UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
333 Constitution Ave N.W.
Washington, District of Columbia 20001
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CASE # 1:13 cr 00253
NO KNOWN ADDRESS
Fictitious, Foreign Plaintiff
RODNEY DALE CLASS (Government Registered Trade Name, WARD, TRUST, ESTATE, JOINT STOCK SHARE)
POST OFFICE BOX 435
CITY OF HIGH SHOALS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ZIP CODE 28077
Private Attorney General
XXX Nxxxxx Lxxxxxx Street
High Shoals, North Carolina
Third Party of Interest and Real Party of Interest, By Congressional Act Private Attorney General, Constitutional Bounty Hunter
Title 28, Ch. 5, District Court, § 88 District of Columbia
Constitutional Article III Court
Judge Gladys Kessler
COVER SHEET FOR ADDRESSES OF PARTIES
OBJECTION TO GOVERNMENT’S OMNIBUS RESPONSE: RE: What The Living Flesh And Blood Man With A Soul, A Being/Natural Person, Was Subjected To After Being Unlawfully Arrested.
[NBC: Rodney Dale Class was not unlawfully arrested. When asked by the DC Police Officers, he admitted that he was the owner of the car which was illegally parked. When asked about the presence of weapons, Rodney Dale Class freely admitted that there were weapons in the car that were illegal under the statutes of the Capitol and under the Statutes of the District of Columbia. When the car was searched, they indeed found the weapons and Rodney Dale Class was arrested. Rodney Dale Class may try to attack his arrest by claiming that the statutes are unconstitutional but until they have been determined to be such, there is nothing that makes his arrest unlawful.]
The U.S. Attorneys’ response of 3.7.14 has failed to address some very important points in their ineffective, non-rebuttal of rodney-dale; class’ Motions. Not only is their “opposition” “hollow” with no actual reasons or law on which to base their “opposition,”
[NBC: The court explicitly had allowed the Government not to file citations to law as the ‘arguments’ raised by Class were frivolous, incomprehensible and plain wrong. The Court is not allowing a pro-se to overwhelm the court with irrelevant motions, and by allowing for an omnibus reply, the Court has enabled proper administration of justice.]
but they are perpetuating a dark secret based on convoluted rules and procedures that they and the government have crafted these rules, etc. through obfuscation and outright lies, and if a Defendant fails to
[NBC: The rules and procedures are outlined in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Local Rules of the Court]
object to these actions then the Prosecution and the government get away with legal chicanery and perpetrate a sham on the Court. This Defendant, rodney-dale; class, a living man of flesh and blood with a soul, refuses to allow these travesties of “justice” to continue.
What follows is “black ink on white paper” to prove that the Prosecutor is attempting to perpetuate a judicial travesty against rodney-dale; class.
FOUNDATION OF JURISDICTION
1. The United States Attorneys Manual (USAM) Title 4, Civil Resource Manual 210. Choice of Law
[NBC: Missing the part that:
The Manual provides only internal Department of Justice guidance. It is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter civil or criminal. Nor are any limitations hereby placed on otherwise lawful litigative prerogatives of the Department of Justice.
“Federal Statutory Law, enacted pursuant to Constitution authorities, is clearly controlling over state statutory and decisional law…. U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 2 (Clearfield Trust vs. United States).”
2. Federal Rules of Civil Evidence, Article V, Privileges, Rule 501, Privileges in General
[NBC: This applies to Federal Rules of Civil Evidence. This is a criminal case]
“The common law — as interpreted by United States courts in the light of reason and experience — governs a claim of privilege unless any of the following provides otherwise:
…the United States Constitution;
…a federal statute
…rules prescribed by the Supreme Court.
But in a civil case, state law governs privilege regarding a claim or defense for which state law supplies the rule of decision.”
3. Criminal Rules of Procedure only give a District Court a “venue,” but provides No Form Of “ACTION” to prosecute criminal cases.
[NBC: A bit of a nonsensical claim and no support is provided for this claim. But on the contrary
(1) In General. These rules govern the procedure in all criminal proceedings in the United States district courts, the United States courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
For a federal court to have jurisdiction, the crime to be prosecuted must either have been created pursuant to an express or implied constitutional grant of authority, or must have been committed in an area owned by or under the exclusive control of the federal government.
4. “Before a federal court can hear a case, or “exercise its jurisdiction,” certain conditions must be met. First, under the Constitution, federal courts exercise only ‘judicial’ powers. This means that federal judges may interpret the law only through the resolution of actual legal disputes, referred to in Article III of the Constitution as ‘Cases or Controversies.’ A court cannot attempt to correct a problem on its own initiative, or to answer a hypothetical legal question.”
From the DOJ website.
