.doc
  92. Kessler_4.16.14_Order_see_last_2_paragraphs.pdf
  93. Assault Weapons from GunCite.com.doc
  94. D.C. Gun Law Background.pdf
  95. Nat. Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 Cong. Report Oct 2011.pdf
  96. Dwight_Class_Tort_Claim_Letter_Response.pdf
  97. Form_194_Judgment_Fund_Transmittal.pdf
  98. Form_196_Judgment_Fund_Award_Data_Sheet.pdf
  99. Form_197_Voucfer_For_Payment.pdf
  100. SF_(Standard Form)_95.pdf
  101. Tort_Claims_Actions_Info.doc
  102. DC_Court_Rod_Part_1_Competency_Order_2.3.14.pdf
  103. DC_Court_Rod_Part_2_Competency_Order_2.3.14.pdf
  104. DC_Court_Rod_Part_3_Competency_Order_2.3.14.pdf
  105. 1st DC Filing…FIRST_COMPLAINT_JUNE_18TH_2013.doc
  106. 2nd DC Filing…Motion_of_Return_of_Property_JULY_3_2013.doc
  107. 3rd DC Filing 8.1.13 Rod Class Motion To Dismiss Administrative Complaint.doc
  108. 11.10.13 Rod Class Request For Show Cause Hearing.doc
  109. Rod_Class_Nov 2013_DC_Gun_Case_Notice_Of_Felonies.doc
  110. Rod_Class_Nov_2013_DC_Gun_Case_Complaint.doc
  111. 2.12.14_Rod_Class_DC_MOTION_To_Quash_etc.doc
  112. 2.27.14_Rod_DC_Case_Counterclaim.doc
  113. 4.11.14_Motion_Of_Objection_To_Gov_ 404(b)_Motion.doc
  114. 4.18.14_Request_For_A_Jury_Of_Peers.doc
  115. 6.18.14_Rod_Class_PreTrial_Defendants_Statement.doc
  116. 6.26.14_Motion_In_Limine_Refiled.doc
  117. 7.1.14_Disclosure_Motion_FOIA_Enemy_of_the_State.doc
  118. 7.1.14_Objection_To_Jeffrey_Pearlman_etc.doc
  119. 7.2.14_Objection_To_Judge_Roberts_Order.doc
  120. 7.11.14_Grounds_For_Dismissal_Fraud_On_Court.doc
  121. 7.21.14_Rod_DC_Motion_Complaint_Claim_Tampering_And_Obstruction.doc
  122. 8.5.14_DC_Rod_Class_Demand_For_Dismissal_72.doc
  123. 8.15.14_Rod_Request_For_Court_Transcripts_73.doc
  124. 8.24.14_Rod_Class_DC_Void_Order_Rule_60…Filing_74.doc
  125. 8.25.14_Rod_Class_DC_Void_Order_Order_for_Dismissal_74a.doc



Thanks to: http://scannedretina.com



  

8 Re: Rod Class DC Gun Case Master Index on Fri Nov 28, 2014 12:10 pm

PurpleSkyz

avatar
Admin

Rod Class Exposes State Governments are franchise branches of federal corporation posing as government of the American People.

Posted on November 27, 2014 by arnierosner
Steve…
What a novel suggestion?
People helping people just to do the right thing. Marvelous. You may find such a group here. They seem to be dedicated to forming “THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR NATURAL JUSTICE.”

Sacha Stone of Humanitad Foundation: Human Right’s …

aalbionic.yuku.com/topic/259
Jan 12, 2013 – (2) Youtube.com “Sacha Stone from Humanitad about Anand Krishna’s Case” (3) Humanitad.org “In Memoriam : Muammar Al-Gaddafi”
Rod Class: 11 CVS 1559 in Judge Ridgeway’s ruling | Scanned Retina Resource
New Earth Media | PRESS RELEASE: War Crimes Drama in Washington, DC Courtroom
It was Class who forced the North Carolina Courts to admit, on the public record, that the Administrative Agents posing as “Public Officials” are NOT. The ruling from the Judge was clear: They are “private entities, in fact, CORPORATIONS.”
To make sure he understood what the Judge meant, Class asked for an Administrative Review. He placed evidence from the Governor’s website listing the various offices of “government” for North Carolina.
The ruling by Judge Ridgeway, 11 CV 1559, in 2011, proved what Class had uncovered through his research: The “Agencies”, including the elected Governor, are NOT ‘Public officials responsible to the people. They are not organized under the Executive Branch.’
Class now had the proof he needed: The Administrative Agencies posing as government answered to the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund. An unscrupulous International Banking Cartel under the thumb of the Vatican had taken over every function of government in the United States and forgot to tell the people. (And at least 118 other countries worldwide.)
The DC case has revealed the dirty little secret the Cartel has taken great pains to hide for 100 years. The War Powers Act of 1917 as amended was used by the Banking Cartel to set the people up for an extortion racket that makes the Mafia look like Sunday School teachers.



Thanks to: scannedretina.co



  

9 Re: Rod Class DC Gun Case Master Index on Fri Nov 28, 2014 12:10 pm

PurpleSkyz

avatar
Admin
← Rod Class Exposes State Governments are franchise branches of federal corporation posing as government of the American People.
Peace Officers to Replace Mounties – So Ordered by International Court →

Rod Class: 11 CVS 1559 in Judge Ridgeway’s ruling

Posted on November 27, 2014 by arnierosner
http://rayservers.com/blog/north-carolina-judge-ridgeway-rules-govt-agencies–officials-are-private-entities-
May not be directly related:
00:00

00:00
1_Coram_Nobis_Original_Short_2010
 

North Carolina Judge Ridgeway Rules Govt. Agencies & Officials Are “Private Entities” !

25.09.2011 17:21 in rodney-class-vs-us
Wake County (NC) Superior Court Judicial Review Judge Ridgeway Upholds That Govt. Agencies & Officials Are “Private Entities” !
Do Police Officers (and Depts. / Agencies), and Elected Officials
 In NC Hold As Much Authority
As “Private” Security Guards At Walmart ?

