• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

The Municipal United States Government has continued to defraud Americans and racketeer against them in criminal violation of their Constitutional obl

Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
368
Likes
71
#41
Please define "we the people"
Bigjon,

The United States is simply a union of states. The term "We the People" refers to the citizens of any of the states comprising the United States speaking with a single voice through their elected representatives.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
368
Likes
71
#42
BS:

Find me a manual of style that shows any proper personal name can be spelled in all caps.

It is not proper English grammar.
Bigjon,

YOUR COMMENT: BS: Find me a manual of style that shows any proper personal name can be spelled in all caps.

MY RESPONSE: Find me a manual of style that says it cannot. All kidding aside, the issue is not what a "manual of style" says anyway. Manuals of style do not have the force of law. Only law has the force of law. And, under the law, a person's name can be spelled in capital letters in legal documents. I have already provided dozens of cases to this effect on this site. But, you do not read them. So you do not know this. You will never know anything about the law until you read case law. That is why I provide so much of it to you guys.
 

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
3,386
Likes
3,092
#43
Bigjon,

The United States is simply a union of states. The term "We the People" refers to the citizens of any of the states comprising the United States speaking with a single voice through their elected representatives.
Well we disagree then.
There are two categories of States.
State of xxx and xxx
State of Minnesota and Minnesota.
Minnesota has land.
State of Minnesota is a federal creation and as such is a body politic with no land.

We the people are the sovereign people who formed the states and have god given rights.

US citizens are a category created by congress to bring in the newly freed black slaves. And then through deceitful methods all people of the US were enticed into taking a benefit which brought them into US Citizenship. Where they have civil rights, granted by congress. They have no access to the constitution as they are in a category created by the federal govt and do not have access to any constitutional rights.
 
Last edited:

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
28,187
Likes
41,949
Location
Qmerica
#44
BS:

Find me a manual of style that shows any proper personal name can be spelled in all caps.

It is not proper English grammar.
...even if you're shouting?
 

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
3,386
Likes
3,092
#45
Bigjon,

YOUR COMMENT: BS: Find me a manual of style that shows any proper personal name can be spelled in all caps.

MY RESPONSE: Find me a manual of style that says it cannot. All kidding aside, the issue is not what a "manual of style" says anyway. Manuals of style do not have the force of law. Only law has the force of law. And, under the law, a person's name can be spelled in capital letters in legal documents. I have already provided dozens of cases to this effect on this site. But, you do not read them. So you do not know this. You will never know anything about the law until you read case law. That is why I provide so much of it to you guys.
The only reason to use all caps is to differentiate between the mans/womans proper name and the PERSON's name.
 

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
28,187
Likes
41,949
Location
Qmerica
#46
The only reason to use all caps is to differentiate between the mans/womans proper name and the PERSON's name.
As has been said, "you aren't a person, you HAVE a person."
 

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
3,386
Likes
3,092
#47
As has been said, "you aren't a person, you HAVE a person."
Well the person I'm talking about shows up in all the statutes written in code.
You will never find them referring to man in their code.
 

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
28,187
Likes
41,949
Location
Qmerica
#48
Right. All MEN are created equal. Not all PERSONS are created equal.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
368
Likes
71
#49
Well we disagree then.

We the people are the sovereign people who formed the states and have god given rights.

US citizens are a category created by congress to bring in the newly freed black slaves. And then through deceitful methods all people of the US were enticed into taking a benefit which brought them into US Citizenship. Where they have civil rights, granted by congress. They have no access to the constitution as they are in a category created by the federal govt and do not have access to any constitutional rights.
Bigjon,

YOUR COMMENT: We the people are the sovereign people who formed the states and have god given rights.

MY RESPONSE: "We the People" are sovereign when acting collectively ("together") through the election process and when speaking with a single voice through our elected representatives. But, "We the People" are not limited to our ancestors who "formed" the individual states. "We the People" includes any current citizens of any state comprising the United States Of America. BOTH state and United States citizens have God given rights, not just state citizens. Every person who is a citizen of any state comprising the United States is also a citizen of the United States. It is legally impossible to a state citizen and not be a citizen of the United States (WHICH UNION INCLUDES THAT STATE).

The Fourteenth Amendment defines what a US citizen is: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States AND [CITIZENS] OF THE STATE [OR TERRITORY] WHEREIN THEY RESIDE..."

YOUR COMMENT: US citizens are a category created by congress to bring in the newly freed black slaves.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. Long BEFORE the adoption of the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments, every non-slave citizen of a state in the United States was also a citizen of the a United States. This is called DUAL CITIZENSHIP. The thirteenth and fourteenth amendments did not "create" the status of a United States citizen. United States citizens ALREADY EXISTED in the form of non-slave citizens of the states comprising the United States ever since the U.S. Constitution was ratified almost a century beforehand. The thirteenth and fourteenth amendments merely outlawed slavery and recognized that former slaves were also BOTH state citizens and United States citizens (called "dual citizenship") and were entitled to the same protections afforded all other DUAL state and United States citizens under the United States Constitution.

YOUR COMMENT: And then through deceitful methods all people of the US were enticed into taking a benefit which brought them into US Citizenship.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. All non-slaves who were state citizens were already United States citizens long before the adoption of the thirteenth and fourteenth amendment. The thirteenth and fourteenth amendments did nothing to change or affect the status of non-slaves. The thirteenth amendment only changed the status of former slaves and their descendants. Nothing more.

YOUR COMMENT: Where they have civil rights, granted by congress.

MY RESPONSE: Non-slaves being BOTH state citizens and United States citizens already had civil rights granted to them by the U.S. Constitution (not by Congress). All the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments did was outlaw slavery in the states and territories and grant former slaves the same Constitutional rights as all other DUAL state and United States citizens. The fourteenth amendment changed nothing with respect to the rights of status of non-slaves.

YOUR COMMENT: They have no access to the constitution as they are in a category created by the federal govt and do not have access to any constitutional rights.

MY RESPONSE: What a load of B.S. The rights of non-slaves were never changed by the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments. So, NOTHING whatsoever changed for non-slaves. Non-slaves, being BOTH state citizens and United States citizens, ALREADY had the rights and protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution. The thirteenth and fourteenth amendments merely outlawed slavery in the states and territories and gave former slaves the same Constitutional rights and protections that non-slaves had enjoyed since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, almost a century beforehand. Again, STATE citizens who were non-slaves had always enjoyed the rights and protections afforded them by the U.S. Constitution. The fourteenth amendment merely extended those same rights and protections to the former slaves. Nothing more.

The Fourteenth Amendment defines what a US citizen is: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States AND [CITIZENS] OF THE STATE [OR TERRITORY] WHEREIN THEY RESIDE..."
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
368
Likes
71
#50
The only reason to use all caps is to differentiate between the mans/womans proper name and the PERSON's name.
YOUR COMMENT: The only reason to use all caps is to differentiate between the mans/woman's proper name and the PERSON's name.

MY RESPONSE: If there is a case that says this, then such is the law. But, if there is no case that says this, then such is not the law.

Got a case?
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,357
Likes
9,180
#51
So we're clear...a "slave" is define as what...according to legalese speaking maggots? Both slavery and involuntary servitude were banned nationally.

What wasn't banned is voluntary servitude via deception by lieyers infesting the capitol building.
 

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
3,386
Likes
3,092
#52
My problem with the United States it has a multiple of definitions and when these lieyers talk about it they never clarify which definition they are using. We almost need each definition to be color coded, so we know what page they are on.

Most times when they are talking about a state it means DC and not the several states.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,357
Likes
9,180
#53
One of many games the double speaking aholes employ.
 

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
3,386
Likes
3,092
#54
The Fourteenth Amendment defines what a US citizen is: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States AND [CITIZENS] OF THE STATE [OR TERRITORY] WHEREIN THEY RESIDE..."

The United States has many meanings. The generally accepted meaning is a hundred square mile area called Washington DC.

I was not born there. I was born in Minnesota.
Which should make me a Minnesotan.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
368
Likes
71
#55
The Fourteenth Amendment defines what a US citizen is: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States AND [CITIZENS] OF THE STATE [OR TERRITORY] WHEREIN THEY RESIDE..."

The United States has many meanings. The generally accepted meaning is a hundred square mile area called Washington DC.

I was not born there. I was born in Minnesota.
Which should make me a Minnesotan.
Bigjon,

YOUR COMMENT: The United States has many meanings. The generally accepted meaning is a hundred square mile area called Washington DC.

MY RESPONSE: What a load of B.S. That is a FAKE definition of the United States concocted by amateur legal theorists who seek to confine the territorial limits of the United States to within the borders of the CITY of Washington, D.C.

But, the REAL territory of the United States includes every square inch of EVERY STATE that is a member of the United States, PLUS every square inch of EVERY DISTRICT of the United States (like Washington, D.C.), PLUS every square inch of EVERY TERRITORY of the United States (like Puerto Rico and Guam), PLUS every square inch of ALL NAVIGABLE WATERS within the United States (like the Mississippi, Ohio and Colorado Rivers), PLUS, every square inch of the oceans within twelve mile of the shore of any state of the United States, PLUS every square inch of EVERY MILITARY base within the borders of the United States AND outside the borders of the United States, PLUS every square inch of the AIR SPACE above all of the foregoing territories.

YOUR COMMENT: I was not born there (referring to Washington, D.C.). I was born in Minnesota.

MY RESPONSE: Then you were born a United States citizen and you are also a citizen of the state in which you now reside. You cannot be a citizen of a state within the United States and NOT be a U.S. citizen. I realize that amateur legal theorists think otherwise, but they are mistaken.
 

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
3,386
Likes
3,092
#56
Bigjon,

YOUR COMMENT: The United States has many meanings. The generally accepted meaning is a hundred square mile area called Washington DC.