[NBC: There is definitely a controversy as there is an alleged violation of Federal Law. The court is not acting upon its own. However, the court is the final interpreter of issues of law and must rule on motions raised.]
5. Title 28, Judiciary and judicial procedures, section 2255, Federal custody; remedies on motion attacking sentence;…states that the court can dismiss / vacate, set aside or correct the sentence without going to trial
[NBC: Nope, it is an Habeas Corpus action which addresses remedies attacking the sentence. A sentence only can happen after a trial has been conducted.]
(a) A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.
(b) Unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon the United States attorney, grant a prompt hearing thereon, determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto.
If the court finds that the judgment was rendered without jurisdiction, or that the sentence imposed was not authorized by law or otherwise open to collateral attack, or that there has been such a denial or infringement of the constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack, the court shall vacate and set the judgment aside and shall discharge the prisoner or resentence him or grant a new trial or correct the sentence as may appear appropriate.
Now Comes, i, a man with a soul, rodney-dale; class (Hereinafter referred to as a living flesh and blood man with a soul, a being/natural person), in my official capacity as a Private Attorney General and as a
[NBC: There is no official capacity as a Private Attorney General under US Statute that applies to Class, nor would such a position grant Class with any resolving powers.
The private attorney general doctrine 1 gives courts the discretion to award attorneys’ fees to a party who vindicates a right that (1) benefits a large number of people, (2) requires private enforcement, and (3) is of societal importance.
Source: Important Rights and the Private Attorney General Doctrine, California Law Review Volume 73 | Issue 6 Article 5 December 1985
Constitutional Bounty Hunter pursuant to Congressional mandates of the United States Congress, and
1. I, a man, oppose being arrested by the Capitol Hill Police in Washington, DC for violating Constitutionally protected rights.
[NBC: Well, you are the defendant after all, so you can oppose the arrest but you were lawfully arrested and have now face the charges.]
2. I, a man, oppose going before a Grand Jury when the original and intended foundation of the Grand Jury is to hear evidence from BOTH SIDES and any decision or conclusion from the Grand Jury is supposed to be based on BOTH SIDES and NOT in a decision from just ONE SIDE.
[NBC: This shows an unfamiliarity with the Grand Jury system which serves to provide an independent means to determine sufficiency for indictment. It specifically is NOT based on BOTH SIDES.]
3. I, a man, oppose going before Grand Jury where the Grand Jury members are being told that the only choice they have is “did the defendant violate the law ?” while the laws being used are, themselves, unconstitutional to start with and violate the protected rights of the People.
[NBC: That is specifically NOT a role for the Grand Jury. Any deficiencies in the law can be raised at trial]
4. I, a man, oppose that this Grand Jury’s decision was based on the Superior Court’s hearing on violations of DC ordinances that now sit before a Federal Court.
[NBC: Nope the Grand Jury’s decision was based on the evidence presented to them for violations of US statutes and DC ordinances]
5. I, a man, oppose that the Superior Court dismissed these charges for the alleged District of Columbia violations, and that the Federal Government decided to prosecute on these same “dismissed” charges AND then used those same, “dismissed,” city ordinance violations as prosecutable violations, and that the City
of Washington in the District of Columbia is defined as a mere fictional Corporation.
[NBC: The case was removed from State to Federal Court. A nolle Prosequi is not a get out of jail card. The double jeopardy rule does not apply See Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 US 213 – Supreme Court 1967]
6. I, a man, oppose being rearrested for a second time, after dismissal, by the Capitol Hill Police Department and being recharged for new Federal crimes. And, when rodney-dale; class was rearrested they have NO INVENTORY LIST of any personal property being taken; not so much as a shoelace, a belt, a watch, a bracelet, wallets or even rodney-dale; class’ hearing aids and hearing devices and NOT EVEN HIS VEHICLE. Add to that that when rodney-dale; class was was released from initial incarceration he did NOT have the availability of using his confiscated automobile to exit Washington, DC and was dropped off, essentially destitute, on the streets of Washington, DC to fend for himself !
[NBC: That has no relevance to the criminal law suit]
7. I, a man, oppose being charged in the Federal Court under a New Charge with NO Federal Grand Jury Indictment on rodney-dale; class, and that the second (Federal) charging was based ONLY on the first Grand Jury’s Indictment from the Superior Court for the District of Columbia which was “dismissed” under NOLLE PROSEQUI !
[NBC: The indictment was by a Federal Grand Jury, see document 1 on the docket]
8. I, a man, oppose the second arrest, again, because there was No Formal Written Complaint by ANY “injured party” as required per your Federal Criminal Rules of Evidence, Rule 4. and the United States Constitution.