Post Oak Public Relations
postoak.pr@gmail.com
978 – 635 – 9586

For Immediate Release
9.25.11
Raleigh, NC – Judicial Review Judge, Paul C. Ridgeway, Wake County General Court Of Justice, Superior Court Division, has upheld a lower court ruling that Public Officials / Agencies are “private entities” and immune from liability. Judge Ridgeway has upheld the earlier (1.17.11) ruling of lower court Judge J. Randall May in Class v. NORTH CAROLINA, Case No. 10 DOT 7047  (now known as 11 CVS 1559 in Judge Ridgeway’s ruling).The September 15, 2011 ruling creates a conflict in the public’s perception of basic government legitimacy because Judge Howard E. Manning, Jr (who recused himself in August 2011) declared in Mr. Class’ 4.21.11 hearing that “the Defendants were NOT ‘private entities’ or ‘private contractors’.” !
Are the judges confused ? Are the “government” agencies and officials NOT what they’re portraying to their constituents ? Are they immune because they’re “private” ? Do we actually have government “agencies” and elect “Public” Officials OR do we deal with “Private Entities” ? Is the public being frauded ? So many questions ! So many conflicts !
Judge May’s original 1.17.11 ruling:
Page 1 http://min.us/mbmc4SfNoQ
Page 2 http://min.us/m9ygLN5Fe
Page 2A (marked for emphasis) http://min.us/myxFZuE3d
Page 3 http://min.us/mbrIPmoLma
Judge Ridgeway’s 9.15.11 ruling upholding Judge May is viewable at:http://min.us/mbi7bovuy0
Mr. Class’ filing, that includes recused Judge Manning’s statement, that was the subject of the Ridgeway ruling, is viewable at:
http://min.us/m6M40HRrB
For information on this ruling, you may call the Dispositions office of the Wake County Superior Court, Clerk of Court, Nancy Lorrin Freeman, at [url=tel:919 - 792 - 4325]
919 – 792 – 4325[/url] or [url=tel:919- 792- 4400]919- 792- 4400[/url] or [url=tel:919 - 792 - 4000]919 – 792 – 4000[/url]. Or visit the court’s website at http://web.co.wake.nc.us/courts/directory.html.

Mr. Class’ original suit (Case No. 10 DOT 7047) accused the named State departments and individuals with charges of Embezzlement of Federal funds from the local political subdivisions, and violations of the Right To Travel issue.Mr. Class was acting as a Private Attorney General under provisions of an 1866 Federal Act, and was acting on behalf of all People, and political subdivisions “similarly situated” and affected by the charges in his Judicial Review.Mr. Class may be contacted at itconstitutional@aol.com or his office [url=tel:704-742-9907]704-742-3123[/url] for details regarding the implications of Judge Ridgeway’s ruling and the court’s behavior in this action.
Mr. Class conducts twice weekly radio shows on the Talkshoe Network at http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=48361 and archives of previous shows are available at the above link.
The website for all things Rod Class, including other actions he has in play, is at http://rodclass.com. For a copy of one of the early filings that may have caused both court’s consternation: http://www.rayservers.com/blog/rod-class-traffic-filing
Mr. Class has posted all of his filings, and responses from the court, and the defendants, on the Internet at various sites for the benefit of those in their efforts and interactions with these purported “private entities” (contractors).

- 30 -



Thanks to: scannedretina.co



  

10 Re: Rod Class DC Gun Case Master Index on Thu Oct 01, 2015 3:09 pm

snoop4truth


THE LAW ON AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, by snoop4truth, October, 2015
 
If you would actually like the know THE LAW ITSELF about amateur legal theories (rather than what some amateur legal theorist TELLS YOU that the law is), then THE LAW BELOW IS FOR YOU. 
 
EVERY SINGLE COURT THAT HAS EVER RULED ON AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES HAS RULED AGAINST THEM. AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES HAVE A 100% FAILURE RATE IN THE COURTS. THIS IS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT REAL. THEY ARE FAKE. 
 
The case law below reflects THE LAW ITSELF on the following amateur legal theories: “split personality” theory, “strawman” theory, “flesh and blood person” theory, “capital letters” theory, “governments are corporations” theory, “no jurisdiction” theory, “no contract” theory, “birth certificate” theory, “social security number” theory, “commercial law” theory”, “ UCC filing statement” theory, “UCC financing statement” theory, use of US citizens as “collateral for national debt” theory, “sovereign citizen” theory, ”redemption” theory, “imaginary trust accounts” at the Federal Reserve or at the US Treasury theory and related theories. The list below is a work in progress. So, please bear with us. At some point, we hope to publish THE LAW ITSELF ON EVERY AMATEUR LEGAL THEORY peddled on the web. The results will be published on JudgeDaleHoax.com (still under construction). 
 
Note On Form Of Citation: We are well aware that the form of case citation that we used in this list of cases not the standard form of citation that lawyers and judges use (case name, volume number, abbreviated West Publishing Company reporter series, page number, abbreviated court name, partial date). But, we are not trying to help lawyers and judges find the law online. Instead, we are trying to help ordinary people find the law online. Ordinary people have access to Google Scholar, a FREE online case law database. The Google Scholar database includes cases that are not included in the West Publishing Company database and Google Scholar itself often DOES NOT cite cases using the standard form of citation that lawyers and judges use. So, in citing the cases below, we made a conscious decision to cite the cases below in exactly the same way that Google Scholar itself cites them (case name, full case number, full court name, full date, etc.). In this way, if an ordinary person simply goes to Google Scholar and simply keys in the information that we provided to them in our cites, then the correct case will actually come up. So, go to Google Scholar, click on “case law” in both the “state” and “federal” systems. Then, for each case below, key in the full case number (in quotes), and/or the full case date (in quotes, but without the parentheses below) and/or key in the party names (without quotes) and/or the full court name (in quotes). Google Scholar is FREE and easy to use. 
 
Note On Legal Precedent: Just in case you do not already know, in our legal system, all future court decisions on these amateur legal theories must follow (copy and even quote) THE LAW that you see below. 
 
“STRAWMAN, SPLIT PERSONALITY, CAPITAL LETTERS, REDEMPTION” THEORIES 
 
1. Ferguson El v. State, Civil Action No. 3:10CV577, United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division (August 18, 2011)(ruling against the following amateur legal theories: “redemptionist” theory, “SPLIT PERSONALITY theory”, “gold standard” theory and explaining that redemptionists believe that the government “pledged the strawman of its citizens as collateral for the country’s national debt” and explaining that “redemptionists claim that the government has power only over the strawman and not over the live person”, ruling against the “flesh and blood persons” theory, “birth certificates” theory, “capital letters” theory and summarizing as follows: “In short, ...[the defendant] seeks to avoid the consequences of his criminal conviction by suggesting HE EXISTS AS TWO SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITIES” and holding that such amateur legal theories are “legally frivolous” and have “absolutely no legal basis”). 
 
