• "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

Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
206
Likes
12
#81
Snoop most likely agrees that Federal Reserve Money is money. S/he probably could post a law that states it - heck - a whole page of codes and statues even... But here's a conundrum... The federal reserve note is... a note. A note is a sign of debt. How does one payoff/retire a debt with a debt?
Goldhedge,

First, I want to make it absolutely clear that I oppose the Federal Reserve. I also oppose so-called "fraction reserve" lending, which is pure fraud and theft and which causes "debt slavery".

But, I take no position on this subject of your question. The real law on the subject of your question is below for whatever benefit that might be to you and our colleagues on this thread.

The words below have never appeared before anywhere else on the web. I wrote these words for the first time in response to your comment above. So, this is not a "duplicate" or a "machinegun post".

THE REAL LAW ITSELF ON WHETHER FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES ARE MONEY

1. White v. U.S., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14753248592698700360&q="has+established+that"+"Congress,+in+full+accordance+with+its+authority+under"+"the+constitution"+"do+not+constitute+money"+"are+legal+tender"+"is+clearly+without+merit"+"clearly+baseless"+"Federal+reserve+notes"+"are+not+money"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a tax protester was convicted of a tax-related offense and moved to vacate the judgment against him. He argued that he incurred no tax liability because he was paid in the form of Federal Reserve notes. On appeal, he argued he had "ineffective assistance of counsel" on the grounds that "his lawyer should have argued that Federal Reserve Notes do not constitute "money" under federal statute because they are not backed by gold or silver." But the court disagreed and wrote, "As explained by the Fourth Circuit, "Congress, in full accordance with its authority under article I, section 8, clause 5 of the Constitution, has established that Federal Reserve notes are legal tender." (citation omitted). The Court in [an identical case]... rejected the defendant's arguments that "hinge upon his belief that Federal Reserve notes are not money," characterizing such arguments as "clearly baseless under any conceivable set of facts." (in the 21st paragraph at about 50% through the text).

2. Cauvel II v. Commisioner, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4823644493408609770&q="federal+reserve+notes"+"are+not+money"+rejected+frivolous+groundless+"repeatedly+considered+and"+universally+"other+protester-type+arguments"+ambassador+"who+accepts+no+governmental+privileges"+exempt+"was+improperly+ratified"+"sixteenth+amendment"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a tax protester argued "that he is not liable for the deficiencies and additions to his [tax obligations]... because the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was improperly ratified; there is no taxable gain from the receipt of wages or other compensation for personal services because the personal services have a basis equal to the wages or other compensation received in exchange; federal reserve notes are not money because they are not backed by gold; petitioner is exempt from income taxation because he is neither a corporation nor a governmental employee but instead is a natural, private, nonenfranchised individual who accepts no governmental privileges and is an ambassador from the Kingdom of God; and other protester-type arguments which have been universally rejected by the Courts." The court ruled against the tax protester and held the tax protester liable for the original deficiencies and additions, and then assessed an additional $5,000.00 penalty against the tax protester for his behavior. (at the 7nd paragraph at about 65% through the text).

3. Lee v. Commisioner, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3006283153837357387&q="we+will+not+waste+our+time+discussing+such+hollow+arguments"+"not+reportable+as+income"+"which+have+been+considered+and+rejected+on+numerous+occasions"+"constitute+income"+"federal+reserve+notes"+"not+money"+"It+has+been+consistently+held+however+that"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006. In this case, tax protesters seeking to avoid paying income taxes argued "that the Federal Reserve notes they received in the years in issue are not reportable as income at their face value. It has been consistently held, however, that Federal Reserve notes [do] constitute income at face value. (citations omitted). We will not waste our time discussing such hollow arguments which have been considered and rejected on numerous occasions."(at the section entitled "OPINION" at about 15% through the text). Elsewhere in the case the tax protestors argued "... that Federal Reserve notes are not legal dollars." In the following paragraph, the tax protester argued that, "... Federal Reserve notes are not United States dollars as defined by law... ." But, the court ruled otherwise required the tax protesters to pay income taxes on the Federal Reserve Notes they received in the subject tax years. (at the end of "Issue 5" and the beginning of "Issue 6" at about 80% through the text).

4. Tiffany v. Commissioner, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10850436806728706662&q="They+must+be+rejected+again"+"all+of+these+tired+allegations+have+been+considered+by+the+courts+and+rejected+repeatedly"+"are+not+income"+"federal+reserve+notes"+"are+not+money"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a tax protestor argued, "... that he had no "income" within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because he received his compensation in [the form of] Federal Reserve Notes; such notes are not "money" in that they are not redeemable in gold or silver coin, and therefore, they are not income." But, the court ruled otherwise and wrote, "All of these tired allegations have been considered by the courts and rejected repeatedly. They must be rejected again." (in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs beginning at about 50% through the text).

5. Harrell v. Commissioner, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4117162275911214916&q=valueless+"Not+redeemable"+"constitutional+money"+"not+dollars"+"lawful+money"+unredeemable+fraudulent+fraud+worthless+imposed+penalty+additional++sanctions+"protester+allegations"+misguided+groundless+frivolous+"Federal+Reserve+Notes"+"are+not+money"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a tax protestor who sought to avoid paying income taxes on his income argued, "... that he was not obligated to file tax returns, because the "unredeemable Federal Reserve notes he may have received" are "valueless" [meaning they were "not money"] and so did not "trigger any involuntary requirement to report such U.S. obligation activity to the [IRS]... ." But, the court disagreed and not only found the tax protestor liable for back taxes, but also ordered him to pay a $10,000 penalty his behavior. (in the 2nd paragraph below "OPINION" and about 50% though the case).

6. Hightower v. Capital One Finance, et al, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8617227736829971139&q="constitutional+form"+"are+not+money"+"legal+tender"+"prohibiting+states"+"preventing+states"+rejected+"has+been+rejected"+"finding+untenable"+dismissing+"is+meritless"+"does+not"+"Federal+reserve+notes"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a debtor sought to avoid paying a lender by arguing: 1). that he was loaned Federal Reserve notes which are not money; and 2). that the lender created the Federal Reserve notes he received. But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "The theory that Federal Reserve notes are not legal tender is meritless as a matter of law, as another district court in this circuit has explained:

In arguing that the system of lending money in the United States is unconstitutional, Plaintiff cites Sections 8 and 10 of Article I in the United States Constitution. . . . Nonetheless, ever since the Supreme Court ruled in "The Legal-Tender Cases," in 1884, Courts have consistently held that neither of these provisions of the Constitution renders the country's current money-lending system unconstitutional. See Julliard v. Greenman ("The Legal-Tender Cases"), 110 U.S. 421, 447-48, 4 S. Ct. 122, 28 L. Ed. 204 (1884) (holding that Congress has the power of making the notes of the United States a legal tender in payment of private debts, and that such power is not restricted by the fact that its exercise may affect the value of private contracts); United States v. Ri[f]en, 577 F.2d 1111, 1113 (8th Cir. 1978) (art. I, § 10 of the Constitution does not "limit Congress' power to declare what shall be legal tender for all debts," and the fact that the type of money in use is neither gold nor silver does not render a loan unconstitutional); Foret v. Wilson, 725 F.2d 254 (5th Cir. 1984) (dismissing plaintiff's argument that only gold and silver coin may be constituted legal tender by the United States); Edgar v. Inland Steel Co., 744 F.2d 1276, 1277 (7th Cir. 1984) (finding untenable plaintiff's argument that federal reserve notes are not "money" because they are not backed by gold and silver specie); L.R. Nixon v. Phillipoff, 615 F. Supp. 890 (N.D. Ind. 1985) (finding that plaintiff's [sic] misinterpreted art. I, §§ 8 and 10 of the Constitution, and holding that Section 10 acts only to "remove from the states the inherent sovereign power to declare currency, thus leaving Congress the sole declarant of what constitutes legal tender"); Kolb v. Naylor, 658 F. Supp. 520 (N.D. Iowa 1987) (finding that the loans to plaintiffs constituted the lending of money and the creation of a debt, rather than the creation of money); United States v. Schiefen, 926 F. Supp. 877 ([]D.S.D. 1995) (noting that Schiefen's argument that United States currency is unconstitutional "unbacked paper" has been rejected by numerous courts); State ex rel. White v. Mack, 93 Ohio St. 3d 572, 757 N.E.2d 353, 355 (Ohio 2001) (citing Baird v. Cty. Assessors of Salt Lake & Utah Ctys., 779 P.2[2d] 676, 680 (Utah 1989)) (finding that the provision in art. I, § 10 of the United States Constitution is not a directive to states to use only gold or silver coins, but is "merely a restriction preventing states from establishing their own legal tender other than gold or silver coins").​
Nixon v. Phillipoff provides a thorough analysis of why courts consider federal reserve notes to be a constitutional form of legal tender." In Nixon, a debtor sued a lender that had foreclosed on him. "The court, however, rejected Nixon's argument, concluding ...​
Nixon has misinterpreted the import of § 10's prohibition. Courts have uniformly interpreted § 10 as prohibiting [THE] STATES from declaring anything other than gold or silver coin as legal tender ... yet ["The Legal-Tender Cases"] do not interpret § 10 as requiring states to accept only gold and silver coin as tender, nor could they, as they both recognize the unrestricted power of Congress to declare what shall constitute legal tender, including bills of credit, treasury notes, and federal reserve notes. In short, § 10 acts only to remove from THE STATES the inherent sovereign power to declare currency, thus leaving Congress the sole declarant of what constitutes legal tender. Thus ... the states are constitutionally compelled to accept [federal reserve notes] as legal tender.​
In this case, where Plaintiff's arguments all rest on his assertion that, according to art. I, §§ 8, and 10 of the constitution, Defendant created money, his argument fails as a matter of law. Private parties may enter into transactions to trade whatever they agree upon as having equal value, and they are not limited to gold and silver coins. . . . Though Plaintiff asserts that Defendants' loans were unlawful because they did not provide him with any "real, gold or silver backed money" as constitutionally mandated, as evidenced above, Courts have long held that such transactions are both legal and constitutional. Hence, Plaintiff's claims are entirely without merit.
(citations omitted). (at section "a." beginning at about 45%).

7). New Century TRS Holdings, Inc. v. new Century Mortgage, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7559490608550942578&q=untenable+baseless+dismissed+insufficient+"absolutely+no+merit"+rejected++frivolous+hopeless+"federal+reserve+notes"+"not+money"+"are+legal+tender"+"as+legal+tender"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a debtor sued a lender and asked the court to relieve his debt. The court wrote:

It is Petitioner's contention that the United States is and has been in a bankruptcy since at least 1933 and evidence of such can be found in the Congressional Record and the United States Code. As part of the "New Deal" the United States borrowed 33 million non-redeemable Federal Reserve Notes from the Federal Reserve and at that time a new form of currency entered into circulation in the system of commence.​
As a result today, as contained in numerous case decisions, a debt can no longer be discharged as a matter of law. Meaning, Federal Reserve Notes have no intrinsic value [meaning are "not money"], and as such, are negotiable instruments under the negotiable instruments law and when used to, in the common vernacular, "pay" a debt it is like paying a $2 debt owed with a $2 I.O.U. The net result is that one ends up with $4 of debt and therefore, the debt is not paid but merely discharged as a matter of law. The original debt still exists but the nature of debt changes and is no longer collectible. (Note that this is the identical rhetorical argument used by Goldhedge above.).
As a matter of practice and usage the only functional currency in circulation and use today is non-redeemable Federal Reserve Notes. When Petitioner applied for a loan and was funded on the loan he understood and believed he was being loaned "money", meaning money of exchange, that was redeemable and had intrinsic value when in reality he was purchasing credit from the Federal Reserve through the lender in the form of Negotiable Instruments or specifically Federal Reserve Notes.
But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "Faced with similar arguments in Sneed v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, 2007 WL 1851674 (S.D.Cal. June 27, 2007), the Court determined that such arguments are "legally frivolous," writing:

It has long been established that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and that legal tender need not consist of silver or gold coin. See generally Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 294 U.S. 240, 303, 55 S.Ct. 407, 414, 79 L.Ed. 885 (1935) (explaining the validity and effect of federal acts providing for the issuance of currency, and affirming the status of Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations as legal tender); Foret v. Wilson, 725 F.2d 254, 254-55 (5th Cir.1984) ("[The] argument, that only gold and silver coin may be constituted legal tender by the United States, is hopeless and frivolous, having been rejected by the United States Supreme Court one hundred years ago.") (citing Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, 4 S.Ct. 122, 28 L.Ed. 204 (1884)). Furthermore, it is equally well established that checks and instruments redeemable for Federal Reserve notes have value. United States v. Wangrud, 533 F.2d 495, 495 (9th Cir.1976) (affirming conviction of defendant who refused to pay taxes on the ground that he received checks, not money, and noting that the defendant's arguments had "absolutely no merit.").​
Sneed, 2007 WL 1851674 at *3. Similarly, in Rene v. Citibank NA, 32 F.Supp.2d 539 (E.D.N.Y.1999),.. ..See also Khangura v. American Mortgage Express, 2009 WL 1604764, *2 (E.D.Cal. June 5, 2009) (The Court dismissed a complaint because the underlying claims, based on an assertion that the bank had failed to lend the plaintiff "real money," were "untenable, frivolous and must be rejected outright."); Tuttle v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, 2008 WL 4919263 (D.Utah Nov.17, 2008) (The Court dismissed a complaint asserting that the mortgagee failed to lend valuable consideration to the plaintiffs because the plaintiffs theory and similar theories "have been dismissed by the courts as baseless and insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).").