MY RESPONSE: What a load of B.S. That is a FAKE definition of the United States concocted by amateur legal theorists who seek to confine the territorial limits of the United States to within the borders of the CITY of Washington, D.C.

But, the REAL territory of the United States includes every square inch of EVERY STATE that is a member of the United States, PLUS every square inch of EVERY DISTRICT of the United States (like Washington, D.C.), PLUS every square inch of EVERY TERRITORY of the United States (like Puerto Rico and Guam), PLUS every square inch of ALL NAVIGABLE WATERS within the United States (like the Mississippi, Ohio and Colorado Rivers), PLUS, every square inch of the oceans within twelve mile of the shore of any state of the United States, PLUS every square inch of EVERY MILITARY base within the borders of the United States AND outside the borders of the United States, PLUS every square inch of the AIR SPACE above all of the foregoing territories.

YOUR COMMENT: I was not born there (referring to Washington, D.C.). I was born in Minnesota.

MY RESPONSE: Then you were born a United States citizen and you are also a citizen of the state in which you now reside. You cannot be a citizen of a state within the United States and NOT be a U.S. citizen. I realize that amateur legal theorists think otherwise, but they are mistaken.

The United States is forbidden by the Constitution for The United States, to own any land in the several states.
To believe what you claim is to believe that when the several States created the Federal govt they ceded their territory to the Federal govt.
The fact that I was born in Minnesota, does not make me a Citizen of Minnesota as I have the option of being an Inhabitant of Minnesota, a Minnesota National. Minnesota is a nation, with it's own constitution.

That is just so much bullshit, it's hard for me to stop from laughing. Amateur legal lieyer that you are.

The federal govt outside of DC only has needful buildings for the public defense.
 
Last edited:

arminius

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
5,136
Likes
7,277
Location
right here right now
#57
T

That is just so much bullshit, it's hard for me to stop from laughing. Amateur legal lieyer that you are.
Exactamundo...
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
368
Likes
71
#58
The United States is forbidden by the Constitution for The United States, to own any land in the several states.
To believe what you claim is to believe that when the several States created the Federal govt they ceded their territory to the Federal govt.
The fact that I was born in Minnesota, does not make me a Citizen of Minnesota as I have the option of being an Inhabitant of Minnesota, a Minnesota National. Minnesota is a nation, with it's own constitution.

That is just so much bullshit, it's hard for me to stop from laughing. Amateur legal lieyer that you are.

The federal govt outside of DC only has needful buildings for the public defense.
Bigjon,

YOUR COMMENT: The United States is forbidden by the Constitution for The United States, to own any land in the several states.

MT RESPONSE: What a load of B.S. If this claim were really true, you would actually show the imaginary section of the Constitution which forbids the United States to own land in the several states. But, you are unable to show this imaginary section of the Constitution, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXIST!

FACT: ALL OF THE LAND that later became the western states of the United States WAS FIRST OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT (not by a state) and THE UNITED STATES HAD THE RIGHT TO RETAIN ITS OWNERSHIP OF PORTIONS OF ITS OWN LAND when allowing for the creation of the western states.

YOUR COMMENT: To believe what you claim is to believe that when the several States created the Federal govt they ceded their territory to the Federal govt.

MY RESPONSE: In the original 13 states (and many of the states that came later), the federal government PURCHASED ITS LAND FROM THE STATES AND FROM PRIVATE LAND OWNERS to serve as the United States capital, government buildings and monuments, military bases and national parks and forests. This is because in the U.S. Constitution, the states themselves delegated to the federal government the power to take property for all such federal purposes in exchange for "JUST COMPENSATION" (what we call "imminent domain").

YOUR COMMENT: The fact that I was born in Minnesota, does not make me a Citizen of Minnesota as I have the option of being an Inhabitant of Minnesota, a Minnesota National. Minnesota is a nation, with it's own constitution.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. The fourteenth amendment expressly confirmed that a person "BORN" or naturalized in the United States (as you were) is a "CITIZEN" of the United States AND A "CITIZEN" of the state in which he/she resides (in this case Minnesota). I believe you are capable of comprehending that simple legal concept. It is not complicated. Do not pretend otherwise.

As to your claim that you have the "option" of being an "inhabitant" of Minnesota or a Minnesota "national", you have no such "option". But, even if you did have such an imaginary "option", it would not make any difference anyway? This is because BOTH state and federal law applies to all "inhabitants", "non-inhabitants", "nationals", "non-nationals", "citizens", "non-citizens", "residents", "non-residents", "legal aliens", "illegal aliens", "foreigners", "non-foreigners", "domestics" and "non-domestics" unless the particular law itself states otherwise.

YOUR COMMENT: That is just so much bullshit, it's hard for me to stop from laughing.

MY RESPONSE: Perhaps you should not be laughing. You are sorely mistaken on every count.

YOUR COMMENT: The federal govt outside of DC only has needful buildings for the public defense

MY RESPONSE: Under the Constitution, the federal government of "We the People" may own property to serve any purpose the federal government is Constitutionally charged with carrying out including providing a suitable place for all federal agencies, all federal court houses, all federal law enforcement agencies and even to reserve land for future use.
 
Last edited:

arminius

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
5,136
Likes
7,277
Location
right here right now
#59
Babylon Is Fallen by kate u/v kaia

https://kateofgaia.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/babylon-is-fallen-by-kate-uv-kaia.pdf

1. NAME: The master key to the entire system's/CROWN CORPORATION'S game. The NAME is the lynch pin to the entire legal/control construct. Without a LEGAL NAME, which is your consent by agreeing to be said NAME, the system vampires cannot literally feed on your life blood/creation source energy that is typically shown in the physical materials we collect. It is only the CONSENT to be/use/have a LEGAL NAME/Mark of the Beast that is required for your absolute spiritual contract/deal with the devil motif to be in FULL FORCE AND EFFECT with you as a SLAVE and them as MASTER. For PROOF of this, look and see how much of your life/existence involves a LEGAL NAME and you will see the measure of control the system has over you.
2. REGISTER/REGISTRATION etc. : Any/all things registered are FULLY SURRENDERED with consent to the CROWN CORPORATION with NO legal recourse until such things are removed by exposing the INTENT by those who serve the CROWN CORPORATION to commit fraud knowingly/unknowingly.
ex: A child that is REGISTERED is CROWN PROPERTY by ignorant consent where the truth of REGISTERING was not brought forth which is the original INTENT by CROWN CORPORATION SERVANT'S OWNERS to have people offer their children unknowingly into slavery of soul, and thus, body. It's the soul they're really after, so keep that in mind.
3. MONEY, GOLD, SILVER, ASSETS, BITCOIN etc. are ALL illusions of value where YOU are the true creator of all physical manifestations. Money, external value, has been the tool as the third party interloper "middle man" that has made draining your power possible. Money or the like only has value if one has been duped into thinking it does. This illusion is the ultimate distraction and destroyer of creator souls, literally. ALL money is based on the soul CONTRACT commonly known as a BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
4. BIRTH CERTIFICATE: The ORIGINAL SIN CONTRACT. The NAME you think/claim as yours is NOT your creation. Your "assumed NAME" was created by your parents/family members/adoptive kin, NOT YOU. This is an ORIGINAL CREATION manifested by another that is, in turn, REGISTERED thus rendering it CROWN CORPORATION PROPERTY as previously stated. It is upon this deception that YOUR literal soul was and is enslaved and upon which ALL MONEY/DEBT is created. A DEBT BOND "value" was placed in the BIRTH CERTIFICATE based on the assumed accruement of TAXES, LOANS, DEBTS a child is expected to pay as long as they are part of this FRAUD upon humanity.
ex: If someone is expected to pay a certain amount of taxes etc. in their lifetime, the BOND is given a DEBT "VALUE". A child born into a wealthy family will have a higher debt bond value than someone who is of a lesser perceived "income bracket" rating. This is slave trading at its finest which divides and conquers humanity in the SERF/CASTE/HIERARCHY system that encompasses the planet.
5. COMMAND AND CONTROL: The courts and governments are the system slaves within, bought and paid for where the true command and control aspects are the POLICE/MILITARY as the front line dogs and fear contractors for those above the courts and governments such as the BANKS/RELIGIONS and those that control them. The courts and governments are merely the filler for this "sandwich" of deception and illusion. Without the ability to CONTRACT via any/all NAMES at the front line level, the whole system of control is destroyed, most importantly those at the very top of this spiritual slavery pyramid. Without the NAME, all levels above are ultimately annihilated completely.
6. THE TRIPLE CROWN: This consists of ROME, CITY OF LONDON CROWN CORPORATION and WASHINGTON D.C. They are the unholy trinity of the 3 in 1, 1 in 3 as illustrated clearly in the Papal Crown: Religion, to control the beliefs, minds and spirituality of humanity, the Courts and Banks to control the money/bonds and the world Police/
Military to quash rebellion and act as frontline contractors of soul extractions.
7. PRINCIPALITIES OF DARKNESS: This is the true nature of the game that the vastness of humanity is blind to. Religions have been used to separate you from source by making one believe "god" is external and use the "savior" program to reinforce this. Money is the tool that is used to keep people in the physical-only realm by getting them to equate an external "value" on everything where nothing would exist without the people and their creativity. Physical death and harm is the tool used to clamp down your true essence which is all creation itself. The tools employed are languages with the corruption of pure frequency intent with multiple meanings of the same sounds/frequencies, using WORDS and SPELLINGS (literally), thus dividing and conquering us and redirecting our energy into THEIR creations and control. These entities CANNOT create anything since they are soulless and thus, utterly powerless. They know this and are absolutely terrified because this spells their doom, once and for all. We are life with consciousness where these entities are consciousness without life/soul/spirit. They are COMPLETELY AND SOLELY DEPENDENT on getting our CONSENT or spiritual contract agreement and this is easily achieved through the NAME deception, buying people off, ego comforts etc. Their whole house of cards/pyramid is BASED on this FACT. We are the fuel for their system/vehicle. Without spiritual fuel, they are
destroyed.
The biggest program that we run into with the masses is the sheer disbelief of their own power and who they truly are. A masterful job has been done to get humanity to this level of spiritual weakness and complete ignorance. This was the intent of corrupting the ancient truths, re-writing our past and presenting this in schools, churches and all levels of ego academia. Repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it. It is far easier selling a giant lie to the masses than selling us one by one. The media is the main tool of thought direction and manipulation to reinforce the lies we were filled with as children
and up to our current state.
We have many soulless entities on this planet with the vast majority being placed in positions of power and control, be it police, courts, media, churches, governments, schools, military at ALL levels. Fear is their only tool and once one sees one's own true immortal nature, one becomes untouchable; literally. The mass hypnosis of humanity is deep and you will meet all levels of resistance from friends, family, co-workers etc. so don't bother trying to wake those consenting to be dead. The facts to prove this are all there for all to see so it is up to them to look, not you. Simply plant the seed and walk away. They are the same as the ones in the allegory of Noah that came to the ark too late; let them drown.
We are now at the culmination of destroying these entities once and for all and they are pulling out all the fear porn, illusion and desperation plugs and in that process, they're sinking their own ship where I merely hand them a better plug-puller now. YOU and only YOU can save yourself and no-one else so stop killing yourself trying. Let the dead bury the dead and perhaps they'll "get it" on the next pass but they are NOT your concern. Stay the course. The path home is the one of truth only and nothing else. Your willingness to stand in truth is yours alone and to the degree that you stand will be the same degree that you become untouchable spiritually and, as a result, physically. As above, so below after all.
There is no "middle ground" here, you're either in or out of Babylon. You are either master or slave, mortal or immortal. The soul, YOU, are infinite where the body is merely a biological computer you operate. Your computer was infiltrated and corrupted (reptilian brain stem/fused chromosomes) and separated from the heart source mind. The soulless ones cannot experience compassion so don't expect them to. They are the same as the Terminator droids in the movies, programmed to control and kill without remorse and are easy to spot. They are everywhere including your own family, friends etc. and all you have to do is "feel" your way through. Let your instincts and your heart be your guide.
We are clearing this reality of these parasites exponentially now where universal law reigns supreme where none shall or can trespass. They are masters of deception so do not let your loving compassion be used against you, something that has been their most powerful tools. The bio-borg entities are already lifeless and are dependent only on being able to suck the life out of you but, like every vampire, they cannot enter your reality without an invitation. Every use of the legal NAME is the only invitation they need so best cut your ties and consent with that. Just get this concept and you have already cut the puppet strings and your causal ability returns instantly in relation to your ability to be responsible with that ultimate of powers.
To the "walking dead" (and you know what you are) , your time is over, your deceptions are powerless and now moment by now moment, you are being erased from consciousness for the invading parasites you are. We, of the living soul, are awake, aware and reclaiming our reality where yours never existed. In short, yes, you are doomed. Have a nice day! kate!!!
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,357
Likes
9,180
#61
This person learnt what they say at 'Lie School".
Ironic irony...is ironic.