2. Laughlin v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 726 F.Supp.2d 201, No. 3:09CV1762(MRK), United States District Court, D. Connecticut (June 11, 2010)(ruling against the following amateur legal theories: “redemptionist theory”, the “SPLIT PERSONALITY theory”, the “strawman” theory, ”flesh and blood person” theory, “birth certificate” theory, “social security numbers” theory, “capital letters” theory, use of the ”strawman” of every citizen as “collateral for the country’s national debt” theory, “UCC filing statements” theory, “UCC financing statements” theory, “sovereign citizen” theory, “imaginary account number to some sort of direct treasury account” theory and summarizing as follows, “redemptionists believe the flesh and blood person can draw against the funds earned by the strawman” and dismissing the case). 
 
3. Muhammad v. Smith, No. 3:13-cv-760 (MAD/DEP), United States District Court, ND New York, (July 23, 2014)(ruling against the following amateur legal theories: the “SPLIT PERSONALITY” theory, “strawman” theory, “redemption” theory, “capital letters” theory and holding that those amateur legal theories “have not only been rejected by the courts, but also recognized as frivolous and a waste of court resources” and holding that these amateur legal theories have “no conceivable validity in American law”, are “legally frivolous”, are “utterly frivolous” and “patently ludicrous”). 
 
4. United States v. Harding, Civil Action No. 7:13cr00008, United States District Court, WD Virginia Roanoke Division (May 1, 2013)(ruling against the following amateur legal theories: “capital letters” theory, “commercial law” theory, “sovereignty” theory, “sovereign citizen” theory, “no jurisdiction” theory and “natural living person” theory and holding that such amateur legal theories have “no support in law”, “have been soundly rejected”, are “erroneous as a matter of law”, “have been struck down consistently by the courts”, are “completely without merit”, are “patently frivolous”, “will be rejected”, are “simply wrong”, are “contrary to established law” and holding that “the use of capital letters in the caption of the indictment IS IRRELEVANT to the issue of ... jurisdiction” and “rejecting the argument that use of capital letters in [the] indictment refers to a corporation [and] not [to a] a living person” ). 
 
5. United States v. Hoodenpyle, Criminal Action No. 09-cr-00013-MSK, United States District Court, D. Colorado (June 30, 2009)(ruling against the following amateur legal theories: “capital letters” theory, “no jurisdiction” theory and holding that these amateur legal theories have “been repeatedly rejected by EVERY court to consider” them and describing these amateur legal theories as “wholly frivolous”) (emphasis ours). 
 
6. Defluiter v. Land, No. 1:10-cv-421, United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division (June 15, 2010)(ruling against the “capital letters” amateur legal theory and describing it as “quasi-legalese” and holding that it is “meritless and frivolous”, that it “lacks merit”, is “wholly baseless”, and that it “lacks an arguable basis in law and in fact”). 
 
7. United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, Nos. 09-1190, 09-1224, 09-1225, 091226, 09-1227, 09-1251, United States Court Of Appeals, Seventh Circuit (Argued March 28, 2011, Decided August 18, 2011)(ruling against the defendant’s characterization of himself as a “secured party creditor...third-party intervener” and ruling against his characterization of himself as a “born sovereign flesh and blood human being and a secured party creditor” and ruling against the “individual sovereignty” theory, “immunity from prosecution” theory and “capital letters” theory and holding that such amateur legal theories have been “repeatedly rejected” and rejecting “the ‘‘shop worn’’ argument that a defendant is sovereign and is beyond the jurisdiction” of the courts and holding that such amateur legal theories have “no conceivable validity in American law” and that they “should be dismissed”). 
 
8. United States v. Mitchell, 405 F.Supp.2d 602, No. CRIM AMD 04-0029, United States District Court, D. Maryland (December 19, 2005)(ruling against the following amateur legal theories: “capital letters” theory, “flesh and blood man with a soul” theory and “no jurisdiction” theory and holding the defendant’s amateur legal theories are “patently without merit” and stating that these amateur legal theories “would be humorous, were the stakes not so high” and holding that these amateur legal theories are “irrelevant” and “have been summarily rejected” by other courts). 
 
9. United States v. Rodney Class, Crim. Action No. 13-253 (GK), United States District Court, District Of Columbia (April 16, 2014)(ruling against Class’’ amateur legal theories about: “capital letters” theory, “fictional entity” theory, “registered trade name” theory, “Uniform Commercial Code” theory, his false claims that he is “private attorney general” [which actually means a “public-interest plaintiff” and which status ends when the case ends], his false his claims that statutes “apply only to business entities, government instrumentalities and other corporate’’ persons’’, but not to natural persons such as himself” [citing, as “support”, the “United States Tax Code”, the “Texas Administrative Code” and the “Delaware Administrative Code”], his false claims that the following laws are “defenses” to the criminal charges against him: the “Smith Act”, the “Administrative Procedure Act”, the “Hobbs Act”, the “Taft-Hartley Act”, the “Federal Reserve Act”, the “oath of office of public employees”, sections of the “Code of Federal Regulations”, the “National Industrial Recovery Act”, the “Emergency Relief Appropriations Act”, the “Clearfield Trust Doctrine” [a non-existent legal “doctrine” which Rodney DALE Class also cites in the “Judge DALE” forgeries while pretending to be “Judge DALE,” which uses Class’ middle name as an inside joke], the IRRELEVANT definition of “handgun” contained in the IRRELEVANT “National Firearms Act” [which Class was NOT charged with violating here], “Executive Order 6174 on Public Works Administration”, the “Classification Act of 1923", and describing Class’’ filings as “UTTERLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE” and holding that they “purport to CITE LEGAL PRINCIPLES THAT EITHER DO NOT EXIST OR ARE PROVISIONS OF CIVIL LAW [THAT ARE] WHOLLY INAPPLICABLE TO THIS CRIMINAL CASE”, and holding that Class’’ purported defenses “are irrelevant”, “inapplicable”, “totally unrelated”, “entirely inapplicable”, have “no apparent relevance”, “unsupported and irrelevant”) (emphasis ours). 
 
10. Gibbs v. Hickey, Civil Action No. CV209-082, United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Brunswick Division (May 13, 2010)(ruling against the “capital letters” amateur legal theory and ruling against a “Coram Nobis” and holding that such amateur legal theories are “nonsense” and “completely without merit”). 
 
11. United States v. Beavers, No. 3-12-CR-49, United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Knoxville (December 13, 2012)(ruling against the defendants’’ claims that they are a “flesh and blood sentient man and woman and not a corporation or corporate entity” and ruling against their amateur legal theories on “capital letters” and holding that other courts have “rejected this argument as frivolous” describing such amateur legal theories as “completely frivolous” and “without any legal support”). 
 
12. United States v. Singleton, No. 03 CR 175, United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division (May 6, 2004)(ruling against the following amateur legal theories: “flesh and blood man” theory, “no jurisdiction” theory ,”capital letters” theory,” corporate entity” theory and ruling against the amateur legal theory that there are “accounts for U.S. citizens” at the Federal Reserve or at the U.S. Treasury and holding that such amateur legal theories are simply “bizarre”, “make...no sense”, and should be “rejected”). 
 