8). Callow v. Amerace Corp., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13457230164550911078&q="the+award+of+attorney+fees+was+an+appropriate+deterrent+to+future+frivolous+suits"+"has+been+rejected+by+every+court+considering+the+claim"+"the+claim+that"+"federal+reserve+notes"+"are+not+valid+money"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an employee sued his employer for a refund of income taxes that the employer had withheld from the employee's paychecks. The employee argued that he incurred no tax liability to the IRS because he was paid with Federal Reserve notes which are "not money". But, the court ruled otherwise and wrote, "The claim that federal reserve notes are not valid money, presented under a variety of theories, has been rejected by every court considering the claim. See, e.g., Stonecipher v. Bray, 653 F.2d 398 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 102 S.Ct. 1006, 71 L.Ed.2d 297 (1982); United States v. Carlson, 617 F.2d 518 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1010, 101 S.Ct. 564, 66 L.Ed.2d 468 (1981); United States v. Smith, 484 F.2d 8 (10th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 978, 94 S.Ct. 1566, 39 L.Ed.2d 874 (1974); Eagle v. Kenai Peninsula Burough, 489 F.Supp. 138 (D.Alaska, 1980); Rap v. Peper, 80-1 U.S. Tax Cases § 9204 (D.Alaska, 1979); Chandler v. Perini Power Constructors, Inc., 520 F.Supp. 1152 (D.N.H.1981). " (in the 4th paragraph at about 70% through the text).

I hope this helps.

Again, I oppose the Federal Reserve and so-called "fraction reserve" lending, which is pure fraud and theft and which s causes "debt slavery".

All The Best,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

Unca Walt

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
8,695
Likes
11,926
Location
South Floriduh
#82
(*snork*)

Regarding this whimpering polemic:

"The fact that this particular poster only complains about bold text, very-large letters and brightly-colored letters if and only if they happen to appear in my posts (rather than in the posts of other members) speaks volumes about the sincerity of this poster's complaints in that regard. This particular poster obviously cannot find fault in the legal accuracy of the content of my comments (or he would have done so). So, he has instead become pathologically transfixed on something infinitely more important to him than the mere legal accuracy of the content of my comments, the type of the letter used."

I musta hit a truth nerve here, eh, troll?

At first, you said you "understood", and said that YOU wrote your shit that way (weird caps, yada) in error, but your trolling logorrhoea just kept intruding.

Boundless, weirdly constructed and long-winded, looped minutiae supposedly originally posted for (in your self-exalting, contumely and smugly immodest hauteur) low-intelligence subhumans. Like those feral types that comprise this group.

Frankly, Scarlett, you bore me. Angels dance on pinheads. Can you feel them angels up there, pinhead?

Your "legal accuracy" regarding this silly subject (equal in seriousness to a reprise of flat-earth, middle earth, and Nebiru) is moot.

And, frankly, I "only complain" about your incompetence in English writing because the rest of your shit is simply shit. <<== Because there just may have been a chance (taken, and lost by you) for some slight redemption in your execrable posting. Others have dissected both you and your bag of nuts.

I do not feel the need to grab those angels off the top of your head so you can get some sleep. The rest of the gang here have handled that part, and it is obvious you have a complete inability to just stop counting footprints. That is why I keep my guns holstered and just flick your nose.

Salient Fact Proving My (Partial) Success:

Your quoted post above is written in a form that does not resemble a circus poster or a Madison Avenue tout for women's underwear. We see you have felt the fear of self-defining as incompetent in language by continuing random size, color, underlining, bolding, yada.

You are welcome for the lesson. Do not forget it like you did the first time (when you apologized for being an insulting dork.)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
206
Likes
12
#83
Never answered any of my questions...

Just machinegun posts the laws the GOVERNMENT uses to control the citizens OF IT'S CORPORATION.

He lives the 'legal' life vs 'lawful' life. Law isn't that complicated.
.
Hello Goldhedge,

As always, thank you for you comments and your dialogue. I will try to respond to your comments individually below.

1. Never answered any of my questions...
RESPONSE: I apologize. Which one (or ones) did I miss? Got a post number (or numbers)?

2. Just machinegun posts the laws...
RESPONSE: As you know, amateur legal theories are cut-and-pasted and then re-posted all over the web (as was the very fake legal article that begins this very thread). Thus, many of the amateur legal theories that I debunk are themselves "machinegun posted" all over the web and are themselves duplicates of duplicates of duplicates which I have already responded to before

So, if I have already researched the real law on the exact same legal subject before and if I have already prepared a rebuttal to the same exact amateur legal theory before, then I post it (what you call "machinegun post"). And, yes, it doesn't take as long for me to post a rebuttal to an amateur legal theory that I have already debunked before. I can see no logical reason to "re-invent the wheel" and re-write the same rebuttal from scratch when the law would be the same as the original.

3. the GOVERNMENT uses to control the citizens OF IT'S CORPORATION
RESPONSE: To the extent that this phrase means the government is a corporation, that is not so. The government is "We the People" speaking with a single voice through our elected representatives as explained in the "SOVEREIGN CITIZEN HOAX" elsewhere on this thread. Below (in the following comment) is the real law on the subject of whether the government is a corporation.

I trust this adequately responds to your concerns. If more is required of me, simply let me know.

All The Best,

Snoop
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
206
Likes
12
#84
Patrinut nonsense...

Governments are corporations. Slavery is illegal.
Hello Goldhedge,

1). Governments are corporations.
RESPONSE: Respectfully, this is not so under the real law below.

2), Slavery is illegal
RESPONSE: Agreed.

THE "ALL GOVERNMENTS ARE PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS HOAX".

FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE:

ARTICLES:
https://anticorruptionsociety.com/2013/04/27/judge-says-usa-inc-is-just-a-corporate-franchise/ (an article actually written by Rodney "DALE" Class while pretending to be "Judge DALE". See paragraphs ACTUALLY NUMBERED "1, 2 & 3")

https://www.akupressllc.com/150121CriminalCourtDenver.pdf (at page ACTUALLY NUMBERED "3" in the 4th paragraph at about 50% through the text)

https://scannedretina.com/2014/11/2...-posing-as-government-of-the-american-people/ (at the first BLOCK INDENTED paragraph IN ALL ITALIC TYPE)

http://houseofpraani.com/portfolio/itnj/ (at the 2nd paragraph)

https://globalfreedommovement.org/e...ut-your-corporate-governments-with-rod-class/

VIDEOS:
(at :1:00-1:15)

YOU MUST SEE THE FOLLOWING PORTIONS OF THESE VIDEOS!:
(at 2:25-4:00, 5:25-6:15, 6:40-7:30, 7:55-8:50)

(at 42:10-42:35, 47:50--49:00)

(at 6:20-6:45, 7:10-7:55, 25:55-26:45)

(at 43:15-43:50, 52:30-53:00)

THE HOAX:
Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists falsely claim that all governments and all government agencies are private, for-profit corporations.
But, this is not so.

THE TRUTH:
No government or government agency is a private, for-profit 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.

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 EXISTING BY THE LAWS OF THE UNTIED STATES [in the way that amateur legal theorists mean it]... . THE UNITED STATES CANNOT, THEREFORE, BE CLASSIFIED AS A CORPORATION EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES [in the way that amateur legal theorists mean it]... ." (in the 3rd to last paragraph of this case).

ABOUT CORPORATIONS:
The term, "corporation" FOOLS Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists. They mistakenly believe that there is only ONE TYPE OF CORPORATION in the whole world and that EVERY CORPORATION in the whole world IS A PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation. https://anticorruptionsociety.com/2013/04/27/judge-says-usa-inc-is-just-a-corporate-franchise/ (at the paragraph ACTUALLY NUMBERED "3"). But, this is not so.

One loose, informal definition of a "corporation" is simply "a separate, legal entity which may enter into contracts in its own name and sue and be sued in its own name". Governments happen to have these same basic characteristics. So, in this sense, AND ONLY IN THIS SENSE, all governments are arguably "corporations" (loosely and informally speaking).

BUT, THIS IS NOT WHAT ROD CLASS AND OTHER AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS MEAN BY CLAIMING THAT ALL GOVERNMENTS ARE "CORPORATIONS". Instead, they mean that ALL governments are corporations WHICH ARE "IN THE BUSINESS" OF STEALING MONEY FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO GENERATE "PROFITS" FOR THEIR "PRIVATE OWNERS". https://anticorruptionsociety.com/2013/04/27/judge-says-usa-inc-is-just-a-corporate-franchise/ (at the paragraph ACTUALLY NUMBERED "3"). Such IMAGINARY governmental entities would NOT merely be "corporations". Instead, such IMAGINARY governmental entities would actually be PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporations. THAT IS SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT IN THE LAW! NO GOVERNMENT OR GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY IN THE UNITED STATES IS A "CORPORATION" IN THIS SENSE OF THE WORD (in the way that amateur legal theorists mean it) and the courts have repeatedly said so.

OTHER TYPES OF CORPORATIONS UNDER THE REAL LAW

Remember, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that every CORPORATION in the whole world is a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation (the "bad" kind of corporation). But, this is not so.

Unknown to Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists, there are DOZENS and DOZENS of different types of corporations. But, ONLY ONE (1) TYPE of corporation is a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS" (the "bad" kind of corporation). Unknown to Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists, there are COUNTLESS OTHER TYPES of NON-PROFIT corporations WHICH ARE ACTUALLY OWNED BY THE PUBLIC, OPERATED BY THE PUBLIC AND SERVE THE PUBLIC (not "private stockholders") FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD.

For example, there are PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT corporations (like some publicly-owned hospitals, schools and universities and some electrical and water utilities, NONE of which have "stockholders" and NONE of which make "profits"). There are also PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT MUNICIPAL corporations (like cities and towns, NONE of which have "stockholders" and NONE of which make "profits" and ALL of which are controlled entirely by people ELECTED by "We the People" TO CONTROL THEM). There are countless other different types of PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT corporations which serve the public (not "private stockholders"). But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this. Click on the links below.

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprise

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

[https://thestartupgarage.com/corporations-trusts-associations-llcs/

https://thestartupgarage.com/corporations-public-benefit-mutual-benefit-religious/


ABOUT "FEDERAL CORPORATIONS"

Our federal government has even structured seventeen of our federal government agencies as PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT "federal corporations" (NO STOCKHOLDERS, NO PROFITS, etc.). In general, all of the federal agencies that are structured this way have two things in common, they all have their own customers (or their own source of revenue) and none of them receive any money from Congress.

Three well-known examples of such federal agencies are the United States Postal Service (The Post Office-U.S. Mail), AMTRAK (a publicly-owned, non-profit railroad) and the Tennessee Valley Authority (a publicly-owned, non-profit ELECTRICAL POWER utility). You will note that ALL THREE of these PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT "federal corporations" have their own customers and none of them receive any money from Congress.

There are THREE MAIN REASONS why the federal government structured these federal agencies as PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT "federal corporations": 1). To force each such federal agency to work within their own budgets BY USING THEIR OWN REVENUES (received from their own customers/sources) instead of receiving money from Congress; 2). To relieve taxpayers of the burden of paying for governmental services that they might not even use (not everyone uses snail mail, rides trains or lives in the "Tennessee Valley"); and 3). To ensure that each such federal agency provide the highest possible quality of service at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer in order to avoid their own failure and collapse (which, due to this organizational structure, would have no adverse effect on the rest of the federal government or on the taxpayer anyway). IT'S ALL ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY AND FAIRNESS TO THE TAXPAYER. For more on this subject, click here. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30365.pdf

FACT: All corporations are "ARTIFICIAL" persons (NON-human beings).

FACT: No "NATURAL" person (no human being) can be a corporation.


THE SECRET CORPORATION MYTH:

FACT: Contrary to what Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe, there is no such thing as a "SECRET CORPORATION" of any kind (regardless of what type they are or whom they serve). All corporations (no matter what type they are or whom they serve) ARE PUBLICLY "INCORPORATED" IN A STATE OR PUBLICLY "CREATED" BY STATUTE OR ORDINANCE. All "PRIVATE" corporations ARE PUBLICLY "INCORPORATED" IN A STATE AND ARE PUBLICLY "REGISTERED" IN EVERY STATE WHERE THEY DO BUSINESS. So if they exist, THERE WILL BE A "PUBLIC RECORD" OF THEM, their "articles of incorporation", their creation date, their purpose, their function, their powers, their scope, their addresses, their officers (and often their directors), their trade names, their fictitious names, their trademarks, their service marks, their annual reports, their registered agent for service of civil lawsuits and so forth, ALL OF WHICH ARE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC ONLINE. Further, all "PUBLIC" corporations (no stockholders and no profits) ARE PUBLICLY "CREATED" BY A PUBLIC STATE OR FEDERAL "STATUTE" OR BY A PUBLIC COUNTY OR CITY "ORDINANCE". So, if they exist, THERE WILL BE A "PUBLIC RECORD" OF THEM, their creation date, their purpose, their function, their powers, their scope and so forth, ALL OF WHICH ARE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC ONLINE).

Translation: ALL CORPORATIONS (regardless of what type they are or whom they serve) ARE PUBLICLY "CREATED" BY A DOCUMENT THAT IS ACTUALLY FILED IN THE "PUBLIC RECORD" FOR ALL THE WORLD TO SEE! There are NO EXCEPTIONS! NONE! Whether an entity is a "corporation" IS "ALWAYS" A MATTER OF "PUBLIC RECORD"! So, there is NO "GUESS WORK" about whether an entity is a corporation or not. If an entity is not PUBLICLY "INCORPORATED" in a state or was not PUBLICLY "CREATED" by a PUBLIC statute or PUBLIC ordinance, THEN IT IS NOT A CORPORATION! It is that simple. There are NO EXCEPTIONS! NONE! This means that there is NOTHING "SECRET" OR "MYSTERIOUS" about the existence of either PUBLIC or PRIVATE corporations. Their documents are IN THE "PUBLIC RECORD" for all the world to see. But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

Translation: To find out if an entity is a corporation, the ONE and ONLY place to find the answer IS IN THE PUBLIC RECORD (not in Dun & Bradstreet, not on a list of entities with EIN numbers and not on amateur legal theory websites). All "PRIVATE" corporations can be found online at the STATE "SECRETARY OF THE STATE, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS" or the foreign equivalent if a foreign "PRIVATE" corporation. All "PUBLIC" corporations can be found in STATE and FEDERAL STATUTES and in county or city ORDINANCES or the foreign equivalent if a foreign "PUBLIC" corporation. If an entity cannot be found in those places, IT IS NOT A CORPORATION. It is that simple. But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.


TWO SOURCES OF CONFUSION IN AMATEUR LEGAL THEORY:

Amateur legal theorists are PATHOLOGICALLY DESPERATE to discredit and delegitimize the FEDERAL government of “We the People”. So, if any FEDERAL statute contains the terms, "corporate" or "corporation" in reference to anything FEDERAL, then amateur legal theorists will use that FEDERAL statute in support of their false claim that the FEDERAL government is itself a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS". Two such FEDERAL statutes cited by amateur legal theorists in support of this false claim are the "Act Of 1871" and "Title 28 U.S.C. (15)(a)".

