|

Revocation of Election Letter to the IRS – Involuntary Slavery Solution




Dario Busch & Patriot UnKnown
Wed, Nov 6, 2013
Subject: Revocation of Election Letter to the IRS 
www.MorningLiberty.com

 Send your Questions or Comments to  Drobin88@myfairpoint.net

Dario Busch 2012 Strawman Freedom Sovereignty UCC1 – YouTube John MacHaffie7:59 AM
Dario Busch 2012 Strawman Freedom Sovereignty UCC1 – YouTube

YouTube Preview Image

 

The People are just beginning to learn facts that have been intentionally hidden from them via the government schools.

They have been taught to patriotically claim that they are "citizens of the United States". The United States that this applies to is the United States Inc. which is limited to the District of Columbia (Washington D.C.) and the federal territories and enclaves of the Democracy. Whereas People in the 50 States are NOT citizens of the United States. They (we) are Citizens of the United States of America, which is not the Corporation United States. Citizens of the United States of America which is the Republic are presumed to the Citizens of the United States Corporation which is the Democracy UNTIL THEY OBJECT TO THE PRESUMPTION WITH THE TRUTH.

Citizens of the Republic are exempt from taxation whereas citizens of the Democracy are subject to the IRS inividual income tax.

BOMBSHELL : ALL GOVERNMENT OFFICES ARE VACANT!
John MacHaffieYesterday 9:41 PM

DISCLAIMER: THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS NOT NECESSARILY THE OPINION OF MANAGEMENT, OWNERS OR ADMINISTRATORS OF OOM, OR THE OOM SITE. AS ALWAYS, DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH, YOU FILTER YOU DECIDE.

Bombshell: Rod Class gets FOURTH Administrative Ruling "Gov't Offices are Vacant"- All Gov't Officials are "Private Contractors"
Submitted by The South on Sun, 10/14/2012 – 18:25
in

Politics, General + Law(s)

Yes, you read that correctly; it is true, and is now on the court record; black ink on white paper. Please read on:

A lot of us have been exposing the crime of the UNITED STATES corporation for many years, but until recently, no one has had the proof that all government offices are vacant; no one is home; those supposed government offices/agencies are being occupied by PRIVATE CONTRACTORS and are NOT being occupied by a legitimate government body.

This is equivalent to the ice cream man knocking on your door and extorting taxes from you. He has no lawful authority to do anything other than drive the ice cream truck – he's not a government official; he's an ice cream man.

Your supposed government officials are nothing more than ice cream men/women who are fraudulently extorting money from you and your family; throwing you in prison; taxing you to death; stealing your children and imposing their will on you, and enforcing their own internal-statutory rules and codes upon you and your family.

Rod Class has now received FOUR Administrative Rulings that prove what many of us have felt to be truth: What you think is government; what you think are legitimate Government Officials/Senators/Congressman/Policeman/Governors/Tax Collectors, etc. are nothing more than private contractors, extorting money from American Citizens and failing to pay off the public debt as they are instructed to do by the 1933 bankruptcy.

What they have done is this:

These people have switched places with the average American Citizen. They are enforcing their own Administrative codes, that are only meant for THEM, upon regular Citizens who are not being paid by the corporation. The supposed elected officials have hoodwinked the country into an employment position without pay. They themselves are taking public money to occupy government seats/positions/agencies, when they are nothing more than private contractors … Felony!

They are treating us as if we are paid government employees; enforcing their own internal rules-regulations-codes, and statutes on the average Citizen, as well as conveniently forgetting to send us our weekly/monthly government employment check.

I've been preaching this for the last year + with no avail on this forum. Perhaps now, people will begin to listen and take action.

In these radio shows, Rod explains his Administrative Rulings from the various Judges; explains the con, and shows you, where in their very own US Codes the above aforementioned information is spot on.

There are a few shows you need to listen to, and here are some bullet points of those shows:

1. All BAR attorneys are prohibited from representing John Q. Public; can only represent gov't officials and employees within their own agencies, their BAR Charter says so.

2. Any Judge that prohibits you from representing yourself or hiring a defense other than a BAR attorney, are in fact, committing a felony on the bench in violation of the Taft-Hartly Act (running a closed union shop) and the Smith Act (overthrow of Constitutional form of Gov't)

3. Anytime an BAR attorney represents someone in a case against you, you can now claim that person is incompetent; a ward of the state, with no standing to sue.

4. Any and all tax collectors, police officers, sheriffs dept's, DOT, tag agencies, BAR attorneys, Judges, Highway Patrol, supposed elected officials, are nothing more than private contractors, who can now be brought up on fraud charges for impersonating a public official while receiving federal funding.

5. Any and all home, vehicle, credit card loans are supposed to be discharged through the Treasury window, in compliance with the 1933 bankruptcy laws. These scumbags are double dipping and never discharging the debt like they are supposed to. They are embezzling the funds and pocketing them for themselves.

6. Every person sitting in prison today was railroading by a BAR attorney who's first allegiance is to the State; who had no lawful authority to represent them; who worked in concert with the State to perpetrate a fraud upon it's victims.

7. Orders from Administrative courts prove for the fourth time, an agency of the State is NOT an agency under the State.

8. Elected Officials are claiming 11th Amendment sovereignty, when it's actually you and I that hold 11th Amendment sovereignty. They are getting paid by the corporation, you and I are not.

9. They have admitted to the crime of no one actually holding a public office; they are filling corporate seats and defrauding the public.