13. United States v. Majhor, Civil No. 10-544-MO, United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division (September 1, 2010)(ruling against the following amateur legal theories: “fictitious entity”, “capital letters” and holding that these amateur legal theories are “routinely rejected”, “patently frivolous” and are hereby “stricken”).  “RIGHT TO TRAVEL,” “UCC,” “SOVEREIGN CITIZEN,” “CAPITAL LETTERS,” & “GOVERNMENTS ARE CORPORATIONS” THEORIES 
 
14. Thompson v. Scutt, Case No. 1:11-cv-573, United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division (July 13, 2011)(ruling against the petitioner’s amateur legal theories to the effect that he is a “sovereign”, a “citizen/member of the Michigan Republic”, that under the UCC he has “‘‘superior title and claim over the judgment against him”, that “the court’s use of his name in capital letters...refers to a separate or fictitious entity, and is enforceable only against that entity”, that “the Michigan statutes under which ... [he] was convicted [for DUI and DWLS] do not apply to...[him] because he is ‘‘sovereign’’ and not a ‘‘person’’ within the meaning of those statutes” and that the “Michigan laws supporting...[his] conviction [for DUI and DWLS] violate his constitutional right to travel” and that “the state lacked jurisdiction because...[he] has a right to removal under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the federal removal statute” and that he “ is being wrongfully imprisoned on behalf of ANOTHER ENTITY called ‘‘CHRISTOPHER BURNELL THOMPSON’’”, that his “conviction [for DUI and DWLS] was the result of fraud and misconduct on the part of the state court, the prosecution and defense counsel”, that “Michigan and the United States are corporations”, that “Michigan and the United States cannot concern [themselves] with anything other than corporate, artificial entities and intangible abstractions”, “that [under the UCC] he is the holder of the judgment against himself”, and his claims that “Michigan violated his constitutional right to travel by enforcing laws prohibiting driving while intoxicated or driving on a suspended license” to which theories, the court responded and held as follows: the “right to travel is essentially the right of citizens to migrate freely between states”, holding that “the right to travel interstate does not go so far as to encompass a right to a driver license or a right to drive a motor vehicle”, holding that “federal courts uniformly reject suits by plaintiffs who seek vindication on their nonexistent ‘‘right’’ to operate motor vehicles without complying with state licensing laws”, holding that “removal” laws only apply in civil actions, not to criminal actions like this one, holding that the “[p]etitioner is not a foreign state” entitled to immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act”, holding that the petitioner’s claims that “Michigan and the federal government are corporations” is a claim that is “devoid of legal support and contrary to common sense”, holding that the UCC only applies to commercial transactions and is “not a source of rights in a criminal action” such as this one and holding that the petitioner’s other amateur legal theories on sovereignty, capital letters, and split personalities are “patently frivolous” and “without merit”) (emphasis ours). 
 
“GOVERNMENTS ARE CORPORATIONS” & “FEDERAL JURISDICTION LIMITED TO FEDERAL TERRITORIES” THEORIES 
 
15. Maxwell v. Snow, 409 F.3d 354, No. 04-5082, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, (Argued March 14, 2005. Decided May 27, 2005)(ruling against the appellant’s amateur legal theories that “Texas is not part of the United States, and that the United States itself is unconstitutional because it is not a republican form of government”, that the federal government is a “corporation”, that “the federal government’s jurisdiction is limited to the District of Columbia and other federally owned lands” and holding that such amateur legal theories are “without merit”, “patently frivolous” and “likewise frivolous”). 
 
“GOVERNMENTS ARE CORPORATIONS”, “YELLOW FRINGE”, “CAPITAL LETTERS,” “NO CONTRACT” & “SOVEREIGN CITIZEN” THEORIES 
 
16. DuBose v. Kasich, , Case No. 2:11-CV-00071, United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division (January 15, 2013)(ruling against the plaintiff’s amateur legal theories about: “the alleged corporate status of Ohio and the United States”, “the relationship between the yellow fringe on the United States flag and admiralty jurisdiction”, the “effect of capital letters on his name” and his claims that he “does not have a contract with the state of Ohio or [with] the United States and, therefore, does not have to follow government laws” and holding “federal courts have routinely recognized that such theories are meritless and worthy of little discussion” and citing a case that held “other courts have noted the sovereign citizen theory has been consistently rejected” and citing another case that “reject[ed] as frivolous ...the argument that he was a ‘‘private natural man and real person’’ and therefore not subject to the laws of the United States” and citing a case that “reject[ed] sovereign citizen argument as frivolous and undeserving of ‘‘extended argument’’” and citing a case that held that a plaintiff’s ‘‘yellow fringe flag’’ arguments were ‘‘indisputably meritless’’‘‘).   “YELLOW [OR GOLD] FRINGE ON FLAG” THEORY 
 
17. McCann v. Greenway, 952 F.Supp. 647, No. 96-5038-CV-SW-1, United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Southwestern Division (January 15, 1997)(ruling against the plaintiff’s amateur legal theories that “yellow fringe” on the American flag in the court room converted the American flag from an “American flag of peace” into to a “maritime flag of war” and ruling against his amateur legal theory that the use of the “maritime flag of war” in the courtroom somehow deprived the state court of jurisdiction over him, to which claims the court responded by holding that such claims were “frivolous”, “totally frivolous”, “preposterous” and “unintelligible” and holding that “yellow fringe does NOT necessarily turn EVERY such flag into a flag of war....[because] FRINGE IS NOT considered to be PART OF THE FLAG, and ... [fringe] is WITHOUT HERALDIC [SYMBOLIC] SIGNIFICANCE...[and that] the same is true of ...[the statue] of an eagle gracing the [top of the] flagpole. NOR ARE THE FRINGE AND THE EAGLE OF ANY LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE. Even were... [the plaintiff] to prove that yellow fringe or a flagpole converted the state court’s United States flag to a maritime flag of war, the Court cannot fathom how the display of a maritime flag could limit the state court’s jurisdiction....Jurisdiction is a matter of [written] law, [written] statute and [written] constitution, NOT A CHILD’’S GAME wherein one’s power is magnified or diminished by the display of some magic talisman [typically a magic stone or ring] and noting that other courts have “reject[ed the] argument that a federal court is limited to admiralty jurisdiction because it displayed a fringed flag” and noting that other courts have “reject[ed the] argument that a federal court lacks jurisdiction...because its flag is fringed” and noting that other courts have “reject[ed the] argument that a fringed flag in a state courtroom conferred admiralty jurisdiction [which, under the U.S. Constitution, can only be litigated in federal court, not state courts]” and noting that other courts have “dismiss[ed] as frivolous a motion alleging that ‘‘[a]dmiralty jurisdiction prevail[ed]’’ in the state court [which, under the U.S. Constitution, can only be litigated in federal court, not state courts], and rejecting [the] notion that federal district courts have jurisdiction over natural law when they fly a flag of the United States”)(emphasis ours).  
 