1579271799524.png


later...later... "corporation".

1579271946130.png


They who intentionally speak the babble known as "legalese" do so to deceive. Those that "practice law" become moar fluent in "legalese" over time and therefore better able to deceive.

In other news...deadly snakes can bite and can kill you...they should be beheaded...for safety.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
368
Likes
71
#62
ROD CLASS & THE HOAXES ABOUT LAWYERS (LAWYERS HAVE NO AUTHORITY HOAX, THE A.B.A. IS THE BAR HOAX, THE BAR CARD HOAX, THE A.B.A. HAS A MONOPOLY, THE ORIGINAL/MISSING 13TH AMENDMENT HOAX, THE TITLE OF NOBILITY HOAX AND MORE)

ARTICLES WRITTEN BY ROD CLASS REFLECTING THE HOAX:
https://govbanknotes.wordpress.com/...-have-no-legislative-authority-in-courtrooms/;
https://www.youarelaw.org/get-a-good-attorney-read-this-first/;
http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/attorneys-have-no-legislative-authority-in-courtrooms/;
https://forestqueen2020.wordpress.c...se-of-americas-republican-form-of-government/;
https://anticorruptionsociety.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/the-bar-card3.pdf;

ARTICLE WRITTEN BY ROD CLASS AND POSTED ON DEBORAH TAVARES WEBSITE:
http://www.stopthecrime.net/docs/THE-GREAT-AMERICAN-ADVENTURE.pdf (SCROLL DOWN TO PAGES 7-8 and 75-76 where Class describes his mistaken belief system on this subject while pretending to be "Judge DALE").

VIDEO OF ROD CLASS ENGAGED IN THE HOAX:
(Class explaining his mistaken amateur belief system on this subject);

VIDEO OF DEBORAH TAVARES ENGAGED IN THE HOAX:
(At 43:50-44:55, Deborah Tavares pretends to quote the imaginary "Judge DALE" in support of this very hoax exposed here);

CLASS' MISUNDERSTANDING OF FEDERAL LAW:
Class MISTAKENLY BELIEVES that FEDERAL law governs EVERY single legal subject. (This is precisely why he pretended to be a "retired FEDERAL judge" in the "Judge DALE forgeries", why he only cites FEDERAL statutes in support of his false claims and why he repeatedly uses the phrase, "Congressional [meaning FEDERAL] intent".). But, this is not so.

FEDERAL law ONLY governs that TINY LIST of legal subjects that were expressly delegated to the FEDERAL government in the U.S. Constitution AND under the tenth amendment, STATE LAW GOVERNS EVERYTHING ELSE (including the licensing and regulation of lawyers, drivers licenses, etc.). https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/10th-amendment/. This means that ALMOST ALL OF THE LAW IN OUR COUNTRY IS STATE LAW, NOT FEDERAL LAW (95-99%? MULTIPLIED BY 50 STATES). Note that if the law really was as Class MISTAKENLY BELIEVED it to be (FEDERAL law governs every single legal subject), THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR STATE LAW IN THE FIRST PLACE AND THE TENTH AMENDMENT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY MEANINGLESS.

Class makes this AMATEUR mistake about FEDERAL law because he misunderstands the "supremacy clause" in the U.S. Constitution. Class MISTAKENLY believes that FEDERAL LAW GOVERNS EVERY SINGLE LEGAL SUBJECT IN THE LAW AND IS THEREFORE "ALWAYS SUPREME" IN CONNECTION WITH EVERY LEGAL SINGLE SUBJECT IN THE LAW. But, this is not so. Under the "supremacy clause", FEDERAL LAW IS ONLY "SUPREME" TO STATE LAW IF (AND ONLY IF) THERE IS A DIRECT CONFLICT BETWEEN FEDERAL LAW AND STATE LAW ON THE SAME, EXACT LEGAL SUBJECT.

But, such direct conflicts between FEDERAL law and STATE law on the same, exact legal subject are EXTREMELY RARE, because FEDERAL and STATE law govern ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ("OPPOSITE") legal subjects. So, when there is NO DIRECT CONFLICT between FEDERAL law and STATE law on the SAME, EXACT legal subject (which is almost all of the time), STATE LAW IS "SUPREME" AS TO ALL STATE LAW LEGAL SUBJECTS (such as the licensing and regulation of lawyers).

Stated differently, the "supremacy clause" does not come into play in connection with every legal subject in the law (including the licensing and regulation of lawyers). INSTEAD, THE "SUPREMACY CLAUSE" ONLY COMES INTO PLAY IN CONNECTION WITH THAT TINY LIST OF LEGAL SUBJECTS THAT WERE EXPRESSLY DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION (which DOES NOT include the licensing and regulation of lawyers). But, Rod Class does not know enough to even realize this.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW BASICS:
Unknown to Rod Class, the U.S. Constitution "divided the powers" (divided the JURISDICTION to regulate every legal subject) between the FEDERAL government and the STATE governments. This "division of powers" (actually a division of jurisdiction) WAS BASED ON LEGAL SUBJECT MATTER.

The U.S. Constitution LIMITED the FEDERAL government to regulating ONLY A TINY LIST of legal SUBJECTS that were expressly delegated to it in the U.S. Constitution. The tenth amendment reserved to the STATES the exclusive power (A MONOPLOY) to regulate EVERYTHING ELSE (ALL OTHER LEGAL SUBJECTS NOT DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, such as the licensing and regulation of lawyers and driver's licenses, etc.).

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

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

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

The United States Code ("U.S.C.") is a collection of all of the current FEDERAL statutes divided into separate categories, so that all of the statutes on the same subject are organized together (to make research of a particular subject easier). There are currently 54 numbered "TITLES" (or SUBJECTS) in the U.S.C.

For example, Title 12 is "COMMERCE", Title 18 is "CRIMES", Title 28 is "THE JUDICIARY" and Title 49 is "TRANSPORTATION". But, the statutes in these four Titles DO NOT GOVERN "ALL COMMERCE", "ALL CRIMES", "ALL JUDICIARIES" or "ALL TRANSPORTATION" in the country. Instead, these statutes ONLY GOVERN THESE LEGAL SUBJECTS ONLY INSOFAR AS THEY RELATE DIRECTLY TO A LEGAL SUBJECT THAT WAS EXPRESSLY DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION (STATE LAW GOVERNS EVERYTHING ELSE).