10. Political subdivisions are not getting their 40% funding from the Feds as they are supposed to get.

11. These Judges have admitted (black ink on white paper) that all these State Offices are ……….. EMPTY!

12. Now we have Administrative paperwork – ruling these public offices aren't part of the State agencies.

13. Attorney Generals may not practice law; can't represent the people who are not public officials.

14. If the State is a 3rd party interloper in your Marriage (marriage license); Vehicle Title (State Registration), etc. then they are liable for 1/3rd of the cost to manage the daily activities of that contract.

15. If the State demands you have a Drivers License and Tag your vehicle because it is registered with the State, then as the owner of the vehicle, the State is required to pay for the vehicle, the tags, licensing, fuel, tires, oil, etc. and they are also to pay you a salary for driving a State owned vehicle; it says so in their own Highway Safety Act and USC – CFR rules and regulations.

16. We now have the court orders that goes back and nullifies any and all IRS and Tax cases, Foreclosures, Credit Card Debt, cases or actions. These people never had the lawful right to demand anything of you; they are corporate actors, not a legitimate government body.

17. Judge admits the 1933 bankruptcy, and no way to pay off anything because of Federal Reserve Notes; all public debt is t be discharged through the Treasury.

18. Only the Secretary of Transportation can hear traffic cases; all traffic cases are civil, not criminal.

19. If you're not being paid for you time, you are not required to have one of their CDL or CMV licenses; it's prohibited.

20. Says we now have a major labor dispute on our hands; US corporation running a slave racket against American Citizens without the pay.

21. United States Codes (USC) and Titles #1 thru #50 are void; have never been passed by Congress; all have been repealed.

As I've been saying for a very long time on this forum: If you are not getting a weekly or monthly paycheck from the so called federal government aka UNITED STATES or one of it's sub corporations such as the STATE OF ***, then their statutory rules (not laws), codes and regulations DO NOT APPLY TO YOU ……… Period!

There is so much information packed into these last six calls, I can't even begin to share it in this post. If you want your freedom; if you want to know with 100% surety that the foreign corporation known as the UNITED STATES has zero authority over you unless you are receiving a weekly paycheck from them, take the time to listen to call #646 through #651 here:

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=4

Scroll down the page and click on the orange "Listen" button; a pop up player will appear for your listening pleasure.

And believe me: This is pure listening pleasure, with the court filings; rulings and US Code to back it all up.

By the time you finish these few short shows, your fear of the government will be a thing of the past.

Also, many of Rod’s current filings against the infrastructure are at:http://harveyw26.minus.com …some may be easy to download, some may not !

And for those of you who are new to the forum and want to get a better grasp of all this prior to or after listening to the calls, here are some of my more informative posts on the matter at hand:

Public Notice to Gun Grabbing Politicians:

http://www.dailypaul.com/246514/public-notice-attention-to-a

So the Government wants you to collect a sales tax?

http://www.dailypaul.com/245362/have-a-business-and-the-govt

Your Home Loan was paid the day you signed the note:

http://www.dailypaul.com/244590/want-to-stick-it-to-the-bank

The real reason for the 14th Amendment:

http://www.dailypaul.com/244553/they-created-the-14th-amendm

What's the One Document in your possession that gives you the authority to rule over my life?

http://www.dailypaul.com/244165/whats-the-one-document-you-h

Can the State be an actual injured party? ….. No, it cannot!

http://www.dailypaul.com/243521/can-the-state-be-an-injured-…

Having a Social Security # is not a contract with the State/Feds:

http://www.dailypaul.com/243164/social-security-is-not-a-con

Trust Law, your Rights and how to enforce them:

http://www.dailypaul.com/243090/trust-law-your-rights-and-ho

Why you should never hire an attorney:

http://www.dailypaul.com/242260/this-is-why-you-should-never

Hopefully now in light of these Administrative Court Rulings people will now come to realize the fact, that Unless You Are Getting A Weekly Check From Government, Their Statutory Rules-Codes-Regulations They Put Off As Laws, Have Zero Force Or Effect On You Personally

No Contract = No Jurisdiction

Did you fill out an employment contract with the State; are they paying you for your services? If not, why the hell are you following their rules?

This is how we change our current form of Government back to the Republic is was initially intended to be.

If you don't take the time to listen to at least those last six shows at the link above, you are overlooking the most important information ever to come to light within the Liberty Movement.

Stop looking for a savior to save us from tyranny and listen to the shows I've provided. Now you are your own savior – Individually, now you can make a HUGE difference in our political structure and form of government.
 
Jesus Loves You
Remember " BE CAREFUL HOW YOU TREAT PEOPLE ON THE WAY UP. YOU MAY MEET THEM ON THE WAY DOWN."

Read More…

Revocation of Election Letter to the IRS
<YOUR LETTERHEAD>

<Date>

Certified Mail <0000 0000 0000 0000 0000>

Director of International Operations

Internal Revenue Service

Washington, D.C. (20225)

Subject: Notice of Revocation of Election and Request for Concurrence and Update to My Taxpayer Status.

Ref: 26 CFR 1.871-10

Dear Sir(s),

In accordance with 26 CFR § 1.871-10(d)(2)(iii), this letter is being submitted in pursuit of a Revocation of Election to treat any or all of my income and assets as a nonresident alien from being considered by the IRS as "effectively connected with a trade or business in the ‘United States’", as defined in 26 U.S.C. §864(b).

Information about myself in fulfillment with the above CFR is as follows:

1. Name:

2. Address:

3. Former SSN:

4. Applicable taxable year(s): 5. Grounds for the request.

The Grounds for my request are My constitutional right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, privacy, respect, the fruits of my common right labors under common law, and the right to own and control property (including labor and the fruits of my labor) without any interference from government, or requirement to report, account for, such income or assets on such property.