THE ACT OF 1871:
The Act Of 1871 reads in pertinent part, "...[We hereby create] a government by the name of [the "CITY" of] THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA [not the ”United States Of America”] by which name it is hereby constituted a BODY CORPORATE [this term is a source of the confusion] for MUNICIPAL [means "CITY"] PURPOSES [not for other purposes]... [and this body is empowered to] exercise all... powers of a MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [this term is also a source of the confusion and actually means "CITY GOVERNMENT"] not inconsistent with [means "CONSISTENT WITH"] the Constitution and the laws of the United States." http://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/41st-congress/session-3/c41s3ch62.pdf.

Thus, the Act of 1871 simply created a "CITY" GOVERNMENT for the "CITY" of Washington, D.C., (NOT FOR THE ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT). But, amateur legal theorists are intellectually unable to tell the difference between the two (a "CITY" GOVERNMENT on one hand and the "ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" on the other hand). Remember, if any FEDERAL statute contains the terms, "corporate" or "corporation" in reference to anything FEDERAL, then amateur legal theorists will use that FEDERAL statute in support of their false claim that the FEDERAL government is itself a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS".

But, because the "CITY" of Washington, D.C. is the seat of the FEDERAL government and because they mistakenly believe that all corporations in the world are PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporations, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists falsely claim that the terms, "body corporate" and "municipal corporation" (contained in the Act Of 1871) prove that the "ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" (rather than merely the "CITY" GOVERNMENT of Washington, D.C.) IS ITSELF A PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS. https://www.akupressllc.com/150121CriminalCourtDenver.pdf (at page ACTUALLY NUMBERED "3" in the 4th paragraph at about 50% through the text). But, this is not so.

FACT: There is NOTHING about the Act of 1871 that has any affect whatsoever on the FEDERAL government itself. Instead, The Act of 1871 only relates to the "CITY" government of Washington, D.C. Likewise, NOTHING about the Act Of 1971 makes the FEDERAL government itself (or the "CITY" of Washington, D.C. for that matter) a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION which makes "PROFITS" for its private "STOCKHOLDERS". But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

TITLE 28 U.S.C. 3002(15)(a):
Title 28 U.S.C. 3002 (15)(a) reads in pertinent part, "DEFINITIONS... As used in THIS chapter [ONLY, and not for any other purpose],... United States means- ... a federal corporation [this term is a source of the confusion]... ." FACT: Title 28 U.S.C. 3002 (15) (a) merely provides the definitions (only) SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF A SINGLE FEDERAL CHAPTER (AND THOSE DEFINITIONS DO NOT APPLY TO ANY OTHER CHAPTER AND CANNOT BE USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER PURPOSE). This is why the VERY FIRST WORDS of Title 28 U.S.C. § 3002 read, “As used in THIS chapter [and NOT other chapters or for other purposes]... ." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002 (See the VERY FIRST WORDS at the TOP of this section.). The SINGLE CHAPTER for which Title 28 U.S.C. § 3002 provides definitions is the FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE ACT (chapter 176).

But remember, if any FEDERAL statute contains the terms, "corporate" or "corporation" in reference to anything FEDERAL, then amateur legal theorists will use that FEDERAL statute in support of their false claim that the United States is itself a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS". So, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists falsely claim that Title 28 U.S.C. 3002(15)(a) proves that the United States is itself a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS". But, this is not so.

The SINGLE CHAPTER for which Title 28 U.S.C. 3002(15)(a) provides definitions (chapter 176) relates to the "PROCEDURE" ONLY that the "United States" must follow when collecting certain debts. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3001. Title 28 U.S.C. § 3002 (15) (a) DOES NOT actually define the "United States" as a ”federal corporation”. Instead, it actually defines a “federal corporation” (like AMTRAK) as the “United States” SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF THE FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE ACT.

APPLICATION: So, if AMTRAK (a "federal corporation") sought to collect on such a debt, it would have to follow the SAME "PROCEDURE" set forth in the Fair Debt Collection Procedure Act THAT ANY OTHER PART OF THE "UNITED STATES” GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW TO COLLECT SUCH A DEBT. It is that simple. But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

FACT: This definition IN THE FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE ACT does not mean that the entire “United States” is itself a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which generates "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS". But, consider this. Even if the "United States" was such a "PRIVATE", "FOR-PROFIT" corporation, and it is not, ALL of the governmental decisions made by that alleged "corporation" WOULD STILL BE MADE BY PEOPLE THAT WE "ELECT" TO RUN IT.


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

1). 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]. Article VII of the Michigan constitution merely indicates that 'each organized county shall be a BODY CORPORATE [not a private, for-profit corporation].'" (at footnote 2 near the end of the case).

2). DuBose v. Kasich, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_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).

3). Florance v. Buchmeyer, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9160057929430622764&q="Florance+v.+Buchmeyer"+"responds+that+the+State+of+Texas"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE PLAINTIFF'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the state and federal government are federal "CORPORATIONS".). In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued various government agencies and officials. The court wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] responds that the STATE OF TEXAS is not protected by immunity under the Eleventh Amendment because it is a 'FEDERAL CORPORATION'... ." (at section "D" at about 65% through the text of the case). Later in the text in section "k" the court held otherwise and wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] cites 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) [discussed above] in the paragraph pertaining to his claim against the USA... . To the extent that Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] relies on § 3002(15) [discussed above] to sue the USA, IT DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE § 3002 [discussed above] IS SIMPLY A DEFINITIONS STATUTE IN THE CHAPTER THAT AUTHORIZES THE USA TO... [COLLECT CERTAIN DEBTS]." (in section "k" at about 85% through the text).

4). U.S. v. Petersen, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4484968305092096232&q="Daniel+Ernest+Petersen"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). The court wrote, "... Defendant [an amateur legal theorist] contends that 'THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS A FEDERAL CORPORATION, and one that is 'located in the ["CITY" of the] District of Columbia'. ... [The Defendant] further claims that the 'United States Government [rather than merely the "CITY" government of Washington, D.C.] was officially [c]ommercialized in 1871,' apparently arguing that this entity's powers 'shall be limited to the ["CITY" limits of the] District of Columbia.' ... . BUT [THE] DEFENDANT'S RELIANCE ON 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) [discussed above] IS MISPLACED [read that phrase again]. That statute is simply a definitional provision DEFINING the "United States" as, among other options, 'a federal corporation' SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF THE CHAPTER WHICH IT IS PART... . The applicability of [this] Chapter... is confined to CIVIL actions [filed] by the United States [against debtors]... to recover a judgment on a debt... . This CRIMINAL action [this case] is not [such a] a CIVIL debt collection action [so that definition is inapplicable in this case]... . In addition, [THE] DEFENDANT'S RELIANCE ON THE... [Act Of 1871 discussed above], IS LIKEWISE MISPLACED [read that phrase again] as that statute simply 'created a ["CITY"] government by the name of the District of Columbia [not "The United States Of America"],' a municipal corporation [which means a "CITY" government] with ‘jurisdiction over all the territory within the [CITY] limits of the District.’... . The present CRIMINAL prosecution of [the] Defendant [in this case] has nothing to do with the powers that Congress delegated to the ["CITY" of the ] District [Of Columbia. So, THAT DEFINITION DOES NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE]." (at the 13th, 14th and 15th paragraphs at about 35% through the text).

5). U.S. v. Wiggins, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9638202248861590589&q="US+v.++Wiggins"+"is+a+corporation"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). The court wrote, "Wiggins [an amateur legal theorist]... ERRONEOUSLY CITES 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) [discussed above] to support his assertion that THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION... . [But, t]hat statute governs the collection of federal debt.... . Section 3002(15) [discussed above] merely provides that the term "United States," WHEN USED "IN THIS... [STATUTE]," refers to a federal corporation, agency, entity, or instrumentality of the United States [not a private, for-profit corporation]." (at footnote 18).

6). Kitchens v. Becraft, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_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).

7). 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).

8). Kubicki v U.S., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18372121264929306790&q="Kubicki+v.+US"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). In this case, a tax protester/amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued the United States. The court wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] argues that Defendant [the United States] has no immunity [from his suit], BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES HAS IDENTIFIED ITSELF AS A FEDERAL CORPORATION for purposes of tax collection activity.' But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "To support this proposition, Plaintiff [the amateur legal theorist] cites 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15)[discussed above]. THIS SECTION, HOWEVER, DOES NOT DEFINE THE UNITED STATES AS A FEDERAL CORPORATION for purposes of tax collection. Instead, IT MERELY PROVIDES THE DEFINITION OF THE "UNITED STATES’ FOR PURPOSES OF THE [SAME] STATUTE [IN WHICH IT APPEARS] AS A ‘FEDERAL CORPORATION’ [not a private, for-profit corporation]... ." (at the 8th paragraph not including block-indented portions at about 60% through the text).

9). U.S. v. Boyce, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_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. [citing] Kubicki v. United States [the case directly above], ... '[the subject statute]... DOES NOT DEFINE THE UNITED STATES AS A FEDERAL CORPORATION FOR PURPOSES OF TAX COLLECTION [mush less a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation].'" (at the 15th full paragraph at about 25% through the text).

10). U.S. v. Smith, http://www.vawd.uscourts.gov/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.

11). 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.

12). State v. Hartsoe, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=83340477619696621&q="John+L.+Hartsoe"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION"). In this case, the court wrote, "Hartsoe's [the Defendant's] affidavit was based upon his belief that THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION, which created 'straw men,' fictitious persons separate from real individuals, for each man and woman in order TO CONTROL the people of the United States. Hartsoe [the Defendant] refused to submit to the CORPORATE government and filed his affidavit denying his [own imaginary] 'straw man' or [imaginary] CORPORATE existence." But, the court ruled otherwise.

13). Miles v. U.S., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3357725607032486211&q="Harry+Edwin+Miles"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION"). In this case the Defendant filed what amounted to a Motion For Relief From Conviction. The court wrote, "The grounds [in the Defendant's motion] include... that THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION and does not have the power to prosecute individuals, and that citizens are not subject to statutory jurisdiction under the Constitution [a false claim that Rod Class also makes]." (at footnote 1). But, the court held otherwise and unceremoniously THREW THE CASE OUT OF COURT.

14). U.S. v. Provost, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17406735750311497964&q="Andre+Paul+Provost"+&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION"). In this case, the court wrote, "... Defendant [the tax protester] filed a request to answer [the complaint], claiming that he had 'a good faith belief that the UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION and that there was no parity with the flesh and blood man.'" But, the court ruled otherwise, DENIED the tax protester's request to file a delinquent answer and UPHELD THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM.

15). Maxwell v. Snow, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_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."

THE BOTTOM LINE: Note that ALL amateur legal theories (ex: "all governments are corporations") are always EXACTLY BACKWARDS AND OPPOSITE to what the REAL law actually is. There are NO EXCEPTIONS! Amateur legal theories ARE NOT REAL. They are FAKE. They are LIES. Amateur legal theories and the REAL law are the EXACT OPPOSITES of one another. Amateur legal theories are an IMAGINARY ALTERNATIVE to the REAL law that is actually used by the REAL legal system and the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD. Amateur legal theories have a 100% FAILURE RATE in court BECAUSE THEY ARE FAKE. They are NOT INTENDED TO WORK and they DO NOT WORK! They never have. They never will. Their SOLE PURPOSE is to attempt to discredit and delegitimize our REPUBLICAN form of government, the ELECTED representatives of "We the People" and to incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans. Nothing more.

FACT: Just in case you do not already know, all FUTURE DECISIONS on the subject of whether governments are corporations WILL FOLLOW THE DECISIONS SHOWN ABOVE (CALLED "PRECEDENT"). So, the law on this subject will always be the same as reflected in the cases above. https://definitions.uslegal.com/b/binding-precedent/.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent.
https://dictionary.thelaw.com/binding-precedent/.


BONUS LAW:
The cases linked to above did not just rule against the amateur legal theory that "all governments are corporations", the cases linked to above ALSO RULED AGAINST EVERY OTHER AMATEUR LEGAL THEORY RAISED IN THOSE CASES. These additional rulings are shown below. (The cases below appear in the same order they appear above.).

1). Thompson v. Scutt, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18159286216902234518&q="Thompson+v.+Scutt"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case (also linked to above) ALSO RULED AGAINST ALL OF THE FOLLOWING AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, all of which are also peddled by Rod Class (AND ALL OF WHICH FAILED HERE): claiming to be a "sovereign" and a "citizen/member of [the]... [his home state] Republic", claiming (under the UCC) to have "superior title and claim over the judgment against... [himself]", claiming that "the court’s use of... [a person's name] in capital letters... refers to a separate or fictitious entity, and is enforceable only against that entity", claiming that "the Michigan statutes under which... [he] was convicted do not apply to... [him] because he is 'sovereign' and not a 'person' within the meaning of those statutes", claiming that the "Michigan laws supporting... [his] conviction [for DUI and DWLS-3RD OFFENSE] violate his constitutional right to travel", claiming that "the state lacked jurisdiction because... [he] has a right to removal under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act [as if he was a foreign, sovereign, nation state] and the federal removal statute'' claiming that he "is being wrongfully imprisoned on behalf of another [imaginary] entity [also] called 'CHRISTOPHER BURNELL THOMPSON' [often called the split personality defense]", claiming that his "conviction [for DUI and DWLS-3rd OFFENSE] was the result of fraud and misconduct on the part of the state, the prosecution and defense counsel [as if they forced him to drive drunk—again]", claiming that the state and federal governments are "de facto governments".