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

HOW CLASS' IGNORANCE OF THE LAW ABOVE SHOWS UP IN HIS HOAXES:
But, Rod Class does not know any of the forgoing Constitutional basics. Rod Class MISTAKENLY BELIEVES that FEDERAL law governs EVERY single legal subject. So, when he was unable to find any FEDERAL statute governing the licensing or regulation of lawyers or the practice of law, he MISTAKENLY CONCLUDED that lawyers have "NO LICENSE" and "NO LEGAL AUTHORITY" to practice law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE TRUTH:
1). Under the tenth amendment, ONLY the STATES have the power to license and regulate lawyers and the practice of law (the FEDERAL government does not);
2). Under the “separation of powers” doctrine, ONLY the JUDICIAL branch of government has the power to license and regulate lawyers and the practice of law (the LEGISLATIVE branch of government does not);

3). The “ABA” IS NOT THE "B.A.R" OR OTHERWISE THE SINGLE NATIONAL AUTHORITY that licenses and regulates lawyers or the practice of law. There is no single, national authority that does this. Instead, it is the 50 STATES that license and regulate lawyers and the practice of law. But, Class does not know this.

ANALYSIS:
This means that Rod Class is WRONG IN EVERY, IMAGINABLE, POSSIBLE, CONCEIVABLE, WAY that a person can be WRONG about lawyers. Nothing is left on this subject for Class to be WRONG about.

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

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

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

This means that neither the INDEPENDENT EXECUTIVE branch nor the INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL branch of government needs "LEGISLATION" from the LEGISLATIVE branch to "AUTHORIZE" them to do what they are ALREADY AUTHORIZED TO DO under their own INDEPENDENT "INHERENT POWERS" (under the "SEPARATION OF POWERS" doctrine found in every STATE constitution and in the FEDERAL constitution). Indeed, any "LEGISLATION" from the LEGISLATIVE branch of government PURPORTING TO "LIMIT" the INHERENT POWERS of the INDEPENDENT EXECUTIVE or the INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL branches of government to regulate THEIR OWN internal affairs WOULD ACTUALLY VIOLATE THE "SEPARATION OF POWERS" doctrine which is found in every STATE constitution and in the FEDERAL constitution. (This INDEPENDENCE is precisely why the lawyers are NOT licensed by the LEGISLATIVE branch and NOT listed by the Secretary Of State of the EXECUTIVE branch.). But, Class does not know enough to even realize this. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6908406606088535130&q=Texas+Constitution+"practice+of+law"+bar&hl=en&as_sdt=4,44 (An excellent explanation of the "INHERENT POWER" of JUDICIAL branch of government to license and regulate the lawyers who practice law in ITS OWN courts begins in the 5th full paragraph here, not including block indented quoted portions, at about 20% through the text.); https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3182556056481747852&q="practice+of+law"+inherent&hl=en&as_sdt=4,10 (For more on the "INHERENT POWER" of the INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL branch to license and regulate the lawyers who practice law in ITS OWN courts, CLICK ON THE BLUE LINKS in the 12th full paragraph here, not including block indented quoted portions, at about 15% through the text). SIDE NOTE: Rod Class also MISTAKENLY BELIEVES that "CASE LAW" ("common law") from the "JUDICIAL" branch of government is somehow "INFERIOR" to "STATUTORY LAW" ("legislation") from the "LEGISLATIVE" branch of government. He also MISTAKENLY BELIEVES that "CASE LAW" from the "JUDICIAL" branch is somehow "unconstitutional". https://forestqueen2020.wordpress.c...tate.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?submenu=3#A5S15 (Click on Article V and scroll down to section 15.); http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/lawsconstitution/constitution.asp (Scroll down to Article VI, Section 2, paragraph numbered "3", in the FINAL SENTENCE.). Likewise, some STATE "STATUTES" also expressly authorize the STATE Supreme Court to license and regulate lawyers and the practice of law (ex: New York, Texas, Virginia).
http://codes.findlaw.com/ny/judiciary-law/jud-sect-460.html (at the END OF THE 1ST SENTENCE & note that New York's HIGHEST COURT is called the "Court Of Appeals".);
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.81.htm (Scroll down to "Subchapter B", "Sec. 81.011", subsection "(b)" and "(c)");
https://law.justia.com/codes/virginia/2006/toc5401000/54.1-3910.html.

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

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

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

HOAX 2: THE ABA IS A "MONOPOLY" HOAX.
Class falsely claims that the ABA has a "MONOPOLY" on the practice of law. This is because he MISTAKENLY BELIEVES that "the ABA IS THE BAR" (the SINGLE NATIONAL AUTHORITY which licenses and regulates lawyers and the practice law). https://www.youarelaw.org/get-a-good-attorney-read-this-first/ (Rod Class is the REAL author of this article and was effectively so credited in the final paragraph). LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TEXT IN THIS ARTICLE: "This type of MONOPOLY [referring to the ABA] is against the Taft-Hartley Act, The Clayton trust Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act. They're (sic) [referring to the ABA] a SELF-APPOINTED MONOPOLY." (at the end of the 8th full paragraph).

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

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

HOAX 3: THE "BAR CARD" HOAX.
Mistakenly believing that the "ABA IS THE BAR" (and THE SINGLE NATIONAL AUTHORITY which licenses and regulates lawyers), Class MOCKINGLY (and mistakenly) refers to a lawyer's license to practice law as a "UNION" or "BAR CARD" (referring to a MEMBERSHIP CARD in the ABA). https://anticorruptionsociety.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/the-bar-card3.pdf;https://www.youarelaw.org/get-a-good-attorney-read-this-first/ (Class is the REAL author of this article and was effectively so credited in the final paragraph). LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TEXT IN THIS ARTICLE: "[The ABA is] a private corporation, THEY (sic) ISSUE THEIR OWN UNION CARDS, WHICH THEY DECEPTIVELY CALL "LICENSES"... . THE B.A.R. [ABA] ISSUES ITS OWN B.A.R. [ABA] CARDS, NOT LICENSES... . They [referring to members in the ABA] want to prosecute people for practicing law without a license, WHEN THEY [themselves] DON'T HAVE ONE!!! ALL THEY HAVE IS A STINKING UNION CARD." (in the 8th, 20th and 24th paragraphs). Thus, Class does NOT know that "THE ABA IS NOT THE BAR", that "THE ABA DOES NOT ISSUE LICENSE TO LAWYERS" or that "THE 50 STATES actually do".

HOAX 4, 5 & 6: THE "ORIGINAL 13TH AMENDMENT HOAX", "THE TITLE OF NOBILITY HOAX" AND "THE B.A.R. PHONY ACRONYM HOAX":
BACKGROUND: Thirty-four of the fifty-five (34 of the 55) American founding fathers who actually attended the United States' constitutional convention and who actually wrote the words to the U.S. Constitution were American lawyers. https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-constitution-amendments/fascinating-facts/ (Scroll down to about 80% through text of this page). So, about two out of every three authors of our Constitutional were American lawyers. At the time that the U.S. Constitution was written, our 55 founding fathers, including 34 of which were American lawyers, had two concerns that rose to the level of constitutional importance. First, was the European institution of "NOBILITY" ("ROYALTY"). Second, was the internal threat of European "LOYALISTS".

At the time, Europe was divided into TWO CLASSES of people, "NOBILITY" ("ROYALS") and "COMMONERS" ("NON-ROYALS"). Under this institution, a person's station in life was determined by their birth and not determined by their individual merit. Our 55 founding fathers, including the 34 of which were American lawyers, did not want the institution of "NOBILITY" ("ROYALTY") to divide Americans into two classes of people as had occurred in Europe. Instead, our 55 founding fathers, including the 34 of which were American lawyers, wanted a person's station in life to be determined by individual merit (and not inherited).

Also at the time, the people living in the American colonies were largely either American PATRIOTS or English LOYALISTS. Our 55 founding fathers, including the 34 of which were American lawyers, did not want persons who were LOYAL to England (or to any other FOREIGN country) to hold office in the United States. They correctly believed that persons with FOREIGN-GIVEN titles of nobility, FOREIGN offices (positions) and persons receiving FOREIGN salaries or gifts (effectively "bribes") were more likely to be European "LOYALISTS" than other Americans were.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Remember, Rod Class MISTAKENLY BELIEVES that the American "BAR" Association "IS THE BAR" (and is the SINGLE NATIONAL AUTHORITY that licenses and regulates lawyers and the practice of law). So, he MISGUIDEDLY embellished and peddles an ENTIRELY SEPARATE HOAX to discredit that particular (AND COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT) "BAR". https://anticorruptionsociety.com/2015/01/07/the-missing-13th-amendment/.

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


For this hoax to work, Class had to CREATE THE ILLUSION that a "FOREIGN" POWER actually bestows a "TITLE OF NOBILITY" upon all American lawyers. So, Class FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMS that when American lawyers are “sworn-in” to the practice of law, THEY SWEAR AN "OATH OF ALLEGIANCE" TO THE "QUEEN OF ENGLAND" (representing a "FOREIGN" POWER), who, IN RETURN, bestows upon such American lawyers a "FOREIGN" "TITLE OF NOBILITY” (the title, “ESQUIRE”).
(At 44:00-44:55, DEBORAH TAVARES, Rod Class' partner in hoaxes pretends to quote "Judge DALE" who is actually Rodney "DALE" Class). But, this claim is not so. Below is the oath that American lawyers really make.


http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.inbar.org/resource/resmgr/litigation/Oaths.pdf (THIS IS A MUST SEE!)



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,357
Likes
9,180
#63
"bar", IS NOT an acronym for anything.
I always thought "bar" referred to the railing in court rooms that separates the court officers, the judge, the clerk, etc from the spectators.

In other words it separates the scumbags from the decent people watching the self important maggots lie constantly.
 
Joined
Jan 30, 2020
Messages
21
Likes
10
#64
Anna is not "anti-government". She is documenting the fact that foreign corporations replaced the de jure government following the
so-called Civil War.