This letter is by no means an admission in any way that I ever made an Election to treat any of my income or assets as effectively connected with a trade or business in the United States, but instead is submitted to ensure that my status is properly reflected in your records and that you do indeed concur with and respect this notification of request for your concurence.

I do not now nor have I ever lived in the ‘United States’ as defined in 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7701, nor do I have any intentions of doing so in the future. I am sorry if I ever gave you the idea that I did by, for instance, mistakenly filing an IRS form 1040 in the past, which was the incorrect form. The correct form is and always has been the 1040NR form.

Please note that I already have an IRS form W-8 on file with my employer and have accurately declared myself to be a Nonresident Alien of the Corporation United States. I reside outside of the foreign jurisdiction to which the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) operates, which is the District of Columbia and federal territories.

"The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state." (N.Y. re: Merriam, 36 N.E. 505, 141 N.Y. 479, Affirmed 16 S.Ct. 1973, 41 L.Ed. 287).

"In the United States of America, there are two (2) separated and distinct jurisdictions, such being the jurisdiction of the states within their own state boundaries, and the other being federal jurisdiction (United States), which is limited to the District of Columbia, the U.S. Territories, and federal enclaves within the states, under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17." (Bevans v. United States, 16 U.S. 336 (1818)).

"State: The term ‘State’ shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title." (26 U.S.C. Sec. 7701).

"United States: The term ‘United States’ when used in a geographical sense includes [is limited to] only the States [the District of Columbia and other federal territories within the borders of the states] and the District of Columbia." (26 U.S.C. Sec. 7701).

"A canon of construction which teaches that of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States." (U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 at 222 (1949)).

"The term ‘United States’ may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends [324 U.S. 652, 672], or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution." (Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, 1945).

Foreign government: "The government of the United States of America, as distinguished from the government of the several states." (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition).

Foreign Laws: "The laws of a foreign country or sister state." (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition).

Foreign States: "Nations outside of the United States…Term may also refer to another state; i.e. a sister state. The term ‘foreign nations’, …should be construed to mean all nations and states other than that in which the action is brought; and hence, one state of the Union is foreign to another, in that sense." (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition).

Treasury Decision 3980, Vol. 29, January-December, 1927, pgs. 64 and 65 defines the words ‘includes’ and ‘including’ as: "(1) To comprise, comprehend, or embrace… (2) To enclose within; contain; confine…But granting that the word ‘including’ is a term of enlargement, it is clear that it only performs that office by introducing the specific elements constituting the enlargement. It thus, and thus only, enlarges the otherwise more limited, preceding general language…The word ‘including’ is obviously used in the sense of its synonyms, comprising; comprehending; embracing."

"Includes is a word of limitation. Where a general term in Statute is followed by the word, ‘including’ the primary import of the specific words following the quoted words is to indicate restriction rather than enlargement." (Powers ex re. Covon v. Charron R.I., 135 A. 2nd 829, 832 Definitions-Words and Phrases pages 156-156, Words and Phrases under ‘limitations’).

"In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes, it is the established rule not to extend their provisions by implication beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the citizen." (Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, at 153).

Almost a century ago, Congress declared that "The right of expatriation [including expatriation from the District of Columbia or “U.S. Inc”, the corporation] is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and decreed that “any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.” (15 Stat. 223-224 (1868), R.S. § 1999, 8 U.S.C. § 800 (1940). [1] Although designed to apply especially to the rights of immigrants to shed their foreign nationalities, that Act of Congress “is also broad enough to cover, and does cover, the corresponding natural and inherent right of American citizens to expatriate themselves.” (Savorgnan v. United States, 1950, 338 U.S. 491, 498 note 11, 70 S. Ct. 292, 296, 94 L. Ed. 287. [2] The Supreme Court has held that the Citizenship Act of 1907 and the Nationality Act of 1940 "are to be read in the light of the declaration of policy favoring freedom of expatriation which stands unrepealed." Id., 338 U.S. at pages 498-499, 70 S. Ct. at page 296. That same light, I think, illuminates 22 U.S.C.A. § 211a and 8 U.S.C.A.§ 1185. (Walter Briehl v. John Foster Dulles, 284 F2d 561, 583 (1957)).

Thank you for your prompt and expeditious processing of this Revocation of Election.

Please forward your certification and response to my address above. I respectfully request that you give a detailed explanation and legal justification of any determination or basis you might make regarding the disposition of this notification. This includes citing any authority you are exercising and the regulation or statute from which it derives, as well as any court cites, Treasury Decisions, etc that may be relevant to the foundation of your delegated authority for making a determination of disposition. This letter shall serve as formal legal notice that if you DO NOT respond within 45 days, then by your default and silence, the Revocation of Election is granted and there is no need to further contact us.

I affirm, under penalty of perjury, under the Common Law of America – from without the United States – that the foregoing is true and correct, to the best of my current information, knowledge, and belief, per 28 U.S.C. 1746(1); and,

I now affix my own signature to all of the above affirmations WITH EXPLICIT RESERVATION OF ALL MY RIGHTS AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-308.

Respectfully,
Your name in Caps and Lower Case FOR Your name in ALL CAPS.

 


Related Articles:


Meet Your Strawman – Slavery Legaleez

Demonic History Behind Vatican – Every Man Has a Strawman

Top 5 Blows to Freedom in America – UNITED STATES INC

Top 5 Beligerent Acts – Where Did Our Rights Go?

