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

U.S. SUPREME COURT SAYS NO LICENSE NECESSARY TO DRIVE AUTOMOBILE ON PUBLIC ROADS

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,570
Likes
6,663
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
So, yeah so ur going to lv this....ahaha....drats. IDK if I posted this here or there but, but I was traveling to burns to pick up a horse trailer and the reds and blues popped up behind me.

First words out of my mouth were "Why did you arrest me?" I got arrested for a license plate light; two days later I got a letter from the mall cop's employer saying charges had been dropped due to internal error. wtf is internal error?

don't answer....
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
42,205
Likes
66,955
Location
Rocky Mountains
So, yeah so ur going to lv this....ahaha....drats. IDK if I posted this here or there but, but I was traveling to burns to pick up a horse trailer and the reds and blues popped up behind me.

First words out of my mouth were "Why did you arrest me?" I got arrested for a license plate light; two days later I got a letter from the mall cop's employer saying charges had been dropped due to internal error. wtf is internal error?

don't answer....
What did the conversation go like?
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,570
Likes
6,663
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Why did you arrest me?
quizzical look
You arrested my freedom of movement.
I need to see your drivers license.
That ain't happening.

Then there was the I stopped you for no plate light and a plethora of other stupid questions.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
279
Likes
27
Hello Goldhedge,

The emphasized portion of your photo above is non-law (an amateur legal theory). Some buffoon just made it up. The author is very likely mentally ill. That seems to be a common thread among authors of such amateur legal theories.

On a different subject, this is my new stuff. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/show...spiracy-weaponized-weather-fires-depopulation). It is one page ONE of a Google search under the search term, "Deborah Tavares".

With Respect,

Snoop
 

Juristic Person

They drew first blood
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,833
Likes
3,974
Hello Goldhedge,

The emphasized portion of your photo above is non-law (an amateur legal theory). Some buffoon just made it up. The author is very likely mentally ill. That seems to be a common thread among authors of such amateur legal theories.

On a different subject, this is my new stuff. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/show...spiracy-weaponized-weather-fires-depopulation). It is one page ONE of a Google search under the search term, "Deborah Tavares".

With Respect,

Snoop
I live in the state of Arizona.

When I go to “traffic court” the plaintiff is THE STATE OF ARIZONA. Who is that? Is that a legal fiction? Is it a person? A geographic location?

Help me understand...and then let’s take the next step...
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,570
Likes
6,663
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Hello Goldhedge,

The emphasized portion of your photo above is non-law (an amateur legal theory). Some buffoon just made it up. The author is very likely mentally ill. That seems to be a common thread among authors of such amateur legal theories.

On a different subject, this is my new stuff. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/show...spiracy-weaponized-weather-fires-depopulation). It is one page ONE of a Google search under the search term, "Deborah Tavares".

With Respect,

Snoop
ur busted stoop just flat plain busted. non law? keep stroking it bud cuz you need ur kind of release....just hopeful u'll keep that splooge away from me.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
42,205
Likes
66,955
Location
Rocky Mountains
Help me understand...and then let’s take the next step...
JP - He's not gonna engage you in a discussion... his manner is a monologue with no debate.

You can post logic all you like but he's a slippery lawyer type. You can even post law that works and he ignores it.

You can't confuse him with the facts when his mind is made up...

We should hold a trial right here. Let's say the legalities of a lawful defense?

A ticket is issued and we'll let Snoop be the judge... we'll defend ourselves and he gets to preside...?
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,739
Likes
6,457
Location
right here right now
[QUOTE="snoop4truth, post: 1675754, member: 18115". Some buffoon just made it up. [/QUOTE]

Just like you and every other lawyer, engage in (and created) a system (public policy democracy), put in place over the true constitutional republic, that does nothing but enrich lawyers with lawyer created corporate law in all too many cases, where no harm was done to anyone, except to a non constitutional corporate statute that was only created for the enrichment of fucking lawyers.

The only buffoon here, is you snoopshit...
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
279
Likes
27
I live in the state of Arizona.

When I go to “traffic court” the plaintiff is THE STATE OF ARIZONA. Who is that? Is that a legal fiction? Is it a person? A geographic location?