MAKE AMERICA​

AMERICA AGAIN​

If you are one of the Woke who knows that our nation has been converted into a Vatican, and British controlled corporation and one who will make the commitment to restore lawful governance of, for, and by we The People, read on. Have you noticed that the entity called “UNITED STATES” is without “America”? It has no constitution; it is created with a corporate charter called a constitution. Its citizens have no natural rights, only privileges that are given and can be taken. American State Nationals have the same authority as any king, but have no subjects. No legislative creation of their fellow man has any authority over them without their consent. We live and die under the law of the universe and its creator. Statutes, codes, ordinances, and regulations have authority only over artificial entities like corporations; fictions that have no physical reality. Corporate by-laws have no authority over any man or woman.

The only law for an American State National is: Honor your word and do no harm. That is the essence of the American Common Law---the law of our land, our People, and the states.

The foundation of our nation is each county assembly. The counties join together creating the lawful state. Each American state is a nation in its own right. The states join to become the federation of states created by The Constitution for (Not “of”) The United States of America, (unincorporated) 1787. Forming counties into states is the way America was created. Our republican form of government has been secretly converted into a foreign business. We must take back our government from corporate control and repopulate the government offices with Americans, not “U.S. citizens”.There are two types of these corporate “citizens”: one is a subject of the Pope; the other is a subject of the Queen of England. Since the Queen is an agent of the pope, he controls it all. The Vatican owns Great Britain and leases it to the Monarchy.
In our republic, power flows up from the people; not down from the employees we hire to do our business. Government does not give us orders; we tell our employees how things are going to be.
  • LEARN Go to: http://theamericanstatesassembly.net There is a weekly Zoom talk by Anna Von Reitz.​
  • LEARN THE DEEP HISTORY AND LAW THAT HAS BEEN MALICIOUSLY CONCEALED http://annavonreitz.com To date, there are more than 1800 articles by the retired Postal judge.​
  • REBOOT LAWFUL GOVERNMENT Join your county assembly. Thirteen people are needed to create a county assembly. When two thirds of the state’s counties are formed the state can be restored. The next step; restoration of the actual constitution and the non-corporate Continental Congress.​
  • QUESTIONS? Contact Santa Fe County coordinator pro tem James Osbourne Holmes: jamesosbourneholmes@gmail.com 505-470-4277. There is a weekly net meeting.​

    CORRECT YOUR STATUS Be a slave no longer. Go to theamericanstatesassembly.net to learn how to correct your status. United states citizens and Citizens of the United States are the commercial property of Elizabeth Alexandra Mary and Jorge Mario Bergoglio.​

See Also: http://annavonreitz.com/onepager.pdf Grandma really does know best.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 30, 2020
Messages
21
Likes
10
#66
Some Questions

If you are unsure of the correct answer ask your trusted attorney. Watch their face closely as they read the question.​

  1. The United States of America, the United States of America, the United States and States of America are different names for the same thing. T F
  2. The Constitution of The United States Of America grants rights to the American People. T F
  3. The states of the union are under the authority of the Federal Government I.e the federal government has superior authority over the states. U.S. is principal and states are agents thereof. T F
  4. The Federal Reserve Bank is part of the United States government. T F
  5. The courts of the State of New Mexico have jurisdiction over the men and women of New Mexico. T F
  6. United States State governors are titled “Your Excellency” T F
  7. Federal Income tax payments are received by and used to operate the Federal government. T F
  8. Government authority originates in Washington D.C. and runs down to the states, then to the counties, and then to the people. T F.
  9. The individual states are subdivisions of The United States of America. T F
  10. The United States is; 1. A Democracy 2. A Republic 3. Other.
  11. The United States is currently under military rule. T F
  12. State of New Mexico is a member of the federation formed by the Constitution for The United States of America, I.e, it is a state of the union by the 1787 constitution. T F
  13. I am somewhat familiar with the work of Anna Von Reitz. Y N If not, see www.annavonreitz.com
  14. I believe that the United States is working for the benefit of the American people. T F
  15. I know that I own my automobile because I have the title to it with my name on it. T F
  16. The name written on my Driver License is my name. T F
  17. It is against the law for me to travel in my automobile from Santa Fe to Albuquerque without a State of New Mexico Driver license. T F
  18. City of Santa Fe Police Department is a private for-profit corporation. T F
  19. The Vatican claims authority only over members of the Catholic religion. T F Search unam sanctum trust
  20. Only licensed Bar Attorneys can lawfully practice law. T F
  21. Attorney is another word for lawyer. T F
  22. All Bar Associations are private business associations no different than a garbage collectors union. T F
  23. What actions you can do that will be most effective in restoring lawful government of, for, and by The People and make you an American. See: http://theamericanstates assembly.
  24. My mother gave ownership of my body to a foreign corporation and placed me in slavery shortly after I was born. T F

By: James Osbourne Holmes; Deputy New Mexico State Coordinator for the National Assembly.

V. 1.2 10OCT19 jamesbourneholmes@gmail.com
 

Silver

Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,033
Likes
9,748
#68
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 30, 2020
Messages
21
Likes
10
#69
ROD CLASS & THE HOAXES ABOUT LAWYERS (LAWYERS HAVE NO AUTHORITY HOAX, THE A.B.A. IS THE BAR HOAX, THE BAR CARD HOAX, THE A.B.A. HAS A MONOPOLY, THE ORIGINAL/MISSING 13TH AMENDMENT HOAX, THE TITLE OF NOBILITY HOAX AND MORE)

ARTICLES WRITTEN BY ROD CLASS REFLECTING THE HOAX:
https://govbanknotes.wordpress.com/...-have-no-legislative-authority-in-courtrooms/;
https://www.youarelaw.org/get-a-good-attorney-read-this-first/;
http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/attorneys-have-no-legislative-authority-in-courtrooms/;
https://forestqueen2020.wordpress.c...se-of-americas-republican-form-of-government/;
https://anticorruptionsociety.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/the-bar-card3.pdf;

ARTICLE WRITTEN BY ROD CLASS AND POSTED ON DEBORAH TAVARES WEBSITE:
http://www.stopthecrime.net/docs/THE-GREAT-AMERICAN-ADVENTURE.pdf (SCROLL DOWN TO PAGES 7-8 and 75-76 where Class describes his mistaken belief system on this subject while pretending to be "Judge DALE").

VIDEO OF ROD CLASS ENGAGED IN THE HOAX:
(Class explaining his mistaken amateur belief system on this subject);

VIDEO OF DEBORAH TAVARES ENGAGED IN THE HOAX:
(At 43:50-44:55, Deborah Tavares pretends to quote the imaginary "Judge DALE" in support of this very hoax exposed here);

CLASS' MISUNDERSTANDING OF FEDERAL LAW:
Class MISTAKENLY BELIEVES that FEDERAL law governs EVERY single legal subject. (This is precisely why he pretended to be a "retired FEDERAL judge" in the "Judge DALE forgeries", why he only cites FEDERAL statutes in support of his false claims and why he repeatedly uses the phrase, "Congressional [meaning FEDERAL] intent".). But, this is not so.

FEDERAL law ONLY governs that TINY LIST of legal subjects that were expressly delegated to the FEDERAL government in the U.S. Constitution AND under the tenth amendment, STATE LAW GOVERNS EVERYTHING ELSE (including the licensing and regulation of lawyers, drivers licenses, etc.). https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/10th-amendment/. This means that ALMOST ALL OF THE LAW IN OUR COUNTRY IS STATE LAW, NOT FEDERAL LAW (95-99%? MULTIPLIED BY 50 STATES). Note that if the law really was as Class MISTAKENLY BELIEVED it to be (FEDERAL law governs every single legal subject), THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR STATE LAW IN THE FIRST PLACE AND THE TENTH AMENDMENT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY MEANINGLESS.

Class makes this AMATEUR mistake about FEDERAL law because he misunderstands the "supremacy clause" in the U.S. Constitution. Class MISTAKENLY believes that FEDERAL LAW GOVERNS EVERY SINGLE LEGAL SUBJECT IN THE LAW AND IS THEREFORE "ALWAYS SUPREME" IN CONNECTION WITH EVERY LEGAL SINGLE SUBJECT IN THE LAW. But, this is not so. Under the "supremacy clause", FEDERAL LAW IS ONLY "SUPREME" TO STATE LAW IF (AND ONLY IF) THERE IS A DIRECT CONFLICT BETWEEN FEDERAL LAW AND STATE LAW ON THE SAME, EXACT LEGAL SUBJECT.

But, such direct conflicts between FEDERAL law and STATE law on the same, exact legal subject are EXTREMELY RARE, because FEDERAL and STATE law govern ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ("OPPOSITE") legal subjects. So, when there is NO DIRECT CONFLICT between FEDERAL law and STATE law on the SAME, EXACT legal subject (which is almost all of the time), STATE LAW IS "SUPREME" AS TO ALL STATE LAW LEGAL SUBJECTS (such as the licensing and regulation of lawyers).

Stated differently, the "supremacy clause" does not come into play in connection with every legal subject in the law (including the licensing and regulation of lawyers). INSTEAD, THE "SUPREMACY CLAUSE" ONLY COMES INTO PLAY IN CONNECTION WITH THAT TINY LIST OF LEGAL SUBJECTS THAT WERE EXPRESSLY DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION (which DOES NOT include the licensing and regulation of lawyers). But, Rod Class does not know enough to even realize this.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW BASICS:
Unknown to Rod Class, the U.S. Constitution "divided the powers" (divided the JURISDICTION to regulate every legal subject) between the FEDERAL government and the STATE governments. This "division of powers" (actually a division of jurisdiction) WAS BASED ON LEGAL SUBJECT MATTER.

