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.

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”)


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.

Rodney Class – The courts have rules

In a somewhat hilarious development, Rodney Class has figured out that the Federal Courts have rules, and that there are even local rules.

On the Friday Night Call (4.11.14) Rod emphasized the importance

of the Rules of Evidence in court cases and court proceedings.

Especially in light of his DC Gun Case.

Rod went and found the Rules for 3 states. They are pretty much the

same with a few exceptions. Look for your states’ Rules to be sure !

Rod wants everyone to know that getting the RULE Books
(long versions with annotations, if possible) is of Paramount Importance
so you can rebut the contentions made by those moving against you with
Motions, Orders, etc. !

Here are those Rules for Maine, North Carolina and Ohio:

Seriously? He did not figure this out until just recently?

I hope that he understands that he should be looking at the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure since the Civil version does not refer to a polite alternative but rather to suits outside of the criminal justice system.

OMG, did Rodney get his hands on state rules rather than federal rules? Really?… Someone help the guy…

And yes, one can submit statutes but there is no need to fully cut and paste them as it is sufficient to quote the relevant parts or refer to the actual code. What Rodney does not appear to understand that quoting a code, statute or amendment is not sufficient to raise a claim.

Why we see faces everywhere

“The brain is really a predictive organ,” said Nouchine Hadjikhani, a neuroscientist at Harvard University. “We try to find sense in the noise all the time, and we fill things with information.”

The phenomenon of seeing faces where there are none is a form of information-filling called pareidolia. It’s something all humans do.

Source: Why Do People See Faces in the Moon?

Perhaps now we know why birthers see a smiley face in the signature stamp of President Obama’s Long Form Birth Certificate?

Common Law – A short introduction

Wikipedia provides a good overview of what Common Law is all about

Common law (also known as case law or precedent) is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals, as opposed to statutes adopted through the legislative process or regulations issued by the executive branch.[1]

A “common law system” is a legal system that gives great precedential weight to common law,[2] on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions.[3] The body of precedent is called “common law” and it binds future decisions. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, a common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is usually bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (this principle is known as stare decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases (called a “matter of first impression“), judges have the authority and duty to make law by creating precedent.[4] Thereafter, the new decision becomes precedent, and will bind future courts. (See below here and here for contrasting systems.)

Now some people may want to believe that Common Law is somehow similar to Natural Law and that Natural Law can somehow be traced back to some form of a deity or deities but such principles cannot form the foundation for our Judicial system.

Although natural law is often conflated with common law, the two are distinct in that natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature, while common law is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally cognizable by virtue of judicial recognition or articulation.

As I had pointed out, at the Federal Level, there is no common law

Before 1938, the federal courts, like almost all other common law courts, decided the law on any issue where the relevant legislature (either the U.S. Congress or state legislature, depending on the issue), had not acted, by looking to courts in the same system, that is, other federal courts, even on issues of state law, and even where there was no express grant of authority from Congress or the Constitution.

In 1938, the U.S. Supreme Court in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938), overruled earlier precedent,[77] and held “There is no federal general common law,” thus confining the federal courts to act only as interpreters of law originating elsewhere.

It is also a common principle that where legislation exists, it will override the common law, which is merely a set of precedents formed over time. In other words, in case of the Federal and State Grand Jury, the ‘common law’ principles have been replaced by statutes which define how such a Grand Jury is to be convened and who convenes such Grand Jury.

As such, the belief that a group of citizens can form a ‘Common Law Grand Jury’ and have any legal status within our Nation is poorly developed and contrary to the laws of our Nation.

It’s simple logic that the musings of a club or group of like minded people has no legal relevance.

“The individuals who have made this presentment were not convened by [the U.S. COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA] to sit as a grand jury nor have they been selected at random from a fair cross section of this district.

Any self-styled indictment or presentment issued by such a group has no force under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

As such, leave to file this present is hereby DENIED.

Signed by Judge Royce Lamberth
Tuesday, 2 July 2009

See also here

… grand juries are convened by the court for the district in which they sit. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 6( a)( 1). Grand jurors are also to be selected at random from a fair cross section of the district in which they are convened. 18 U.S.C. § 1861. The individuals who have made this presentment were not convened by this Court to sit as a grand jury nor have they been selected at random from a fair cross section of this district.

Now, one can disagree with the law and accuse the judges of being criminals for failing to accept one’s arguments, but such a position is not going to be one of much relevance.

Stomp your feet, throw a tantrum and hope that the judge will listen… Really….?

Obama Laughs About ‘Crazy’ Birth Certificate Questions

Obama Laughs About ‘Crazy’ Birth Certificate Questions
Hunter Walker
Apr. 11, 2014, 4:27 PM President Barack Obama reminisced about the conspiracy theories surrounding his birth certificate during a speech at the National Action Network convention in New York City Friday afternoon. Obama referenced the doubts about his citizenship that led him to release a copy of his birth certificate in 2011 while criticizing voter I.D. laws that require people to present documentation like passports and birth certificates to vote.”Just to be clear, I know where my birth certificate is,” he added.