Help me understand...and then let’s take the next step...
Hello Juristic Person,

I apologize for the delay.

I just found this today.

YOUR COMMENT: When I go to “traffic court” the plaintiff is THE STATE OF ARIZONA. Who is that? Is that a legal fiction? Is it a person? A geographic location?

MY RESPONSE: The term, "STATE", state has different meanings depending on the context. In the context of a plaintiff in an Arizona traffic case, the term, "STATE", means "ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE WHO LIVE WITHIN THE BORDERS OF ARIZONA, COLLECTIVELY, SPEAKING WITH A SINGLE VOICE, THROUGH THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES". Indeed, in some jurisdictions, the plaintiff in traffic and criminal cases is simply "THE PEOPLE" (who reside within the borders of the jurisdiction, collectively, speaking with a single voice through their elected representatives).

YOUR COMMENT: Help me understand...and then let’s take the next step

MY RESPONSE: Fine. I am always happy to help. Please write me at snoop4truth@gmail.com to notify me when it is time for me to respond. That way, I will respond immediately.

With Respect,

Snoop
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
279
Likes
27
JP - He's not gonna engage you in a discussion... his manner is a monologue with no debate.

You can post logic all you like but he's a slippery lawyer type. You can even post law that works and he ignores it.

You can't confuse him with the facts when his mind is made up...

We should hold a trial right here. Let's say the legalities of a lawful defense?

A ticket is issued and we'll let Snoop be the judge... we'll defend ourselves and he gets to preside...?
Hello Goldhedge,

YOUR COMMENT: He's not gonna engage you in a discussion... his manner is a monologue with no debate. You can post logic all you like but he's a slippery lawyer type. You can even post law that works and he ignores it. You can't confuse him with the facts when his mind is made up... We should hold a trial right here. Let's say the legalities of a lawful defense? A ticket is issued and we'll let Snoop be the judge... we'll defend ourselves and he gets to preside...?

MY RESPONSE:

I do not check into this site as often as I used to.

We weren't making much real progress as a group.

And, some members seemed more concerned with hating than actually learning the law.

Regardless, I do not intentionally avoid a genuine discussion about the law.

It's just that I am unaware that such a discussion is going on.

Please write to me at snoop4truth@gmail.com to let me know when you'd like to discuss the law and the legal system.

I am always happy to help those with a real interest in the law.

But, I do not have time for the other stuff that goes on here.

I hope you understand.

With Much Respect,

Snoop
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,739
Likes
6,457
Location
right here right now
But, I do not have time for the other stuff that goes on here.

I hope you understand.
I understand that you are running away like the the whipped dog that you are. Good, cuz it's all too obvious to any intelligent observer/reader that you cannot defend your position of adversarial fabrications, except with more prevarications...

And you want us to notify you that we are talking about you or to you. :laughing:

no sir...
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
42,205
Likes
66,955
Location
Rocky Mountains
Now you guys, Snoop has 'other' proclivities.

Just let him respond as requested...
 

Juristic Person

They drew first blood
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,833
Likes
3,974
MY RESPONSE: The term, "STATE", state has different meanings depending on the context. In the context of a plaintiff in an Arizona traffic case, the term, "STATE", means "ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE WHO LIVE WITHIN THE BORDERS OF ARIZONA, COLLECTIVELY, SPEAKING WITH A SINGLE VOICE, THROUGH THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES". Indeed, in some jurisdictions, the plaintiff in traffic and criminal cases is simply "THE PEOPLE" (who reside within the borders of the jurisdiction, collectively, speaking with a single voice through their elected representatives).
I asked you to define in my example “THE STATE OF ARIZONA” who is identified as the Plaintiff.

You gave me your definition for “STATE”. “STATE” is not the Plaintiff.

That would be like somebody asking me to define identify the Defendant, named “JURISTIC PERSON” and only providing the definition of the word “Juristic” in that given context. It’s not the same thing.

When I am fighting a civil traffic case in their color of law court they call “traffic court”, do “all the people who live within the state of Arizona” need to show up or just one of their elected representatives? I have a right to face my accuser, correct? Who exactly is “STATE OF ARIZONA” (the plaintiff) or its representation in that case? I have nevertheless see an elected official show up in the court room as the Plaintiff in a traffic case. And as a person who loves within the state of Arizona, how can I represent both parties?