The U.S. Constitution LIMITED the FEDERAL government to regulating ONLY A TINY LIST of legal SUBJECTS that were expressly delegated to it in the U.S. Constitution. The tenth amendment reserved to the STATES the exclusive power (A MONOPLOY) to regulate EVERYTHING ELSE (ALL OTHER LEGAL SUBJECTS NOT DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, such as the licensing and regulation of lawyers and driver's licenses, etc.).

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

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

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

The United States Code ("U.S.C.") is a collection of all of the current FEDERAL statutes divided into separate categories, so that all of the statutes on the same subject are organized together (to make research of a particular subject easier). There are currently 54 numbered "TITLES" (or SUBJECTS) in the U.S.C.

For example, Title 12 is "COMMERCE", Title 18 is "CRIMES", Title 28 is "THE JUDICIARY" and Title 49 is "TRANSPORTATION". But, the statutes in these four Titles DO NOT GOVERN "ALL COMMERCE", "ALL CRIMES", "ALL JUDICIARIES" or "ALL TRANSPORTATION" in the country. Instead, these statutes ONLY GOVERN THESE LEGAL SUBJECTS ONLY INSOFAR AS THEY RELATE DIRECTLY TO A LEGAL SUBJECT THAT WAS EXPRESSLY DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION (STATE LAW GOVERNS EVERYTHING ELSE).

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

HOW CLASS' IGNORANCE OF THE LAW ABOVE SHOWS UP IN HIS HOAXES:
But, Rod Class does not know any of the forgoing Constitutional basics. Rod Class MISTAKENLY BELIEVES that FEDERAL law governs EVERY single legal subject. So, when he was unable to find any FEDERAL statute governing the licensing or regulation of lawyers or the practice of law, he MISTAKENLY CONCLUDED that lawyers have "NO LICENSE" and "NO LEGAL AUTHORITY" to practice law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE TRUTH:
1). Under the tenth amendment, ONLY the STATES have the power to license and regulate lawyers and the practice of law (the FEDERAL government does not);
2). Under the “separation of powers” doctrine, ONLY the JUDICIAL branch of government has the power to license and regulate lawyers and the practice of law (the LEGISLATIVE branch of government does not);

3). The “ABA” IS NOT THE "B.A.R" OR OTHERWISE THE SINGLE NATIONAL AUTHORITY that licenses and regulates lawyers or the practice of law. There is no single, national authority that does this. Instead, it is the 50 STATES that license and regulate lawyers and the practice of law. But, Class does not know this.

ANALYSIS:
This means that Rod Class is WRONG IN EVERY, IMAGINABLE, POSSIBLE, CONCEIVABLE, WAY that a person can be WRONG about lawyers. Nothing is left on this subject for Class to be WRONG about.

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

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

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

This means that neither the INDEPENDENT EXECUTIVE branch nor the INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL branch of government needs "LEGISLATION" from the LEGISLATIVE branch to "AUTHORIZE" them to do what they are ALREADY AUTHORIZED TO DO under their own INDEPENDENT "INHERENT POWERS" (under the "SEPARATION OF POWERS" doctrine found in every STATE constitution and in the FEDERAL constitution). Indeed, any "LEGISLATION" from the LEGISLATIVE branch of government PURPORTING TO "LIMIT" the INHERENT POWERS of the INDEPENDENT EXECUTIVE or the INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL branches of government to regulate THEIR OWN internal affairs WOULD ACTUALLY VIOLATE THE "SEPARATION OF POWERS" doctrine which is found in every STATE constitution and in the FEDERAL constitution. (This INDEPENDENCE is precisely why the lawyers are NOT licensed by the LEGISLATIVE branch and NOT listed by the Secretary Of State of the EXECUTIVE branch.). But, Class does not know enough to even realize this. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6908406606088535130&q=Texas+Constitution+"practice+of+law"+bar&hl=en&as_sdt=4,44 (An excellent explanation of the "INHERENT POWER" of JUDICIAL branch of government to license and regulate the lawyers who practice law in ITS OWN courts begins in the 5th full paragraph here, not including block indented quoted portions, at about 20% through the text.); https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3182556056481747852&q="practice+of+law"+inherent&hl=en&as_sdt=4,10 (For more on the "INHERENT POWER" of the INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL branch to license and regulate the lawyers who practice law in ITS OWN courts, CLICK ON THE BLUE LINKS in the 12th full paragraph here, not including block indented quoted portions, at about 15% through the text). SIDE NOTE: Rod Class also MISTAKENLY BELIEVES that "CASE LAW" ("common law") from the "JUDICIAL" branch of government is somehow "INFERIOR" to "STATUTORY LAW" ("legislation") from the "LEGISLATIVE" branch of government. He also MISTAKENLY BELIEVES that "CASE LAW" from the "JUDICIAL" branch is somehow "unconstitutional". https://forestqueen2020.wordpress.c...se-of-americas-republican-form-of-government/. LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TEXT: "Case-Law is Unconstitutional since Case-Law is enacted by the Judicial Branch of Government, not the Legislative Branch." (at the 1st sentence of the 21st paragraph here). But, this Rod Class' MISTAKEN BELIEF in this regard is not so. Under the FEDERAL Constitution and the Constitution of EVERY STATE, the JUDICIAL and LEGISLATIVE branches of government are EQUAL IN POWER TO EACH OTHER AND THEIR LAWS ARE EQUAL IN FORCE TO THE LAWS OF THE OTHER. Indeed, because the JUDICIAL branch of government has the ADDITIONAL Constitutional power to declare LEGISLATIVE statutes "unconstitutional" (and strike them down), CASE LAW from the JUDICIAL branch is actually SUPERIOR to STATUTES from the LEGISLATIVE branch, not the other way around. POWERS OF THE STATE SUPREME COURTS (CONTINUED): ADDITIONAL "CONSTITUTIONAL" & "STATUTORY" POWER: IN ADDITION to the "INHERENT POWER” of each STATE Supreme Court to license and regulate lawyers who practice law in ITS OWN courts, some STATE "CONSTITUTIONS" ALSO expressly authorize the STATE Supreme Court to license and regulate lawyers and the practice of law (ex: Florida & New Jersey). http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...state.nj.us/lawsconstitution/constitution.asp (Scroll down to Article VI, Section 2, paragraph numbered "3", in the FINAL SENTENCE.). Likewise, some STATE "STATUTES" also expressly authorize the STATE Supreme Court to license and regulate lawyers and the practice of law (ex: New York, Texas, Virginia).
http://codes.findlaw.com/ny/judiciary-law/jud-sect-460.html (at the END OF THE 1ST SENTENCE & note that New York's HIGHEST COURT is called the "Court Of Appeals".);
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.81.htm (Scroll down to "Subchapter B", "Sec. 81.011", subsection "(b)" and "(c)");
https://law.justia.com/codes/virginia/2006/toc5401000/54.1-3910.html.

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

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

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

HOAX 2: THE ABA IS A "MONOPOLY" HOAX.
Class falsely claims that the ABA has a "MONOPOLY" on the practice of law. This is because he MISTAKENLY BELIEVES that "the ABA IS THE BAR" (the SINGLE NATIONAL AUTHORITY which licenses and regulates lawyers and the practice law). https://www.youarelaw.org/get-a-good-attorney-read-this-first/ (Rod Class is the REAL author of this article and was effectively so credited in the final paragraph). LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TEXT IN THIS ARTICLE: "This type of MONOPOLY [referring to the ABA] is against the Taft-Hartley Act, The Clayton trust Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act. They're (sic) [referring to the ABA] a SELF-APPOINTED MONOPOLY." (at the end of the 8th full paragraph).

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

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

HOAX 3: THE "BAR CARD" HOAX.
Mistakenly believing that the "ABA IS THE BAR" (and THE SINGLE NATIONAL AUTHORITY which licenses and regulates lawyers), Class MOCKINGLY (and mistakenly) refers to a lawyer's license to practice law as a "UNION" or "BAR CARD" (referring to a MEMBERSHIP CARD in the ABA). https://anticorruptionsociety.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/the-bar-card3.pdf;https://www.youarelaw.org/get-a-good-attorney-read-this-first/ (Class is the REAL author of this article and was effectively so credited in the final paragraph). LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TEXT IN THIS ARTICLE: "[The ABA is] a private corporation, THEY (sic) ISSUE THEIR OWN UNION CARDS, WHICH THEY DECEPTIVELY CALL "LICENSES"... . THE B.A.R. [ABA] ISSUES ITS OWN B.A.R. [ABA] CARDS, NOT LICENSES... . They [referring to members in the ABA] want to prosecute people for practicing law without a license, WHEN THEY [themselves] DON'T HAVE ONE!!! ALL THEY HAVE IS A STINKING UNION CARD." (in the 8th, 20th and 24th paragraphs). Thus, Class does NOT know that "THE ABA IS NOT THE BAR", that "THE ABA DOES NOT ISSUE LICENSE TO LAWYERS" or that "THE 50 STATES actually do".

HOAX 4, 5 & 6: THE "ORIGINAL 13TH AMENDMENT HOAX", "THE TITLE OF NOBILITY HOAX" AND "THE B.A.R. PHONY ACRONYM HOAX":
BACKGROUND: Thirty-four of the fifty-five (34 of the 55) American founding fathers who actually attended the United States' constitutional convention and who actually wrote the words to the U.S. Constitution were American lawyers. https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-constitution-amendments/fascinating-facts/ (Scroll down to about 80% through text of this page). So, about two out of every three authors of our Constitutional were American lawyers. At the time that the U.S. Constitution was written, our 55 founding fathers, including 34 of which were American lawyers, had two concerns that rose to the level of constitutional importance. First, was the European institution of "NOBILITY" ("ROYALTY"). Second, was the internal threat of European "LOYALISTS".

