DC – FORRAS et al v. RAUF et al Klayman – Loses another one

Because defendants have made a prima facie showing that Plaintiffs’ claim “ arises from an act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest ,” Plaintiffs must now show that they are “likely to succeed on the merits” of their claim in order to survive Defendants’ Anti – SLAPP motion. D.C. Code § 16 – 5502( b)

 

Continue reading

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.