2). DuBose v. Kasich, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4379559949396907798&q="DuBose+v.+Kasich"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case (also linked to above) ALSO RULED AGAINST ALL OF THE FOLLOWING AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, all of which are also peddled by Rod Class (AND ALL OF WHICH FAILED HERE): The Plaintiff (an amateur legal theorist) raised, "the relationship between the yellow fringe on the United States flag and ADMIRALTY jurisdiction and the effect of capitalizing the letters of his name. Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] ultimately maintains that he does not have a contract with either Ohio or the United States and, therefore, does not have to follow government laws [as if that would make any difference]." In response, the court wrote, "... [F]ederal courts have routinely recognized that such [amateur legal] theories are MERITLESS and WORTHY OF LITTLE DISCUSSION [read that phrase again]. 'Other courts have noted the sovereign citizen theory has been CONSISTENTLY REJECTED...' . [and citing another case which] '... REJECT[ED] AS FRIVOLOUS Defendant's argument that he was a 'private natural man and real person' and therefore not subject to the laws of the United States [and citing another case which] 'REJECT[ED] [this] sovereign citizen argument as FRIVOLOUS and UNDESERVING OF 'EXTENDED ARGUMENT [and finally citing another case which] 'h[eld] that a plaintiff's 'yellow fringe flag' arguments were 'INDISPUTABLY MERITLESS' [meaning amateur legal theories]."

3). Florance v. Buchmeyer, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9160057929430622764&q="Florance+v.+Buchmeyer"+"responds+that+the+State+of+Texas"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case (also linked to above) ALSO RULED AGAINST ALL OF THE FOLLOWING AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, all of which are also peddled by Rod Class (AND ALL OF WHICH FAILED HERE): suing a judge despite that the judge cannot be sued under "absolute judicial immunity", filing a fraudulent lien against a judge as if the judge owed money to the filer of the lien, claiming that the eleventh amendment immunizes criminals from prosecution (despite that it actually prohibits suits against states in federal court), claiming that a government officer/official can be "personally liable" for official actions taken under "color of law", suing a prosecutor despite that the prosecutor cannot be sued "absolute prosecutorial immunity", suing a government official despite that the government official cannot be sued under "absolute [government] official immunity" and claiming that a county is a "commercial entity engaged in commerce".

4). U.S. v. Petersen, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4484968305092096232&q="Daniel+Ernest+Petersen"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case (also linked to above) ALSO RULED AGAINST ALL OF THE FOLLOWING AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, all of which are also peddled by Rod Class (AND ALL OF WHICH FAILED HERE): claiming that the entire federal government (rather than merely the CITY of Washington, D.C.) has no jurisdiction outside the borders of the CITY of Washington, D.C., claiming that the Act of 1871 (which created a CITY government for Washington, D.C.) converted the ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (something entirely different) into a commercialized, PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION, claiming that the United States is a "foreign state" inside the borders OF ITSELF, claiming that the 11th amendment (which actually prohibits lawsuits against STATES in FEDERAL court) immunizes all criminals from prosecution, claiming that the professional title, "esquire" (a servant of a knight in battle) is a title of "NOBILITY" (a HEREDITARY title for those BORN OF "NOBLE" BLOOD, like the "KING" or "QUEEN"), claiming that the use of the professional title, "esquire" converts American attorneys into "agents of a foreign government", claiming that the "bar association" (referring to the ABA) is a monopoly, claiming that certain federal statutes were never enacted into positive law and claiming that judges have a "financial interest" in their cases.

5). U.S. v. Wiggins, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9638202248861590589&q="US+v.++Wiggins"+"is+a+corporation"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case (also linked to above) ALSO RULED AGAINST ALL OF THE FOLLOWING AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, all of which are also peddled by Rod Class (AND ALL OF WHICH FAILED HERE): claiming that the case is subject to "MARITIME & ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION" in a case that does not actually involve maritime or admiralty, not "consenting" to the law or to the court's jurisdiction (as if that would make any difference), refusing to "stand under" the court's questions, claiming that his name is "his government name" and not his real name, purporting to file a CIVIL "counterclaim" against the government in a CRIMINAL case (which is impossible), attempting to disqualify a judge for a "personal interest" in case and for practicing law, claiming the imaginary right to be represented by a non-lawyer and attempting to use an "attorney in fact" as a substitute for an "attorney at law".

6). Kitchens v. Becraft, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14825357831238654036&q="Kitchens+v.+Becraft"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case (also linked to above) ALSO RULED AGAINST ALL OF THE FOLLOWING AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, all of which are also peddled by Rod Class (AND ALL OF WHICH FAILED HERE): claiming that there is "no lawful money for the payment of debts" because of the "[imaginary] national bankruptcy of 1933" and because of the "abolition of the gold standard", claiming that there is a "secret state of war" that exists between THE 'FEDERAL UNITED STATES,' WHICH IS A 'FEDERAL CORPORATION', and the people of the several states, claiming that "Federal Reserve Notes are not legal tender", claiming to be a "secured creditor" in a case which has NO "CREDITORS" AT ALL ("secured" or otherwise) and which imaginary "creditor" has no collateral allegedly "securing" the imaginary debt, claiming that "the Supreme Court has determined that all codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, and not [for] human beings in accordance with God's laws", claiming that "all codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lack due process", claiming that "the supreme law of the land is the Constitution for the united States, and not the Constitution of the United States [pretending that there are two different Constitutions]", claiming that the only "lawful money of the Constitution for the united States is gold or silver coin of specific fineness and weight [a Constitutional provision actually applies ONLY TO THE STATES and not to the United States itself]", claiming that "the only lawful jurisdiction of a de jure common law court is under the American flag of peace, and not the Vice ADMIRALTY Court, military jurisdiction, which the Magistrate is treasonously imposing", claiming that "the only lawful jurisdiction is under common law, and not under vice ADMIRALTY, as signified by the U.S. battle flag with gold fringe and eagle on the flagpole currently displayed within the CORPORATE de facto court," claiming to have already "lawfully exercised his remedy" under Public Law 73-10 by "redeeming his birth certificate bond" and "captur[ing] his [imaginary] straw man", claiming "not [to be] a party or signatory to, nor being named in, any statute, code, law, or rule, nor having the provided power of attorney to any government agent or employee to enter him into such compacts” (as if that would make any difference), claiming to be exempt from all laws except those to which he voluntarily assents (as if individual "assent" is required) and claiming that a "military tribunal exercising ADMIRALTY jurisdiction, lacks jurisdiction over his claims, which jurisdiction may only be exercised by a constitutional common law court under the American flag of peace."

7). U.S. v. Beavers, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8251887802426142230&q="US+v.+Beavers"+meritless+"is+a+federal+corporation"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case (also linked to above) ALSO RULED AGAINST ALL OF THE FOLLOWING AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, all of which are also peddled by Rod Class (AND ALL OF WHICH FAILED HERE): claiming that "CAPITAL LETTERS" refer only to CORPORATIONS and not to "flesh and blood persons", claiming that the court is just a division of THE UNITED STATES CORPORATION and therefore lacks jurisdiction, playing the "name game" as a defense ("split personality" and "corporate fiction" verses "flesh and blood" persons), claiming that the ”name game" can deprive the court of jurisdiction, doing the following in a futile effort to avoid the court's jurisdiction, denying citizenship, claiming sovereign citizenship, claiming foreign citizenship, claiming freeman status and claiming that the IRS is really a private, for-profit, Puerto Rican CORPORATION.

8). Kubicki v U.S., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18372121264929306790&q="Kubicki+v.+US"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case (also linked to above) ALSO RULED AGAINST ALL OF THE FOLLOWING AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, all of which are also peddled by Rod Class (AND ALL OF WHICH FAILED HERE): putting property owned by the tax protesters into the names of other people in an effort to avoid paying taxes, claiming that IRS tax laws do not apply outside the borders of Washington, D.C. and other federal territories, claiming that "wages are not income" for purposes of U.S. income tax laws, claiming sovereign and foreign state immunities as a defense and denying citizenship in an effort to avoid the jurisdiction of the court.

CASE 9-15 (ABOVE IN THE TOP LIST OF CASES) DID NOT MAKE ADDITIONAL RULINGS OF THE TYPE LISTED IN CASE 1-8 HERE.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Note that ALL amateur legal theories (no matter what they are) are always EXACTLY BACKWARDS AND OPPOSITE to what the REAL law actually is. There are NO EXCEPTIONS! Amateur legal theories ARE NOT REAL. They are FAKE. They are LIES. Amateur legal theories and the REAL law are the EXACT OPPOSITES of one another. Amateur legal theories are an IMAGINARY ALTERNATIVE to the REAL law that is actually used by the REAL legal system and the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD. Amateur legal theories have a 100% FAILURE RATE in court BECAUSE THEY ARE FAKE. They are NOT INTENDED TO WORK and they DO NOT WORK! They never have. They never will. Their SOLE PURPOSE is to attempt to discredit and delegitimize our REPUBLICAN form of government, the ELECTED representatives of "We the People" and to incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans. Nothing more.

FACT: Just in case you do not already know, all FUTURE DECISIONS on these same amateur legal theories WILL FOLLOW THE DECISIONS SHOWN ABOVE (CALLED "PRECEDENT"). So, the law on these same subjects will always be the same as reflected in the cases above. https://definitions.uslegal.com/b/binding-precedent/.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent.
https://dictionary.thelaw.com/binding-precedent/.

I trust this adequately responds to your concerns.

All The Best,

Snoop
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
206
Likes
12
#85
copied all that stuff and printed.

have a friend that is getting hosed by these/them fuckers

He is now entertaining selling the property to the city

I told him they would low ball and then take what they fined him off of the top

fucking dammit: some ppl only see what it could cost and not what they can win.
Hello Michael59,

Your comment is not completely clear.

Do I understand correctly that the city, county, state or federal government is trying to "buy" your friend's property using their authority under
"imminent domain" and are "lowballing" him in the process?

If so, your friend has legal recourse.

Your friend will likely lose his property under "imminent domain", but there is no reason your friend should accept a "low ball" offer in the process.

There are attorneys who specialize in fighting these "low ball" "imminent domain" offers.

In many states (like mine) these attorneys work on a small percentage (like 10%) of the INCREASE (only) in the amount they recover for you.

Example: The city makes you a $100,000 "low ball" offer buy your property in order to widen a roadway.

You retain an "imminent domain" attorney.

The attorney fights the city in court and the court awards you $500,000 for your property.

You only pay the attorney 10% of the increase of $400,000, or $40,000.

You do not pay the attorney anything on the $100,00 amount that you were already offered before hiring him/her.

You actually receive $460,000, instead of $100,000.

Translation: You have everything to gain and nothing to lose by retaining an "imminent domain" attorney.

I hope this helps.

Best Regards,

Snoop
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,866
Likes
6,142
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#86
Naw, naw, naw you got it all wrong. Look you can't help. You see it is your soverighns that are doing it. But you are cool with that you and your elite kicking the shit out of people just because you can.

Do not like ever feigned concern over this man or his friends.

NOW get back to your master and service it.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
206
Likes
12
#87
Snoopshit, and those morons whom he writes for must be terribly afraid of Rod Class and what Rod is doing in the court system to come out and regurgitate all his vile screamings of FAKE unenacted STATUTORY LAW in an obvious attempt to influence us to discredit Class and what he is doing to try to clean up the out of control court system. Won't work. We here who have studied true duly enacted law know what total bullshit you propagate, and whose incomes you want to continue to prop up with these lies, so know this. All that screaming crap you post is ignored, and you are not only wasting our time, you are only showing us what a true imbecile you are
Greetings Arminius,

Thank you for your thoughts, I will respond to them below.

1, and those morons whom he [Snoop] writes for
RESPONSE: I do not write at the direction (or on behalf) of others. I write only for myself. I write solely to reduce the catastrophic damage that intentional fraud about the law and the legal system inflicts on the American people every single day. I write solely to help the victims of this intentional fraud and I write to empower them with the truth about the real law and real legal system. I regard such as my patriotic duty as an American. I will continue to do so until the day I die.

2. must be terribly afraid of Rod Class
RESPONSE: Not so. I am not afraid of Rod Class. If I were really afraid of Rod Class, I would not publicly expose his elaborate hoaxes to the American people. Click here. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99447-Rod-Class-his-many-hoaxes

3. must be terribly afraid of... what Rod is doing in the court system
RESPONSE: Not so. Rod Class isn't doing anything in the court system. He never has. He never will. Rod Class has lost every single court case in which he has every been involved, 76 consecutive loses in a row and still counting. (Class WAS NOT involved in the Supreme Court case which his law firm won WITHOUT HIS INVOLVEMENT using an entirely NEW and DIFFERENT legal argument that CLASS NEVER KNEW ABOUT and never raised anytime anywhere.). The reason that Class is not doing anything in the court system is that he doesn't even know what it is, how it works, what law applies and whether anything is really wrong with it. Class does not use real law in his arguments and filings in court. Class uses amateur legal theories in all of his arguments and filings in court. But, amateur legal theories are not real and do not work. Class uses these worthless amateur legal theories to fight imaginary enemies who have committed imaginary wrongs in the imaginary world inside his head. But, none of these things are even real in the first place.

4. to come out and regurgitate all his vile screamings of FAKE unenacted STATUTORY LAW
RESPONSE: With the exception of providing Goldhedge with the definition of "driver" under the Colorado driver's license statute, I HAVE NOT POSTED ABOUT, QUOTED OR LINKED TO A SINGLE STATUTE ON THIS ENTIRE THREAD.. Instead, all of the real law that I have provided on this entire thread IS CASE LAW ("COMMON LAW"). Case law is valid and in full force and effect upon being written and published.

5. in an obvious attempt to influence us
RESPONSE: Yes. In posting the real law (that I have quoted and provided links to) above, I seek to empower people with the truth about the real law and the real legal system. Amateur legal theories of the type peddled by Rod Class are FAKE. They are lies. They do not work. They are created and manufactured by charlatans solely to incite hatred and violence against our republican form of government and innocent Americans. Nothing more.

6. to discredit Class and what he is doing to try to clean up the out of control court system.
RESPONSE: The court system that Class is fighting is not real. It is imaginary. It is all in his head. In the real world, the court system is not dirty. So, it can't be "cleaned up". In the real world, the court system is not out of control. But, Rod Class does not know enough about the law or the court system to know the difference.

7. We here who have studied true duly enacted law
RESPONSE: Respectfully, you have not studied true duly enacted law (or any other law). Instead, you have studied only what other amateur legal theorists tell you the law is. Respectfully, you have only studied amateur legal theories. They are not real. They are fake. This is why you still mistakenly believe that a driver's license is only required for those engaged in commerce, and so forth.

8. We... know what total bullshit you propagate,
RESPONSE: Respectfully, the truth about the law is only "bullshit" to amateur legal theorists who don't know the difference.