At the time, Europe was divided into TWO CLASSES of people, "NOBILITY" ("ROYALS") and "COMMONERS" ("NON-ROYALS"). Under this institution, a person's station in life was determined by their birth and not determined by their individual merit. Our 55 founding fathers, including the 34 of which were American lawyers, did not want the institution of "NOBILITY" ("ROYALTY") to divide Americans into two classes of people as had occurred in Europe. Instead, our 55 founding fathers, including the 34 of which were American lawyers, wanted a person's station in life to be determined by individual merit (and not inherited).

Also at the time, the people living in the American colonies were largely either American PATRIOTS or English LOYALISTS. Our 55 founding fathers, including the 34 of which were American lawyers, did not want persons who were LOYAL to England (or to any other FOREIGN country) to hold office in the United States. They correctly believed that persons with FOREIGN-GIVEN titles of nobility, FOREIGN offices (positions) and persons receiving FOREIGN salaries or gifts (effectively "bribes") were more likely to be European "LOYALISTS" than other Americans were.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Remember, Rod Class MISTAKENLY BELIEVES that the American "BAR" Association "IS THE BAR" (and is the SINGLE NATIONAL AUTHORITY that licenses and regulates lawyers and the practice of law). So, he MISGUIDEDLY embellished and peddles an ENTIRELY SEPARATE HOAX to discredit that particular (AND COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT) "BAR". https://anticorruptionsociety.com/2015/01/07/the-missing-13th-amendment/.

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


For this hoax to work, Class had to CREATE THE ILLUSION that a "FOREIGN" POWER actually bestows a "TITLE OF NOBILITY" upon all American lawyers. So, Class FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMS that when American lawyers are “sworn-in” to the practice of law, THEY SWEAR AN "OATH OF ALLEGIANCE" TO THE "QUEEN OF ENGLAND" (representing a "FOREIGN" POWER), who, IN RETURN, bestows upon such American lawyers a "FOREIGN" "TITLE OF NOBILITY” (the title, “ESQUIRE”).
(At 44:00-44:55, DEBORAH TAVARES, Rod Class' partner in hoaxes pretends to quote "Judge DALE" who is actually Rodney "DALE" Class). But, this claim is not so. Below is the oath that American lawyers really make.


http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.inbar.org/resource/resmgr/litigation/Oaths.pdf (THIS IS A MUST SEE!)



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


CONCLUSION:
Under the tenth amendment, ONLY the STATES have the power to license and regulate lawyers and the practice of law (the FEDERAL government does not). Under the “separation of powers” doctrine, ONLY the JUDICIAL branch of government has the power to license and regulate lawyers and the practice of law (the LEGISLATIVE branch of government does not). The “ABA” is NOT THE SINGLE NATIONAL AUTHORITY which licenses and regulates lawyers and the practice of law. The 50 STATES that do that. The ABA has no connection whatsoever with any FEDERAL or STATE government or agency. The STATE bars ARE NOT “affiliates” or “franchises” or “subsidiaries” or otherwise "regulated" or "governed" by the ABA. The ABA has NOT "taken over the courts", "taken away the common law" or "taken away the grand jury system". It has no ability to do so.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Poop4lies,

Your giant font bold italic underlined text adds no authority to your Vatican/British/ABA propaganda piece.

The entity to which they make the oath the United States, Inc. is a corporation chartered under the Vatican. They must give up the United State citizenship and register as a foreign agent to avoid being charged with treason. The Title of Nobility Act of the original de jure constitution forbids anyone with a Title from holding public office...even Dog Catcher. The title "Esquire" is half way between Gentleman and Knight in the Brit orders of nobility. A copy of the original Constitution with the original 13th amendment has been found in New Mexico. The Brits did not destroy all of them in the war of 1812.

GW Bush Senior, who was a 5th cousin of Elizabeth was benighted in 1994 for his service to the Crown.

No statute, code, ordinance or regulation has any authority over any living man or woman. No living man or woman are required to have a license to do anything, and may practice law with impunity. They may not practice as an Attorney because the courts are private corporations acting in Admiralty/Martime/Military jurisdiction and can exclude them.

The Attorneys removed common law from the courts in 1956. There are now only commercial tribunals that in their own words, "Create the appearance of Justice".

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure apply only in the courts of a corporation, the United States, Inc. and the Territories and Possessions of the United States. See Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. They charge the Cestui Que Via Trust created with the Certificate of Live Birth that cedes the baby to the Vatican. See The Unam Sanctum Trust; the Pope claims to own your eternal soul. Yes, you, the one that is promoting and spreading his lies.

See, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7105961-fruit-from-a-poisonous-tree

It is over shill, some of the sheep raised their heads long enough to see what's going on.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
368
Likes
71
#70
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Poop4lies,

Your giant font bold italic underlined text adds no authority to your Vatican/British/ABA propaganda piece.

The entity to which they make the oath the United States, Inc. is a corporation chartered under the Vatican. They must give up the United State citizenship and register as a foreign agent to avoid being charged with treason. The Title of Nobility Act of the original de jure constitution forbids anyone with a Title from holding public office...even Dog Catcher. The title "Esquire" is half way between Gentleman and Knight in the Brit orders of nobility. A copy of the original Constitution with the original 13th amendment has been found in New Mexico. The Brits did not destroy all of them in the war of 1812.

GW Bush Senior, who was a 5th cousin of Elizabeth was benighted in 1994 for his service to the Crown.

No statute, code, ordinance or regulation has any authority over any living man or woman. No living man or woman are required to have a license to do anything, and may practice law with impunity. They may not practice as an Attorney because the courts are private corporations acting in Admiralty/Martime/Military jurisdiction and can exclude them.

The Attorneys removed common law from the courts in 1956. There are now only commercial tribunals that in their own words, "Create the appearance of Justice".

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure apply only in the courts of a corporation, the United States, Inc. and the Territories and Possessions of the United States. See Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. They charge the Cestui Que Via Trust created with the Certificate of Live Birth that cedes the baby to the Vatican. See The Unam Sanctum Trust; the Pope claims to own your eternal soul. Yes, you, the one that is promoting and spreading his lies.

See, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7105961-fruit-from-a-poisonous-tree

It is over shill, some of the sheep raised their heads long enough to see what's going on.
Hello James Osborne Holmes,

YOUR COMMENT: Your giant font bold italic underlined text adds no authority to your Vatican/British/ABA propaganda piece.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

YOUR COMMENT: The entity to which they make the oath the United States, Inc. is a corporation chartered under the Vatican.

MY RESPONSE: "THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATIONS HOAX".

THE TRUTH:
The United States is not a "corporation".

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

THE ACTUAL REAL LAW ITSELF ON WHETHER GOVERNMENTS ARE "CORPORATIONS"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YOUR COMMENT: They must give up the United State citizenship and register as a foreign agent to avoid being charged with treason. The Title of Nobility Act of the original de jure constitution forbids anyone with a Title from holding public office...even Dog Catcher. The title "Esquire" is half way between Gentleman and Knight in the Brit orders of nobility. A copy of the original Constitution with the original 13th amendment has been found in New Mexico. The Brits did not destroy all of them in the war of 1812.

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

At the time, Europe was divided into TWO CLASSES of people, "NOBILITY" ("ROYALS") and "COMMONERS" ("NON-ROYALS"). Under this institution, a person's station in life was determined by their birth and not determined by their individual merit. Our 55 founding fathers, including the 34 of which were American lawyers, did not want the institution of "NOBILITY" ("ROYALTY") to divide Americans into two classes of people as had occurred in Europe. Instead, our 55 founding fathers, including the 34 of which were American lawyers, wanted a person's station in life to be determined by individual merit (and not inherited).

Also at the time, the people living in the American colonies were largely either American PATRIOTS or English LOYALISTS. Our 55 founding fathers, including the 34 of which were American lawyers, did not want persons who were LOYAL to England (or to any other FOREIGN country) to hold office in the United States. They correctly believed that persons with FOREIGN-GIVEN titles of nobility, FOREIGN offices (positions) and persons receiving FOREIGN salaries or gifts (effectively "bribes") were more likely to be European "LOYALISTS" than other Americans were.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Remember, Rod Class MISTAKENLY BELIEVES that the American "BAR" Association "IS THE BAR" (and is the SINGLE NATIONAL AUTHORITY that licenses and regulates lawyers and the practice of law). So, he MISGUIDEDLY embellished and peddles an ENTIRELY SEPARATE HOAX to discredit that particular (AND COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT) "BAR". https://anticorruptionsociety.com/2015/01/07/the-missing-13th-amendment/.

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

For this hoax to work, Class had to CREATE THE ILLUSION that a "FOREIGN" POWER actually bestows a "TITLE OF NOBILITY" upon all American lawyers. So, Class FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMS that when American lawyers are “sworn-in” to the practice of law, THEY SWEAR AN "OATH OF ALLEGIANCE" TO THE "QUEEN OF ENGLAND" (representing a "FOREIGN" POWER), who, IN RETURN, bestows upon such American lawyers a "FOREIGN" "TITLE OF NOBILITY” (the title, “ESQUIRE”).
(At 44:00-44:55, DEBORAH TAVARES, Rod Class' partner in hoaxes pretends to quote "Judge DALE" who is actually Rodney "DALE" Class). But, this claim is not so. Below is the oath that American lawyers really make.


[URL]http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.inbar.org/resource/resmgr/litigation/Oaths.pdf[/URL] (THIS IS A MUST SEE!)




Note that American lawyers actually make an oath to the U.S. Constitution and to the constitution of the state that issues them their license to practice law .

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



YOUR COMMENT: No statute, code, ordinance or regulation has any authority over any living man or woman.

MY RESPONSE: Only in amateur legal theory. Not in the real world. This amateur legal theory has been repeated tried and it has uniformed failed. It is a lie peddled by charlatans.

YOUR COMMENT: No living man or woman are required to have a license to do anything, and may practice law with impunity.

MY RESPONSE: Only in amateur legal theory. Not in the real world. This amateur legal theory has been repeated tried and it has uniformed failed. It is a lie peddled by charlatans.

YOUR COMMENT: They may not practice as an Attorney because the courts are private corporations acting in Admiralty/Martime/Military jurisdiction and can exclude them.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. No court is a private corporation. Admiralty. Maritime and Military jurisdiction only applies in Admiralty. Maritime and Military cases. Not in other cases. Non lawyers are not allowed to practice law to protect the public from incompetence and delusional legal theories like the ones you are peddling. THEY ARE ALL FAKE. THEY ARE NOT TRUE. THEY WILL NOT WORK. Just, Ask Anthony Williams, Rodney DALE Class, Carl Miller, Eddie Craig and the rest of those posers. You are living proof as to why lawyers should have law licenses.

YOUR COMMENT: The Attorneys removed common law from the courts in 1956.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. Common law is case law. Case law remains in full force.

YOUR COMMENT: There are now only commercial tribunals that in their own words, "Create the appearance of Justice".

MY RESPONSE: Not so. That is another amateur legal theory peddled by charlatans to dupe people who do not know any better.

YOUR COMMENT: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure apply only in the courts of a corporation, the United States, Inc. and the Territories and Possessions of the United States.

MY RESPONSE: Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure only apply in FEDERAL, CRIMINAL cases (not in STATE cases and not in CIVIL cases, whether STATE or FEDERAL). Federal courts are not "courts of a corporation" and there is no such thing as the "United States, Inc.". Those are just more amateur legal theories peddled by charlatans to dupe people with weaker minds.

YOUR COMMENT: See Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. They charge the Cestui Que Via Trust created with the Certificate of Live Birth that cedes the baby to the Vatican.

MY RESPONSE: Please provide us all the quoted language to which you refer. You will find that it does not exist. You have been lied to again.

YOUR COMMENT: See The Unam Sanctum Trust; the Pope claims to own your eternal soul. Yes, you, the one that is promoting and spreading his lies.

MY RESPONSE: What a load of B.S. That trust is not now (and has never been) the law in the United States. That trust is completely irrelevant.

YOUR COMMENT: See, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7105961-fruit-from-a-poisonous-tree

MY RESPONSE: I have already read it. It is a fraud written by a fraud.

All The Best,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
6,357
Likes
9,180
#72
Self important lieyer (double)speak. Suggest you ignore it and wait for the appellate blather. Hopefully they can condense their tirades down to simplified horseshit for non-practicing professional lieyers. Ya know, people that work for a living.
 

arminius

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
5,136
Likes
7,277
Location
right here right now
#73
It is a fraud written by a fraud.
Thank you for this all too accurate description of your consistently ugly and entitled verbiage garbage.
 
Joined
Jan 30, 2020
Messages
21
Likes
10
#74
Poop4lies wrote:

"No court is a private corporation".

That is true, but none of the things called courts in the United States, Inc. are courts. They are corporate tribunals; not courts, and every one of them is privately owned and operated for profit.
David Straight has the D & B numbers of many of them. "Congress, United States, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC" is also a corporation and has a D & B number. It is not the congress of the members of the Union. The actual Continental Congress adjourned sine die, and has not convened since the South walked. out. The thing that is posing is a Vatican chartered corporation created by "Honest" Abe. The reason he failed in his bid for Prez 5 times: he was a communist, and the people knew it. When he won, his opponent had a campaign budget of 5K. Lincoln had 7 Mil of bankers money. I never understood why he ordered the issue of American silver certificates.
The two presidents who did that were shot in the head in a very public way.

Keeping a record of the proceedings does not mean that a court is a Common Law court; by definition a court of record is proceeding in Common Law.

If you believed what you write you would be a man whose head is so far up his ass that you would need a Plexiglas abdomen implant to see to tie your shoelaces.
It is easy to attack Rod Class for many reasons. He treats the corporation as if it is the government.

Try this guy: Seal, USN Intel Officer: Trumps task force against human trafficking and government corruption:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3-M4RXgJziGTEH7PS45YTg/videos

Snoop here, dipshit:
www.theamericanstatesassembly.net
www.annavonreitz.com
www.signinamerica.net
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 30, 2020
Messages
21
Likes
10
#75
Bigjon,

YOUR COMMENT: We the people are the sovereign people who formed the states and have god given rights.

MY RESPONSE: "We the People" are sovereign when acting collectively ("together") through the election process and when speaking with a single voice through our elected representatives. But, "We the People" are not limited to our ancestors who "formed" the individual states. "We the People" includes any current citizens of any state comprising the United States Of America. BOTH state and United States citizens have God given rights, not just state citizens. Every person who is a citizen of any state comprising the United States is also a citizen of the United States. It is legally impossible to a state citizen and not be a citizen of the United States (WHICH UNION INCLUDES THAT STATE).

The Fourteenth Amendment defines what a US citizen is: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States AND [CITIZENS] OF THE STATE [OR TERRITORY] WHEREIN THEY RESIDE..."

YOUR COMMENT: US citizens are a category created by congress to bring in the newly freed black slaves.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. Long BEFORE the adoption of the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments, every non-slave citizen of a state in the United States was also a citizen of the a United States. This is called DUAL CITIZENSHIP. The thirteenth and fourteenth amendments did not "create" the status of a United States citizen. United States citizens ALREADY EXISTED in the form of non-slave citizens of the states comprising the United States ever since the U.S. Constitution was ratified almost a century beforehand. The thirteenth and fourteenth amendments merely outlawed slavery and recognized that former slaves were also BOTH state citizens and United States citizens (called "dual citizenship") and were entitled to the same protections afforded all other DUAL state and United States citizens under the United States Constitution.

YOUR COMMENT: And then through deceitful methods all people of the US were enticed into taking a benefit which brought them into US Citizenship.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. All non-slaves who were state citizens were already United States citizens long before the adoption of the thirteenth and fourteenth amendment. The thirteenth and fourteenth amendments did nothing to change or affect the status of non-slaves. The thirteenth amendment only changed the status of former slaves and their descendants. Nothing more.

YOUR COMMENT: Where they have civil rights, granted by congress.

MY RESPONSE: Non-slaves being BOTH state citizens and United States citizens already had civil rights granted to them by the U.S. Constitution (not by Congress). All the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments did was outlaw slavery in the states and territories and grant former slaves the same Constitutional rights as all other DUAL state and United States citizens. The fourteenth amendment changed nothing with respect to the rights of status of non-slaves.

YOUR COMMENT: They have no access to the constitution as they are in a category created by the federal govt and do not have access to any constitutional rights.

MY RESPONSE: What a load of B.S. The rights of non-slaves were never changed by the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments. So, NOTHING whatsoever changed for non-slaves. Non-slaves, being BOTH state citizens and United States citizens, ALREADY had the rights and protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution. The thirteenth and fourteenth amendments merely outlawed slavery in the states and territories and gave former slaves the same Constitutional rights and protections that non-slaves had enjoyed since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, almost a century beforehand. Again, STATE citizens who were non-slaves had always enjoyed the rights and protections afforded them by the U.S. Constitution. The fourteenth amendment merely extended those same rights and protections to the former slaves. Nothing more.

The Fourteenth Amendment defines what a US citizen is: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States AND [CITIZENS] OF THE STATE [OR TERRITORY] WHEREIN THEY RESIDE..."
"the United States is not The United States of America. United States is a Corporation. A resident is a person staying someplace temporarily to do business.
The 14th was never ratified. An Arizona Supreme Court Justice wrote a book about that. It is called "The Non-Ratification of the 14th Amendment".
 
Joined
Jan 4, 2020
Messages
169
Likes
167
#76
This thread has given me a massive headache, and it usually takes something of serious convolution to bring one on...
 
Joined
Jan 30, 2020
Messages
21
Likes
10
#78
Many ranking officers were Jews. His driver and personal friend for years was a Jew. His long-time bodyguard was a Jew.
Some people claim evidence strongly suggests that his father was a Rothschild.

Re: the 14th. The Blacks could have been given National Status in the state where they were born. The were not freed by the Lincoln Administration; they were seized as property, which they were. Lincoln repeatedly wrote he had no intention or need to free them.
When you admit to being a U.S. citizen of either stripe, you give up your natural rights and get instead the 14th amendment; it was given by a bunch of fucks in expensive suits, and it can be taken away by the same criminals.
 
Last edited:

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
3,386
Likes
3,092
#79
Many ranking officers were Jews. His driver and personal friend for years was a Jew. His long-time bodyguard was a Jew.
Some people claim evidence strongly suggests that his father was a Rothschild.

Re: the 14th. The Blacks could have been given National Status in the state where they were born. The were not freed by the Lincoln Administration; they were seized as property, which they were. Lincoln repeatedly wrote he had no intention or need to free them.
When you admit to being a U.S. citizen of either stripe, you give up your natural rights and get instead the 14th amendment; it was given by a bunch of fucks in expensive suits, and it can be taken away by the same criminals.
Thank's for noticing my Signature Line.

Adolf was a Jewish construct to scare the hell out of the little Jews and send them to Palestine and the rest of what we call the free world.
Adolf made many things possible, the cold war, the iron curtain, a large standing USA Army, Navy and Air force. Plus all the debts to be loaded on the little people while the Jews made money out of thin air, to buy up control of the world.
 

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
3,386
Likes
3,092
#80
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCE61FIK-pA


This video describes our situation in the US.
State is defined in title 26; 3121 (income tax)

(e)State, United States, and citizen For purposes of this chapter—
(1)State
The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
(2)United States
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
An individual who is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (but not otherwise a citizen of the United States) shall be considered, for purposes of this section, as a citizen of the United States.


Notice the absence of the several (50) States.