NY Common Law Grand Jury – Knitting club meeting in court

The “NY Common Law Grand Jury” knitting club has announced their next meeting to take place in a NY Court Room. They actually believe that they will be heard in court even though there is no statutory foundation for their claimed status of their knitting club. And where statutes exist, common law can no longer exist. Fascinating dissonance.

We are asking all New Yorkers hearing this message to set aside all business on Thursday April 24th to come together as the Unified Common Law Grand Jury in the NY Supreme Court, Greene County Courthouse at 9:30AM for grand jury hearings in open court.

Continue reading

P&E Exposes potential ethical violations in Alabama Court?

Realist on the Fogbow reports

Thank you, Sharon Rondeau and the P&E, for exposing possible ethics violations by Chief Justice Roy Moore of the SCOAL.

The P&E reported on their blog, possible ex-parte communications with the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. This would be a serious ethical violation. Well done… Quite the scoop and I am sure everyone appreciates your contributions here.

DC – US v Class – Opposition to 404 motion

Here’s Rod’s Rebuttal Motion to the Gov’s 404(b) Motion Against Rod…

It has officially hit the Court so we can release it publicly !
The Gov now has until 4.22.14 to respond to it !

If you read it carefully the Gov, hopefully, can’t rebut it. Then we’ll
see what judge Kessler’s next move is !

 

>> The Gov’s Motion to Use Rule 404(b) Against Rod:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0perob464udcgku/DC_Gun_Case_Gov._Doc._50_Other_Crimes_Brought_In_4.3.14.pdf

As I feared, Rodney focuses on procedural matters in which he tries to argue his position that the government has failed to answer. However, the Judge allowed the Government to oppose the myriad of ‘motions’ filed by Class and did so in a timely fashion.

It was established on March 7 during the MotionHearing that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Local Rules of this court are to be obeyed by the government.

Duh, perhaps that is news to Rodney but that is how the court has always worked.

The Prosecutor/government also did not oppose any statement made by this living man with a soul and whereas Title 28, section 2255 states if the Constitution or laws of the united States are violated the Court has no choice but to vacate and dismiss the action.

Failure to state a claim. Rodney cannot just claim that the Constitution or laws of the US have been violated. And the government did oppose many of the statements made. 28 USC 2255 is also irrelevant because it addresses habeas corpus after a conviction.

And, whereas the Prosecutor/government is aware that legislated or decided (by the Supreme Court) Rights (the Miranda Warning, which precludes every other government argument) are required to be read to you first and NOT after the fact of a 3 to 4 hour questioning period, the government cannot assume you waived your rights when you were forced to sign a statement to that effect after the fact.

The Miranda warning only affects statements made by Class while he was held under arrest. It is unlikely that the prosecution is going to allow any statements he made during that period of time.

Whereas the government Prosecutor was given his opportunity to rebut all motions and all foundations of the motions filed in by this living man, rodney-dale; class, on March 7, 2014 and that the Prosecutor has declined to do so as he could not rebut the “facts” as they were based on the Constitution, the federal statutes, and based on Supreme Court decisions.

Nothing much that resembles facts were presented by Class and the Prosecutor objected to most of them. The Court waived the memorandum of law because the issues are so non-sensical. See document 51 for example, filed on 04/04/2014.

Finally Rod gets to rule 404 but presents no argument or presents case law that addresses the prosecutors Rule 4040 motion.

And, whereas Rule 404 under section (b) prohibits the use of evidence of a crime or wrong or other acts is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with that character. See Rule 404.

As to service

And, whereas the government is in violation of proper “service” and notification, pursuant to Rule 49, and all filings have to go to the defendant in a timely manner, the Prosecution’s recent motions, also, should be stricken for improper service and failure to follow procedures.

Service was effected through ECF and since Class had failed to provide the court with an address, something the Court ordered Class to correct, he cannot complain about lack of mail service.(See Document 52) Furthermore, Rodney has a lawyer who is the one that should be notified, per court rules.

Rule 49 explains

(b) How Made. Service must be made in the manner provided for a civil action. When these rules or a court order requires or permits service on a party represented by an attorney, service must be made on the attorney instead of the party, unless the court orders otherwise.

NY Common Law Grand Jury

The NY Knitting club, also known as the NY Common Law Grand Jury has petitioned the court with a writ of quo warrant, prohibition and mandamus. Expect a quick dismissal.

Quo warrant will fail because:

See, e.g., Delgado v. Sunderland, 97 NY. 2d 420, 424 (2002); Emergency Affirmation of John Ciampoli, dated July 8, 2009, 11 11 (“a quo warranto proceeding. . . may only be brought in the name of the people of the state by the Attorney General”)

 

NY SUPREME COURT, GREEN COUNTY COURTHOUSE; 320 Main Street; Catskill, NY 12414
PHONE – (518) 444-8760(518) 444-8760; FAX – (518) 943-0247
Court Hearing Thursday April 24, 2014 at 9:3o AM. If you cannot make it please fax, mail and call to let them know we are watching.

On March 28, 2014 the Columbia County Clerk retured our March 26th filing. We then filed the Writ of Quo Warranto, Writ of Probition and Writ of Mandamus.pdf with the Greene Couty Clerk on April 10, 2014and our hearing is now scheduled for Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 9:30 AM.