Please help me understand....
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,570
Likes
6,663
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
It's the men who have formed a social compact that is the STATE, not me and not you as it is a them.

I have a motion to dismiss I am handing out today for a dws and a nobrainer insurance thing...seems the insurance documentation was on the girls phone...hey, how was I to know? It wasn't on my phone...I sure miss the days of paper; I mean whats going to happen in a few years ppl going to be whipping their butts with their phones? sorry, flippen wondering mind.
So there I was perusing through miles of statutes about what the state can and cannot do and then I found my out in a case; an appealed case. So then I had to redo the motion to dismiss. Drats I had been working on that thing since 3:30am and it was then 9am...… so finished the new one by 12:30 pm and of course every one is on lunch break and then I found at 1am I was not on the docket, so I called the issuing department. and here is what I found out>

This is a bit of dirty pool but it is tactical none the less. You get a ticket and then the police sargent has to ok them then the next day they are snail mailed to the court. This burns up 3 to 4 days and it encroaches on the time that you or I have to get this motion in front of a judge; and you have to know the name of the justice of the particular court for the order to work right because if you don't you are swept up into their jurisdiction and then it is a up hill battle.

What I found out about all the statutes is the legislators have it pretty well sewed up with all their incidental laws that they patch up their quilt with. What I don't get is the probable cause without the warrant. A cop is in the executive branch of the gumbyment so how can he find probable cause when that is used to get the warrant from a justice? Yet I get pulled over because I din't breach the peace nor did I commit a felony; hell I din't even get in a wreck. Yes the cop pulled in behind me because I was the new car in town; FUCK talk about predatory policing! I only went into town to get some gas because I was on empty and I got stalked by roger-ram-jet; only they don't see it that way.

So here is how I am getting out of this poop storm: First words out of the cops mouth were "You are being recorded."; "Why did you arrest me?"; "My computer told me this car has no insurance."; and it goes on and on and he leaves and leaves a paper with me and all this is on his body camera which is available to me under discovery. Thing of it is I could have been a murder-er or anything like it or less that is but what that computer designates as information does not rise to probable cause as it is the one operating it that MUST do something to get stopped; or there must be a warrant associated with the car for the stop to rise up to probable cause; as they see it.

You know I still have not found the reasoning how the power (if you will,) how the power of the courts got transferred into the power of the executive and vice versa? To me that is the real question.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
279
Likes
27
I asked you to define in my example “THE STATE OF ARIZONA” who is identified as the Plaintiff.

You gave me your definition for “STATE”. “STATE” is not the Plaintiff.

That would be like somebody asking me to define identify the Defendant, named “JURISTIC PERSON” and only providing the definition of the word “Juristic” in that given context. It’s not the same thing.

When I am fighting a civil traffic case in their color of law court they call “traffic court”, do “all the people who live within the state of Arizona” need to show up or just one of their elected representatives? I have a right to face my accuser, correct? Who exactly is “STATE OF ARIZONA” (the plaintiff) or its representation in that case? I have nevertheless see an elected official show up in the court room as the Plaintiff in a traffic case. And as a person who loves within the state of Arizona, how can I represent both parties?

Please help me understand....
Hello Juristic Person,

YOUR COMMENT: I asked you to define in my example “THE STATE OF ARIZONA” who is identified as the Plaintiff. You gave me your definition for “STATE”. “STATE” is not the Plaintiff. That would be like somebody asking me to define identify the Defendant, named “JURISTIC PERSON” and only providing the definition of the word “Juristic” in that given context. It’s not the same thing.

MY RESPONSE: In the context of a plaintiff in an Arizona traffic case, the term, "STATE OF ARIZONA", means "ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE WITHIN THE BORDERS OF ARIZONA, COLLECTIVELY, SPEAKING WITH A SINGLE VOICE, THROUGH THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES".