9. You are not only wasting our time, you are only showing us what a true imbecile you are
RESPONSE: I realize that some people can never be reached by the truth. Their belief systems are so rigid and hardened that they will only accept lies and hate. So, as to these people, I may be wasting my time. That may make me an embecile. But, some people can be reached by the truth. These people are truth seekers. These people think independently, rationally, logically and analytically (not emotionally and hatefully). As to these people, I am not wasting my time and I am not an imbecile.

Thanks again for your thoughts.

All The Best,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,866
Likes
6,142
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#88
3. must be terribly afraid of... what Rod is doing in the court system
RESPONSE: Not so. Rod Class isn't doing anything in the court system. He never has. He never will. Rod Class has lost every single court case in which he has every been involved, 76 consecutive loses in a row and still counting. (Class WAS NOT involved in the Supreme Court case which his law firm won WITHOUT HIS INVOLVEMENT using an entirely NEW and DIFFERENT legal argument that CLASS NEVER KNEW ABOUT and never raised anytime anywhere.)
NOW prove that statement.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
38,566
Likes
57,595
Location
Rocky Mountains
#89
This is why the corporate government's rules and regulations enacted to control their employees are impossible to understand.

Common Law is simple and concise.

Snoop, your 'arguments' fall on deaf ears here. You may as well be reciting gibberish. Your posts 'prove' absolutely nothing.

How about posting all the court cases that were thrown out by the magistrate lest they violate their oaths of office (if they even signed them)??
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
206
Likes
12
#90
"ROD CLASS, ACTING ALONE, PERSONALLY WINS HIS OWN CASE AT THE SUPREME COURT HOAX"

FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE: https://claimsoftheliving.blogspot.com/2017/06/rod-class-update-headed-to-supreme-court.html . http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=48361&cmd=tc (See Episode 1004, Dated 05-26-2017 and Episode 1006, Dated 08-12-2017).

THE HOAX: Rod Class fraudulently claims that "HE" won his own case at the Supreme Court by using HIS own amateur legal theories and HIS own amateur "paperwork". But, this is not so.

THE TRUTH: Rod Class had NOTHING to do with HIS LAW FIRM winning his case at the Supreme Court. Class is FRAUDULENTLY taking credit for the success OF HIS LAW FIRM in getting the Supreme Court to rule on an entirely NEW and DIFFERENT legal question that Class NEVER knew about and NEVER raised anywhere at anytime in any court or in any document.

FACT: Rod Class DID NOT FILE A SINGLE PIECE OF PAPER and DID NOT SPEAK A SINGLE WORD in this entire appeal at the Supreme Court. That is the one and ONLY REASON that CLASS' LAW FIRM won the case (Class was unable to screw it up with his amateur legal theories).

FACT: Rod Class' LAW FIRM DID NOT USE A SINGLE AMATEUR LEGAL THEORY that was ever used, created or peddled by Rod Class in that entire appeal. (They used REAL law). That is the one and ONLY REASON that CLASS' LAW FIRM won the case (Class was unable to screw it up with his amateur legal theories).

FACT: Earlier in this same case, at the Court of Appeals, Rod Class became involved and SCREWED THE CASE UP AND LOST. Why? Because HE FILED HUNDREDS OF PAGES (of amateur legal theories) and actually SPOKE HUNDREDS OF WORDS during four minutes at oral argument (thereby screwing up the case).

FACT: Even earlier in the same case, at the District Court, Rod Class became involved and SCREWED THE CASE UP AND LOST, Why? Because HE FILED HUNDREDS OF PAGES (of amateur legal theories) and actually SPOKE THOUSANDS OF WORDS in open court. Not only did Rod Class LOSE the case, he was actually ordered to undergo a psychiatric examination.

FACT: Rod Class' LAW FIRM only won the case BECAUSE CLASS WAS NOT INVOLVED (and therefore could not screw it up).

FACT:
BACKGROUND: Amateur legal theories are an IMAGINARY ALTERNATIVE to the REAL law that is actually used in the law and the legal system. So, amateur legal theories and the REAL law are the exact OPPOSITES of one another. Class does NOT use REAL law in his cases. Class ONLY uses amateur legal theories in his cases. This is why CLASS HAS LOST EVERY SINGLE CASE IN WHICH HE HAS EVER BEEN INVOVLED (OVER 76 CONSECUTIVE CASES IN A ROW AND STILL COUNTING). But, Class' attorneys (from arguably the best law firm in the country) do NOT use amateur legal theories in any of their cases. They ONLY use REAL law in all of their cases. This is why they win so many of their cases. The Supreme Court ONLY heard the REAL law presented by Class' attorneys (NOT by Class). The Supreme Court did NOT hear a single one of Class' amateur legal theories ("capital letters", "split personality" defense, "flesh and blood" person, "straw man", "yellow fringe" on the flag, etc.).

FACTS OF THE CASE:

BACKGROUND: Class was charged with "CARRYING" "DANGEROUS WEAPONS" in his vehicle onto "UNITED STATES CAPITOL GROUNDS", a FELONY. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2757756755752158953&q="which+will+or"+"defining+a+firearm"+"capitol+buildings"+"on+the+grounds"+"expel+a+projectile+by+the+action+of+an+explosive"+"is+designed+to"++"any+weapon"+"[or]+a+dangerous+weapon"+"may+not+carry"+"carry[ing]"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40003.

Class entered into a plea deal whereby he would plead GUILTY to the FELONY charge against him in exchange for the prosecutor recommending a light sentence to the judge. As part of the plea deal, CLASS WAIVED ("GAVE UP") HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL, first in the plea agreement itself and again in open court.

Thereafter, Class realized that his GUILTY plea to a FELONY (in the plea deal) would make him ineligible for his conceal and carry permit from the State Of North Carolina (which does not allow CONVICTED FELONS to have such permits). So, Class VIOLATED the terms of his own plea agreement (in which he WAIVED his right to appeal) AND FILED AN APPEAL OF HIS CONVICTION ANYWAY.

In his appeal, Class raised a number of amateur legal theories. Class also MISTAKENLY claimed that the statute that he was convicted of violating HAD ALREADY BEEN DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL and he MISTAKENLY claimed that under the "full faith and credit" clause, he was authorized by his North Carolina conceal and carry permit him to "CARRY" handguns/firearms into Washington, D.C. AND onto United States Capitol grounds (which behavior, unknown to Class, ACTUALLY VIOLATED the terms his conceal and carry permit from that state).

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, CLASS NEVER KNEW TO RAISE (AND DID NOT RAISE) THE ISSUE OF WHETHER HE COULD FILE AN APPEAL OF HIS CASE IN THE FIRST PLACE (a right that he had TWICE unconditionally WAIVED, first in his plea deal and again in open court). (THIS SUBJECT WAS THE ONLY ISSUE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, NOT GUN RIGHTS.).

The Court Of Appeals received Class' amateur appellate brief and the entire court file from the trial court below (which contained Class' PSYCHIATRIC records). Both PROVED that Class was ILLITERATE, UNEDUCATED and MENTALLY ILL. So, as the trial court had done below (with "STAND BY" counsel to represent Class), the Court Of Appeals ALSO hired, AT THE GOVERNMENT'S EXPENSE, a law firm to represent Class on appeal and ordered it, in writing, to "act on Class' behalf". Because Class wanted to represent himself on appeal, the Court of Appeals "humored" Class by calling the law firm that it hired to represent Class an "amicus curiae" ("friend of the court"). But, the reality is that this law firm was under written court orders to represent Class as his law firm on appeal, regardless of the terminology used. Class' law firm DID NOT TAKE CLASS' CASE "FREE" AS A MATTER OF "PRINCIPLE". IT TOOK CLASS' CASE FOR THE MONEY! And, lucky for Class.

Class' law firm immediately realized that Class had MISTAKENLY FAILED to raise the "THRESHOLD QUESTION" of WHETHER HE COULD EVEN FILE AN APPEAL OF HIS CASE IN THE FIRST PLACE (after TWICE waiving that right, in the plea agreement and again in open court). Without addressing and disposing of this legal issue, THERE WOULD BE NO APPEAL. But, Class did not know this. So, Class' law firm "COVERED" FOR HIS MISTAKE by raising this omitted legal issue for him (thereby saving the entire appeal). Unfortunately, the Court Of Appeals held that Class HAD WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL. (THIS SUBJECT WOULD LATER BE THE ONLY ISSUE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, NOT GUN RIGHTS.).

In response to this adverse ruling at the Court Of Appeals, Class' law firm ALONE filed an appeal to the Supreme Court on the SOLE QUESTION of whether Class could file an appeal in the first place (after TWICE waiving that right, in the plea agreement and again in open court).. CLASS WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM (AND WILL NEVER BE SO INVOLVED). The SOLE QUESTION in the case before the Supreme Court was WHETHER A PERSON (ANY PERSON) CAN FILE AN APPEAL OF A CASE challenging the constitutionality of a statute WHICH THEY HAVE ALREADY PLED GUILTY TO VIOLATING. THIS WAS THE ONE AND ONLY ISSUE ON APPEAL BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, NOT GUN RIGHTS. See SECOND PAGE, MARKED PAGE "i", BOTTOM PARAGRAPH. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/16-424-brief-of-petitioner.pdf. THIS ISSUE IS A NEW LEGAL ARGUMENT THAT CLASS NEVER KNEW TO RAISE (AND DID NOT RAISE) ANYWHERE AT ANY TIME. Class' amateur legal theories ARE NOT NOW (AND WILL NEVER BE) BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT TO CONSIDER. ONLY REAL LAW CONCEIVED AND PRESENTED BY CLASS' LAW FIRM (NOT ROD CLASS) WAS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT TO CONSIDER.

Class' attorneys (not Class) took this case to the Supreme Court in an effort to change the law "ON APPEALS" FOLLOWING "GUILTY PLEAS" IN PLEA BARGAINS (a subject that Class never even knew about and never raised anywhere at any time in any case). Class' attorneys merely used Class' case as a "vehicle" to get that ENTIRELY DIFFERENT issue before the Court. Any other case involving "AN APPEAL" AFTER A "GUILTY PLEA" IN A PLEA BARGAIN would have served the same purpose as Class' case did here. There was nothing unique about Class' case that made it a better "vehicle" than other cases to get that ENTIRELY DIFFERENT issue before the Court.

All three courts involved in this case IMMEDIATELY RECOGNIZED that Class was MENTALLY ILL. All three courts in this case repeatedly tried to protect Class from the consequences of his being mentally ill (by PAYING FOR him to be examined by a licensed psychiatrist, by PAYING an attorney to represent his interests at the trial level, by AGREEING to a plea deal that he (as a previously convicted felon) WAS NOT LEGALLY ELIGIBLE FOR, wherein he literally walked out of court a "free man" (without even so much as probation) and by actually PAYING Jenner & Block to represent his interests on appeal, despite that he had already PLED GUILTY and already WAIVED his right to appeal to get the plea deal). The courts in this case could not have possibly done more TO PROTECT ROD CLASS from the consequences of his being mentally ill.

THE HOAX II: Class FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMS that the Court Of Appeals hired his law firm to represent him because his amateur "paperwork" WAS SO GOOD. Class also FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMS that his law firm and other interested parties who joined in the appeal at the Supreme Court did so to "BACK UP" his amateur "paperwork". But, none of this so.

THE TRUTH II: The Court Of Appeals hired Class' law firm to represent him because his amateur "paperwork" WAS SO BAD! Further, the Court Of Appeals HAD PROOF in its own files that Class was FUNCTIONALLY-ILLITERATE, UNEDUCATED AND MENTALLY ILL. FACT: COURTS DO NOT PROVIDE ATTORNEYS TO LITIGANTS WHO ARE CAPABLE OF REPRESENTING THEMSELVES. COURTS ONLY PROVIDE ATTORNEYS TO LITIGANTS WHO ARE INCAPABLE OF REPRESENTING THEMSELVES (as was the case here). Further, the other interested parties who joined in the appeal at the Supreme Court DO NOT "BACK UP" Class' amateur "paperwork" either! Instead, they ONLY "BACK UP" CLASS' LAW FIRM IN ITS ENTIRELY SEPARATE LEGAL ARGUMENT (ABOUT WHETHER AN APPEAL COULD BE FILED IN THE FIRST PLACE) WHICH CLASS NEVER KNEW ABOUT AND WHICH CLASS NEVER RAISED ANYWHERE AT ANYTIME.

WHAT THOSE INVOLVED IN CLASS' CASE (AND CLASS' FOLLOWERS) DO NOT YET KNOW:

1. Class WAS ACTUALLY ON PROBATION at the time of his ARREST in this case for a previous North Carolina CRIMINAL CONVICTION (which PROBATION was conditioned upon Class NOT POSSESSING ANY "WEAPONS" OF ANY KIND for a year ). Lincoln County [North Carolina] Gen. Ct. Of Justice, Dist. Ct. Div. Case No. 13CR050407. Thus, Class WAS IN ILLEGAL POSSESSION of "WEAPONS" at the time of his ARREST in this case (not even considering his additional violation of FEDERAL law). SO, CLASS WAS NOT A "LAW ABIDING CITIZEN" (OR AN "INNOCENT VICTIM") AT THE TIME OF HIS WASHINGTON, D.C. ARREST, as he fraudulently contends.

2. Class SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD a conceal and carry permit from the state of North Carolina in the first place. This is because Class was ALREADY A CONVICTED FELON before applying for such a permit from that state (and that state DOES NOT issue such permits to CONVICTED FELONS). N.C.G.S. 14_415.12(b)(3). http://ncleg.net/gascripts/statutes/statutelookup.pl?statute=14-415.12 . Specifically, in 2001, Class was CONVICTED in Ohio of the FELONY POSSESSION (in his car) of a fully-loaded, ILLEGALLY-SAWED-OFF Springfield shotgun. (At the time of this arrest, Class was also in possession of two night sticks OUTFITTED WITH CONCEALED RAZOR BLADES to increase their intended deadly effect.). Ct. of Common Pleas, Tuscarawas County, Ohio, Case No. 2001 CR 12 0298. Ironically, Class WAS ALSO ON PROBATION at the time of that FELONY ARREST for a previous Ohio gun-related CRIME (which constituted another PROBATION VIOLATION by Class). Canton [Ohio] Mun. Ct., Case No. 1999CRB05550). Regardless, Class DID NOT fit any exception to the conceal and carry statute (which forbade CONVICTED FELONS from being issed such permits) and Class WAS NOT eligible for a statutory "restoration" of his firearm rights (so as to be issued such a permit from that state after 20 years). N.C.G.S. 14_415.4 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (j). http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-415.4.html . Thus, Class apparently obtained his conceal and carry permit from North Carolina by FRAUD (itself a criminal act). N.C.G.S. 14_415.4(l) (this is an "L"). http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-415.4.html. Further, the sentencing trial judge in Class' Washington, D.C. weapons case DID NOT KNOW that Class was ALREADY a CONVICTED FELON at the time of sentencing (Class INTENTIONALLY OMITTED this fact from the pre-sentencing statement upon which the judge and prosecutor relied). Incredibly, Class was also ARRESTED AND JAILED TWO MORE TIMES during the pendency of this case, once for refusing to appear at his own trial and once for "resisting arrest" following a traffic stop.

3. Unknown to Class, IT WAS ALSO ILLEGAL for him to have "CARRIED" handguns or firearms onto United States Capitol grounds UNDER HIS (ILLEGALLY-OBTAINED) CONCEAL AND CARRY PERMIT FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA. Unknown to Class, his permit from that state EXPRESSLY FORBADE CLASS FROM POSSESSING OR CARRYING HANDGUNS OR FIREARMS ON ANY FEDERAL PROPERTY WHERE, AS HERE, SUCH WEAPONS ARE NOT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. N.C.G.S. 14_415.11(C)(4). http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-415.11.html . So, contrary to Class' understanding, his having a North Carolina “conceal and carry” permit DID NOT constitute a "defense" to the federal charges against him FOR "CARRYING" FIREARMS ONTO U.S. CAPITOL GROUNDS. Indeed, "CARRYING" FIREARMS ONTO U.S. CAPITOL GROUNDS constituted AN ADDITIONAL OFFENSE FOR VIOLATING HIS (ILLEGALLY-OBTAINED) CONCEAL AND CARRY PERMIT UNDER NORTH CAROLINA LAW!

4. Even if Class had a "second amendment" defense to "CARRYING" three loaded handguns and one fully loaded rifle onto United States Capitol grounds, Class HAD NO "SECOND AMENDMENT DEFENSE" to "CARRYING" THE OTHER "DANGEROUS WEAPONS" onto United States Capitol grounds WHICH WERE ALSO PROHIBITED BY THE SAME FEDERAL STATUTE (one machete, fourteen knives and daggers, one illegal switch blade, three axes, etc.).

5. It is true that Class may not have realized that he had driven and parked his vehicle (loaded with "DANGEROUS WEAPONS") on United States Capitol grounds. Thus, Class may not have had "mens rea" (knowledge of wrongdoing) in connection with that prohibited act. But, Class DID HAVE "MENS REA" ABOUT BEING ON PROBATION AT THE TIME AND THAT HIS PROBATION MADE HIS POSSESSION OF ANY "WEAPON" AT THE TIME ILLEGAL.

NOTE: None of the foregoing facts (in paragraphs 1-5) have yet been made known to any court or attorney in this case. Likewise, none of the courts, prosecutors or law enforcement officials in Ohio or in North Carolina are yet aware that Class INTENTIONALLY VIOLATED THE TERMS OF HIS PROBATION WITH THOSE RESPECTIVE STATES as explained above.

ABOUT ROD CLASS:
Rod Class is a functionally-illiterate amateur legal theorist with barely a high school education WHO HAS LOST EVERY SINGLE CASE IN WHICH HE HAS EVER BEEN INVOLVED (OVER 76 CONSECUTIVE LOSSES IN A ROW, AND STILL COUNTING). Further, Class has a long history of PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS involving DELUSIONS, PATHOLOGICAL OPPOSITION/DEFIANCE of AUTHORITY FIGURES and PATHOLOGICAL LYING. Moreover, Class is a MULTI-CONVICTED, WEAPONS RELATED, CONVICTED FELON who also has SEVERAL ADDITIONAL MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS, as well. Because of Class’ well-publicized HATRED of our ELECTED representatives, their appointees and our REPUBLICAN form of government, because of his HISTORY OF PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS and because of his LENGTHY CRIMINAL HISTORY involving DEADLY WEAPONS, Class has been placed on the United States TERRORIST WATCH LIST.

ANALYSIS:
ROD CLASS (with his inability to read, his lack of education, his ignorance of the law, his delusional belief system, his worthless, amateur legal theories, his lack of honesty and his 100% failure rate in court in 76 consecutive losses) IS LIVING PROOF THAT THOSE WHO PURPORT TO PRACTICE LAW (AND THOSE WHO PURPORT TO TEACH THE LAW) SHOULD:
1). BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A FOUR-YEAR COLLEGE EDUCATION (a "Bachelor's Degree");
2). BE REQUIRED TO ALSO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL THREE TO FOUR YEAR LAW SCHOOL EDUCATION (a "Juris Doctor's Degree");
3). BE REQUIRED TO PASS THE STATE BAR EXAM (takes three days);
4). BE REQUIRED TO UNDERGO A RIGOROUS STATE CHARACTER AND FITNESS BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION WHICH TAKES SEVERAL MONTHS OR YEARS (NO MENTAL HEALTH HISTORY, NO CRIMINAL HISTORY, honesty, credit history, interviews of employers, teachers, former co-workers, neighbors, relatives, taking finger print samples, taking hand writing samples, etc.).
5). BE LICENSED BY THE STATE AND BE SUBJECT TO THE CONTINUOUS OVERSIGHT AND DISCIPLINE OF THE HIGHEST OFFICE OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF STATE GOVERNMENT, THE STATE SUPREME COURT (in order to protect the public from INCOMPETENCE and FRAUD).

ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH:
Snoop4truth is a legal expert and whistle blower who exposes online hoaxes. Snoop4truth did not reveal this information to harm Rod Class. Instead, Snoop4truth exposed this information solely to reduce the CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE that such INTENTIONAL FRAUD inflicts upon the American people every single day. Had it not been for Rod Class' role in the "Judge DALE Hoax", Snoop4truth would not have exposed this information here.

The message to all hoaxers and charlatans? Just tell the truth.

I hope this helps,

All The Best,

Snoop
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
206
Likes
12
#91
This is why the corporate government's rules and regulations enacted to control their employees are impossible to understand.

Common Law is simple and concise.

Snoop, your 'arguments' fall on deaf ears here. You may as well be reciting gibberish. Your posts 'prove' absolutely nothing.

How about posting all the court cases that were thrown out by the magistrate lest they violate their oaths of office (if they even signed them)??
Hello Goldhedge,

Thank you for your views. I will respond to them individually below.

1. This is why the corporate government's rules and regulations enacted to control their employees... .
RESPONSE: There is no corporate government. I have already provided you with actual COMMON LAW (case law) itself on that very subject above. Did you read it? "We the People" are the government. I have already provided you with the actual COMMON LAW (case law) on that subject as well. Did you read it? The statutes passed by our ELECTED lawmakers is binding on all individuals within the borders of the jurisdiction, not just governmental employees. To the extent that you claim that all Americans are themselves "employees" of this imaginary corporate government, that is simply not so.

2, [Government's rules and regulations]... are impossible to understand.
RESPONSE: The only reason that real law (including the COMMON LAW I have posted above) appears difficult for you to understand is that you were exposed to FAKE LAW (amateur legal theories) first. Because FAKE LAW is your sole frame of reference, the truth about the real law seems foreign and complex to you. But, it is actually neither. It is simple and straight forward. Just read it above. It will open your eyes to the truth. It actually makes perfect sense. It just happens to be inconsistent with your amateur legal theories and that is the real reason that you oppose it.

3. Common Law is simple and concise.
RESPONSE: YES IT IS! That is precisely why I posted the COMMON LAW (case law) above. Do I understand correctly that the COMMON LAW (case law) that I posted above is too complex and too difficult for you to understand? Are you kidding me? Even a child can understand that COMMON LAW (case law) that I posted for you above.

4. Snoop, your 'arguments' fall on deaf ears here. You may as well be reciting gibberish. Your posts 'prove' absolutely nothing.
RESPONSE: The one and only way to determine the correct status of the law is to read the actual words of the law itself. In the links above, I have provided you and others on this thread with actual words of the real law itself for that very purpose. If you and others on this thread are simply going to dismiss the words of the law itself, then there is no way for anyone to reach you with the truth. You will be lost in your belief system forever. You will be needlessly lost in a world of ignorance, darkness and hatred forever. I cannot imagine a worse fate.

5. How about posting all the court cases that were thrown out by the magistrate lest they violate their oaths of office (if they even signed them???
RESPONSE: I am happy to post any type of case you wish. But, I am unable to understand the question ("lest they violate their oaths of office (if they even signed them???). What does this even mean? I realize that it is an amateur legal theory designed and intended to delegitimize the courts and to incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans, but I do not know enough about this particular amateur legal theory to even know what you mean, much less how to respond. Are you under the impression that a judge's/magistrate's "oath of office" is in writing? What is the basis for your belief in this regard? Got such a sample written oath? What words do you believe appear in this written "oath of office" that could be violated by a judge? Why do you believe that this "oath of office" is even relevant TO THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE of the accused?

Thanks again for your views.

All The Best,

Snoop
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
206
Likes
12
#92
Goldhedge,

Was the COMMON LAW (case law) that I provided to you (about whether gold is money) helpful to you?

Thanks,

Snoop
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,530
Likes
6,162
Location
right here right now
#93
This has got to be a fucking machine, right...

No matter what anyone else thinks or believes, WE ARE WRONG, and boner is always RIGHT. And good heavens don't try to argue, you'll be RAPED with WORDS...
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
38,566
Likes
57,595
Location
Rocky Mountains
#94

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
38,566
Likes
57,595
Location
Rocky Mountains
#95
This is why 'snoop' gets lost in his argument. He's arguing a pear is an apple. He won't acknowledge that, while both are fruit, they are two entirely different things.


The "American People" and "U.S. citizens" are two different things.

A US citizen does not have any rights.

"...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;

"The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957

"Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity."
Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.

“A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.” Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)

A US citizen is a corporation.

"...it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. ..... A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing." Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. Rep. 300

This can also be confirmed in the definitions section of Title 5 USC, Title 26 USC, and Title 1 USC.
Therefore a US citizen is a piece of property. If you read any of those old court cases prior to the civil war where slavery was the issue, the debate was ALWAYS over property rights, therefore a US citizen, is a SLAVE.

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,....."

The so-called Fourteenth Amendment criminally converts US citizenship completely upside down from what the founding fathers intended.

"The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the "citizenship" to the agencies of government."
City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944

"Civil rights under the 14th amendment are for Federal citizens and not State Citizens; Federal citizens, as parents, have no right to the custody of their infant children except subject to the paramount right of the State." Wadleigh v. Newhall, Circuit Court N. Dist. Cal., Mar 13, 1905

and “US citizens” can even murder their unborn children by committing the common law crime of infanticide, and because the unborn are NOT “persons”, then they are by definition State Citizens, which means the BAR members (foreign agents of the Crown) in the so-called courts are engaged in genocide against the American sovereignty, and this is proof that it has nothing to do with race, and has everything to do with slavery;
"The unborn are not included within the definition of "person" as used in the 14th Amendment." Roe v. Wade, US Supreme Court, 410 US 13, 35L. Ed. 2d 147, 1973

"The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957,

“...it is evident that they [US citizens] have not the political rights which are vested in citizens of the States. They are not constituents of any community in which is vested any sovereign power of government. Their position partakes more of the character of subjects than of citizens. They are subject to the laws of the United States, but have no voice in its management. If they are allowed to make laws, the validity of these laws is derived from the sanction of a Government in which they are not represented. Mere citizenship they may have, but the political rights of citizens they cannot enjoy…” People v. De La Guerra,40 Cal. 311, 342 (A.D. 1870) [emphasis added]

“SUBJECT. SUBJECT may imply a state of subjection to a person, such as a monarch, without much sense of membership in a political community or sharing in political rights … It may on the other hand simply indicate membership in a political community with a personal sovereign to whom allegiance is owed.” Webster's Third New International Dictionary, MERRIAM-WEBSTER INC., Publishers 1986

“[T]he term "citizen," in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law.” State vs Manual 20 NC 122, 14 C.J.S. 4, p 430

and a “US citizen” is a fictitious entity, and has no rights;
"Therefore, the U.S. citizens residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity." Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L. Ed. 1143, 56 S. Ct. 773

“In our opinion, it was not the intent of the legislature to restrict the operation of the
statute to those only who were subjects of the United States government ...”
Prowd v. Gore (1922) 57 Cal. App. 458, 459-461 [emphasis added]
“Upon the other hand, the 14th Amendment, upon the subject of citizenship, Declares
only that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they
reside." Here there is a limitation to person born or naturalized in the United States,
which is not extended to person born in any place "subject to their jurisdiction."”
Downes v. Bidwell (1900) 182 U.S. 244, 249-251, 45 L. Ed. 1088, 1092, [emphasis added]

A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states. Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)

"The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90), and the right to bear arms, guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252), have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment against abridgement by the states, and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment (Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516), and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment." West v. Louisiana, 194 U. S. 258.

"The technical niceties of the common law are not regarded. . . .", 1 R.C.L. 31, p. 422. "A jury does not figure, ordinarily, in the trial of an admiralty suit. . . the verdict of the jury merely advisory, and may be disregarded by the court." 1 R.C.L. 40, p. 432. "[The] rules of practice may be altered whenever found to be inconvenient or likely to embarrass the business of the court." 1 R.C.L. 32, p. 423. "A court of admiralty. . . acts upon equitable principles." 1 R.C.L. 17, p. 416. "A libel of information [accusation] does not require all the technical precision of an indictment at common law. If the allegations describe the offense, it is all that is necessary; and if it is founded upon a statute, it is sufficient if it pursues the words of the law." The Emily v. The Caroline, 9 Wheat. 381

"...that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states, which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451;

"...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455; — Timeline Photos

There have always been 2 classes of citizens in America.

The Constitution for the United States of America talks about 2 classes of citizens.