18. Sadlier v. Wallentive, 974 F.Supp. 1411, No. 2:97-CV-0527J, United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division (August 26, 1997)(ruling against the plaintiff’s amateur legal theories that his “civil rights were violated because he was sentenced in a courtroom that displayed an American Flag adorned with yellow fringe...that [he claimed] divested the court of its power and converted the court into a ‘‘foreign state/power’’ court” to which claims the court responded by holding that the plaintiff’s “yellow fringe” theory is “wholly without merit”, holding that “fringe is NOT considered to be part of the FLAG, and is WITHOUT HERALDIC [SYMBOLIC] SIGNIFICANCE”, holding that “[e]ven were [the plaintiff] to prove that yellow fringe or a flagpole eagle converted the state court’s United States flag to a maritime flag of war, the court cannot fathom how the display of a maritime war flag could limit the state court’s jurisdiction”, holding that “[j]urisdiction is a matter of [written] law, [written] statute, and [written] constitution, NOT A CHILD’’S GAME wherein one’s power is magnified or diminished by the display of some magic talisman [typically a magic stone or ring]” and noting that other courts have held that this “yellow fringe” theory is an “absurdity...and ... that future claims based on flag theories will be deemed ‘‘frivolous and sanctionable’’ [punishable]”, and noting that other courts have held that “the invocation of ‘‘flag’’ jurisdiction is ‘‘absurd’’”, and noting that other courts have “reject[ed the] argument that a federal court is limited to admiralty jurisdiction because it displays a fringed flag” and noting that other courts have “reject[ed the] argument that a federal court lacks jurisdiction ...because its flag is fringed” and noting that other courts have “reject[ed the] argument that a fringed flag is a state courtroom conferred on the court admiralty jurisdiction”)(emphasis ours). 
 
19. State v. Hall, 8 SW3d 593 (Tenn. 1999)(ruling against the defendant’s amateur legal theory that “yellow fringe” on the flag in the courtroom indicated “martial law jurisdiction” to which the court responded by writing, “the use of FRINGE on the flag HAS NO inherent or established SYMBOLISM. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OR WITH MARTIAL LAW. It is a PURELY DECORATIVE addition to enhance the appearance of the flag” and citing a case that held “FRINGE ON THE [FLAG] WAS NOT OF  LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE AFFECTING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT AND ...[which held] that all future claims based on this argument [would be deemed] ‘‘frivolous and sanctionable’’[punishable]” and citing a case that held “yellow fringe on [the] flag DOES NOT CONVERT [a] state courtroom into a ‘‘foreign state or power’’” and citing a case which held that a “fringed flag DID NOT LIMIT the federal district court’s jurisdiction” and citing a case which held that a “yellow fringed flag DID NOT DIVEST [the] federal court of jurisdiction...” and citing a case that held that “[t]o think that a fringed flag adorning the courtroom somehow limits the court’s jurisdiction is frivolous” and citing a case which held that “the fringe on the flag in the courtroom is NOT OF LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE AFFECTING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT and all future claims based on this argument ...[will be deemed] frivolous and sanctionable [punishable]” and citing case which held that “yellow fringe on flag DOES NOT CONVERT [the] state courtroom into a ‘‘foreign state or power’’” and citing a case which that held that “a declaration that the president may authorize or allow the military to attach fringe to its flags IS NOT THE SAME THING as a declaration that ANY flag that is fringed is a military flag or that the presence of the fringe alters the law applied by the court in which a fringed flag appears”)(emphasis ours). 
 
20. United States v. Harding, Civil Action No. 7:13cr0008, United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division (May 1, 2013)(ruling against the defendant’s amateur legal theory that “yellow fringe” on the American flag converts the court into an admiralty court, and holding that “[t]his argument has been uniformly rejected by courts’’ and is “frivolous” and noting that other courts have “reject[ed the ] argument that the American flag in the courtroom had been replaced with an admiralty flag, noting similar arguments had been raised and dismissed in previous cases” and noting that other courts have held that “[T]HE YELLOW FRINGE ON THE AMERICAN FLAG HAS NO EFFECT ON A COURT’’S JURISDICTION OR A DEFENDANT’’S CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY RIGHTS” and noting that other courts have held that “[f]ederal jurisdiction is determined by [written] statute, NOT by whether the flag flow is plain or fringed”) (emphasis ours). 
 
21. United States v. Mackovich, 209 F.3d 1227, United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit (April 25, 2009)(discussing the defendant’s amateur legal theory that “yellow fringe” on the flag in the courtroom “makes the [court’s] jurisdiction foreign” and noting that other courts have rejected this argument and providing a list of cases to this effect). 
 
22. Delaware v. Saunders, Cr. ID No. 1008019055, Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County (Submitted July 15, 2011. Decided August 12, 2011) (ruling against the defendant’s amateur legal theory that “the yellow fringe on the flag in the courtroom was improper and that as a result the court lacked authority to adjudicate [his] charges...[and his claims] that the yellow fringe on the flag made it a military flag rendering his court proceeding invalid” and holding that the defendant’s claims were “without merit” and writing that the “[d]efendant is not the first to complain about the flag in the courtroom. Around the country, courts have dealt with disgruntled litigants who have argued that their respective proceedings were illegal or unconstitutional because the court displayed a flag with yellow or gold fringe in the courtroom. [The d]efendant is not the first litigant to argue that the fringe on the flag indicates a military court” and holding that “ALL THE COURTS ADDRESSING ARGUMENTS THAT YELLOW OR GOLD FRINGE ON A COURTROOM-DISPLAYED FLAG AFFECTS A COURT’’S JURISDICTION HAVE EXPLICITLY REJECTED THOSE ARGUMENTS. These cases have gone as far as to label such arguments as “frivolous”, “totally frivolous”, “preposterous” and indisputably meritless” and holding that “yellow fringe on the flag DOES NOT turn EVERY such flag into a flag of war. Far from it. ..[F]RINGE IS NOT considered to be PART OF THE FLAG, and it is WITHOUT LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE. Jurisdiction is a matter of [written] law, [written] statute and [written] constitution, NOT A CHILD”S GAME wherein one’s power is magnified or diminished by the display of some magic talisman. The flag displayed in the courtroom did not affect the validity or legality of [the] defendant’s plea and/or sentence”) (emphasis ours). 
 