YOUR COMMENT: When I am fighting a civil traffic case in their color of law court they call “traffic court”

MY RESPONSE: Respectfully, you are using the term "color of law" incorrectly. In the real legal system, the phrase, "color of law" does not refer to the law or to a court. In the real legal system the phrase, "color of law", REFERS ONLY TO A PERSON'S INDIVIDUAL CONDUCT, BEHAVIOR OR ACTIONS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_(law).

YOUR COMMENT: do “all the people who live within the state of Arizona” need to show up or just one of their elected representatives?

MY RESPONSE: I think you already know that all of the people who live within the borders of Arizona do not need to show up at every Arizona traffic court case. THE STATE OF ARIZONA IS REPRESENTED IN TRAFFIC COURT BY AN ATTORNEY ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE IN THE COUNTY IN ARIZONA WHERE THE TRAFFIC COURT SITS. THAT IS WHY THIS ATTORNEY IS CALLED THE "STATE'S ATTORNEY" (BECAUSE HE/SHE WAS ELECTED TO REPRESENT "THE STATE" IN SUCH CASES).

YOUR COMMENT: I have a right to face my accuser, correct?

MY RESPONSE: Yes. YOUR ACCUSER IS THE LAW ENFORCMENT OFFICER who issued you the ticket. Your accuser must actually show up at traffic court in person so as to allow you to confront him/her OR THE JUDGE WILL DISMISS THE STATE'S CASE AGAINST YOU. Your accuser is employed by the ELECTED governor (Highway Patrol & State Police) or the ELECTED sheriff (Sheriff's Office) or the ELECTED city police chief (Police Department). So, the head of every law enforcement agency in our country is ELECTED by "We the People" to enforce the laws passed by lawmakers that "We the People" ELECT to make our laws. Your accuser (the officer) is permitted, but not required, to bring additional witnesses to support the accusations against you. And, you also have the right to confront those people as well. Not only that, but you can bring YOUR OWN WITNESSES to traffic court to rebut the claims of your accusers.

YOUR COMMENT: Who exactly is “STATE OF ARIZONA” (the plaintiff) or its representation in that case?

MY RESPONSE: The actual Plaintiff in a traffic case in Arizona is the "STATE OF ARIZONA" (which is all of the people who reside within the borders of Arizona, collectively, speaking with a single voice through their ELECED representatives.).

YOUR COMMENT: I have nevertheless see an elected official show up in the court room as the Plaintiff in a traffic case.

MY RESPONSE: Yes, you have. You simply do not realize it. THE TRAFFIC JUDGE WAS ACTUALLY ELECTED by the people who live in the county or city in Arizona where the traffic offense allegedly occurred. THE "STATE'S ATTORNEY" WAS ELECTED by the people who live in the county in Arizona where the traffic offense allegedly occurred. If you had a public defender (like for a DUI charge), THE PUBLIC DEFENDER WAS ELECTED by the people who live in the county in Arizona where the court house sits. Even the court room bailiff at you traffic hearing was employed by the ELECTED sheriff who was ELECTED by the people of the county in Arizona where the court house sits. Finally, every single law enforced in every civilian court in the country (including Arizona) was written by people who "We the People" ELECT to write our laws.

YOUR COMMENT: And as a person who lives within the state of Arizona, how can I represent both parties?

MY RESPONSE: You can't "REPRESENT" both sides. You are not an attorney. So, you can only "REPRESENT" yourself. The "STATE OF ARIZONA" (meaning all of the people who reside within the borders of Arizona, collectively, speaking with a single voice, through their ELECTED representatives) IS ALREADY REPRESENTED BY THE "STATE'S ATTORNEY". Indeed, this is precisely where the name "STATE'S ATTORNEY" comes from (that attorney was ELECTED to represent "THE STATE" in such cases and is therefore called the "STATE'S ATTORNEY").

With Respect,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

Juristic Person

They drew first blood
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,833
Likes
3,974
Snoop -

You mentioned the STATES “Attorney” multiple times.

If an attorney representing the STATE OF ARIZONA does not “appear” for a civil traffic court “hearing”, then doesn’t that put the Plaintiff in default for non-appearance?

If no attorney is present, who represents the plaintiff in court?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
279
Likes
27
Snoop -

You mentioned the STATES “Attorney” multiple times.