Article IV, Section 2 Clause 1 says; "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

The courts have talked about the two classes of citizens as shown below.
"there is in our Political System, a government of each of the several states and a government of the United States Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own." . US vs. Cruikshank, 92 US 542,

The Fourteenth Amendment, "....creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the States."
Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition at pg 591;

"One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. Thomasson v State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507; In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443."
Mc Donel v State, 90 Ind. Rep. 320 at pg 323;

"Both before and after the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the U.S. in order to be a citizen of his State" Crosse v. Board of Supervisors, Baltimore, Md., 1966, 221 A. 2d 431 citing US Supreme Court Slaughter House Cases and U.S. v. Cruikshank 92 US 542, 549, 23 L. Ed 588 1875

"There are two classes of citizens, citizens of the United States and of the State. And one may be a citizen of the former without being a citizen of the latter" Gardina v. Board of Registers 48 So. 788, 169 Ala. 155 (1909)

"Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizens to privileges and immunities of Citizens of the State, since privileges of one are not the same as the other" Tashiro v. Jordan, 255 P. 545 California Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court quite thoroughly expanded on the two classes
of citizenship in the case Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, where it said:

"...that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states,
which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested."
Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451;

These two classes of citizenship continue to this day,
"Privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. 14,§ 1."
Jones v Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (D.Colo. 1993);

Because there are 2 classes of citizens, and also because of circumstances that will become known below, it is necessary to assert your sovereignty. In order to understand how and why you assert your sovereignty, we need to have some background knowledge.

A state citizen is one of "We the People" found in the preamble to the constitution. You can be in a state without being in the United States. In fact, if you read their codes, the United States in the United States Code is the District of Columbia and the Territories. The Puerto Rico website even talks about it.

What is a US citizen?

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
206
Likes
12
#96
This has got to be a fucking machine, right...

No matter what anyone else thinks or believes, WE ARE WRONG, and boner is always RIGHT. And good heavens don't try to argue, you'll be RAPED with WORDS...
Greetings Arminius,

This is not about who WINS verses who LOSES. This is not about ME verses YOU. This is not who is RIGHT verses who is WRONG. This is not about who's argument is better.

Instead, this is simply about the TRUTH verses a LIE. This is simply about REAL law verses FAKE law. And, that matter can only be resolved with by reading the REAL law itself with your own eyes.

That is precisely why I provided you with so many LINKS to the REAL law itself (above). Its not about what I say or what you say. Instead, it is about what he REAL law says for itself. The only way for you to know the TRUTH about the REAL law is to read it for yourself with your own eyes.

When you read the REAL law with your own eyes, there is no way for charlatans (like Rod Class and Eddie Craig) to fool you, because you have cut out the middleman.

That is all I am trying to do by providing you with so many LINKS to the REAL law itself. If you read the REAL law for yourself YOU HAVE WON!

All The Best,

Snoop
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,530
Likes
6,162
Location
right here right now
#97
^^^ Nothing but lies, snoopy. you are indeed a moron if you believe any of that treasonous anti constitutional crap. your "REAL LAW" is nothing but lawyer written total fluff so called corporate policy pretend law designed to confuse and separate the sheep from their money.

go back to snopes and stay there.
 

TRYNEIN

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
6,603
Likes
27,687
Location
third cove on the right
#98
^^^ Nothing but lies, snoopy. you are indeed a moron if you believe any of that treasonous anti constitutional crap. your "REAL LAW" is nothing but lawyer written total fluff so called corporate policy pretend law designed to confuse and separate the sheep from their money.

go back to snopes and stay there.



Responding to a troll is like



 

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
12,449
Likes
20,010
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#99
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,866
Likes
6,142
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Snoop dogiee and I mean that in the most sincere way. Answer me this: "Have you ever received a ticket for a traffic infraction?"; "Did any of your traffic infractions carry a collateral consequence?"

These are loaded questions and you will learn the simple truth and you cannot copy and paste us all to death over these questions.

I don't care what ron class is doing neither do I care about any common law stuff, nope we be heading into charter and statute law and you are going to get schooled.
 

Silver

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
4,504
Likes
6,787
I think it is technically legal to travel on the public right of ways in your personal conveyance without a Driver License, license plate, or inspection sticker, but you will constantly have to deal with cops, courts, and probably arrest.

I was conversing with a Highway Patrol trooper about highway code definitions, and even with the code clearly defined, he made up his own definitions - when I pinned him down, he responded "irregardless", you have to do it anyway.

We were talking about the definition of "roadway" - he said it was edge of the pavement to edge of the pavement, I said it was improved pavement, excluding shoulder. I gave him the Transportation Code:

(11) "Roadway" means the portion of a highway, other than the berm or shoulder, that is improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel. If a highway includes at least two separate roadways, the term applies to each roadway separately.

He still argued with me. That is the kind of thing you will deal with constantly.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,866
Likes
6,142
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
I'm waiting to see if I get a nibble and then I am going to tease and then set the hook, I got one fish in a pool and I am after that fish.
 

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
24,312
Likes
34,029
Location
Qmerica
Why I no get reply?!
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,530
Likes
6,162
Location
right here right now
He still argued with me.
Never argue law with a cop. Most of them are hired for thier brawn, and brawn attitude, not their brain, and two, their vested interest is too great for most of this particular population to understand anything else. And trust me, the lawyers that run the cop shops make sure they obey their private corporate mandates for more and more filthy lucre, and not their consciences, those that have them...
 

Silver

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
4,504
Likes
6,787
Never argue law with a cop. Most of them are hired for thier brawn, and brawn attitude, not their brain, and two, their vested interest is too great for most of this particular population to understand anything else. And trust me, the lawyers that run the cop shops make sure they obey their private corporate mandates for more and more filthy lucre, and not their consciences, those that have them...
It was online on a community chat board. We had just had a bicycle race in the area and everyone was bitching about the cyclists taking up the road - everyone acted like the cyclists had no rights to the road. I argued the cyclists had the same rights to the road as motorized vehicles, except that they had to stay to the far right on the improved roadway. It went on and on and more detailed, but that was the context.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
38,566
Likes
57,595
Location
Rocky Mountains
He still argued with me. That is the kind of thing you will deal with constantly.
Cops don't enforce the law. They're just doing their job. Do they 'know the law'? Doubtful. They 'think' they know the law, but the law they know is only one kind. Corporate governance. It's what they were told was 'the law' by their schooling.

They'll say "Tell it to the judge" and that's their out. Will they know the law after you tell it to the judge? No.

Why? Because they're just following orders and 'doing they job'.
 

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
24,312
Likes
34,029
Location
Qmerica

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
12,449
Likes
20,010
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
Cops don't enforce the law. They're just doing their job. Do they 'know the law'? Doubtful. They 'think' they know the law, but the law they know is only one kind. Corporate governance. It's what they were told was 'the law' by their schooling.

They'll say "Tell it to the judge" and that's their out. Will they know the law after you tell it to the judge? No.

Why? Because they're just following orders and 'doing they job'.
I respectfully disagree, most of them are well acquanted with the so called law of rule, the same set of rules that prevent them from explaining or advising what the law actually is or means, for that arena is reserved for the university educated, state licensed lawyers & judges... A cop would be violating the so called law for "practicing law without a state license" if he begins explaining the law to the suspect, perpetrator or violator, etc. Its not that they are ignorant of the law, its that they are legally prohibited from exhibiting their knowledge in the monopolous hierachial legal pyramid.... a pyramid designed to protect the educational expenses incurred by the lawyers & their livlihood to pass their state licensing requirements....
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
38,566
Likes
57,595
Location
Rocky Mountains
Uhh...then why are they called law enforcement officers?
Because they hide behind a wall.

They're really 'code enforcement' officers.

Why do they specifically call it 'driving' instead of 'travelling'?
 

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
24,312
Likes
34,029
Location
Qmerica
Because they hide behind a wall.

They're really 'code enforcement' officers.

Why do they specifically call it 'driving' instead of 'travelling'?
Righto' - Enforcers of Corporate Policy.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
38,566
Likes
57,595
Location
Rocky Mountains
I don't care what ron class is doing neither do I care about any common law stuff, nope we be heading into charter and statute law and you are going to get schooled.
You should school him anyway... it will benefit the rest who happen by.... in spite of snoopy.
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,530
Likes
6,162
Location
right here right now
^ yes, true, but I believe they are not licensed, but registered by the state. Register, another blockbuster for the word hawks...
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,866
Likes
6,142
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
^ yes, true, but I believe they are not licensed, but registered by the state. Register, another blockbuster for the word hawks...
Just like the prostitutes in Nevadan not saying registered girls are a bad thing but them others? gags and pukes
 

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
24,312
Likes
34,029
Location
Qmerica
1539922371510.png
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
206
Likes
12
No, it's most likely buried in the rest of the gobblydygook.
What did the Act of 1871 create?
Hello Goldhedge,

Thank you for your comments. .

I apologize for the delay in my response.

I have been very busy researching and writing a reply to the cut and paste list of case citations and quotes that you provided me.

Below are my response to you comments.

Your comment:
In response to my question about whether you had read the COMMON LAW that I provided to you on whether GOLD IS MONEY, you responded, No, it's most likely buried in the rest of the gobblydygook.
RESPONSE: The COMMON LAW is simple and easy to understand. I actually provided links to the real COMMON LAW on that very subject for your review. Which do you regard as gobblydygook? My cut and paste quotes of the relevant language? Or, the original text of the case in its entirety to which I have provided you with links?

Your comment: What did the Act of 1871 create?
RESPONSE: The Act of 1871 created A "CITY" GOVERNMENT for the "CITY" of Washington, D.C. (NOT FOR THE ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA). The Act of 1871 DID NOT CREATE A "PRIVATE, FOR PROFIT CORPORATION" for EITHER the "CITY" of Washington, D.C. or for the ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The term, "BODY CORPORATE" does not necessarily mean a "PRIVATE, FOR PROFIT CORPORATION". A "BODY CORPORATE" is simply an artificial entity that can sue and be sued in its own name and enter into contracts in its own name. A "CITY GOVERNMENT" is simply a PUBLICLLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT "BODY CORPORATE" (no private stockholders, no profits). The term "MUNICIPAL CORPORATION" is simply a PUBLICLLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT "CITY GOVERNMENT" (no private stockholders, no profits). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_corporation.

THE REAL LAW ON THIS VERY AMATEUR LEGAL THEORY:

U.S. v. Petersen, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4484968305092096232&q="Daniel+Ernest+Petersen"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). The court wrote, "... Defendant [an amateur legal theorist] contends that 'THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS A FEDERAL CORPORATION, and one that is 'located in the ["CITY" of the] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA'. ... [The Defendant] further claims that the 'United States Government [rather than merely the "CITY" government of Washington, D.C.] was officially [c]ommercialized in 1871,' apparently arguing that this entity's powers 'shall be limited to the ["CITY" limits of the] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.' ... . In addition, [THE] DEFENDANT'S RELIANCE ON THE... [Act Of 1871 discussed above], IS LIKEWISE MISPLACED [read that phrase again] as that statute simply 'created a ["CITY"] government by the name of the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA [not "The United States Of America"],' a municipal corporation [which means a "CITY" government] with ‘jurisdiction over all the territory within the [CITY] limits of the District.’... . The present CRIMINAL prosecution of [the] Defendant [in this case] has nothing to do with the powers that Congress delegated to the ["CITY" of the ] District [Of Columbia. So, THAT DEFINITION DOES NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE]." (at the 13th, 14th and 15th paragraphs at about 35% through the text).

ABOUT CORPORATIONS:
The term, "corporation" FOOLS amateur legal theorists. They mistakenly believe that there is only ONE TYPE OF CORPORATION in the whole world and that EVERY CORPORATION in the whole world IS A PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation. https://anticorruptionsociety.com/2013/04/27/judge-says-usa-inc-is-just-a-corporate-franchise/ (at the paragraph ACTUALLY NUMBERED "3"). But, this is not so.

One loose, informal definition of a "corporation" is simply "a separate, legal entity which may enter into contracts in its own name and sue and be sued in its own name". Governments happen to have these same basic characteristics. So, in this sense, AND ONLY IN THIS SENSE, all governments are arguably "corporations" (loosely and informally speaking).

BUT, THIS IS NOT WHAT AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS MEAN BY CLAIMING THAT ALL GOVERNMENTS ARE "CORPORATIONS". Instead, they mean that ALL governments are corporations WHICH ARE "IN THE BUSINESS" OF STEALING MONEY FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO GENERATE "PROFITS" FOR THEIR "PRIVATE OWNERS". https://anticorruptionsociety.com/2013/04/27/judge-says-usa-inc-is-just-a-corporate-franchise/ (at the paragraph ACTUALLY NUMBERED "3"). Such IMAGINARY governmental entities would NOT merely be "corporations". Instead, such IMAGINARY governmental entities would actually be PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporations. THAT IS SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT IN THE LAW! NO GOVERNMENT OR GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY IN THE UNITED STATES IS A "CORPORATION" IN THIS SENSE OF THE WORD (in the way that amateur legal theorists mean it) and the courts have repeatedly said so.

OTHER TYPES OF CORPORATIONS UNDER THE REAL LAW

Remember, amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that every CORPORATION in the whole world is a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation (the "bad" kind of corporation). But, this is not so.

Unknown to amateur legal theorists, there are DOZENS and DOZENS of different types of corporations. But, ONLY ONE (1) TYPE of corporation is a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS" (the "bad" kind of corporation). Unknown to amateur legal theorists, there are COUNTLESS OTHER TYPES of NON-PROFIT corporations WHICH ARE ACTUALLY OWNED BY THE PUBLIC, OPERATED BY THE PUBLIC AND SERVE THE PUBLIC (not "private stockholders") FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD.

For example, there are PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT corporations (like some publicly-owned hospitals, schools and universities and some electrical and water utilities, NONE of which have "stockholders" and NONE of which make "profits"). There are also PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT MUNICIPAL corporations (like cities and towns, NONE of which have "stockholders" and NONE of which make "profits" and ALL of which are controlled entirely by people ELECTED by "We the People" TO CONTROL THEM). There are countless other different types of PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT corporations which serve the public (not "private stockholders"). But, amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this. Click on the links below.

