Latest topics
» Happy Saturday/Friday Everyone!
Today at 6:53 pm by MartyM

» NanneeRose
Today at 6:49 pm by terbo56

» Whooooo is Q? ‘Thomas Paine’ Reveals his NSA Insider
Today at 6:42 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Breaking, chicken arrested for attacking InfoWars reporter
Today at 6:04 pm by terbo56

» Cannabinoids Show Potent Antibacterial Activity Against Six Different Strains Of MRSA
Today at 4:33 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Celebrities React-
Today at 3:14 pm by terbo56

» Crow For Thanksgiving
Today at 2:19 pm by Valentinus411

» Mystery Booms over Lewiston Idaho & near Columbia South Carolina
Today at 1:38 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Linda Moulton Howe - Richard Doty
Today at 1:35 pm by PurpleSkyz

» NIBIRU News ~ RED PLANET OR NOT?ISS LIVE FOOTAGE plus MORE
Today at 1:27 pm by PurpleSkyz

» UFO News ~ AMAZING UFO OVER AROSIO, LOMBARDIA ITALY plus MORE
Today at 1:23 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Footage Emerges of Crisis Director “Directing” Scene During Vegas Shooting
Today at 1:16 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Malcolm Young,AC/DC Guitarist Dead-
Today at 1:05 pm by terbo56

» Max Igan - What's About to Happen
Today at 12:48 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Property, Property Taxes, and the Whole Picture to Date by Anna von Reitz plus more
Today at 12:42 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Manson 'STILL' alive-
Today at 12:29 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Silicon Valley Exec Has Created A New Religion That Will Worship A ‘Godhead’ Based On Artificial Intelligence
Today at 9:07 am by Ventura66

» Liberals finally hold Bill Clinton accountable for sexual misconduct
Today at 3:04 am by MartyM

» BREAKING: Petition Calls for Disgraced Al Franken to RESIGN IMMEDIATELY!
Today at 2:56 am by MartyM

» The Veracity of 1186 Indictments
Today at 2:51 am by MartyM

» The Un-Vacation Phenomenon by Anna Von Reitz
Today at 2:42 am by MartyM

» BREAKING: Convicted mass murderer Charles Manson dies aged 83
Today at 2:36 am by MartyM

» Articles of Impeachment Against Trump Introduced by US Lawmakers
Today at 2:06 am by MartyM

» Lionel Nation 11-17-17… “Q Clearance Patriot #4chan #QAnon Drops
Today at 1:37 am by PurpleSkyz

» POOFness for NOV 17: BANKER BLOCK believe it or not this scam works!
Today at 1:14 am by robert18

» Self-Awareness, The Wheel of Societies, Simultaneous Awareness
Today at 12:52 am by PurpleSkyz

» 5 Extinct Creatures Found on Camera
Today at 12:35 am by PurpleSkyz

» 280 million year old fossil forest discovered in Antarctica
Today at 12:25 am by PurpleSkyz

» #MassArrests Update - 'The time is upon us - operation Alice in Wonderland is about to start'
Today at 12:16 am by PurpleSkyz

» 10 of the Most Life-Changing Principles in a Spiritual Awakening
Today at 12:12 am by PurpleSkyz

» Large M6.5 Earthquake at China / India border - Major unrest spreading as expected
Today at 12:08 am by PurpleSkyz

» Argentine Submarine Goes Missing with 44 Crew Members On Board
Today at 12:06 am by PurpleSkyz

» What is Our Highest Purpose?
Today at 12:03 am by PurpleSkyz


CURRENT MOON

You are not connected. Please login or register

Out Of Mind » PEOPLE MAKING AN IMPACT ON THE LEGAL STATUS QUO » SNOOP 4 TRUTH » ROD CLASS – exposes the crimes of the state franchise agencies – Courts desperate to supress the evidence of their criminal abuse.

ROD CLASS – exposes the crimes of the state franchise agencies – Courts desperate to supress the evidence of their criminal abuse.