NWO – Top 12 Mind Control clips by Al Neal

Martial Law – Civil War by Design in America

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

3 Responses for “Revocation of Election Letter to the IRS – Involuntary Slavery Solution”

  1. John Borman says:

    You ought to be a part of a contest for one of the best sites on the internet. I will highly recommend this website!

  2. Steve Lelkendey says:

    I have read all about your explanation on the Revocation of Election. It is fascinating. I am very interested to submitting my application on this subject, & I am interested in taking further, there are others in our group that are interested as well. I would very much appreciate speaking to someone on this topic. My cell # is (865) 789-7782. I am in Tennessee. If possible I would really like to speak with RJ. However if not, I do understand. I do look forward to hearing from someone. Thank You.

    Steve Lelkendey

  3. snoop4truth says:

    THE LAW ON AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, by snoop4truth, September, 2015

    If you would actually like the know THE LAW ITSELF about amateur legal theories (rather than what some amateur legal theorist TELLS YOU that the law is), then THE LAW BELOW IS FOR YOU.

    EVERY SINGLE COURT THAT HAS EVER RULED ON AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES HAS RULED AGAINST THEM. AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES HAVE A 100% FAILURE RATE IN THE COURTS. THIS IS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT REAL. THEY ARE FAKE.

    The case law below reflects THE LAW ITSELF on the following amateur legal theories: “split personality” theory, “strawman” theory, “flesh and blood person” theory, “capital letters” theory, “governments are corporations” theory, “no jurisdiction” theory, “no contract” theory, “birth certificate” theory, “social security number” theory, “commercial law” theory”, “ UCC filing statement” theory, “UCC financing statement” theory, use of US citizens as “collateral for national debt” theory, “sovereign citizen” theory,”redemption” theory, “imaginary trust accounts” at the Federal Reserve or at the US Treasury theory and related theories. The list below is a work in progress. So, please bear with us. At some point, we hope to publish THE LAW ITSELF ON EVERY AMATEUR LEGAL THEORY theory peddled on the web. The results will be published on JudgeDaleHoax.com (still under construction).

    Note: We are well aware that the form of case citation that we use below is not the form of citation that lawyers use. But, we are not trying to help lawyers find the law online. Instead, we are trying to help ordinary people find the law online. Ordinary people have access to Google Scholar, a FREE case law database. As a result, we chose to cite the case law below in such a way that would allow ordinary people to find the cases below on Google Scholar online. Further, Google Scholar’s database includes thousands of cases that are not even published by West Publishing Company (or by Westlaw online) regardless of how they are cited. So, unless otherwise indicated, the cites below are cited to Google Scholar, not to reporters (books) published by West Publishing Company. So, go to Google Scholar, click on “case law” in both the “state” and “federal” systems. Then, for each case below, key in the case number (in quotes), and/or the case date (in quotes, but without the parentheses below) and/or key in the party names (without quotes) and/or the court name (in quotes). Google Scholar is FREE and easy to use.

    Final Note: Just in case you do not already know, in our legal system, all future court decisions on these amateur legal theories must follow the decisions that you see below.

    “STRAWMAN, SPLIT PERSONALITY, CAPITAL LETTERS, REDEMPTION” THEORIES

    1. Ferguson El v. State, Civil Action No. 3:10CV577, United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division (August 18, 2011)(ruling against the following amateur legal theories: “redemptionist” theory, “SPLIT PERSONALITY theory”, “gold standard” theory and explaining that redemptionists believe that the government “pledged the strawman of its citizens as collateral for the country’s national debt” and explaining that “redemptionists claim that the government has power only over the strawman and not over the live person”, discussing “flesh and blood persons” theory, “birth certificates” theory, “capital letters” theory and summarizing as follows: “In short, …[the defendant] seeks to avoid the consequences of his criminal conviction by suggesting HE EXISTS AS TWO SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITIES” and holding that such amateur legal theories are “legally frivolous” and have “absolutely no legal basis”).

    2. Laughlin v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 726 F.Supp.2d 201, No. 3:09CV1762(MRK), United States District Court, D. Connecticut (June 11, 2010)(ruling against the following amateur legal theories: “redemptionist theory”, the “SPLIT PERSONALITY theory”, the “strawman” theory,”flesh and blood person” theory, ”birth certificate” theory, “social security numbers” theory, “capital letters” theory, use of the“strawman”of every citizen as “collateral for the country’s national debt” theory, ”UCC filing statements” theory, “UCC financing statements” theory, “sovereign citizen” theory, “imaginary account number to some sort of direct treasury account” theory and summarizing as follows, “redemptionists believe the flesh and blood person can draw against the funds earned by the strawman” and dismissing the case).

    3. Muhammad v. Smith, No. 3:13-cv-760 (MAD/DEP), United States District Court, ND New York, (July 23, 2014)(ruling against the following amateur legal theories: the “SPLIT PERSONALITY” theory, “strawman” theory, “redemption” theory, “capital letters” theory and holding that those amateur legal theories “have not only been rejected by the courts, but also recognized as frivolous and a waste of court resources” and holding that these amateur legal theories have “no conceivable validity in American law”, are “legally frivolous”, are “utterly frivolous” and “patently ludicrous”).

    4. United States v. Harding, Civil Action No. 7:13cr00008, United States District Court, WD Virginia Roanoke Division (May 1, 2013)(ruling against the following amateur legal theories: “capital letters” theory, “commercial law” theory, “sovereignty” theory, “sovereign citizen” theory, “no jurisdiction” theory and “natural living person” theory and holding that such amateur legal theories have “no support in law”, “have been soundly rejected”, are “erroneous as a matter of law”, “have been struck down consistently by the courts”, are “completely without merit”, are “patently frivolous”, “will be rejected”, are “simply wrong”, are “contrary to established law” and holding that “the use of capital letters in the caption of the indictment is irrelevant to the issue of … jurisdiction” and “rejecting the argument that use of capital letters in [the] indictment refers to a corporation [and] not [to a] a living person” ).