If an attorney representing the STATE OF ARIZONA does not “appear” for a civil traffic court “hearing”, then doesn’t that put the Plaintiff in default for non-appearance?

If no attorney is present, who represents the plaintiff in court?
Snoop4truth is some sort of A.I. program.

Greeting Snoop4truth!

I have a question for you.

Cna yuo pelsae tlel me who is yuor hnadelr? I wnat to konw who is cnotorlling yuor porgarm....

Tnahk you!

MY RESPONSE: JuristicPerson, There are people on this thread for whom I can justify the investment of my time to help. By posting the foregoing, you have proven to me that you are simply not among them.

I Wish You The Best,

Snoop
 

Juristic Person

They drew first blood
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,833
Likes
3,974
Snoop4truth is some sort of A.I. program.

Greeting Snoop4truth!

I have a question for you.

Cna yuo pelsae tlel me who is yuor hnadelr? I wnat to konw who is cnotorlling yuor porgarm....

Tnahk you!

MY RESPONSE: JuristicPerson, There are people on this thread for whom I can justify the investment of my time to help. By posting the foregoing, you have proven to me that you are simply not among them.

I Wish You The Best,

Snoop
Typical response of somebody who does not know how to answer the question. It’s unfortunate but expected so don’t feel bad. Right about there is where most judges get stumped.

Hey look!!! I found a back door!

I accept your default....without prejudice.

Have a good one, snoop dog.
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,739
Likes
6,457
Location
right here right now
MY RESPONSE: Respectfully, you are using the term "color of law" incorrectly. In the real legal system, the phrase, "color of law" does not refer to the law or to a court. In the real legal system the phrase, "color of law", REFERS ONLY TO A PERSON'S INDIVIDUAL CONDUCT, BEHAVIOR OR ACTIONS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_(law).

What total horseshit. And anyone who believes this is a total moron without a clue of reality.

So it's us the people using coloring crayons to color law the way we want to. Kinda dismisses all the perfidy of your profession, doesn't it.

This answer is just too ignorant to be real, exacty what I'd expect from a brainless programmed bot
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
42,205
Likes
66,955
Location
Rocky Mountains
Snoop4truth is some sort of A.I. program.

Greeting Snoop4truth!

I have a question for you.

Cna yuo pelsae tlel me who is yuor hnadelr? I wnat to konw who is cnotorlling yuor porgarm....

Tnahk you!

MY RESPONSE: JuristicPerson, There are people on this thread for whom I can justify the investment of my time to help. By posting the foregoing, you have proven to me that you are simply not among them.

I Wish You The Best,

Snoop
I'm thinking Snoopy met his match here at GIM2...

He posts tons of crap in just one post that nobody, NOBODY will wade through and he believes he, his 'version' of 'the law' is the only correct one.

LOL debating Snoopy reminds me of playing chess with a pigeon....
“Never play chess with a pigeon.
The pigeon just knocks all the pieces over.
Then shits all over the board.
Then struts around like it won.”

We're all dumber for the experience!

If anything is to come of Snoopy's diatribe it's that we can all learn from the word vomit he spewed.

DON'T FOLLOW HIS ADVICE... and I use the term 'advice' loosely.

The law is supposed to be simple and it is once you understand the word game they play. Lawyers love to obfuscate and confuse the public with all their mumbo jumbo. The law is their game. It can be defeated using Common Law principles. It just takes ferreting out the reality, and time to figure it out. Most folks don't have the inclination, nor the time to bother with it. They pay the fine because it's easier than fighting.

Just as the DA will 'plea deal' to get a conviction, err a 'notch on his belt', a 'win' at your expense. Even if you are innocent. They aren't 'for' the law as much as they are for screwing people over!

That is not 'the law', that is extortion.
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,739
Likes
6,457
Location
right here right now
Yah, go run away. wimp

You have no clue what real law is.

All you can do is spout your professions LEGAL but unlawful to the constitution public policy democracy, which was created by the likes of youse lawyer thieves as a way to fund youse lawyers to destroy the true constitutional republic of this nation through extortion.

Do you understand treason?