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

PurpleSkyz

avatar
Admin
← Pete Hoekstra, A man to be honored and supported! Any American who fails to understand these principles is not acting in the tradition of an American!

ROD CLASS – exposes the crimes of the state franchise agencies – Courts desperate to supress the evidence of their criminal abuse.

Posted on May 15, 2015 by arnierosner
On May 15, 2015, at 12:57 PM, rod-class@rayservers.com wrote:
Rod finally got a Denial for his Request for the Transcripts for the DC Superior Court
proceedings that went from May 2013 to Sept 2013. The Denial, Rod’s Response, etc., are
in the DC Dropbox Folder “Denial of DC Superior Court Transcripts and Response”.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/7dljtc3u5qdwuls/AAC2WX3fo4xh_7SmZvHE63tqa?dl=0
The 3 Main Sections of the Rod Class – AIB Radio – And Misc. Docs Dropbox are:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5rhb3ux5dt7jj0j/AAAGB8-b4cV03dkgKHn6nLQfa?dl=0
Rod did 4 more Private Calls over this past week. Go to
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=48361&cmd=tc
which is the TalkShoe Listen Live Link and the Archive Link.
Here’s the Direct Link to the 4 hr 41 min Video:
“2015 – Unfortunate Truth – JFK, WWII, 9/11 and Beyond – The World We Live In…”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=108&v=t0bOm5c43js
And, Rod and Carl Weston continue to sign up people for the
2015 PAG TRAINING SCHOOL from June 27 to July 4 in Ft. Smith, Arkansas !
If you’ve signed up, be sure to get your deposit in !
2015 PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL (PAG) TRAINING SCHOOL
Rod Class and Carl Weston present the first ever Private Attorney General
(PAG) Training School taught by Rod and Carl.
The event will be for 6 days from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm each day starting Monday June 29, 2015.
It will be held at Fort Smith, Arkansas.
People are encouraged to start arriving in the area on Fri, June 26 or Sat, June 27…or Sun, June 28…
Motels and Camp Grounds are available in the area. The cost of this First, week-long P.A.G. Training
Class will be $1,000 [cash gift/donation] for each person (50 person capacity). Each person will
receive a Training Manual at sign-in. Training will end on Sat, the 4th of July, with a written
Test, the awarding of a Certificate and Fireworks on Saturday Night !
Note: 1. No cameras allowed or recording of this event as that issue has been taken care of

  1. There need to be >> 30 people << to confirm attendance to this event to secure the building.

Send your confirmation (and/or questions) to Carl at PrivateGeneral@hughes.net
Please spread the word as We, the People, in America need more Private Attorneys General
Prosecuting Cases around the U.S.A. !
> This person has a bit of area for camping…
joe beene cjoebeene@yahoo.com in Greenwood, Arkansas about 20 miles
from Ft. Smith… [url=tel:[ 918-429-6888]918-429-6888[/url]
Rod’s recent filing of 4.29.15…both as a text file and a signed PDF:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dlrh91qgaoub4je/22_4.29.15_2nd_Notice_Of_Non_Compliance_Stare_Decisis_with_Order.doc?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gf7ptbqejb20bol/23_4.29.15_2nd_Notice_Of_Non_Compliance_Stare_Decisis_with_Order.pdf?dl=0
Both in the Folder:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nwxswe8hydaopi2/AAALwB8K7PF9PPQ6V1NNMF3Ra?dl=0
And in the DC Folder:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/74e9zog5p4k8llt/AAC_O2GOGa7n6uWNYC5lNphfa?dl=0
The 3 Main Sections of the Rod Class – AIB Radio – And Misc. Docs Dropbox are:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5rhb3ux5dt7jj0j/AAAGB8-b4cV03dkgKHn6nLQfa?dl=0
> Rod also recently filed 2 other docs into DC << in text and signed PDFs regarding
his Appeal: They are docs # 18, 19, 20, and 21 in this Folder:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nwxswe8hydaopi2/AAALwB8K7PF9PPQ6V1NNMF3Ra?dl=0
For Gifts to support Rod Class / AIB info that you >> LEARN on the AIB Calls << send to: Rod Class, PO Box 435, High Shoals, NC 28077 Whatever you can send is appreciated ! Thank You ! >> This Is The Rod Class / AIB Radio BIG LIST ! <<
If you’re NOT on the BIG LIST and got this as a forward –
The Big List (2100+ people and growing) is an alert system
for Rod Class Live Calls, Private Calls AND Documents
…the list goes to People all over the World who are listening and watching –
YOU CAN SUBSCRIBE BY by sending an email to:
rod-class-subscribe@rayservers.com
to be included in these email announcements. The list is automated…
And NOT able to be used as way to contact Rod…