    5. United States v. Hoodenpyle, Criminal Action No. 09-cr-00013-MSK, United States District Court, D. Colorado (June 30, 2009)(ruling against the following amateur legal theories: “capital letters” theory, “no jurisdiction” theory and holding that these amateur legal theories have “been repeatedly rejected by EVERY court to consider” them and describing these amateur legal theories as “wholly frivolous”) (emphasis ours).

    6. Defluiter v. Land, No. 1:10-cv-421, United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division (June 15, 2010)(ruling against the “capital letters” amateur legal theory and describing it as “quasi-legalese” and holding that it is “meritless and frivolous”, that it “lacks merit”, is “wholly baseless”, and that it “lacks an arguable basis in law and in fact”).

    7. United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, Nos. 09-1190, 09-1224, 09-1225, 091226, 09-1227, 09-1251, United States Court Of Appeals, Seventh Circuit (Argued March 28, 2011, Decided August 18, 2011)(ruling against the defendant’s characterization of himself as a “secured party creditor…third-party intervenor” and ruling against his characterization of himself as a “born sovereign flesh and blood human being and a secured party creditor” and ruling against the “individual sovereignty” theory, “immunity from prosecution” theory and “capital letters” theory and holding that such amateur legal theories have been “repeatedly rejected” and rejecting “the ‘shop worn’ argument that a defendant is sovereign and is beyond the jurisdiction” of the courts and holding that such amateur legal theories have “no conceivable validity in American law” and that they “should be dismissed”).

    8. United States v. Mitchell, 405 F.Supp.2d 602, No. CRIM AMD 04-0029, United States District Court, D. Maryland (December 19, 2005)(ruling against the following amateur legal theories: “capital letters” theory, “flesh and blood man with a soul” theory and “no jurisdiction” theory and holding the defendant’s amateur legal theories are “patently without merit” and stating that these amateur legal theories “would be humorous, were the stakes not so high” and holding that these amateur legal theories are “irrelevant” and “have been summarily rejected” by other courts).

    9. United States v. Rodney Class, Crim. Action No. 13-253 (GK), United States District Court, District Of Columbia (April 16, 2014)(ruling against Class’ amateur legal theories about: “capital letters” theory, “fictional entity” theory, “registered trade name” theory, “Uniform Commercial Code” theory, his false claims that he is “private attorney general” [which actually means a “public-interest plaintiff” and which temporary status ends at the end of the case], his false his claims that statutes “apply only to business entities, government instrumentalities and other corporate’ persons’, but not to natural persons such as himself” [citing, as “support”, the “United States Tax Code”, the “Texas Administrative Code” and the “Delaware Administrative Code”], his false claims that the following laws are “defenses” to the criminal charges against him: the “Smith Act”, the “Administrative Procedure Act”, the “Hobbs Act”, the “Taft-Hartley Act”, the “Federal Reserve Act”, the “oath of office of public employees”, sections of the “Code of Federal Regulations”, the “National Industrial Recovery Act”, the “Emergency Relief Appropriations Act”, the “Clearfield Trust Doctrine” [which Rodney DALE Class also cites in the “Judge DALE” forgeries while pretending to be a “retired federal judge” named “Judge DALE,” which uses his middle name as an inside joke], the IRRELEVANT definition of “handgun” contained in the IRRELEVANT “National Firearms Act” [which Class was NOT charged with violating here], “Executive Order 6174 on Public Works Administration”, the “Classification Act of 1923″, and describing Class’ filings as “UTTERLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE” and holding that they “purport to CITE LEGAL principles that either DO NOT EXIST or are provisions of CIVIL LAW [THAT ARE] WHOLLY INAPPLICABLE TO THIS CRIMINAL CASE”, and holding that Class’ purported defenses “are irrelevant”, “inapplicable”, “totally unrelated”, “entirely inapplicable”, have “no apparent relevance”, “unsupported and irrelevant”) (emphasis ours).

    10. Gibbs v. Hickey, Civil Action No. CV209-082, United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Brunswick Division (may 13, 2010)(ruling against the “capital letters” amateur legal theory and ruling against a “Coram Nobis” and holding that such amateur legal theories are “nonsense” and “completely without merit”).

    11. United States v. Beavers, No. 3-12-CR-49, United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Knoxville (December 13, 2012)(ruling against the defendants’ claims that they are a “flesh and blood sentient man and woman and not a corporation or corporate entity” and ruling against their amateur legal theories on “capital letters” and holding that other courts have “rejected this argument as frivolous” describing such amateur legal theories as “completely frivolous” and “without any legal support”).

    12. United States v. Singleton, No. 03 CR 175, United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division (May 6, 2004)(ruling against the following amateur legal theories: ”flesh and blood man” theory, “no jurisdiction” theory ,“capital letters” theory,“corporate entity” theory and ruling against the amateur legal theory that there are “accounts for U.S. citizens” at the Federal Reserve or act the U.S. Treasury and holding that such amateur legal theories are simply “bizarre”, “make…no sense”, and should be “rejected”).

    13. United States v. Majhor, Civil No. 10-544-MO, United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division (September 1, 2010)(ruling against the following amateur legal theories: “fictitious entity”, “capital letters” and holding that these amateur legal theories are “routinely rejected”, “patently frivolous” and are hereby “stricken”).

