Meet You Strawman – The Truth About Your Birth Certificate

THE LAW ON AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES

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.

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’[punishible]” 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.