Obama then began to laugh.

“You remember that? That was crazy,” said Obama. “Haven’t thought about that in a while.”

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-la … ons-2014-4

Video & comments: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/obama-remini … _eRfqfmhq4

The Birthers are not very happy… Hilarious and there is nothing they can do about it. Our president will be there until 2017.

Free Republic: GAFreedom- Debunking the Cold Case Posse

On the Free Republic Forum a poster by the name GAFreedom has posted a good overview of how a scan can explain most of the artifacts observed in President Obama’s Long Form Birth Certificate


I have yet to understand how opimization renders LAYERS.

I work for a copier company. Been working on the things the past 15 years. All copiers, when they scan a document to PDF, produce 6 or more layers in the PDF output, starting with a monochrome layer with most of the text on it and further layers with additional scanned data on top of it. Further, more artifacts occur if you are using scan-to-email instead of scan-to-folder.

First response

The most recent statement by Mike Zullo of Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse is that despite the replication claims, the CCP has conclusive evidence that the WH BC is forged. There is a sealed report by certified document examiner Reed Hayes that Zullo is at least partially relying on which has been submitted to a federal court in Alabama.

1) Yeah, I know all about Reed Hayes and his report. I don’t trust him and I don’t trust the report.
1A) Why don’t I trust him? He’s a certified “handwriting analyst”. Handwriting analysis, otherwise known as “graphology”, is pseudoscience that says it is possible to assess someone’s personality by analyzing their handwriting. It’s a load of crap not supported by experiments and evidence. So first, he’s certified in a bunch of hooey. Hopefully his forensic document analysis experience isn’t the same type of hooey.
1B) Why I don’t trust the report? The report is sealed. Why isn’t it public? How do we know the sealed report doesn’t say “There ain’t a dang thing wrong with this BC!” And the answer is, we don’t. We don’t know what’s in the report or why it’s compelling evidence. It could be crapola. Until we know, we can’t say.

Please see this Free Republic thread regarding claims that Xerox copiers can replicate numerous features of the White House BC pdf. “Xerox 7655 Overview Picture (Obot claims to replicate Obama LFBC pdf w/floating signature)

1) The White House does not use Xerox machines. They use Ricohs. Why? Because the White House, the CIA, Congress, and the Department of Defense all have Ricoh contracts for their copiers. I should know, we send techs to work on the machines all day.  [NBC: GAFreedom is wrong, the government may have a contract with Ricoh but there is at least on Xerox 7655 in use]
2) A lot of the pro-Birthers over in that thread don’t know a thing about document automation and imaging, compression protocols in scanning (especially lossy protocols)…the ignorance is astounding. Like this statement:

it is not JUST the pdf layers, it is also what is ON those layers. You have black and white layers, greyscale layers, different fonts in different layers, different pixel resolution, ALL of which prove that it was put together from OTHER documents.

Anyone who is expert in how copiers scan know that’s a bunch of hooey. JBIG2 compression will do different layers like that, especially when scanning a color document. Or this crap!

With that kind of WHut insider connection, it wouldn’t be too far-fetched to have Xerox or Adobe programmers “update” their software to behave in the far-fetched manner required within limited circumstances. Someone needs have archived the software extant at the time of the original scan for the ostensibly-generating machine. At this point I wouldn’t trust company repository driver software not to have been similarly corrupted and back-dated. Such machines may automatically update their software via the Internet or via periodic company service packs, obliterating earlier software in those cases.

BULL! Firmware, especially for older machines, does not update that often. While updates CAN be performed through a web monitor, they’re an absolute pain in the ass that can take up to 3 hours per machine. Updates are mostly performed by SD card inserted into the machine by a technician, as that takes approximately 30-45 seconds to update. The scan compressions are hardly ever updated, usually remaining the same since the machine was manufactured due to hardware restrictions. And this idea of corrupting and backdating software archives is pure paranoia! That would cost MILLIONS to do.

It’s such BS that it pisses me off as a professional. I stand by what I say in regards to the scanning processes.

In depth

The cause of the layering and artifacts and halos and whatnot are due to two things. 1) The anti-counterfeiting technology that is mandated in all scanning devices in accordance with mandates from the Secret Service. 2) The High Compression PDF protocol that is used in copiers for scanning, known as the “JBIG2 compression” protocol.

I can reproduce, in an instant, the same “forgery” that Zullo claims simply by walking over to one of my test machines at work and scanning a birth certificate to email. For additional hilarity, here’s a big problem with JBIG2 compression

You are seriously going to argue that it will move the supposedly typed text around, but leave all the printed text in the exact correct position?

Yes, it does, See here. It was also confirmed by engineers at Xerox. And it was confirmed by my employer, by Canon, by Toshiba, and by HP.

By what process can the algorithm distinguish between typewritten text and printed text so that it can tell which one it needs to screw up?