    “RIGHT TO TRAVEL,” “UCC,” “SOVEREIGN CITIZEN,” “CAPITAL LETTERS,” & “GOVERNMENTS ARE CORPORATIONS” THEORIES

    14. Thompson v. Scutt, Case No. 1:11-cv-573, United States Distrisct Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division (July 13, 2011)(ruling against the petitioner’s amateur legal theories to the effect that he is a “sovereign”, a “citizen/member of the Michigan Republic”, that under the UCC he has “‘superior title and claim over the judgment against him”, that “the court’s use of his name in capital letters…refers to a separate or fictitious entity, and is enforceable only against that entity”, that “the Michigan statutes under which … [he] was convicted [for DUI and DWLS] do not apply to…[him] because he is ‘sovereign’ and not a ‘person’ within the meaning of those statutes” and that the “Michigan laws supporting…[his] conviction [for DUI and DWLS] violate his constitutional right to travel” and that “the state lacked jurisdiction because…[he] has a right to removal under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the federal removal statute” and that he “ is being wrongfully imprisoned on behalf of another entity called ‘CHRISTOPHER BURNELL THOMPSON’”, that his “conviction [for DUI and DWLS] was the result of fraud and misconduct on the part of the state court, the prosecution and defense counsel”, that “Michigan and the United States are corporations”, that “Michigan and the United States cannot concern [themselves] with anything other than corporate, artificial entities and intangible abstractions”, “that [under the UCC] he is the holder of the judgment against himself”, and his claims that “Michigan violated his constitutional right to travel by enforcing laws prohibiting driving while intoxicated or driving on a suspended license” to which theories, the court responded and held as follows: the “right to travel is essentially the right of citizens to migrate freely between states”, holding that “the right to travel interstate does not go so far as to encompass a right to a driver license or a right to drive a motor vehicle”, holding that “federal courts uniformly reject suits by plaintiffs who seek vindication on their nonexistent ‘right’ to operate motor vehicles without complying with state licensing laws”, holding that “removal” laws only apply in civil actions, not to criminal actions like this one, holding that the “[p]etitioner is not a foreign state” entitled to immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act”, holding that the Petitioner’s claims that “Michigan and the federal government are corporations” is a claim that is “devoid of legal support and contrary to common sense”, holding that the UCC only applies to commercial transactions and is “not a source of rights in a criminal action” such as this one and holding that the Petitioner’s other amateur legal theories on sovereignty, capital letters, and split personalities are “patently frivolous” and “without merit”) (emphasis ours).

    “GOVERNMENTS ARE CORPORATIONS” & “FEDERAL JURISDICTION LIMITED TO FEDERAL TERRITORIES” THEORIES

    15. Maxwell v. Snow, 409 F.3d 354, No. 04-5082, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, (Argued March 14, 2005. Decided May 27, 2005)(ruling against the appellant’s amateur legal theories that “Texas is not part of the United States, and that the United States itself is unconstitutional because it is not a republican form of government”, that the federal government is a “corporation”, that “the federal government’s jurisdiction is limited to the District of Columbia and other federally owned lands” and holding that such amateur legal theories are “without merit”, “patently frivolous” and “likewise frivolous”).

    “GOVERNMENTS ARE CORPORATIONS”, “YELLOW FRINGE”, “CAPITAL LETTERS,” “NO CONTRACT” & “SOVEREIGN CITIZEN” THEORIES

    16. DuBose v. Kasich, , Case No. 2:11-CV-00071, United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division (January 15, 2013)(ruling against the plaintiff’s amateur legal theories about: “the alleged corporate status of Ohio and the United States”, “the relationship between the yellow fringe on the United States flag and admiralty jurisdiction”, the “effect of capital letters on his name” and his claims that he “does not have a contract with the state of Ohio or [with] the United States and, therefore, does not have to follow government laws” and holding “federal courts have routinely recognized that such theories are meritless and worthy of little discussion” and citing a case that held “other courts have noted the sovereign citizen theory has been consistently rejected” and citing another case that “reject[ed] as frivolous …the argument that he was a ‘private natural man and real person’ and therefore not subject to the laws of the United States” and citing a case that “reject[ed] sovereign citizen argument as frivolous and undeserving of ‘extended argument’” and citing a case that held that a plaintiff’s ‘yellow fringe flag’ arguments were ‘indisputably meritless’‘).

    “YELLOW [OR GOLD] FRINGE ON FLAG” THEORY

    17. McCann v. Greenway, 952 F.Supp. 647, No. 96-5038-CV-SW-1, United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Southwestern Division (January 15, 1997)(ruling against the plaintiff’s amateur legal theories that “yellow fringe” on the American flag in the court room converted the American flag from an “American flag of peace” into to a “maritime flag of war” and ruling against his amateur legal theory that the use of the “maritime flag of war” in the courtroom somehow deprived the state court of jurisdiction over him, to which claims the court responded by holding that such claims were “frivolous”, “totally frivolous”, “preposterous” and “unintelligible” and holding that “yellow fringe does NOT necessarily turn EVERY such flag into a flag of war….[because] FRINGE IS NOT considered to be PART OF THE FLAG, and … [fringe] is WITHOUT HERALDIC [SYMBOLIC] SIGNIFICANCE…[and that] the same is true of …[the statue] of an eagle gracing the [top of the] flagpole. NOR ARE THE FRINGE AND THE EAGLE OF ANY LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE. Even were… [the plaintiff] to prove that yellow fringe or a flagpole converted the state court’s United States flag to a maritime flag of war, the Court cannot fathom how the display of a maritime flag could limit the state court’s jurisdiction….Jurisdiction is a matter of [written] law, [written] statute and [written] constitution, NOT A CHILD’S GAME wherein one’s power is magnified or diminished by the display of some magic talisman [typically a magic stone or ring] and noting that other courts have “reject[ed the] argument that a federal court is limited to admiralty jurisdiction because it displayed a fringed flag” and noting that other courts have “reject[ed the] argument that a federal court lacks jurisdiction…because its flag is fringed” and noting that other courts have “reject[ed the] argument that a fringed flag in a state courtroom conferred admiralty jurisdiction [which, under the U.S. Constitution, can only be litigated in federal court, not state courts]” and noting that other courts have “dismiss[ed] as frivolous a motion alleging that ‘[a]dmiralty jurisdiction prevail[ed]’ in the state court [which, under the U.S. Constitution, can only be litigated in federal court, not state courts], and rejecting [the] notion that federal district courts have jurisdiction over natural law when they fly a flag of the United States”)(emphasis ours).