[NBC: Class perhaps means Fed. R. of Crim. Proc. Rule 4 not the rules of evidence. By the time Class was arrested, a Grand Jury had indicted him. Rule 9 explains:
Issuance. The court must issue a warrant—or at the government’s request, a summons—for each defendant named in an indictment or named in an information if one or more affidavits accompanying the information establish probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the defendant committed it. ]
9. I, a man, oppose being arrested the first time and second time when the foundation for arrest was based on a “parking ticket” that was DISMISSED and AFTER they did an Illegal Search and Interrogation.
[NBC: The dismissal of the parking ticket has no relevance to the criminal charges. And Class has yet to show that an illegal search and interrogation was performed.]
(Does “This Court” NOT KNOW what the doctrine of “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree,” the “Clean Hands Doctrine” OR a “Miranda Warning” means ?)
[NBC: Class may want to expand as to how these doctrines apply. I doubt that the prosecutor needs to use any statements made by Class before his Miranda warning. As to the fruit of the poisonous tree, Class’s admission to carrying illegal weapons in his car may have provided sufficient probable cause for an initial search, and when the weapons were found, a search warrant was apparently obtained.]
10. I, a man, oppose being charged in any court room where the Prosecution cannot provide a flesh and blood Plaintiff before this court.
[NBC: The prosecution will present its witness at a later date. At the moment, the State is the ‘plaintiff’ in the name of the People to prosecute a violation of law.]
11. I, a man, oppose the government’s prosecutors wasting this court’s time for what are a constitutionally protected rights and the non-compliance of equally protected rights under statutory law when one has been given and holds a license to “carry concealed.”
[NBC: A license which does not apply to the Federal Grounds and to DC]
12. I, a man, oppose having a GPS tracking device placed on my body in order to monitor the activities of this flesh and blood being.
[NBC: Does Class prefer to be jailed instead?]
13. I, a man, oppose the willful and intentional failure of the Prosecution to address any of my documentation placed before this court by me, a living man of flesh and blood, with the phrase “government opposes” and fails to state facts and conclusions in law of what they “oppose” to justify their response.
[NBC: They were told by the Court that such was not necessary. The documentation provided by Class was irrelevant, immaterial, incomprehensible or totally non-sensical]
14. I, a man, oppose the government opposing (by the Prosecutor/BAR MEMBER) its own regulations, procedures, rules, and administration in order to run a sham legal court system to violate constitutionally protected rights and laws of the United States.
[NBC: No evidence of such have been provided. In fact the rules and procedures are available to all who care and have been properly written in accordance with law and statute]
15. I, a man, oppose that these elected, appointed or hired living men and women in positions in these public offices, being sworn to the Constitution in order to collect wages, compensation and benefits calling themselves a government official while operating as a Corporation (See Clearfield Trust vs. United States and Public Law 1, 48 stat C 1, and See United States Attorney’s Manual; Choice of law 210; federal statutory law, enacted to constitutional authorities, is clearly controlling over state statutory and decisional law, and see the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 2) are in disguise in order to violate the People’s rights.
[NBC: That applies to civil actions. Class has to learn to understand to properly interpret rulings and their relevance to his case. Public Law 1, 48 stat C 1 is not going to help Class here either. It is the emergency banking relief act from 1933. None of this is applicable to Class’s case]
16. I, a man, oppose that the government (prosecutor/BAR MEMBER) used trickery and deception when it was told, by the Court, not to use Memoranda of Law in answering the paperwork of rodney-dale; class in a court status hearing back in January.
[NBC: Class objects to the government following the requests of the court?]
17. I, a man, oppose being taken advantage of, shanghaied, rail roaded, and defrauded because of not having a law degree and no bar card for the legal system to control.
[NBC: No such actions have been taken. The lack of a law degree is of no importance. It merely means that Class cannot serve as a lawyer in a court and is pursuing the case pro-se]
18. I, a man, oppose to being placed on trial for constitutionally protected rights and equal protection of rights clause, and, even more, I am opposed to someone who was required to swear two separate oaths, one to the Constitution, and another oath to the BAR that they would not mislead, misrepresent or misconstrue or put false information before the court, and witnessing them committing perjury and felonies
in this courtroom while their (the Prosecution) best argument is that the government opposes my well supported arguments.
[NBC: No real argument here. No evidence of perjury or felonies have been provided.]
19. I, a man, oppose when I and/or the People showing procedural violations, administrative violations, constitutional violations, and the violations of the laws of the United States, the legal system suppresses or creates law from the bench in order to cover up these violations in order to get a conviction and, further, suppresses information in order to deny any legal errors for use in the appeals court.
[NBC: Class’s unfamiliarity with the rules is no reason to cause one to believe that there were procedural violations etc. The Court interprets law and does not create it. It is in Class’s best interest to hire or have appointed a lawyer who can educate him as to the rules, procedures etc.]