You are beyond pathetic.
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
15,667
Likes
28,074
Location
ORYGUN

Bigjon

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
2,767
Likes
2,542
One thing that everybody here including snoopy, seems to be missing is that all those statutory laws only apply to land is owned by the United States.

And most land in this country is privately owned.

And BAR card attorneys can only practice their law on US owned land or on US Citizens.

Why do we all volunteer to be stupid? Just declare that you have no evidence that you are a US Citizen and ask them to prove that you are one.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
279
Likes
27
One thing that everybody here including snoopy, seems to be missing is that all those statutory laws only apply to land is owned by the United States.

And most land in this country is privately owned.

And BAR card attorneys can only practice their law on US owned land or on US Citizens.

Why do we all volunteer to be stupid? Just declare that you have no evidence that you are a US Citizen and ask them to prove that you are one.
Hello Bigjon,

YOUR COMMENT: One thing that everybody here including snoopy, seems to be missing is that all those statutory laws only apply to land is owned by the United States.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. Federal law has no limitation in terms of territory/geography. It applies to every square foot of every state and territory and even governs the high seas and international commerce. Federal law is limited only by SUBJECT MATTER. State law is limited by state borders and is not limited to publicly-owned lands. It applies everywhere in the state.

YOUR COMMENT: And, most land in this country is privately owned.

MY RESPONSE: That makes no difference whatsoever.

YOUR COMMENT: And BAR card attorneys can only practice their law on US owned land or on US Citizens.

MY RESPONSE: First of all, there is no such thing as a "BAR card attorney". That is an amateur legal theory. Attorneys are licensed by the Supreme Court of the state in which they practice (not by the American Bar Association, which is just a club for attorneys who want to join and receive a monthly magazine). Attorneys may only practice in the state in which they are licensed, not in other states, unless they get special court permission from that other state. Attorneys are not limited to practicing on federal lands or on US citizens.

YOUR COMMENT: Why do we all volunteer to be stupid?

MY RESPONSE: You could avoid that consequence by ceasing to believe amateur legal theories and by reading the law.

YOUR COMMENT: Just declare that you have no evidence that you are a US Citizen and ask them to prove that you are one.

MY RESPONSE: That would serve no purpose whatsoever. The law applies to all human beings, citizens, non-citizens, residents, non-residents, aliens, non-aliens, foreigners, domestics, etc.

You are smarter than this Bigjon. Do not pretend otherwise.

Best Regards,

Snoop
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
279
Likes
27
One thing that everybody here including snoopy, seems to be missing is that all those statutory laws only apply to land is owned by the United States.

And most land in this country is privately owned.

And BAR card attorneys can only practice their law on US owned land or on US Citizens.

Why do we all volunteer to be stupid? Just declare that you have no evidence that you are a US Citizen and ask them to prove that you are one.
Here Bigjon, read this.

ROD CLASS & THE A.B.A. IS THE BAR HOAX & OTHER HOAXES ABOUT LAWYERS

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.
 
Last edited:

Bigjon

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
2,767
Likes
2,542
The one thing that is missing in all of that is the definition of STATE.

Without that it is more garbage.
 

Bigjon

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
2,767
Likes
2,542
The one thing that is missing in all of that is the definition of STATE.

Without that it is more garbage.
It appears that our lieyer has left the premises, unable to answer a simple question.

In contrast to his multiple pages of garbage.

To study the Common Law; http://www.svpvril.com/clcourse.html
 

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
25,664
Likes
36,548
Location
Qmerica
The one thing that is missing in all of that is the definition of STATE.

Without that it is more garbage.
ep, definitions matter and can change according to the one doing the defining. Legalese at it's finest (worst).
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,570
Likes
6,663
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
there is a little dity in the charter of Oregon but you will only find it in the annotated links. Meaning it does not intimate this in words but uses legal-ease. I'mnot kidding and I do this from memory......

If there is has been a crime and no one is has been harmed then the people of Oregon have been harmed. What this means is the state has standing over environmental issues. Yeah that is the way it reads and it all looks cool until one realizes that people do not equate with person. So- a guy just keeps calling the people up there and proving they are person and you will have no people testifying against you.

See, it's little shit like this Snoopie covers up with its plethora of linky-BS.