The Irony of Cliven Bundy

Source: The Atlantic Monthly -  The Irony of Cliven Bundy’s Unconstitutional Stand

“I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing.” Ironically, this position directly contradicts Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution:

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.

Somewhat ironic is it not that Bundy is claiming he abides by the Nevada laws and Constitution but selectively…

As to Bundy’s claim that the land belongs to him through his ancestors, again that does not hold up to scrutiny either.

Two decades after Nevada’s founders proclaimed unswerving obedience to federal authority, Cliven Bundy’s family first settled the land where he and his supporters now make their heavily armed stand against federal power. It’s doubtful even the Nevada Constitution will change their minds—if legal and constitutional arguments could persuade the militia movement, there might not be a militia movement.

 

 

NV – US v Bundy – My thoughts

I have been sharing my research on the Fogbow, but I’d like to also share it with the readers of this blog
Whatever4 wrote:
He also relies heavily on NRS 321.596-599, a Sagebrush Rebellion statute that Nevada passed saying Federal Lands in Nevada were now State Lands. He’s claiming that the Feds were only supposed to act as exclusive real estate agents for those lands, they weren’t supposed to hold them forever. He even has quotes. I’d love a real expert to take a gander at these and dissect them. (I miss Loh…) :cry: :xo
The Statute was found to be unconstitutional by the 9th circuit court of appeal in U.S. v. Nye County, Nev. 920 F.Supp. 1108 (1996) and the lower court’s ruling. The Nevada State Attorney also stipulated to that fact. He overlooks a simple fact: The Federal Government has full control over said lands, and they do not need a commerce clause to implement rules. Check out US v. Gardner, 107 F. 3d 1314 – Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1997:

Defendants-appellants Clifford and Bertha Gardner (“Gardners”) appeal the summary judgment granted in favor of plaintiff-appellee United States. Gardners claim that the 1316*1316 state of Nevada, not the United States, is the rightful owner of the public lands within Nevada. The district court granted the United States’ request for an injunction against Gardners’ unauthorized grazing of livestock upon federal forest land, and also ordered Gardners to pay a fee for the unauthorized grazing. We affirm.

The defendant argued

Gardners argue that grazing their livestock in the Humboldt National Forest without a permit does not constitute trespass because the federal government does not have title to the land on which the grazing took place. Gardners contend that, while the United States may have received the land in question from Mexico in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, the United States was entitled only to hold the land in trust for the creation of future states, and was not authorized to retain the land for its own purposes. After Nevada became a state, Gardners argue, all of the public lands within the state boundaries reverted to the state of Nevada.

The court found that

Thus, as the United States has held title to the unappropriated public lands in Nevada since Mexico ceded the land to the United States in 1848, the land is the property of the United States. The United States Constitution provides in the Property Clause that Congress has the power “to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.” U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. The Supreme Court has consistently recognized the expansiveness of this power, stating that “[t]he power over the public land thus entrusted to Congress is without limitations.

Nevada, before joining had disclaimed all rights to unappropriated public lands

When Congress invited Nevada to join the Union in 1864, it mandated that the Nevada constitutional convention pass an act promising that Nevada would “forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States….” Nevada Statehood Act of March 21, 1864, 13 Stat. 30, 31 § 4. The state constitutional convention did so. Ordinance of the Nevada Constitution.[5]

In this case the Nevada statute was found inapplicable rather than unconstitutional since it does not include national forest lands, which was relevant to Gardner.

[2] Gardners point out that Nevada recently passed a statute claiming ownership over all public lands within its boundaries, Nev. Rev. Stat. 321.5973. Gardners claim that the passage of this law further demonstrates that title to the public lands in Nevada properly rests in the state, not the federal, government. Gardners fail to note, however, that the Nevada statute by its own terms excludes national forest lands from the public lands claimed by Nevada. See Nev. Rev.Stat. § 321.5963.

In Nye however the court (9th circuit) found that

As noted earlier, while Nevada has statutorily claimed the public lands within Nye County, it ` concedes that this claim is constitutionally untenable. While this concession is tantamount to a consent to judgment, the court also concludes that the statutory claim is unsupported, unconstitutional, and fails as a matter of law.

Bundy has no foundation for his claims. In fact, he was not even denied a permit but rather the new 10 year permit stated that in years turtoises were found, the release of the vegetation to the cows would be delayed until the vegetation had reached a sufficient strength.

Bundy never had a legal right to the land and the federal government’s rights are without limitation. It’s time for Bundy to start paying up what he owns us.

Continue reading

The Bundy-incident – What next?

The recent incidents involving Cliven Bundy and his refusal to pay grazing fees to the Federal Government may escalate further in court as Think Progress speculates

One of the options for further prosecution affects those who crossed state lines to participate in furtherance of a civil disorder. This is the same law that resulted in Darren Huff’s conviction “18 U.S. Code § 231 – Civil disorders”

[w]hoever transports or manufactures for transportation in commerce any firearm, or explosive or incendiary device, knowing or having reason to know or intending that the same will be used unlawfully in furtherance of a civil disorder”

Domestic terrorism deserves our fullest attention.

As to Cliven Bundy, in addition to liens on his property, there are opportunities to have him be held in contempt of court. The fact that Bundy has defied the Court for many years, could end in the Court holding him in contempt, especially since the Federal Government has shown significant constraint. The rhetoric by Bundy will surely be introduced to the Court.