Thanks to: http://scannedretina.com



  

snoop4truth


THE LAW ON AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, by snoop4truth, September, 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: We are well aware that the form of case citation that we use below is not the form of citation that lawyers use. But, we are not trying to help lawyers 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 case law database. As a result, we chose to cite the case law below in such a way that would allow ordinary people to find the cases below on Google Scholar online. Further, Google Scholar’’s database includes thousands of cases that are not even published by West Publishing Company (or by Westlaw online) regardless of how they are cited. So, unless otherwise indicated, the cites below are cited to Google Scholar, not to reporters (books) published by West Publishing Company. So, go to Google Scholar, click on ""case law"" in both the ""state"" and ""federal"" systems. Then, for each case below, key in the case number (in quotes), and/or the case date (in quotes, but without the parentheses below) and/or key in the party names (without quotes) and/or the court name (in quotes). Google Scholar is FREE and easy to use. Final Note: 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 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 temporary status ends at the end of the case], 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"" [which Rodney DALE Class also cites in the ""Judge DALE"" forgeries while pretending to be a ""retired federal judge"" named ""Judge DALE,"" which uses his 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""). I 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.
 
If YOU would like to know THE LAW ITSELF on ANY amateur legal theory, then just ask us in a reply to this comment. We will try to do the research and try to post your answer as soon as possible. Just ask us, "What is THE LAW on __________?"

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.





CONTACT 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.

MartyM

avatar
   Soooo " Snoop4Truth is a legal expert... ", and of course we know this because...?  Oh yeah thats right, He (or she) says so.  Is there a license or even a certificate to validate such a claim??
   I'm not defending 'Judge Dale' whoever or whatever that may be, but I cant validate this post either. I know nothing of this Debra Jones thing or who or what she is. I cannot say that I ever heard of 'Judge Dale' ever soliciting money for anything, but there was much in the content posted as from Judge Dale, that was accurate (IMHO), though I wont bother to go into the specifics. I am only a legal expert as far as my own personel experience with the in-justice system, but will gladly accept any donations for my opinions...   shy 





'Tis better to be thought a fool,than to speak and remove all doubt.
     Love,Laughter & Prosperity...  :Santa 3: 

PurpleSkyz

avatar
Admin
yep Snoop is a legal expert. :)

He has offered to answer any legal questions that any may need help on also. So don't be shy



  

MartyM

avatar
I will accept your endorsement of that Purps (if that is intended to be an endorsement). I'm just very leary of those claiming to be 'Experts' about anything and very skeptical of anyone in the so called 'Legal arena'... you know what I mean, people who lie for a living...
 Wasn't trying to create any issues here, just not familiar with Snoop to know where he's coming from.





'Tis better to be thought a fool,than to speak and remove all doubt.
     Love,Laughter & Prosperity...  :Santa 3: 

PurpleSkyz

avatar
Admin
I totally understand and yes that was an endorsement of sorts...  

We have much the same mindset in these matters so I do know what you mean :)

Snoops is one of the good guys as far as I know.



  

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

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