23. Commonwealth v. Smith, 868 A2d 1253, Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Submitted January 3, 2005. Filed February 15, 2005)(ruling against the appellant’s amateur legal theory that “the courtroom’s flag gold-fringed United States flag (which appellate asserts represents the applicability of martial or admiralty law)” confused him as to which law applied to his case, to which claim the court responded by holding “[The a]ppellant’s claims are meritless. NO STATUTE of Pennsylvania, [NO] PROVISION of the United States Code, OR RELEVANT CASE LAW support [the] appellant’s BIZARRE contention that a gold-fringed United States flag represents the applicability of martial or admiralty law” and citing a case that held “the War Department ...knows of NO LAW which either requires or prohibits the placing of a fringe on the flag of the United States. NO ACT OF CONGRESS OR EXECUTIVE ORDER has been found bearing on the question....The federal court also noted that while “the President may...determine whether the Army or Navy display or remove fringes from their flags or standards...THE LATEST EXECUTIVE ORDER, SIGNED BY PRESIDENT EISENHOWER, HIMSELF A MILITARY MAN, DID NOT ADDRESS THAT ISSUE”) (emphasis ours). 
 
24. Ebert v. State of Texas, Nos. 03-06-00752-CR, Court of Appeals Texas, Third District Austin, (Filed July 27, 2007)(ruling against the Ebert’s amateur legal theory that the fringe on the flag in the courtroom “indicated to him that the court was a military court, an admiralty court, a foreign jurisdiction, and an unlawfully erected state within a state,” to which the court responded by holding “[w]e find no legal or factual basis for these allegations. Ebert cites an executive order from President Eisenhower and asserts that the order states that a military flag of the United States has fringe on it....[But t]he executive order DOES NOT MENTION FRINGE ON FLAGS....When asked for an opinion regarding the propriety of the use of fringe on flags used by the military, the United States Attorney General in 1925 opined that...The fringe does NOT appear to be regarded as an integral PART OF THE FLAG and noting that “[a] declaration that the president may authorize or allow the military to attach fringe to its flags is NOT the same thing as a declaration that ANY flag that is fringed is a military flag OR THAT THE PRESENCE OF FRINGE ALTERS THE LAW APPLIED BY A COURT IN WHICH THE FLAG APPEARS” and noting that the court in which the flag was displayed DID NOT ACTUALLY USE MILITARY OR MARITIME LAWS OR RULES OF PROCEDURE IN DECIDING THE CASE ANYWAY) (emphasis ours). 
 
25. In Re: Becker, Bankruptcy No. 09-01541, Adversary No. 10-9021, United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Iowa (December 10, 2010)(ruling against the debtor’s amateur legal theory that the proceeding against him was invalid because “the American and Iowa flags were improperly adorned with gold fringe and that a courtroom that displays such flags lacks authority to adjudicate [his] case”, to which the court responded by noting that “[c]ourts addressing arguments that gold fringe on a courtroom-displayed flag affects the jurisdiction have explicitly rejected those arguments [providing a list of such cases] and noting that “[t]hese case have gone as far as to label such arguments “frivolous”. “preposterous” and “really unintelligible” and holding that “THE FLAGS DISPLAYED [IN THE COURTROOM] DID NOT AFFECT THE VALIDITY OR LEGALITY OF THIS PROCEEDING”).  We have dozens and dozens of more case cites for rulings against amateur legal theories, but you get the general idea. The foregoing cases ARE THE LAW ITSELF, not amateur legal theories about what the law is. Every single amateur litigant who has every relied on amateur legal theory in court HAS LOST. In court, your opponents use REAL law against you. In order to win in court, you must use REAL law against your opponents. FAKE law (like the amateur legal theories above) do not have any effect on REAL law. This is why Rodney DALE Class has LOST EVERY SINGLE CASE IN WHICH HE HAS EVER BEEN INVOLVED (39 CONSECUTIVE, COMPLETE LOSSES AND STILL COUNTING). Suggestion: Do not take legal advice from anyone with a 100% failure rate in the courts.
 
Snoop4truth is a legal expert who opposes the NWO, globalization, the Federal Reserve, fractional reserve banking, false flag operations and the contamination of our food, water and natural resources. Snoop4truth also opposes the controlled media and legal disinformation for the same exact reason, the people behind both disseminate false information in order to advance their own agenda at the expense of the American people.

11 Re: Rod Class DC Gun Case Master Index on Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:50 pm

snoop4truth


ROD CLASS & THE "DEBRA JONES HOAX"

 
Rodney DALE Class ("Rod Class") is an "amateur legal theorist" who barely got through high school and who has LOST EVERY SINGLE ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL CASE IN WHICH HE HAS EVER BEEN INVOLVED (WELL OVER 65 COMPLETE, CONSECUTIVE LOSSES AND STILL COUNTING). Despite a year long investigation, we have not yet found a single case involving Rod Class that he (or his side) ever won. The reason that Rod Class has a 100% failure rate in the courts is that he uses "amateur legal theories" (FAKE laws) in court as if they were REAL laws. Class’ "amateur legal theories" are an IMAGINARY ALTERNATIVE to the REAL laws that are actually used by the courts and the legal system. If Class’ "amateur legal theories" (FAKE laws) were actually valid, then he would not have LOST EVERY SINGLE CASE IN WHICH HE HAS EVER BEEN INVOLVED (WELL OVER 65 COMPLETE, CONSECUTIVE LOSSES AND STILL COUNTING). No person with a verifiable 100% FAILURE RATE IN COURT should be fraudulently impersonating or otherwise posing as a "teacher", "legal scholar", "retired federal judge", "Private Attorney General" or "Bounty Hunter".
   
But more importantly, Class is also a PROFESSIONAL HOAXER. Class is behind the "Judge DALE Hoax" in which he writes FAKE legal articles which reveal FAKE legal information while fraudulently impersonating a FAKE "retired federal judge" named "Judge DALE" (which uses his own middle name, "DALE", as an inside joke). (Impersonating a retired federal judge, is a federal felony). Class is also behind the "FOURTH Administrative Ruling Hoax", the "Property In Other People’s Names Hoax", the "Private Attorney General Hoax", "Embezzling Federal Funds Hoax", the "CRIS Hoax" and many, many other legal hoaxes (all of which he uses to "sell" his "amateur belief system" about the law and the legal system to a gullible public). But, most importantly, for purposes of this comment, Class is also behind the "Debra Jones Hoax".
 

