CureZone   Log On   Join
rod class & the "all government agencies are private contractors hoax"
 
snoop4truth Views: 3,639
Published: 5 years ago
 
This is a reply to # 2,379,457

rod class & the "all government agencies are private contractors hoax"



***ALL NEW***ROD CLASS & THE “BOMBSHELL: FOURTH ADMINISTRATIVE RULING HOAX” !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE: http://fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/corporate_u_s/news.php?q=1350315108 . http://sgtreport.com/2012/12/bombshell-rod-class-gets-fourth-administrative-ruling-govt-offices-are-vacant-all-govt-officials-are-private-contractors . https://scannedretina.com/2012/10/15/govt-offices-are-vacant/. And, speaking of "BOMBSHELL" hoaxes, for more "BOMBSHELL" hoaxes by one of the same charlatans involved here, go to: http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/06/bombshell-nasa-war-document-exposed-extinction-of-humanity-deborah-tavares-sheila-zilinski-video-dont-miss-this-2978738.html
http://meetnigerians.net/members/videos.php?cmd=w&t=bombshell+nasa+war+document+exposed%3A+extinction+of+humanity-deborah+tavares&v=LIIw5xhG5Ho&ch=UCKnnee98ihoTszlL_G6tQ6Q .
http://www.takdownloadfree.com/-LIIw5xhG5Ho/Bombshell-NASA-War-Document-Exposed-Extinction-of-Humanity-Deborah-Tavares.html .


THE HOAX SIMPLIFIED: This HOAX arose out of TWO cases that Class LOST. In BOTH of these two cases, Class sued BOTH private corporations AND government agencies IN THE SAME CASE. Like all of the cases that Class files, he LOST these two cases too. In their DISMISSALS of these two cases (throwing them out of court), the judges in BOTH OF THESE TWO CASES referred to the private corporations that Class had sued and to the government agencies that Class had sued SEPARATELY (one ruling DISMISSING the government agencies that Class had sued and a different ruling DISMISSING the private corporations that Class had sued). But, in trying to explain away these two LOSSES to his followers, Class fraudulently “SWITCHED” the judges’ words about the private corporations that Class had sued with the judges’ words about the government agencies that Class had sued. By “SWITCHING” the judges’ words about the private corporations with the judges’ words about the government agencies, Class fraudulently created the ILLUSION that when the judges were actually talking about the private corporations, they were instead talking about all of the government agencies. This fraudulent “SWITCH” of the judges words (from one group of defendants to the other group of defendants) created the ILLUSION that when the judges were actually referring to THE PRIVATE CORPORATIONS that Class had sued as “corporate appellees” or as a SINGLE “private entitY” as applicable, they were instead referring to “ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES” that Class had sued as “corporate appellees” or as “private entitIES”, as applicable. But, that was not so.

THE TRUTH. FIRST CASE: In this case, Class sued BOTH private corporations AND government agencies IN THE SAME CASE. In his DISMISSAL of the first case (throwing it out of court), the judge used the term, “Corporate Appellees”, when referring (BY NAME) to a private bank and to two private insurance companies that Class had sued. But, instead of telling his followers the truth, Class fraudulently told his followers that in his DISMISSAL of this case, the judge was instead referring to “ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES" that Class had sued in the same case as “corporate appellees”. This fraudulent “SWITCH” of the judge’s words (from one type of defendant to the other type of defendant) is how Class reached the desired (and entirely fictional) conclusion that the judge had ruled that "ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES" were “corporate appellees”. Unfortunately for Class, the truth about this hoax can be found here. Go to page 6, lines 13-15. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-ca10-07-05026/pdf/USCOURTS-ca10-07-05026-0.pdf . After reading what the judge in this case actually said, ask yourself this. Did the judge in this case really refer to “ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES” that Class sued as “corporate appellees” OR instead, did the judge in this case actually refer ONLY to the private bank and the two private insurance companies that Class used as “corporate appellees"?

THE TRUTH. SECOND CASE: In this case, Class sued a STATE-WIDE government "agency", a “LOCAL unit of government” and a SINGLE “private entitY”, ALL IN THE SAME CASE. Specifically, Class filed an administrative suit against the North Carolina Department of Transportation (a STATE-WIDE government "agency" which was immune from suit by statute), against a “LOCAL” city police department (over which the administrative court had no jurisdiction because it was a "LOCAL" “UNIT OF GOVERNMENT", rather than a STATE-WIDE "agency" under the Governor) and against a SINGLE private contractor that sold vehicle license plates for the State of North Carolina (over which the administrative court had no jurisdiction because it was a SINGLE “private entitY”). In his DISMISSAL of this second case (throwing it out of court), the judge used the SINGULAR term, “private entitY” when referring ONLY to that SINGLE “private entitY” that Class had sued. But, instead of telling his followers the truth, Class fraudulently told his followers that in his DISMISSAL, the judge used the PLURAL term, “private entitIES” and fraudulently told his followers that the judge was instead referring to ALL THREE DEFENDANTS that Class had sued as “private entitIES” (including the state-wide government "agency" and the “local unit of government” that Class had sued). This fraudulent “SWITCH” of the judge’s actual word, “entitY” (a SINGULAR term) to the FRAUDULENT word, “entitIES” (a PLURAL term) is how Class reached the desired (and entirely fictional) conclusion that the judge had ruled "ALL GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES" were “private entitIES” (a PLURAL term that does not appear in the ruling). Unfortunately for Class, the truth about this hoax can be found here. Go to “Conclusions Of Law” paragraph. 4, sentence 2. (Look for the SINGULAR term, "entitY".). https://unmasker4maine.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/nc_certification_copy_complete.pdf . After reading what the judge in this case actually said in this case, ask yourself this. Did the judge in this case really refer to “ALL THREE DEFENDANTS” that Rod Class had sued as “private entitIES”, a PLURAL term OR instead, did the judge in this case actually refer ONLY to the SINGLE private contractor that sold license plates for the State of North Carolina as a SINGLE “private entitY”, a SINGULAR term?

In fairness to Class, who only has a high school education and who is functionally illiterate, CLASS MISTAKENLY BELIEVED THAT HE HAD SUED THREE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES in this case. That is why he sued all three defendants in state administrative court. (He mistakenly believed that all three defendants were state-wide government "agencies" over which state administrative courts usually have jurisdiction.). But, in fact in this case, Class had actually sued ONLY TWO GOVERNMENT AGENCIES (OR “UNITS”) and a SINGLE PRIVATE CONTRACTOR that sold vehicle license plates for the State of North Carolina.

Class mistakenly believed that the SINGLE “private entitY” that he had mistakenly sued in this case was a government agency because he did not know that FOR MORE THAN HALF A CENTURY, THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA HAS USED PRIVATE CONTRACTORS TO SELL VEHICLE LICENSE PLATES TO NORTH CAROLINA VEHICLE OWNERS. If Class had bothered to do a little research before filing suit, he would have discovered that the SINGLE “private entitY” that he mistakenly sued (in the mistaken belief that it was a government agency) was a not a governmental agency at all. Unknown to Class, almost all of the vehicle license plate agencies in the State Of North Carolina (outside the Charlotte & Raleigh areas) are now owned and operated by private contractors of the type that he mistakenly sued in this case (in the mistaken belief that it was a government "agency"). Despite that the State of North Carolina uses private contractors to sell its vehicle license plates, IT DOES NOT USE PRIVATE CONTRACTORS FOR ITS LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY-TYPE FUNCTION. It only uses private contractors to sell vehicle license plates (includes titling services). This has been PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE to everyone except Rod Class for over half a century.

WHAT CLASS DID NOT (AND DOES NOT NOW) KNOW:
http://www.ncleg.net/ped/reports/documents/tags/tags_report.pdf (Scroll down to "BACKGROUND" on the 4th page, marked "page 2").

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=10646

http://www.wral.com/dmv-defends-system-of-independent-license-plate-offices/11753455/

http://myfox8.com/2015/01/15/dmv-seeks-applications-for-new-license-plate-agency-in-stokes-county/

http://www.journalnow.com/news/local/n-c-division-of-motor-vehicles-seeks-contract-applicants/article_697fc01e-5d50-11e3-8887-001a4bcf6878.html

CLASS MAKES MISTAKES ON TOP OF MISTAKES: So, not knowing any better, when the judge in this case DISMISSED (threw out) Class' lawsuit against this SINGLE private contractor on the grounds that it was a SINGLE"private entitY" (and not a STATE-WIDE government "agency" over which the administrative court usually has jurisdiction), Class mistakenly believed he had "forced" the courts to "admit" that a SINGLE "private entitY" was a SINGLE "private entitY" (something that everybody except Class has known for over half a century). This means that Class' own IGNORANCE (of the fact that North Carolina has used private contractors to sell vehicle license plates for more than half a century) led to him reach the mistaken conclusion that he had miraculously become a "legal genius". To this very day, Class does not know that the SINGLE “private entitY” that he mistakenly sued (in the mistaken belief that it was a government agency) had actually been a SINGLE "private entitY" all along. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

(CONTINUED ON THE "PROPERTY INTO OTHER NAMES HOAX")




Show less


Reply•














snoop4truth snoop4truth






snoop4truth snoop4truth




snoop4truth snoop4truth4 months ago (edited)

***ALL NEW***THE “28 U.S.C. § 3002 (15) (a) PROVES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS A CORPORATION HOAX” !!!!!!!!!
FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE: http://blackeyenews.com/?p=272 . http://investmentwatchblog.com/united-states-is-a-corporation-%E2%80%93-there-are-two-constitutions/. https://anticorruptionsociety.com/is-our-government-just-another-corporation/ (See footnote 4). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJCqVS52MCA . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qkRquYDkyQ .

THE HOAX: Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists falsely claim that Title 28 U.S.C.§ 3002 (15) (a) “proves” that the federal government is a “corporation”. But, this is not so.

THE TRUTH: Title 28 section § 3002 merely provides definitions 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... ." 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). This SINGLE CHAPTER provides the "PROCEDURE" ONLY that the "United States" must follow when collecting certain debts. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3001.

BACKGROUND: There are dozens and dozens of types of “corporations”, only one of which is a private, for-profit “corporation” (the "bad kind"). All of the rest ARE NOT private, for-profit “corporations”.

SO, WHAT IS A “FEDERAL CORPORATION”?
A few of our federal agencies are structured as PUBLICLY-OWED, NON-PROFIT “federal corporations” (NO PROFITS, NO “PRIVATE OWNERS”, NO “STOCKHOLDERS”, 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 are supposed to receive any money from Congress. Three well-known examples of such federal agencies are the United States Postal Service, AMTRAK 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 are supposed to receive any money from Congress. There are THREE MAIN REASONS that the federal government structured such 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) rather than depending on money from Congress; 2). To relieve taxpayers of the burden of paying for governmental services that they might not even use (ex: 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 structure, would have no adverse effect on the taxpayer). It's all about fairness to the taxpayer.

SO, WHAT DOES THIS DEFINITION IN TITLE 28 U.S.C. § 3002 (15) (a) ACTUALLY MEAN?
The Fair Debt Collection Procedure Act requires the "United States" to follow certain "PROCEDURE" when collecting certain debts. And, SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF THAT "PROCEDURE" ONLY, Title 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15 (a) defines the "United States" to "INCLUDE", among other things, all its "federal corporations". 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 have to follow. It's that simple.

CONCLUSION: Title 28 U.S.C. § 3002 (15) (a) DOES NOT define the United States as a ”federal corporation”. Instead, it defines a “federal corporation” (like AMTRAK) as the “United States” SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF THE FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE ACT. Certainly, this definition IN THE FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE ACT does not mean that the entire federal government itself is a “private, for-profit corporation” (the "bad kind"). But, consider this. Even if the "United States" was such a "corporation", and it is not, all of the governmental decisions made by that alleged "corporation" ARE STILL MADE BY PEOPLE THAT WE ELECT TO RUN IT and their appointees.

THE LAW ON TITLE 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15)(a):

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18159286216902234518&q=%2228+USC+3002%22+(FDCPA)+%22Federal+Debt+Collection+Procedures+Act%22+%22The+FDCPA+does+not+state+that+the+federal+government+is+a+corporation%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (at footnote 2 at the very end of the case).

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18159286216902234518&q=%22and+contrary%22+devoid+%22the+federal+government+are+corporations%22+%22neither+of+which+supports+his+claim+that%22+%22petitioner+cites%22++%2228+U.S.C+3002%22+%22Petitioner+also+contends+that%22+%22the++united+states+are+corporations%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (also addresses sovereign citizen, natural person, superior claim and right to the judgment, UCC, right to travel, sovereign & foreign state immunities, capital letters, de facto governments).

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9638202248861590589&q=%2228+U.S.C.%22+++%22when+used+in+this+%5Bstatute%5D%22++%223002(15)%22+%22merely+provides+that+the+term+united+states%22+%22to+support+his+assertion+that+the+united+states+is+a+corporation%22+%22erroneously+cites%22+%2228+U.S.C.+3002(15)%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (at fn.18) (also addresses maritime & admiralty jurisdiction, consent, "stand[ing] under" the court's questions, "his government name", filing a counterclaim is a criminal case, challenging grand jury array, disqualifying a judge for a "personal interest" in case & for practicing law, right to be represented by a non-lawyer, "attorney in fact", right to self-representation).

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15212483763058805690&q=%223002(15)%22+%22does+not+define+the+United+States%22+%22as+a+federal+corporation%22+%22which+governs+Federal+Debt+Collection+Procedure%22++%22defines+United+States%22++%22only+for+purposes+of+28+USC+3001%22++%2228+USC+3002+(15)%22++&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (also addresses putting property into other names to avoid a debt, whether IRS tax laws apply outside D.C. & federal territories, whether wages are "income", sovereign and foreign state immunities, denying citizenship, IRS foreclosing on property put into another name).

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4484968305092096232&q=%22solely+for+purposes+of+the+chapter+of+which+it+is+part%22++%22+Defendant%27s+reliance+on+28+U.S.C+3002(15)+is+misplaced%22+%22that+statute+is+simply+a+definitional+provision%22+%22defining+the+United+States%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (also addresses U.S. jurisdiction outside borders of D.C., the Act of 1871, whether U.S. is foreign state, the 11th amendment, whether 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), whether use of the professional title, "esquire" converts American attorneys into agents of a foreign government, whether the "bar association" is a monopoly, whether certain federal statutes were enacted into positive law, whether judges really have a financial interest in their cases).

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18372121264929306790&q=%22it+merely+provides+the%22+%22definition+of+United+States+for+purposes+of+the+statute%22+%22does+not+define+the+United+States+as+a+federal+corporation%22++%2228+USC+3002+(15)%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9160057929430622764&q=%22to+(1)+recover%22++%22a+judgment+on+a+debt%22+%223002+is+simply+a+definitions+statute+in+the+chapter+that+authorizes+the+USA%22+%2228+USC+3002+(15)%22+corporation+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (also addresses "absolute judicial immunity", filing fraudulent lien against a judge, 11th amendment immunity, whether a government officer/official can be personally liable for official actions taken under color of law, "absolute prosecutorial immunity", "absolute [government] official immunity", whether a county is a "commercial entity engaged in commerce").

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8251887802426142230&q=%22complete+reading%22+%22belies+this+interpretation%22++%22to+support+their+claim+that+the%22+%22defendants+cite+28+U.S.C.+3002%22+corporation+%22defendants+assert+that+the%22+%22United+States+of+America+is+a+federal%22+%22United+States+is+a%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (SEE ALL THREE SECTIONS) (also addresses "capital letters", "flesh and blood persons", the "name game" ("split personality" & "corporate fiction" defenses) and whether the IRS is a Puerto Rican corporation).

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14825357831238654036&q=+repeatedly+rejected+baseless+patently++%22has+been+rejected%22+ludicrous+DENIED+frivolous+%22bordering+on+the+absurd%22+%22without+merit%22+%22contends+that+the+United+States+is+a+corporation+and+thus+has+no+sovereign+authority%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (also addresses whether law only applies to governments & not to humans, whether there are two different constitutions, whether gold and silver are the only lawful money, whether gold fringe on the American flag in court converts the court into an admiralty or military court, birth certificate bond, strawman, whether "the people, not the government, are sovereign", affect of not being a "party or signatory to any law" & whether such a person is "exempt from all laws except those to which he voluntarily assents").

EXCELLENT LINKS:
http://pseudolaw.com/is-united-states-for-profit-corporation
http://internettheories.blogspot.com/2013/05/united-states-inc.html
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30365.pdf


Read more




Reply•














snoop4truth snoop4truth




snoop4truth snoop4truth




snoop4truth snoop4truth4 months ago (edited)

***ALL NEW***ROD CLASS & "MY 'PAPERWORK' WOULD HAVE OVERTURNED EVERY PRIOR CASE HOAX” !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE: http://sitsshow.blogspot.ca/2014/11/rod-class-is-under-house-arrest-here-is.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWKEmiMZTOc&t=348s (Do not click on the following blue numbers. They link to wrong video. Instead, READ them only. They are the EXACT TIMES for the hoax exposed in video above. At: .50-1:25, 3:25:-3:50, 5:35-6:05, 8:50-9:20).

THE HOAX: Rod Class falsely claims that the court in his Washington, D.C. case "sealed" the court file in that case because his amateur "paperwork" (contained in that court file) would have "overturned all of the court cases that [ever] came before" it. But, this is not so.

THE TRUTH: The court "sealed" the court file in that case BECAUSE IT CONTAINED ROD CLASS' PSYCHIATRIC RECORDS.

FACT: Because court files are public, courts often "seal" court records TO PROTECT THE PRIVACY of certain types of litigants such as juvenile offenders, victims of sexual assault, parties to an adoption AND PERSONS WHOSE PSYCHIATRIC RECORDS ARE CONTAINED IN THE COURT FILE. (1) Indeed, it is precisely because courts “seal” such court files (or parts thereof) that CLASS’ FOLLOWERS HAVE NEVER KNOWN ABOUT HIS LONG HISTORY OF PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS.

THE CASE: Class was CHARGED WITH A FELONY and FACED SERIOUS PRISON TIME. What's more, Class (who only has a high school education and who is functionally illiterate) ASKED THE COURT IF HE COULD REPRESENT HIMSELF. To make matters even worse, Class EXHIBITED SIGNS OF MENTAL ILLNESS. (In this case, the court stated, in writing, that it had become concerned about Class' mental health because his court filings were "SIMPLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE" and because of the delusional "SUBSTANCE" of his written and oral communications with the court, all signs of mental illness). It is customary in such circumstances for the court to have such a defendant UNDERGO A PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION before making a decision as to whether such a defendant may represent himself. (2) The purpose of such a psychiatric examination is to determine whether such a defendant is mentally competent TO MAKE THE DECISION TO REPRESENT HIMSELF. The purpose of such a psychiatric examination IS NOT TO DETERMINE WHETHER SUCH A DEFENDANT IS MENTALLY CAPABLE OF ACTUALLY REPRESENTING HIMSELF. (Under the law, the court must allow such a defendant to represent himself if he is mentally competent to make the decision to represent himself EVEN IF, AS HERE, HE WAS NOT MENTALLY CAPABLE OF ACTUALLY REPRESENTING HIMSELF.). (3) So, on February 3rd, 2014, the court ordered Class to undergo a psychiatric examination and appointed a psychiatrist for that purpose. (4) After the psychiatric examination, the clerk filed Class' psychiatric records in the court file. So, the court properly "sealed" the court file TO PREVENT THE PUBLIC FROM HAVING ACCESS TO CLASS' PSYCHIATRIC RECORDS. (5)

RESULTS: Based on all the evidence, the court determined that Class WAS NOT mentally capable of actually representing himself. While OBVIOUSLY TRUE, this determination was legally irrelevant. (Under the law, the court is only supposed to determine whether such a defendant is mentally competent enough to make the decision to represent himself.). Clearly, the court here was sympathetic towards Class under the circumstances and was going out of its way to prevent him from committing "legal suicide". (6) Regardless, the court made a second determination and found that Class was mentally competent ENOUGH to make the decision to represent himself (despite correctly finding that Class WAS NOT mentally capable of actually representing himself).

THE "PAPERWORK": Amateur legal theories are pure "pretend" and "make believe" AND CANNOT "OVERTURN" ANYTHING. The amateur "paperwork" that Class misguidedly brags about in this hoax was 36 "motions" reflecting classic amateur legal theories ("capital letters", "fictional entities", "natural persons" "corporations", "living flesh and blood man", "with a soul", "UCC", "registered trade name", "Coram Nobis", etc.). To see just how likely it was that Class' amateur "paperwork" would have "overturned all of the court cases that [ever] came before [it]", simply click on the first link below. This is the court's ACTUAL RESPONSE to the very amateur "paperwork" that Class misguidedly brags about in this HOAX. Look for the term, "DENIED", after EACH and EVERY such amateur legal theory.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2757756755752158953&q=soul+human+%22coram+nobis%22+irrelevant+inapplicable+relevant+denied+business+%22registered+trade%22+%22uniform+commercial+code%22+natural+person+persons+%22flesh+and+blood%22+corporate+corporation+fictional+entity+entities+%22capital+letters%22+%22utterly+incomprehensible&hl=en&as_sdt=40003

FOOTNOTES:
1). http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9360424473304630524&q=%22in+a+public+forum%22+%22mental+health+information%22+%22medical+records+under+seal%22+%22I+conclude+that+there+is+good+cause+to+place+plaintiff%27s+certified%22+%22I+recognize+plaintiff%27s%22+%22concerns+regarding+the+availability+of+his+sensitive%22+%22mental+health+information%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5601006984893862219&q=%22compiled+by+a+state+licensed%22+%22shall+be+filed+with+the+clerk,+who+will+seal+such+report%22+%22a+court-ordered+private+evaluation+report%22+%22mental+health+professional%22+&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 (at footnote 4 near end of case)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6844040484297740765&q=%22sealing+a+psychological+evaluation+report%22+%22a+common+law+or%22+%22avoid+substantial+injury+to+a+party+by+disclosure+of+matters+protected+by%22+%22privacy+right%22+%22the+following+records%22+%22shall+be+confidential%22+&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006

http://www.illinois17th.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=382&Itemid=75 (at 16.02 (b) and (d))

2). http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9638202248861590589&q=%22as+the+hearing+continued%22+%22knowledge+of+the+federal+rules+of+evidence+and+criminal+procedure%22+%22his+education.+mental+health+history%22+%22the+court+asked+wiggins+about%22+%22represent+yourself%22+conspiracy+%22to+distribute%22+%22possess+with+intent%22+heroin&hl=en&as_sdt=40006

3). http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13448720628873766473&q=ability+%22not+the%22+%22to+represent+himself%22+%22to+waive%22+%22right+to+counsel%22+%22no+bearing%22+competently+competence+competent+%22whether+he+is%22+%22not+relevant%22+%22legal+knowledge%22+%22choosing+self-representation+must+do+so+competently%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (at the very end of section "A.")

4). http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?68235-Rod-Class-ordered-for-Psych-Evaluation

5). Other courts have also ordered Class to undergo similar psychiatric examinations. In the “Judge DALE forgery” entitled, "The Great American Adventure: Secrets Of America", Rodney DALE Class (while pretending to be "Judge DALE") wrote TWO ENTIRE, SEPARATE PARAGRAPHS about HIS OWN many, previous experiences with similar court-ordered psychiatric examinations and hospitalizations. To read these two separate paragraphs, go to page 107. http://www.stopthecrime.net/docs/THE-GREAT-AMERICAN-ADVENTURE.pdf. OR go to page 110. https://anticorruptionsociety.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/the-great-american-adventure-sm-book-format_pdf.pdf Class made a similar admission in the “Judge DALE forgery” entitled “The Matrix And The US Constitution” (while pretending to be “Judge DALE”) on page 5 at end of paragraph 2. https://anticorruptionsociety.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/the-matrix-and-the-us-constitution-sm-bk-format1.pdf. See also "Sorry It Has Come To This" in Episode 917 dated 1-29-15. http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=48361&pageNumber=5&pageSize=15

According to documents filed by amateur legal theorist, Carl Miller (real name "Richard John Champion") himself and found on Pacer.gov., he has had similar experiences to those of Class with respect to court-ordered psychiatric examinations and hospitalizations, as have many other such amateur legal theorists. http://privateaudio.homestead.com/__lentz-isms_v2.doc . http://redcatsboards.yuku.com/topic/8216/Fraud-artists-sentenced-to-prison#.WDYUm1KFPIU (at the 3rd complete sentence).

6). WHAT JUDGES KNOW THAT CLASS AND HIS FOLLOWERS DO NOT:
http://www.aija.org.au/acag09/Papers/Lester%201.pdf
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.582.832&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://jaapl.org/content/45/1/62
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/ajp.59.2.279
http://www.nicolastato.com.ar/esp/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=87:querulous&catid=7:categartfilosofia&Itemid=8
http://www.tjeffersonlrev.org/sites/tjeffersonlrev.org/files/30-02-09-Diesen.pdf
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2753/RPO1061-0405020251

Class has already been JUDICIALLY DECLARED such a VEXATIOUS LITIGANT within the meaning the foregoing PSYCHIATRIC PUBLICATIONS. Class v. Gwin [the judge in a case that Class had just LOST] et al. [means "and others", including 30 governmental officials], Case No. 5:06-CV-1465, U. S. Dist. Ct. N.D. Ohio (Akron). Filed 06-14-06. Dismissed (means THROWN OUT OF COURT) 07-25-06. (available on pacer.gov.). See also http://www.topix.com/forum/city/archdale-nc/TT9PLIDASAV6NENR8 (Here, Class seeks help of other amateurs with the same PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS.).

ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH:
The facts of this hoax are very sad. Tragically sad. Snoop4truth did not expose this hoax to harm Rod Class. instead, Snoop4truth exposed this hoax solely to reduce the catastrophic damage that such INTENTIONAL FRAUD inflicts upon the American people every single day.
 

 
Printer-friendly version of this page Email this message to a friend
Alert Moderators
Report Spam or bad message  Alert Moderators on This GOOD Message

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!


 

Donate to CureZone


CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with https://www.netatlantic.com


Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2022  curezone.com

6.828 sec, (15)