Continue reading

Klayman v Obama – SCOTUS – Non-birther – Denied

No. 13-931
Larry Klayman, et al., Petitioners
Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.
Docketed: February 5, 2014
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Case Nos.: (14-5016)
Discretionary Court
Decision Date: December 16, 2013
Rule 11

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Feb 3 2014 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due March 7, 2014)
Mar 7 2014 Waiver of right of respondents Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al. to respond filed.
Mar 19 2014 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 4, 2014.
Apr 7 2014 Petition DENIED.

Rodney Dale Class – USDC- District of Columbia

Civil Results
Party Name Court Case NOS Date Filed Date Closed
1 CLASS, RODNEY DALE (pla) dcdce 1:2006-cv-01900 470 11/07/2006 11/13/2006
2 CLASS, RODNEY DALE (pla) dcdce 1:2009-cv-02151 870 11/16/2009 09/02/2010
3 CLASS, RODNEY DALE (pla) dcdce 1:2013-cv-00150 890 02/05/2013 02/05/2013
Criminal Results
Party Name Court Case Date Filed Date Closed
4 CLASS, RODNEY (dft) dcdce 1:2013-cr-00253 09/03/2013
Appellate Results
Party Name Court Case NOS Date Filed Date Closed
5 Class, Rodney (pty) dccae 07-7041 4470 03/16/2007 07/24/2007
6 Class, Rodney (pty) dccae 11-5083 1 04/11/2011 10/04/2011

DC – US v Class – Memorandum of points

The prosecution filed its omnibus response, observing that

At a status hearing on February 3, 2013, the government inquired of the Court which motions would require a response. The Court indicated that it wished the government to state its position as to each of the defendant’s requests for relief, but that memoranda of law on each point was not necessary.

The Local Rules of the District Court of the District of Columbia mentions in LCvR 7 (Motions)

(a) STATEMENT OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES . Each motion shall include or be accompanied by a statement of the specific points of law and authority that support the motion, including where appropriate a concise statement of facts. If a table of cases is provided, counsel shall place asterisks in t he margin to the left of those cases or authorities on which counsel chiefly relies.

(b) OPPOSING POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. Within 14 days of the date of service or at such other time as the Court may direct, an opposing party shall serve and file a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to the motion. If such a memorandum is not filed within the prescribed time, the Court may treat the motion as conceded.

The Court allowed the prosecution to file its response without the specific points of law and authority in support as the lack of relevance of these motions was painfully clear.

Educating Rodney Class – Entry of Appearance

Class filed the following objection (many of his objections are not based on law but rather on his interpretation of the law)

28. Whereas it STILL stands that the government has never filed a proper Entry of Appearance into this case.

Under LCrR 44.5 of the District Court of the District of Columbia, only the attorney for the defendant must file an entry of appearance. Remember that this is a Criminal and not a Civil proceeding and thus the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure supplemented by the Local Rules apply.

An attorney appearing for a defendant in a criminal case, whether appointed or retained, shall file with the Clerk a notice of appearance on a court-approved form. If a defendant appears without counsel at arraignment, the Court shall set a date and time by which counsel shall enter an appearance or the defendant, after being fully advised of his right to counsel, shall waive such right and elect to proceed pro se.

There is no rule that the prosecution in a criminal case files an entry of appearance, for obvious reasons.

Any time soon now…

After another disappointing month in which the Alabama Supreme Court ruled to affirm the lower Court’s findings that the Secretary of State has no duty to investigate the eligibility of a Presidential candidate, and in which the Supreme Court denied cert in the case of Laity v State of NY, the birthers also have to come to terms with the fact that the ‘universe shattering’ revelations by the Clown Posse have been delayed once again.

Few cases remain. Orly has some FOIA cases in DC which soon will be dismissed. Her MS case is limping forward and her CA appeal seems unlikely to go anywhere, especially with the recent AL decision. Strunk has some cases in the NY Court System but they have limited relevance to Obama’s eligibility.

It’s going to be a quiet spring this year.

Rodney Dale Class – Update


His next hearing is on April 7th in DC. And they need as many attendees as possible. I am not sure why they believe that numbers can compensate for the absence of legal foundation, but they seriously believe that the case may be dismissed…

There is no foundation for such hopes as the case is quite straightforward: Ron was arrested after he confirmed that the car he had parked at the Capitol in DC while serving papers, contained firearms.

Rod “passed” the competency test and may represent himself, so the court has taken the necessary step to prevent Rod from raising this on the inevitable appeal.

There are now 25 documents that have been filed but not answered. Expect that the prosecution will file the minimal objections. Rod is hoping that the case is more than just a gun charge, but he fails to understand how serious the case is.

He reminded the Judge how serious the case is, because of the procedural and civil violations… ROTFL. Poor Judge, she found him competent but now she has to suffer the consequences that she has to deal with the ignorance.

Does Rod really not realize in how much trouble he is?

He now tries to argue that the documents were not signed, ignoring that documents filed on Pacer are signed electronically. He also believes that there is no plaintiff. The Judge informed Rod that no complaint, warrant or complainant is necessary for the case to proceed.

Did you read Rule 4, Judge?… A complaint needs to be filed before a warrant is to be issued. Now the Judge needs to educate Rod.