    18. Sadlier v. Wallentive, 974 F.Supp. 1411, No. 2:97-CV-0527J, United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division (August 26, 1997)(ruling against the plaintiff’s amateur legal theories that his “civil rights were violated because he was sentenced in a courtroom that displayed an American Flag adorned with yellow fringe…that [he claimed] divested the court of its power and converted the court into a ‘foreign state/power’ court” to which claims the court responded by holding that the plaintiff’s “yellow fringe” theory is “wholly without merit”, holding that “fringe is NOT considered to be part of the FLAG, and is WITHOUT HERALDIC [SYMBOLIC] SIGNIFICANCE”, holding that “[e]ven were [the plaintiff] to prove that yellow fringe or a flagpole eagle converted the state court’s United States flag to a maritime flag of war, the court cannot fathom how the display of a maritime war flag could limit the state court’s jurisdiction”, holding that “[j]urisdiction is a matter of [written] law, [written] statute, and [written] constitution, NOT A CHILD’S GAME wherein one’s power is magnified or diminished by the display of some magic talisman [typically a magic stone or ring]” and noting that other courts have held that this “yellow fringe” theory is an “absurdity…and … that future claims based on flag theories will be deemed ‘frivolous and sanctionable’ [punishible]”, and noting that other courts have held that “the invocation of ‘flag’ jurisdiction is ‘absurd’”, and noting that other courts have “reject[ed the] argument that a federal court is limited to admiralty jurisdiction because it displays a fringed flag” and noting that other courts have “reject[ed the] argument that a federal court lacks jurisdiction …because its flag is fringed” and noting that other courts have “reject[ed the] argument that a fringed flag is a state courtroom conferred on the court admiralty jurisdiction”)(emphasis ours).

    19. State v. Hall, 8 SW3d 593 (Tenn. 1999)(ruling against the defendant’s amateur legal theory that “yellow fringe” on the flag in the courtroom indicated “martial law jurisdiction” to which the court responded by writing, “the use of FRINGE on the flag HAS NO inherent or established SYMBOLISM. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OR WITH MARTIAL LAW. It is a PURELY DECORATIVE addition to enhance the appearance of the flag” and citing a case that held “FRINGE ON THE [FLAG] WAS NOT OF ANY LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE AFFECTING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT AND …[which held] that all future claims based on this argument [would be deemed] ‘frivolous and sanctionable’[punishable]” and citing a case that held “yellow fringe on [the] flag DOES NOT CONVERT [a] state courtroom into a ‘foreign state or power’” and citing a case which held that a “fringed flag DID NOT LIMIT the federal district court’s jurisdiction” and citing a case which held that a “yellow fringed flag DID NOT DIVEST [the] federal court of jurisdiction…” and citing a case that held that “[t]o think that a fringed flag adorning the courtroom somehow limits the court’s jurisdiction is frivolous” and citing a case which held that “the fringe on the flag in the courtroom is NOT OF LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE AFFECTING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT and all future claims based on this argument …[will be deemed] frivolous and sanctionable [punishable]” and citing case which held that “yellow fringe on flag DOES NOT CONVERT [the] state courtroom into a ‘foreign state or power’” and citing a case which that held that “a declaration that the president may authorize or allow the military to attach fringe to its flags IS NOT THE SAME THING as a declaration that ANY flag that is fringed is a military flag or that the presence of the fringe alters the law applied by the court in which a fringed flag appears”)(emphasis ours).

    20. United States v. Harding, Civil Action No. 7:13cr0008, United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division (May 1, 2013)(ruling against the defendant’s amateur legal theory that “yellow fringe” on the American flag converts the court into an admiralty court, and holding that “[t]his argument has been uniformly rejected by courts’ and is “frivolous” and noting that other courts have “reject[ed the ] argument that the American flag in the courtroom had been replaced with an admiralty flag, noting similar arguments had been raised and dismissed in previous cases” and noting that other courts have held that “[T]HE YELLOW FRINGE ON THE AMERICAN FLAG HAS NO EFFECT ON A COURT’S JURISDICTION OR A DEFENDANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY RIGHTS” and noting that other courts have held that “[f]ederal jurisdiction is determined by [written] statute, NOT by whether the flag flow is plain or fringed”) (emphasis ours).

    21. United States v. Mackovich, 209 F.3d 1227, United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit (April 25, 2009)(discussing the defendant’s amateur legal theory that “yellow fringe” on the flag in the courtroom “makes the [court’s] jurisdiction foreign” and noting that other courts have rejected this argument and providing a list of cases to this effect).