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprise

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

[https://thestartupgarage.com/corporations-trusts-associations-llcs/

https://thestartupgarage.com/corporations-public-benefit-mutual-benefit-religious/


FACT: Amateur legal theorists are PATHOLOGICALLY DESPERATE to discredit and delegitimize the FEDERAL government of “We the People”. So, if any FEDERAL statute contains the terms, "corporate" or "corporation" in reference to anything FEDERAL, then amateur legal theorists will use that FEDERAL statute in support of their false claim that the FEDERAL government is itself a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS". One such FEDERAL statute cited by amateur legal theorists in support of this false claim is the "Act Of 1871".

THE ACT OF 1871:
The Act Of 1871 reads in pertinent part, "...[We hereby create] a government by the name of [the "CITY" of] THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA [NOT the ”United States Of America”] by which name it is hereby constituted a BODY CORPORATE [this term is a source of the confusion] for MUNICIPAL [means "CITY"] PURPOSES [not for other purposes]... [and this body is empowered to] exercise all... powers of a MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [this term is also a source of the confusion and actually means "CITY GOVERNMENT" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_corporation] not inconsistent with [means "CONSISTENT WITH"] the Constitution and the laws of the United States." http://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/41st-congress/session-3/c41s3ch62.pdf.

Thus, the Act of 1871 simply created a "CITY" GOVERNMENT for the "CITY" of Washington, D.C. (NOT FOR THE ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_corporation. But, amateur legal theorists are intellectually unable to tell the difference between the two (a "CITY" GOVERNMENT on one hand and the "ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" on the other hand). Remember, if any FEDERAL statute contains the terms, "corporate" or "corporation" in reference to anything FEDERAL, then amateur legal theorists will use that FEDERAL statute in support of their false claim that the FEDERAL government is itself a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS".

But, because the "CITY" of Washington, D.C. is the seat of the FEDERAL government and because they mistakenly believe that all corporations in the world are PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporations, amateur legal theorists falsely claim that the terms, "body corporate" and "municipal corporation" (contained in the Act Of 1871) prove that the "ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" (rather than merely the "CITY" GOVERNMENT of Washington, D.C.) IS ITSELF A PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS. https://www.akupressllc.com/150121CriminalCourtDenver.pdf (at page ACTUALLY NUMBERED "3" in the 4th paragraph at about 50% through the text). But, this is not so.

FACT: There is NOTHING about the Act of 1871 that has any affect whatsoever on the FEDERAL government itself. Instead, The Act of 1871 only relates to the "CITY" government of Washington, D.C. Likewise, NOTHING about the Act Of 1971 makes the FEDERAL government itself (or the "CITY" of Washington, D.C. for that matter) a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION which makes "PROFITS" for its private "STOCKHOLDERS". But, amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

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

1). U.S. v. Petersen, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4484968305092096232&q="Daniel+Ernest+Petersen"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). The court wrote, "... Defendant [an amateur legal theorist] contends that 'THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS A FEDERAL CORPORATION, and one that is 'located in the ["CITY" of the] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA'. ... [The Defendant] further claims that the 'United States Government [rather than merely the "CITY" government of Washington, D.C.] was officially [c]ommercialized in 1871,' apparently arguing that this entity's powers 'shall be limited to the ["CITY" limits of the] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.' ... . In addition, [THE] DEFENDANT'S RELIANCE ON THE... [Act Of 1871 discussed above], IS LIKEWISE MISPLACED [read that phrase again] as that statute simply 'created a ["CITY"] government by the name of the District of Columbia [not "The United States Of America"],' a municipal corporation [which means a "CITY" government] with ‘jurisdiction over all the territory within the [CITY] limits of the District.’... . The present CRIMINAL prosecution of [the] Defendant [in this case] has nothing to do with the powers that Congress delegated to the ["CITY" of the ] DISTRICT [OF COLUMBIA. So, THAT DEFINITION DOES NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE]." (at the 13th, 14th and 15th paragraphs at about 35% through the text).

2). 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." " (at the 15th full paragraph at about 25% through the text).

3). 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."(in the 4th and 3rd paragraph from the bottom at about 90% 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. 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: '... 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).

6). 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.

7). State v. Hartsoe, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=83340477619696621&q="John+L.+Hartsoe"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION"). In this case, the court wrote, "Hartsoe's [the Defendant's] affidavit was based upon his belief that THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION, which created 'straw men,' fictitious persons separate from real individuals, for each man and woman in order TO CONTROL the people of the United States. Hartsoe [the Defendant] refused to submit to the CORPORATE government and filed his affidavit denying his [own imaginary] 'straw man' or [imaginary] CORPORATE existence." But, the court ruled otherwise.

8). Miles v. U.S., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3357725607032486211&q="Harry+Edwin+Miles"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION"). In this case the Defendant filed what amounted to a Motion For Relief From Conviction. The court wrote, "The grounds [in the Defendant's motion] include... that THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION and does not have the power to prosecute individuals, and that citizens are not subject to statutory jurisdiction under the Constitution [a false claim that Rod Class also makes]." (at footnote 1). But, the court held otherwise and unceremoniously THREW THE CASE OUT OF COURT.

9). 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).

10). U.S. v. Provost, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17406735750311497964&q="Andre+Paul+Provost"+&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION"). In this case, the court wrote, "... Defendant [the tax protester] filed a request to answer [the complaint], claiming that he had 'a good faith belief that the UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION and that there was no parity with the flesh and blood man.'" But, the court ruled otherwise, DENIED the tax protester's request to file a delinquent answer and UPHELD THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Note that ALL amateur legal theories (ex: "all governments are corporations") are always EXACTLY BACKWARDS AND OPPOSITE to what the REAL law actually is. There are NO EXCEPTIONS! Amateur legal theories ARE NOT REAL. They are FAKE. They are LIES. Amateur legal theories and the REAL law are the EXACT OPPOSITES of one another. Amateur legal theories are an IMAGINARY ALTERNATIVE to the REAL law that is actually used by the REAL legal system and the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD. Amateur legal theories have a 100% FAILURE RATE in court BECAUSE THEY ARE FAKE. They are NOT INTENDED TO WORK and they DO NOT WORK! They never have. They never will. Their SOLE PURPOSE is to attempt to discredit and delegitimize our REPUBLICAN form of government, the ELECTED representatives of "We the People" and to incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans. Nothing more.

FACT: Just in case you do not already know, all FUTURE DECISIONS on the subject of whether governments are corporations WILL FOLLOW THE DECISIONS SHOWN ABOVE (CALLED "PRECEDENT"). So, the law on this subject will always be the same as reflected in the cases above.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/b/binding-precedent/.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent.
https://dictionary.thelaw.com/binding-precedent/.

I hope this helps.

All The Best,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
24,312
Likes
34,029
Location
Qmerica
Cripes here we go again with the "REAL COMMON LAW" talk again.

Funny thing about the truth, it doesn't need to have adjectives added to substantiate it's authenticity.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
206
Likes
12
Hello BarnacleBob,

Thank you for the link to the video above. I have not only already seen this video, I have also looked up the subject statutes and the COMMON LAW (case law) which explains them. These cases confirm that this amateur legal theorist misunderstands the law.

THE AMATEUR LEGAL THEORY:
“Section 21052 and Section 260 of the California Vehicle Code LIMIT the application of the ENTIRE California Vehicle Code to the drivers and to the vehicles described ONLY IN THOSE TWO SECTIONS of the code (which apply only to state and local governmental vehicles and/or to commercial vehicles).

THE LAW ON SECTION 21052:
It is NOT the case that section 21052 of the California Vehicle Code LIMITS the application of the ENTIRE California Vehicle Code to the drivers and vehicles described in THAT SINGLE SECTION of the code (which applies only to state and local governmental emergency vehicles). (Section 260 is discussed below).


CASE 1:
Olejide v. California Dept. Of Motor Vehicles, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7710645811990665171&q=21052+California&hl=en&as=sdt=4,5. This case reads, “As best as we [the court] can discern from his opening brief, appellant [the defendant driver] claims that the California Vehicle CODE DOES NOT APPLY TO ANYONE OTHER THAN ONE DRIVING FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR FOR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF, OR ONE DRIVING FOR COMMERICAL PURPOSES. WE [the court] respectfully DISAGREE… .” [this preceding quote is the last sentence of the "Introduction" paragraph at about 15% through the text]. “In support of his [the defendant driver’s] contention that the Vehicle CODE DOES NOT APPLY TO HIM, appellant [the defendant driver] refers to section 21052, which provides: "The provisions of this code applicable to the drivers of vehicles upon the highways apply to the drivers of all vehicles while engaged in the course of employment by this State, any political subdivision thereof, any municipal corporation, or any district, including authorized emergency vehicles subject to those exemptions granted such authorized emergency vehicles in this code. APPELANT [the defendant driver] MISUNDERSTANDS this section to mean that the ENTIRE Vehicle Code, including section 11353.2, ONLY APPLIES TO THOSE DESCRIBED IN SECTION 21052. Section 21052 was originally enacted as section 453 in 1935 specifically to include police, fire and rescue personnel within its coverage while operating vehicles in the ordinary course of their work as such. (See 17 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 121 (1951); 8 Cal.Jur.3d (2005) Automobiles, § 225, pp. 326-327.) IT [this code section] WAS NOT INTENDED TO EXCLUDE ALL OTHER PERSONS FROM THE COVEREAGE OF THE VEHICLE CODE. There is no doubt that the provisions of that code, including section 13353.2, APPLY TO APPELLANT [the defendant driver]… .Therefore, we reject his narrow reading of section 11353.2, and conclude the hearing officer correctly suspended appellant's driving privileges… [the preceding quote is at the last three paragraphs of the "Discussion" section at about 90% through the text].”

TRANSLATION: The fact that ONE SINGLE SECTION of the vehicle code ONLY APPLIES TO CERTAIN VEHICLES, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ENTIRE REST OF THE VEHICLE CODE ONLY APPLIES TO THOSE SAME VEHICLES.


THE LAW ON SECTION 21052:
Section 21052 merely exempts certain governmental vehicles responding to an emergency from obeying posted speed limits. Section 21052 does not limit the application of the entire California Vehicle Code to the vehicles described in that single section of the code.

CASE 2:
Monroy v. City of Los Angeles, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8858374689860371473&q=21052+California&hl=en&as_sdt=4,5Section. That case reads, “With regard to Section 21055 and its companion statute, Vehicle Code section 21056 (Section 21056), the jury was instructed: "California Vehicle Code provides that THE DRIVER of an authorized EMERGENCY VEHICLE is EXEMPT from the . . . [requirement] to observe the provisions of the Vehicle Code RELATING TO SPEED LIMIT. . . under all of the following conditions: IF — A, IF THE VEHICLE IS BEING DRIVEN IN RESPONSE TO AN EMERGENCY CALL ; and, B, IF THE DRIVER OF THE EMERGENCY VEHICLE SOUNDS A SIREN as may be reasonably necessary and THE VEHICLE DISPLAYS A LIGHTED RED LAMP visible from the front as a warning to other drivers and pedestrian… .Plaintiffs concede that the instruction was an accurate statement of the law. Accordingly, as Section 21055 is explained in the instruction, IN ORDER FOR EMERGENCY RESPONDERS TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE RULES OF THE ROAD including the speed limit, they must be responding to an emergency call, they must sound a siren as may be reasonably necessary, and their vehicle must display a lighted red lamp visible from the front as a warning… .” The effect [the meaning] of Vehicle Code sections 21055 and 21056 is: where THE DRIVER of an authorized EMERGENCY VEHICLE IS ENGAGED IN A SPECIFIED EMERGENCY FUNCTION HE MAY VIOLATE CERTAIN RULES OF THE ROAD, such as speed and right of way laws, IF HE ACTIVATES HIS RED LIGHT and where necessary his siren in order to alert other users of the road to the situation[the preceding quotes begin in the first four paragraphs of the section entitled, "1. Section 21055 And The LAPD Manual" at about 30% through the text].”

TRANSLATION: Because SAVING LIVES IS MORE IMPORTANT than obeying speed limits, DRIVERS of EMERGENCY VEHICLES in the process of trying TO SAVE A LIFE--- CAN GO FAST as long if they turn their red light on and use their siren when necessary.

THE LAW ON SECTION 260:
Section 260 of the California Vehicle Code DOES NOT LIMIT the application of the ENTIRE California Vehicle Code to the commercial vehicles described in THAT SINGLE SECTION of the code. Instead, section 260 merely definescommercial vehicles for the purpose of special insurance requirements and special liability insurance formulas (not applicable to non-commercial vehicles).

CASE 3:
Mission Ins. Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15931891282690057915&q=%22section+260%22+%22vehicle+code%22&hl=en&as_sdt=4,5. That case reads, “Mission argued and the trial court agreed that Redwood was "engaged in the business of renting or leasing commercial vehicles without operators" and that its [insurance] policy was excess pursuant to section 11580.9, subdivision (b). That section provides: "(b) Where two or more [insurance] policies are applicable to the same loss, and one of such [insurance] policies affords coverage to a named insured engaged in the business of renting or leasing commercial vehicles without operators, as the term `commercial vehicles' is used in Section 260 of the Vehicle Code... , it shall be conclusively presumed that the insurance afforded by such policy to a person other than the named insured or his agent or employee shall not be primary, but shall be excess over any other valid and collectible insurance applicable to the same loss covering such person as a named insured or as an additional insured under a policy with limits at least equal to the financial responsibility requirements specified in Section 16056 of the Vehicle Code; and, in such event, the two or more policies shall not be construed as providing concurrent coverage, and only that policy which covers the liability of such person as a named insured, or as an agent or employee of a named insured, shall be primary and the other policy or policies shall be excess… [the preceding quote begins with the term, "1(a)" at about 50% through the text] ."

TRANSLATION: The ELECTED lawmakers liked THE DEFINITION of "COMMERCIAL VEHILCES" in another statute so well that they INCORPORATED that DEFINITION into the INSURANCE statute above by reference (rather than re-writing that definition again from scratch). The INSURANCE statute above does not apply to NON-COMMERCIAL VEHICLES. But, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ENTIRE VEHICLE CODE DOES NOT APPLY TO NON-COMMERCIAL VEHICLES.

I hope this helps.

All The Best,
Snoop
 
Last edited: