Why the Right to Vote in the United States is a Fraud

Authored or posted by | Updated on | Published on May 18, 2015 | 3 Replies
Share Button
U.S. Voting Day Sign

Image credit: flickr.com/photos/diversey/1898178998/

I originally wrote and published this article at my other website OmniThought.org. Due to the U.S. presidential election in November 2016 and the important information in this article, I decided to publish it at this website too. This article is a must read for anyone who cares about freedom and sovereignty. ~ PL Chang

Next year, many Americans will be preparing themselves to go vote at the next presidential election, which is scheduled for November 8, 2016. If you are planning to go vote during that time, you should read this article before doing so.

The right to vote is not what you think it is. When you vote, you are voting for a foreign candidate that represents a foreign corporation called the United States, Incorporated. Do you need proof of this? Read further and I will show you all the proof you need.

Proof That the United States is a Foreign Corporation

If you want proof that the United States is a corporation, look at subsections 15 and 15(A) in title 28 U.S. Code § 3002 and you should see this sentence, ““United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation.” In legal terms, when the “United States” or “United States of America” is written in all capital letters (UNITED STATES or UNITED STATES OF AMERICA), 99 percent of the time it is referring to a corporation.

When I say that the United States or the United States of America is a corporation, I am not talking about the landmass. What I am talking about is the District of Columbia (Washington D.C.), which is a 10 mile radius district that houses the corporation called the United States, Incorporated. This federal corporation is also known as the United States of America (Minor). As for the landmass, it is known as the continental United States or the United States of America (Major).

When the United States of America, Inc. was first created, its main role was to act as a governmental services corporation for The United States of America (Major). The fraud to enslave the American people with debt really began when the International Banksters of the Federal Reserve bought the United States of America, Inc. and took over its agencies around 1911. They then eventually changed the name to the United States, Inc. This name is often written in all capital letters (UNITED STATES) and without the “Inc” to prevent Americans from knowing that it is a corporation.

The United States, Inc. resides in Washington D.C. and is a foreign corporation. This is why it has a president and a vice president, just like Walmart and Target. Under Corporate Law, every corporation is required to have a president and a vice president.

Most Americans do not know these things because they have been conditioned at an early age to think that when the U.S. government refers to the name the “United States,” it is referring to the country. In most cases, the U.S. government is referring to the corporation (UNITED STATES).

The acronym “D.C.” in the term “Washington D.C.” stands for the District of Columbia, which is a district founded by a powerful masonic secret society called the Colombians. The Colombians also founded Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), Columbia Pictures, and Columbia University. Did you notice how similar the words Colombians and Columbia are?

One thing you should know about Columbia University is that it is located in New York. New York was founded by the York Rite, which is also another powerful masonic secret society. This is why it is called New York, which means the new state of the York Rite.

Did You Know the United States, Inc. Went Bankrupt in 1933?

In 1933, the United States, Inc. went bankrupt. As described at ScannedRetina.com:

The United States defined as “…the District of Columbia et alia” went “Bankrupt” in 1933 and was declared so by President Roosevelt in Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111, and finally, as consolidated in Executive Order 6260,

(See: Senate Report 93-549, pages 187 & 594) under the “Trading With The Enemy Act” (Sixty-Fifth Congress, Sess. I, Chs. 105, 106, October 6, 1917), and as codified at 12 U.S.C.A. 95a.

To fix the bankruptcy problem, the International Banksters of the Federal Reserve collateralized every common United States Citizens and used them to finance their corporation (United States, Inc.). In other words, we (the American people) have been securitized and used as collateral for the U.S. national debt, which is actually the debt of the United States, Inc.

When it comes to politics and finance, most of us lack knowledge in these two fields. Because of this, the International Banksters can easily trick us to think that the U.S. national debt is the debt of the American people. In reality, the U.S. national debt is the debt of the International Banksters and their corporation (United States, Inc.).

Proof That Most United States Politicians are Treasonists

The content in block quotation is an excerpt from my second seminar on Natural Law. It contains information that gives us some clue as to why United States politicians are treasonists.

Nearly all politicians in the USA are TREASONISTS, because they swore an oath to a privately owned foreign corporation known as the UNITED STATES INCORPORATED. Washington D.C. or the District of Columbia is also a privately owned foreign corporation. Washington D.C. is NOT part of the USA, just like Vatican City is not part of Italy.

To find the evidence that nearly all politicians in the USA are treasonists, you need to be aware of Title 8 U.S. Code § 1481.

Under Title 8 U.S. Code § 1481:

“(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—

(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years;

(4)(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state;”

In simple terms, once an oath of office is taken by an American citizen, his citizenship is relinquished and thus he becomes a foreign agent. This happens because he is swearing an oath to the foreign UNITED STATES INCORPORATED and the foreign organization that controls it.

As described in the book The Great American Adventure: The Secrets of America.

All of the candidates chosen for the highest positions in government are not chosen by party members or the public but are pre-selected by the Royal and Elite and each approved candidate must swear an allegiance to and render a pledge to adhere to the demands of these Corporate Directors and Masters.

Your so-called right to vote in America is actually about slave registration. Every applicant is asked if they are a United States Citizen or other. A US Citizen is defined in all law dictionaries as a corporate entity. Your vote really means nothing during an election because the electronic voting machines are rigged.

Why the “Right” to Vote in the United States is a Fraud

In legal terms, your right to vote is actually a privilege because to be a United States Citizen means that you are a legal person, also known as a corporation. A corporation is a fictitious entity that has no right. So, when politicians tell you that you have the right to vote as a United States Citizen, they are already lying to you.

Every time you vote, you are giving your consent to be governed by treasonous politicians. These politicians do not care about you because they work for the Banking Elites, which are the International Banksters who own the United States, Inc.

The right to vote in the United States is a FRAUD, because your vote does not really matter and the voting system is rigged, just like a casino. Furthermore, when you vote, you are voting for a president of a FOREIGN corporation known as the United States, Inc.

One thing you need to know about the U.S. voting system is that the presidential candidates are chosen by the International Banksters and they control both of the Republican and Democratic parties. The idea that we have choices when it comes to electing presidential candidates is an illusion.

As an American, when you vote you are basically committing TREASON against the country called The United States of America (Major), which is made up of 50 separate nation states operating as a nation on the land jurisdiction. The United States of America (Minor) or the United States, Inc. is operating under the international jurisdiction of the sea, which is based on Admiralty Law (the Law of the Sea).

The Covert Meanings of the Word Vote

The word vote is defined as “a formal expression of opinion or choice, either positive or negative, made by an individual or body of individuals” or “the means by which such expression is made, as a ballot, ticket, etc.” These two definitions of the word vote only show you its meanings at the surface. To find the deeper meanings of the word vote, you need to use the art of phonics to help you see the relation among words.

Phonetically, the word vote sounds exactly like the word volt. Where do you go vote/volt at? In a voting terminal or a polling/poll-ing place. The word poll sounds similar to the word pole. A pole is the electric battery pole of positive (+) or negative (-). In other words, in order to vote you need to go to the polls/poles, so that you can place your vote/volt on the candidate that you want to see put in charge.

Once the votes/volts are counted, the politician or “pole-itician” that receives the most votes/volts is the one who is going to be put into the position of power. Maybe this is why it is called power politics. Are you starting to see the connection here?

The presidential election is nothing more than a game created by the International Banksters to con you to agree to be a battery, so that they can drain your energy. This is why before they can summon you to go to court, they need to charge you first. The content below explains this concept in greater details. It is extracted from my article titled The Esoteric Definition of Battery.

The word “battery” is an important word in commerce and law, because it has to do with the process of harnessing the energy of humanity. In other words, this is one of the many methods that they used to drain your energy.

This energy is then used by the Controllers to “charge” their corporations (“corpses” or “dead entities”), banks, and other commerce systems, so that they can keep their game of conning humanity going. Without our energy to “charge” their corporations and commerce systems, their con game will not have enough power to stay on.

As human beings, we are being used as “batteries.” This is why before we go to court, we have to be “charged” first. At the court hearing, the judge will read the “charges” and then “charge” them off after a verdict or judgement is made.

If there is a fine or fee included in the judgement, the defendant will be ordered to pay the fine with “currency.” The covert meaning of the word “currency” has to do with the “flow of energy.” This is why the stored energy in a battery is called “electric current” or the “currency of electricity.”

If you live in the USA and want to be free and help spread freedom throughout the world, do not participate in the U.S. presidential election in November 2016. If you do, you are basically committing treason against the United States of America (Major), which is the land that you were born on.

If you do not live in the USA, your voting system is most likely taken over by the International Banksters too. This is because most politicians throughout the world are bought off by the International Banksters (the leaders of the New World Order), especially the politicians of Western countries. This means that when you vote for a candidate in your country, you may also be committing treason against your original country.

Sources:

This article was originally published at OmniThought.org.

Share Button

For more content related to this article, check out these empowering and enlightening books!


Donate to Help Make a Difference

EnergyFanatics.com is a true independent blog because it is not financed and controlled by banksters. If you like reading the articles on this site, please take action now by clicking the "Donate" button below to send a donation to the author/editor. Your generous support will help fund his research and expenses, allowing him to continue his quest to educate and teach people to create a better world for everyone.


Tags: , ,

Category: Banksters, Politics & Law, Secret Societies

Comments (3)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. snoop4truth says:

    THE LAW ON AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, by snoop4truth

    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. THEY ARE FAKE.

    THE LAW BELOW reflects just a few of the rulings on the following amateur legal theories: “split personality” theory, “strawman” theory, “flesh and blood person” theory, “capital letters” theory, “governments are corporations” theory, “jurisdiction” theory, “no contract” theory, “birth certificate” theory, “social security number” theory, “commercial law” theory”, “ UCC filing statements” 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.

    Note: We are well aware that the form of 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. We chose to cite the case law below in such a way that would help ordinary people find the cases on Google Scholar. So, ulless otherwise indicated, the cites below are 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, key in the case number (in quotes), and/or the dates (in quotes, but without the parentheses below) and/or key in the party names. Google Scholar is FREE and easy to use.

    “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. McLaughlin 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”, “jurisdiction” 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 as a “born sovereign flesh and blood human being and a secured party creditor” and discussing “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” nd 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 Class also cites in the “Judge DALE” forgeries while pretending to be “Judge DALE”], 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”).

    10. Gibbs v. Hickey, Civil Action No. CV209-082, United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Brunswick Division (may 13, 2010)(ruling against “capital letters” theory and 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 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 “accounts for U.S. citizens” at the Federal Reserve or 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” INTERSTATE & “GOVERNMENTS ARE CORPORATIONS”

    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 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”).

    “GOVERNMENTS ARE CORPORATIONS”

    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”).

    “YELLOW [OR GOLD] FRINGE ON FLAG” THEORY

    16. 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 agianst the plaintiff’s amateur legal theory 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 his amateur legal theory that the use of the “maritime flag of war” in the courtroom 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 a…[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] 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, and rejecting [the] notion that federal district courts have jurisdiction over natural law when they fly a flag of the United States”).

    17. 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 divested the court of its power and converted the court into a ‘foreign state/power’ court” to which 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 “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”).

    18. 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 the 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 any 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”).

    19. 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’‘).

    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”).

    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] 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 “Defendant 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”).

    23. Commonwealth v. Smith, 868 A2d 1253, Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Sumitted 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”).

    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).

    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”).

    26. United States v. Blackburn, Case No. 09-20133, United States District Court, D. Kansas, (December 15, 2010)(same as above).

    27. Salman v. State of Nevada Comm’ On Judicial Discipline, 104 F. Supp.2d 1262, No.; CV-N-99-0659-JLQRAM, United States District Court, D. Nevada, (July 5, 2000)(same as above).

    28 Kitchens v. Becraft, Civil Action No. 6:11cv198, United States District Court, Tyler Division, July 18, 2011(same as above).

    29. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 652 A.2d 341, Pennsylvania Superior Court (argued September 13, 1994. Filed December 22, 1994)(same as above).

    30. United States v. Greenstreet, 912 F.Supp. 224, No. 2:95-CV-119-J, United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Amarillo Division (January 18, 1996)(same as above).

    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 person 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.

    • PL Chang says:

      The legal system is rigged similar to a casino and therefore it is best to stay out of court. People are losing in court because they keep playing their stupid con game called the legal system. The information you posted are NOT REAL LAWS, because they are based on ACTS and STATUTES which are codes of corporations.

      Whenever an agent of a court serves me a summons for a civil case filed by government agencies, debt agencies, or corporations, I do NOT accept it because I know it is a fraudulent contract designed to trick me to CONSENT to be the legal name (artificial person). Contract makes the law, so by not accepting the contract, they have no lawful standing against me.

      In legal terms, the United States is a corporation. This is no big secret. The United States government is a corporation too. Here is the paper to prove it. http://omnithought.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/19CJS883-united-states-gov-foreign-corp.jpg

      Many people are starting to figure out the scam of the legal system and know that it is run by a bunch of criminals associated with secret societies. This is why these criminals are not honoring their so called laws anymore, which are NOT laws of the land but are acts and statutes of corporations. This is why these criminals refused to accept Thomas Deegan’s complaint in West Virginia. http://omnithought.org/thomas-deegan-amended-complaint-restore-rule-law-freedom-constitutional-government/2347

      Here is all the proof you need to prove that the USA is run by corporations. Will they accept the facts in this article in court? Most likely no because the legal system is run by a bunch of criminals. They know that by accepting the facts in the link below, they are admitting that their legal system is a fraud. This could cause the destruction of their legal system. Why do you think the people lost those court cases that you posted? Any case that really threatens their legal system is dismissed as “frivolous”.

      http://omnithought.org/proof-usa-controlled-foreign-corporations/2086

      The people need to create their own justice system and stop relying on the corrupt legal system. The judges and Bar attorneys are foreign agents and are traitors to the people. This is why they have the title “Esquire”, which means that they are agents of the Crown Temple and therefore are FOREIGN agents.

      The Crown Temple is the same crown that the American people back in the 1700s fought against to win their “independence”. However, they did not really become free from Great Britain and the Crown, because the American people back then and today have never been freed from the control of the Crown Temple. Why? Because their so called founding fathers sold them out.

      To the people of the world, STOP HIRING TREASONOUS BAR ATTORNEYS TO REPRESENT YOU IN COURT. The best things you can do to protect yourself from the CRIMINAL legal system are to learn how to defend your rights and stay out of court whenever possible. A good place to start is to learn about NATURAL LAW, CONTRACT LAW, and TRUST LAW. Visit this site for more information on how to defend your rights without relying on treasonous BAR attorneys: http://www.privatis.me/

  2. PL Chang says:

    To the people who are sick and tired of corrupt judges and attorneys destroying their lives. This is how to tell corrupt judges and attorneys to fu*k off and make them so afraid of you that they piss in their pants and cry for their mommy.

Leave a Reply

Comment Policy: Please keep comment relevant to the content of the article. Profanity, spamming and use of threatening language will not be tolerated. Links are allowed but please do not spam the comment section with excessive links. Dead, inappropriate, excessive or advertising links will be removed. I reserve the right to edit or delete any comments that I feel are inappropriate.