    22. Delaware v. Saunders, Cr. ID No. 1008019055, Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County (Submitted July 15, 2011. Decided August 12, 2011) (ruling against the defendant’s amateur legal theory that “the yellow fringe on the flag in the courtroom was improper and that as a result the court lacked authority to adjudicate [his] charges…[and his claims] that the yellow fringe on the flag made it a military flag rendering his court proceeding invalid” and holding that the defendant’s claims were “without merit” and writing that the “[d]efendant is not the first to complain about the flag in the courtroom. Around the country, courts have dealt with disgruntled litigants who have argued that their respective proceedings were illegal or unconstitutional because the court displayed a flag with yellow or gold fringe in the courtroom. [The d]efendant is not the first litigant to argue that the fringe on the flag indicates a military court” and holding that “ALL THE COURTS ADDRESSING ARGUMENTS THAT YELLOW OR GOLD FRINGE ON A COURTROOM-DISPLAYED FLAG AFFECTS A COURT’S JURISDICTION HAVE EXPLICITLY REJECTED THOSE ARGUMENTS. These cases have gone as far as to label such arguments as “frivolous”, “totally frivolous”, “preposterous” and indisputably meritless” and holding that “yellow fringe on the flag DOES NOT turn EVERY such flag into a flag of war. Far from it. ..[F]RINGE IS NOT considered to be PART OF THE FLAG, and it is WITHOUT LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE. Jurisdiction is a matter of [written] law, [written] statute and [written] constitution, NOT A CHILD”S GAME wherein one’s power is magnified or diminished by the display of some magic talisman. The flag displayed in the courtroom did not affect the validity or legality of [the] defendant’s plea and/or sentence”) (emphasis ours).

    23. Commonwealth v. Smith, 868 A2d 1253, Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Submitted January 3, 2005. Filed February 15, 2005)(ruling against the appellant’s amateur legal theory that “the courtroom’s flag gold-fringed United States flag (which appellate asserts represents the applicability of martial or admiralty law)” confused him as to which law applied to his case, to which claim the court responded by holding “[The a]ppellant’s claims are meritless. NO STATUTE of Pennsylvania, [NO] PROVISION of the United States Code, OR RELEVANT CASE LAW support [the] appellant’s BIZARRE contention that a gold-fringed United States flag represents the applicability of martial or admiralty law” and citing a case that held “the War Department …knows of NO LAW which either requires or prohibits the placing of a fringe on the flag of the United States. NO ACT OF CONGRESS OR EXECUTIVE ORDER has been found bearing on the question….The federal court also noted that while “the President may…determine whether the Army or Navy display or remove fringes from their flags or standards…THE LATEST EXECUTIVE ORDER, SIGNED BY PRESIDENT EISENHOWER, HIMSELF A MILITARY MAN, DID NOT ADDRESS THAT ISSUE”) (emphasis ours).

    24. Ebert v. State of Texas, Nos. 03-06-00752-CR, Court of Appeals Texas, Third District Austin, (Filed July 27, 2007)(ruling against the Ebert’s amateur legal theory that the fringe on the flag in the courtroom “indicated to him that the court was a military court, an admiralty court, a foreign jurisdiction, and an unlawfully erected state within a state,” to which the court responded by holding “[w]e find no legal or factual basis for these allegations. Ebert cites an executive order from President Eisenhower and asserts that the order states that a military flag of the United States has fringe on it….[But t]he executive order DOES NOT MENTION FRINGE ON FLAGS….When asked for an opinion regarding the propriety of the use of fringe on flags used by the military, the United States Attorney General in 1925 opined that…The fringe does NOT appear to be regarded as an integral PART OF THE FLAG and noting that “[a] declaration that the president may authorize or allow the military to attach fringe to its flags is NOT the same thing as a declaration that ANY flag that is fringed is a military flag or that THE PRESENCE OF FRINGE ALTERS THE LAW APPLIED BY A COURT IN WHICH THE FLAG APPEARS” and noting that the court in which the flag was displayed DID NOT USE MILITARY OR MARITIME LAWS OR RULES OF PROCEDURE IN DECIDING THE CASE ANYWAY) (emphasis ours).

    25. In Re: Becker, Bankruptcy No. 09-01541, Adversary No. 10-9021, United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Iowa (December 10, 2010)(ruling against the debtor’s amateur legal theory that the proceeding against him was invalid because “the American and Iowa flags were improperly adorned with gold fringe and that a courtroom that displays such flags lacks authority to adjudicate [his] case”, to which the court responded by noting that “[c]ourts addressing arguments that gold fringe on a courtroom-displayed flag affects the jurisdiction have explicitly rejected those arguments [providing a list of such cases] and noting that “[t]hese case have gone as far as to label such arguments “frivolous”. “preposterous” and “really unintelligible” and holding that “THE FLAGS DISPLAYED [IN THE COURTROOM] DID NOT AFFECT THE VALIDITY OR LEGALITY OF THIS PROCEEDING”).

    I have dozens and dozens of more case cites for rulings against amateur legal theories, but you get the general idea. The foregoing cases ARE THE LAW ITSELF, not amateur legal theories about what the law is (or should be). Every single amateur litigant who has every relied on amateur legal theory in court HAS LOST. In court, your opponents use REAL law against you. In order to win in court, you must use REAL law against your opponents. FAKE law (like the amateur legal theories above) do not have any effect on REAL law. This is why Rodney DALE Class has LOST EVERY SINGLE CASE IN WHICH HE HAS EVER BEEN INVOLVED (39 CONSECUTIVE, COMPLETE LOSSES AND STILL COUNTING). Suggestion: Only take legal advice from a person who has actually won at least ONE CASE.

Leave a Reply