THE HOAX

Class has own internet radio show on AIB radio in which he makes intentionally false and fraudulent claims about the law and the legal system––the same legal system in which he has LOST EVERY SINGLE ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL CASE IN WHICH HE HAS EVER BEEN INVOLVED (OVER 65 COMPLETE, CONSECUTIVE LOSSES AND STILL COUNTING). On July 8, 2014, in Episode 869, Class purported to bring in a "legal insider" as a guest on his radio show in order to bolster his own intentionally false and fraudulent claims about the law and the legal system. Class FRAUDULENTLY introduced this FAKE "legal insider" as "former attorney" and "former law enforcement officer", "Debra Jones’’. As if those FRAUDULENT claims about Debra Jones were not bad enough, Debra Jones herself also FRAUDULENTLY claimed that she was being "groomed" by the "Police Benevolent Association" to be "President of the United States" (an office that Rod Class himself once purported to run for as a "write-in candidate"). Not surprisingly, during this 2 hour 43 minute show, this FAKE "legal insider" mindlessly "parroted" the same "amateur legal theories" (FAKE laws) and utterly delusional claims about the law and the legal system that Class himself makes. Rod Class’ radio audience was understandably shocked and horrified by the FAKE, FALSE and FRAUDULENT claims of Debra Jones who they genuinely believed was a real "legal insider" who was telling them the truth. This FRAUDULENT radio show became an internet sensation and was re-posted all over the web, much to the delight of Rod Class and Debra Jones.


THE TRUTH

But, before putting her on his internet radio show, Class already knew that Debra Jones was NEVER a "former real estate attorney", NEVER a "former law enforcement officer" and that she was NEVER being "groomed by the Police Benevolent Association to be "President of the United States". Before putting Debra Jones on the air on his AIB radio show, Class also knew the following:

1. Debra Jones’ REAL name is "Debra Jenks Jones";
2. Debra Jenks Jones was born on May, 29, 1967;
3. As of today, Debra Jenks Jones is currently 49 years old;
4. Debra Jenks Jones’ social security number is 531-80-XXXX;
5. Debra Jenks Jones lives at XXXX XXXth Street Court, Puyallup, Pierce County, Washington State, 98375-6130 and has lived there since April of 1995. This is the REAL reason that many of her "seminars" are conveniently held in the nearby Yelp, Washington State area;
6. Debra Jenks Jones HAS NEVER HAD a "professional license" of ANY TYPE from ANY STATE which means that she was NEVER an " attorney", a person who would have had a "professional license" from at least one state (at least at some point in time in the past). This is the REAL reason why Debra Jenks Jones will not disclose the name of the law school from which she allegedly received her law degree or the name of the state(s) that allegedly issued her a license to practice law. Such a law school does not exist and such a state does not exist;
7. Debra Jenks Jones was NEVER a "law enforcement officer" in any jurisdiction. This is the REAL reason why Debra Jenks Jones will not reveal the name and location of the alleged law enforcement agency (or agencies) in which she was an allegedly employed as a "law enforcement officer". Such a law enforcement agency does not exist;
8. Debra Jenks Jones was NEVER "being groomed by the Police Benevolent Association to be the President Of The United States". This is the REAL reason that she will not reveal the names of the many people within that organization who were allegedly "grooming" her, the place where she was allegedly being "groomed" or exactly how she was allegedly being "groomed";
9. Debra Jenks Jones’ false claims to the effect that she grew up in Washington, D.C. and that she was a "former Congressional Aid" to a conveniently DEAD Congressman (to make verification impossible) in the "nation’s capital" was a self-glorifying fraud intended to throw investigators off of her trail as well as serving as an inside joke (because she really lives in Washington State, not in Washington, D.C.);
10. Debra Jones’ published address on one of her three websites of "55 Santa Clara Avenue, #220B, Oakland, California, 94610" is a fraud intended to throw investigators off her trail. This FAKE address causes persons looking for her to futilely look for her in the state of California, rather than in the state of Washington State, where she actually lives and does "business" while pretending to be a "former real estate attorney" and a "former law enforcement officer" when peddling her "seminars" on "voodoo law", "FAKE law" and "amateur legal theories";
11. Debra Jenks Jones’ published phone number on one of her three websites is "(360) 458-6678". The fact that Debra Jenks Jones lives in Puyallup, Washington is the real reason that the area code for that phone number is "360". Area code "360" is not the area code for Oakland, California (her published business address) or Washington, D.C. where she falsely claims to have grown up. Instead, area code "360" is the area code for that portion of Washington State south of Tacoma, Washington, where Puyallup, Washington is located (and where she has lived since 1995).

12. Debra Jenks Jones operates THREE FRAUDULENT WEBSITES in order to solicit money from her victims; KnowMore-Laws.com; TrustUSproviders.com and ProTrustAcadmey.com. 13. As an complete OUTSIDER to the REAL law and the REAL legal system, Debra Jones has no "inside information" about the inner workings of the REAL law and the REAL system to share with you or with anyone else. She is a complete and total fraud. When you think about it, Debra Jones is merely the FAKE "former attorney" and the FAKE "former police officer" version of "Judge DALE", a FAKE "former federal judge" who Rod Class fraudulently impersonates when writing FAKE legal articles which reveal FAKE legal information which articles are posted online.


NOTE:

It is a federal felony to use a "means of interstate commerce" (like the internet) to commit fraud (like soliciting and collecting money from victims for seminars by fraudulently claiming to be a "former attorney" and/or a "former police officer"). It is a state crime to impersonate an "attorney". It is also a state crime to impersonate a "law enforcement officer).



NOTE:

Jean Haines of https://jhaines6.wordpress.com did much to re-publish and perpetrate the "Debra Jones Hoax" among her own online readers/victims. Dozens of Ms. Haines’ readers/victims wrote to her and specifically asked her for the very information that we have provided herein (details on Debra Jenks Jones’ REAL background and her REAL contact information). In late 2015, we attempted to answer all those questions by posting an early draft of this very document among the comments below Ms. Haines’ article on https://jhaines6.wordpress.com in which she lavished heavy praise on this FAKE "legal insider" named Debra Jones. But, during the "moderation" process, Ms. Haines saw fit to block this comment from being posted on her website (or otherwise caused this comment to not be posted there). In so doing, Ms. Haines thereby prevented her own readers/victims from receiving the TRUE facts about Debra Jones contained in this post, facts that they had specifically asked her for.