20. I, a man, oppose being charged for Corporation “Policy violations” under the DC Codes as it is clearly stated that the District of Columbia, under the 1871 Act, is to be considered a Corporation and NOT a City.
[NBC: Again applying the wrong precedent to the wrong situation. Understanding what the 1871 Act did and how it has since then been interpreted in Federal precedent would resolve some of Class’s problems with understanding the jurisdiction of the municipality and the court.]
21. I, a man, oppose being charged by those who perjured themselves when they took these positions under their own charter/Constitution that they would not create policies, rules, regulations, or any other act that would violate the People’s rights that were clearly guaranteed to the People.
22. I, a man, oppose being charged by an administrative agency which has failed to exhaust its administrative remedies as required by the Administrative Procedure Act itself.
[NBC: No argument that there is an administrative agency involved]
23. I, a man, oppose being profiled as “anti-American and/or as a “sovereign citizen” by those who took these public offices under wages, compensation, and benefits and are under a sworn oath to protect the People’s rights, and have intentionally violated their constitutional oath to faithfully exercise their office with the intent to engage in conduct to impair due process and to obstruct proper administration of justice and the willful failure to defend the Constitution and to engage in personal activity for unjust enrichment of themselves or the public office.
24. I, a man, rodney-dale; class, also, now, “Oppose” all the vague and unsupported “oppositions” that the Prosecution has filed thus far in CASE # 1:13 cr 00253.
25. The application for either the Constitutional “public” office or as an agent for the unknown Plaintiff/Principal requires a signature or contract. A signature for all officers of this Constitutional court is all that is required to discharge the “Public Debt” created where the Trustee of/for the Express Trust named in FRCP Rule 17 has the ability and duty to bring this cause/action into honor.
[NBC: Meaningless nonsense]
26. Whereas “This Court” is aware that the signature on the bonds signed by rodney-dale; class for the OR Bond, the Bid Bonds, the Performance Bonds and the Payment Bonds are to be taken out of the Trust or the Estate of RODNEY DALE CLASS (Government Registered Trade Name, WARD, TRUST, ESTATE, JOINT STO
CK SHARE) and, therefore, any restitution to the Defendant can be removed from the Plaintiff’s account in
the same fashion that the court is collecting all these bonds under “signatures” and, therefore, the Prosecution only has to sign his signature as per U.S.C. Title 31 under section 3713 as Trustee over the Plaintiff and can be paid to rodney-dale; class for Damages and Claims under the SF 95 form.
[NBC: Meaningless nonsense]
27. Whereas the government has taken NO position on the “Entry of Appearance” and has taken NO position of the “living flesh man” coming into the court room, then the government is admitting it has NO position to address the living man, thereby giving rodney-dale; class the authority to call this court to order and to have this case dismissed as the government has “NO position” to object if they take “NO position.”
[NBC: Logical fallacy. Taking no position on the entry of appearance does not mean that they cannot object to Class’s further actions.]
28. Whereas it STILL stands that the government has never filed a proper Entry of Appearance into this case.
[NBC: Under criminal rules only the attorneys for the defendants have to file an entry of appearance]
29. As a Private Attorney General, rodney-dale; class, or any party with knowledge of the law as mandated by Congress, now has the authority to call this court to order under the Article 3 section of the Constitution, and now has the authority to order this court to Dismiss this case in favor of rodney-dale; class and hav e restitution paid to rodney-dale; class and to be made whole and all property returned immediately to him upon Dismissal.
30. Whereas this Private Attorney General is the only Party who has filed his Entry of Appearance in “This Court” which has never been properly called to order, and only“claims” it is in session, we now will Correct The Record of having “This Court” called to order under the proper means of the Constitution and thereby have this case Dismissed on the grounds of an improper procedure by “This Court” as it has never been properly called to order as this falls under an incompetency of those who have failed to do their job properly.
Whereas this living flesh and blood man with a soul, a being/natural person, rodney-dale; class objects to (“opposes”) being arrested unlawfully for Constitutionally protected rights, and statutory rights under the equal protection clause, and under the protection of Acts of Congress. I oppose the government’s position in this action and ask for the entire action be Dismissed in favor of rodney-dale; class, “With Prejudice”
and that the government be sanctioned for wasting “This Court’s” time and the taxpayer’s money on
Constitutionally protected rights and statutory rights under the equal protection clause as found in the law books that are copyrighted, patented, and trademarked, and therefor, are Private Law, and NOT applicable to the non-corporate, living man or woman.
live thumb print
Private Attorney General
XXX Nxxxxx Lxxxxxx Street
High Shoals, North Carolina
Bounty Hunter Seal
Attorney General Seal