 

CONCLUSION:
Everything that you have ever been told by Rod Class is as true as his claims to the effect that Debra Jones is a "former real estate attorney" and "former law enforcement officer". The reality is that Rod Class will not hesitate to lie to you and to defraud you if doing so helps him "sell" his "amateur belief system" about the law and the legal system to you. Needless to say, if you paid Debra Jones hundreds or thousands of dollars to attend one or more of her seminars in the belief that she is a "former real estate attorney" and a "former police woman", then you were defrauded and ripped-off. You should demand your money back and/or contact law enforcement authorities. Lying to the American people about their law and their legal system is an act of treason against the American people and should be treated accordingly. Rod Class and Debra Jones should be ashamed of themselves for committing this VICIOUS ATTACK on the America people. They should both immediately apologize to the American people for what they have done and they should both immediately discontinue committing fraud upon them.


CONACT DEBRA JONES:

If you are among the dozens of people on https://jhaines6.wordpress.com who still wish to reach Debra Jenks Jones, the FAKE former "attorney" and the FAKE former " law enforcement officer" who intentionally lied to you and defrauded you on Rod Class’ AIB radio talk show, you may do so by using the following contact information:
1. Call her at her published phone number appearing on one of her three websites of (360) 458-6678 (this number is also reportedly used by "Sleepsonic, LLC, 303 1st Street South #2 Yelm, Washington State 98597");
2. Look her up in Puyallup, Pierce County, Washington State and write her (we will not publish her full
address online);
3. Email her at her published email address of debra@protrustacademy.com
4. Write her at her FAKE published business address at TrustUP (sic) Providers, 55 Santa Clara Avenue, #220B, Oakland, California 94610 (and hope that your letter gets forwarded to her REAL address in Puyallup, Pierce County, Washington State);
5. Try reaching her through her three known websites, Knowmore-laws.com, TrustUSproviders.com and Protrustacademy.com.
6. Contact Rod Class and ask him for her REAL contact information.
7. Contact Jean Haines at her website at https://jhaines6.wordpress.com and ask for her REAL contact information.
8. "LightInDarkness", a senior writer with Quatloos.com. claims that Debra Jones once announced that she could be contacted at culinaryjones@gmail.com and at 323-642-8277. So, you might also try those avenues when trying to reach this FAKE "legal insider".
—————————————————————————————————————
ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH


Snoop4truth is a legal expert who opposes the New World Order, globalization, corporatism, The Federal Reserve, fractional reserve banking (which is pure fraud and theft), false flag operations, endless wars and the contamination of our air, water, food and natural resources.
 

Snoop4truth opposes the main-stream-media and legal disinformation for precisely the same reason, the people behind both disseminate intentionally false and fraudulent information in order to advance their own agenda at the expense of the American people who they fraudulently claim to serve.

Snoop4truth did not expose the "Judge DALE Hoax", the "Debra Jones Hoax" or the falsity of Rod Class’ claims in order to harm Rod Class or Debra Jenks Jones. Instead, Snoop4truth exposed the "Judge DALE Hoax", the "Debra Jones Hoax" and the falsity of Rod Class’ claim solely to reduce the catastrophic damage that such PURPOSEFUL AND INTENTIONAL FRAUD inflicts upon the American people every single day.



Had it not been for the Rod Class’ role in creating and perpetuating the "Judge DALE Hoax", Snoop4truth would not have exposed the "Judge DALE Hoax", the "Debra Jones Hoax" or the falsity of Rod Class’ claims about the law and the legal system.
 



There is a world of difference between an amateur legal theorist making an innocent mistake about the law on one hand and an amateur legal theorist intentionally engaging in an elaborate hoax about the law on the other hand. Snoop4truth has no quarrel with the ordinary amateur legal theorist. Snoop4truth will only expose those charlatan amateur legal theorists who engage in elaborate hoaxes about the law. This is why, to date, Snoop4truth has only exposed the "Judge DALE Hoax" and the "Debra Jones Hoax". Snoop4truth will not expose any amateur legal theorist who makes a simple innocent mistake about the law. Such people are mistaken, but they are not charlatans. There is a difference.

12 Re: Rod Class DC Gun Case Master Index on Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:02 pm

PurpleSkyz

avatar
Admin
WOW Snoop! Glad you got on and posted this!

Seems Jean Haines is knee deep in more than just the Keenan fraud.

So what can be done to stop these donation fraudsters besides the obvious which is don't donate in the first place?
So many use this method like Jerzy Babkowsi/Zap and Class pandering donations for crap info. What can we do to stop them?



  

13 Re: Rod Class DC Gun Case Master Index on Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:12 pm

snoop4truth


PurpleSkyz wrote:WOW Snoop! Glad you got on and posted this!

Seems Jean Haines is knee deep in more than just the Keenan fraud.

So what can be done to stop these donation fraudsters besides the obvious which is don't donate in the first place?
So many use this method like Jerzy Babkowsi/Zap and Class pandering donations for crap info. What can we do to stop them?
What is the Keenan fraud?

Truth is the best antidote for fraud. So, I'll keep posting the truth in response to this fraud.

What do Jerzy/Babkowski/Zap peddle? Amateur legal theories, like Class?

Truth, Truth and more Truth will eventually stop these charlatans.

14 Re: Rod Class DC Gun Case Master Index on Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:20 pm

PurpleSkyz

avatar
Admin
No they peddle lies regarding the RV and Global Currency Rest (GCR) and get people to submit projects for a phony humanitarian org called Landa Humanus Global China. Then they pound the net for donations.

So far the only folks willing to tackle them is Scott Pollack and company at the Critical Post Chicago. You can find the Keenan stuff in their forum here also. Here is the latest on them posted yesterday..




But to bring you up to speed Haines gave Keenan over 300K and has yet to see any return In other words she was ripped off as so many are from these guys.



  

15 Re: Rod Class DC Gun Case Master Index on Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:35 pm

snoop4truth


PurpleSkyz wrote:No they peddle lies regarding the RV and Global Currency Rest (GCR) and get people to submit projects for a phony humanitarian org called Landa Humanus Global China. Then they pound the net for donations.

So far the only folks willing to tackle them is Scott Pollack and company at the Critical Post Chicago. You can find the Keenan stuff in their forum here also. Here is the latest on them posted yesterday..




But to bring you up to speed Haines gave Keenan over 300K and has yet to see any return In other words she was ripped off as so many are from these guys.

I'll look into it. Thanks. These charlatans will not hesitate to prey upon each other. You know, Rod Class' group dabbled in peddling DINAR investment theory, and posted articles online about DINARS, currency re-set/re-valuation and non-disclosure agreements relating to investing in DINARS. It was this dabbling that led to their falling out with the late, John McHaffie of nesaranews.com.

16 Re: Rod Class DC Gun Case Master Index on Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:37 pm

PurpleSkyz

avatar
Admin
YES! and why I posted him here to begin with. Jerzy was also involved with McHaffie from what I have heard..



  

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum