DC – US v Class – Government response

The prosecution has provided a response to the 24 additional filings by Rodney. As expected, the response does not include a memorandum of law since the judge did not require such, and the case is quite straightforward. This is a criminal lawsuit and poor Rodney is still struggling with how to properly file motions of relevance. The court has accepted the documents (leave to file granted) to reduce Rodney’s ability to challenge them on appeal. Now that the prosecution has responded, the judge can rule on them and quickly dismiss them.

Poor Rodney really needs to get a real lawyer or he will find himself incarcerated for some real serious charges.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :
v. RODNEY CLASS, :
Defendant. :

GOVERNMENT’S OMNIBUS RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS SEEKING MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF

The United States of America, by and through its attorney, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, hereby files the following response to Defendant Rodney Class’s various pro se motions seeking miscellaneous relief.

Factual and Procedural Background

1. On May 30, 2013, defendant Rodney Class was arrested by United States Capitol Police for possessing firearms on Capitol Grounds. Found inside the defendant’s vehicle were three loaded firearms as well as multiple knives and axes. The defendant was charged in District of Columbia Superior Court on May 31, 2013 with Carrying a Pistol under D.C. Code § 22- 4504(a). After a three-day period of detention under D.C. Code § 22-1322(b), the defendant was released on conditions of release including a stay-away order from the District of Columbia.

2. On September 3, 2013, a grand jury indicted the defendant in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on two charges: Possession of a Firearm on Capitol Grounds, in violation of 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(1), and Carrying a Pistol (Outside Home or Place of Business), in violation of D.C. Code § 22-4504(a).

3. On September 5, 2013, the defendant surrendered to United States Capitol Police, and was arraigned on the indictment before Magistrate Judge Facciola that same day. At the time of arraignment, the government did not oppose the defendant’s release, but requested that (1) he be placed in the D.C. Pre-Trial Services’ Agency’s High Intensity Supervision Program (HISP), (2) that he be monitored using a GPS device, (3) that he be ordered to stay away from U.S. Capitol Grounds, (4) that he be placed on home confinement, and (5) that he be ordered to relinquish possession of any and all weapons.

4. After hearing argument from counsel, Judge Facciola ordered that the defendant be released on personal recognizance, that he be monitored by GPS device, that he report as directed by Pre-Trial Services for the Western District of North Carolina, and that he stay away from the District of Columbia except for court-related matters. Judge Facciola also ordered that the defense produce an inventory of weapons in the defendant’s home, but deferred the government’s request that he be required to surrender his weapons during the pendency of this case.

5. At a hearing before the Court on September 12, 2013, Judge Wilkins ordered the defendant to remain on GPS monitoring, to surrender any additional weapons to his daughter within 24 hours of the hearing, and to submit an inventory of weapons to the court. A further status date was set.

6. Thereafter, at successive status hearings, the Court excluded time under the Speedy Trial Act in the interest of justice as the defendant conferred with his attorney.

7. On January 3, 2014, the defendant, although still represented by counsel, filed the following pro se motion: “Enter my Appearance: Requirement for Motion For In Camera Hearing; ‘Corpus Delicti’ To Be Produced (Habeas Corpus).” On January 6, 2014, the document was entered on the docket [Doc. No. 7].

8. On January 17, 2014, the case was transferred from Judge Wilkins to Judge 2 Gladys Kessler.

9. On January 27, 2014, the defendant filed five pro se motions [Doc. Nos. 10-14]. 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 positions to each of the defendant’s requests for relief, but that memoranda of law on each point was not necessary. The Court also ordered a competency evaluation of the defendant.

10. On February 7, 2014, the government filed an Omnibus Response to the Defendant’s Motions Seeking Miscellaneous Relief [Doc. No. 17].

11. From February 18-27, 2014, the defendant filed four pro se pleadings [Doc. Nos. 20-23]. On March 7, 2014, the government filed an Omnibus Response to the Defendant’s Motions Seeking Miscellaneous Relief [Doc. No. 24].

12. On March 26, 2014, the defendant filed 24 additional pro se pleadings. These were styled as follows: “Take Judicial Notice: Verification for Declaratory Status Under the Tenth Amendment,” [Doc. No. 25], “Requirement and wish for Dismissal; Take Judicial Notice: United States District Court has limited jurisdiction and venue,” [Doc. No. 26], “Take Judicial Notice: Federal Rules Violations And Willful Fraud Upon The Court As Grounds For Motion Of Dismissal, And A Request For Summary Judgment,” [Doc. No. 27], “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,” [Doc. No. 28], “Administrative Notice and Demand: Writ of Error Coram Nobis,” [Doc. No. 29], “Formal Complaint; Prayer for Relief and Constitutional Question in Law,” [Doc. No. 30], “Requirement and wish for Dismissal; Take Judicial Notice: United States District Court has limited jurisdiction and venue,” [Doc. No. 31], “2nd Motion to Quash and Strike Prosecution’s Response for Failure to State Facts and Conclusions of Law,” [Doc. No. 32], “Take Judicial Notice: Fraud Upon the Court, 2nd Motion For Lawyer A.J. Kramer to Step Aside as Ineffective Counsel,” [Doc. No. 33], “Motion for Discovery,” [Doc. No. 34], “Judicial Notice Motion to Remove United States Code 28 Section 2672 Administrative Adjustment of Claims,” [Doc. No. 35], “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,” [Doc. No. 36], “Motion for Discovery,” [Doc. No. 37], “Administrative Notice and Demand: Writ of Error Coram Nobis,” [Doc. No. 38], “Requirement to Have the Plaintiff Appear Before the District Court (This Court),” [Doc. No. 39], “Administrative Notice; In the Nature of Writ of Error Coram Nobis & A Demand For Dismissal or State the Proper Jurisdiction,” [Doc. No. 41], “Take Judicial Notice: Prayer for Verification for Declaratory Status and Inquisition Status of Defendant,” [Doc. No. 40], “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,” [Doc. No. 42], “Judicial Notice Motion to Remove United States Code 28 Section 2672 Administrative Adjustment of Claims,” [Doc. No. 43], “Take Judicial Notice: Federal Rules Violations And Willful Fraud upon The Court As Grounds For Motion Of Dismissal, And A Request For Summary Judgment,” [Doc. No. 44], “Take Judicial Notice: Fraud Upon the Court, 2nd Motion for Lawyer A.J. Kramer to Step Aside as Ineffective Counsel,” [Doc. No. 45], “Take Judicial Notice: Verification for Declaratory Status Under the Tenth Amendment,” [Doc. No. 46], “2nd Motion for Discovery: F.R.C.P. Rule 37, F.R.C.P. Rule 16, And a Clarification of Bonds Used by the Plaintiff,” [Doc. No. 47], “By Congressional Act: A Right to Act as a Private Attorney General, and by Constitutional Authority: to Receive Letters of Marque and Reprisal,” [Doc. No. 48], and “Administrative Notice; In the Nature of Writ of Error Coram Nobis & A Demand For Dismissal or State the Proper Jurisdiction,” [Doc. No. 49].

13. On March 26, 2014, the Court held a status hearing at which the Court set a hearing on the defendant’s motions for April 7, 2014.

Argument

14. The government’s position with respect to each of the requests for relief is as follows.[1]

Defendant’s “Take Judicial Notice: Verification for Declaratory Status Under the Tenth Amendment” [Doc. No. 25]

15. The government construes the above pleading as a request that the Court declare the defendant a “Private Attorney General.” The government opposes this request.

Defendant’s “Requirement and wish for Dismissal; Take Judicial Notice: United States District Court has limited jurisdiction and venue,” [Doc. No. 26]

16. The government construes the above pleading as a motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction. The government opposes this request.

Defendant’s “Take Judicial Notice: Federal Rules Violations And Willful Fraud upon The Court As Grounds For Motion Of Dismissal, And A Request For Summary Judgment” [Doc. No. 27]

17. The government construes the above pleading as a motion to dismiss the indictment for, inter alia, procedural violations. The government opposes this request.

Defendant’s “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” [Doc. No. 28]

18. The government construes the above pleading as a reply in further support of the defendant’s prior motions and a motion to dismiss for prosecutorial misconduct. The

1 To the extent the government misconstrues the relief sought by the defendant, the government respectfully requests leave to respond orally at the Court’s April 7, 2014 hearing on the defendant’s pleadings.

government opposes any request to dismiss the indictment. Insofar as this pleading responds to the government’s February 7, 2014 Omnibus Response to the Defendant’s Motions Seeking Miscellaneous Relief, [Doc. No. 17], and its March 7, 2014 Omnibus Response to the Defendant’s Motions Seeking Miscellaneous Relief, [Doc. No. 24], the government stands on its prior pleadings.

Defendant’s “Administrative Notice and Demand: Writ of Error Coram Nobis” [Doc. No. 29]

19. The government construes the above pleading as a motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue. The government opposes this request.

Defendant’s “Formal Complaint; Prayer for Relief and Constitutional Question in Law” [Doc. No. 30]

20. The government construes the above pleading as a request that the Court sanction undersigned counsel and former Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Finkelman. The government opposes this request.

Defendant’s “Requirement and wish for Dismissal; Take Judicial Notice: United States District Court has limited jurisdiction and venue” [Doc. No. 31]

21. The government construes the above pleading as a motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. The government opposes this request.

Defendant’s “2nd Motion to Quash and Strike Prosecution’s Response for Failure to State Facts and Conclusions of Law” [Doc. No. 32]

22. The government construes the above pleading as a motion to strike the government’s March 7, 2014 Omnibus Response to the Defendant’s Motions Seeking Miscellaneous Relief, [Doc. No. 24]. The government opposes this request.

Defendant’s “Take Judicial Notice: Fraud Upon the Court, 2nd Motion For Lawyer A.J. Kramer to Step Aside as Ineffective Counsel” [Doc. No. 33]

23. The government construes the above pleading as expressing the defendant’s wish to represent himself. As to this request, the government takes no position.

Defendant’s “Motion for Discovery” [Doc. No. 34]

24. The government construes the above pleading as a motion to dismiss. The government opposes this request.

Defendant’s “Judicial Notice Motion to Remove United States Code 28 Section 2672 Administrative Adjustment of Claims” [Doc. No. 35]

25. The government construes the above pleading as a motion to dismiss. The government opposes this request.

Defendant’s “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” [Doc. No. 36]

26. The government construes the above pleading as a reply in further support of the defendant’s prior motions and a motion to dismiss for prosecutorial misconduct. The government opposes any request to dismiss the indictment. Insofar as this pleading responds to the government’s February 7, 2014 Omnibus Response to the Defendant’s Motions Seeking Miscellaneous Relief, [Doc. No. 17], and its March 7, 2014 Omnibus Response to the Defendant’s Motions Seeking Miscellaneous Relief, [Doc. No. 24], the government stands on its prior pleadings.

Defendant’s “Motion for Discovery” [Doc. No. 37]

27. The government construes the above pleading as a motion to dismiss. The government opposes this request.

Defendant’s “Administrative Notice and Demand: Writ of Error Coram Nobis” [Doc. No. 38]

28. The government construes the above pleading as a request to dismiss the indictment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue. The government opposes this request.

Defendant’s “Requirement to Have the Plaintiff Appear Before the District Court (This Court)” [Doc. No. 39]

29. This two-sentence pleading appears to request the presence of the United States before this Court. As at prior proceedings, counsel for the United States will continue to appear before this Court.

Defendant’s “Administrative Notice; In the Nature of Writ of Error Coram Nobis & A Demand For Dismissal or State the Proper Jurisdiction” [Doc. No. 41]

30. The government construes the above pleading as a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The government opposes this request.

Defendant’s “Take Judicial Notice: Prayer for Verification for Declaratory Status and Inquisition Status of Defendant” [Doc. No. 40]

31. The government construes the above pleading as a motion to dismiss. The government opposes this request.

Defendant’s “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” [Doc. No. 42]

32. The government construes the above pleading as a reply in further support of the defendant’s prior motions and a motion to dismiss for prosecutorial misconduct. The government opposes any request to dismiss the indictment. Insofar as this pleading responds to the government’s February 7, 2014 Omnibus Response to the Defendant’s Motions Seeking Miscellaneous Relief, [Doc. No. 17], and its March 7, 2014 Omnibus Response to the Defendant’s Motions Seeking Miscellaneous Relief, [Doc. No. 24], the government stands on its prior pleadings.

Defendant’s “Judicial Notice Motion to Remove United States Code 28 Section 2672 Administrative Adjustment of Claims” [Doc. No. 43]

33. The government construes the above pleading as a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The government opposes this request.

Defendant’s “Take Judicial Notice: Federal Rules Violations and Willful Fraud Upon the Court as Grounds for Motion of Dismissal, and a Request for Summary Judgment” [Doc. No. 44]

34. The government construes the above pleading as a motion to dismiss the indictment. The government opposes this request.

Defendant’s “Take Judicial Notice: Fraud Upon the Court, 2nd Motion for Lawyer A.J. Kramer to Step Aside as Ineffective Counsel” [Doc. No. 45]

35. The government construes the above pleading as a request for the defendant to represent himself. As to this request, the government poses no opposition.

Defendant’s “Take Judicial Notice: Verification for Declaratory Status Under the Tenth Amendment” [Doc. No. 46]

36. The government construes the above pleading as a motion to dismiss. The government opposes this request.

Defendant’s “2nd Motion for Discovery: F.R.C.P. Rule 37, F.R.C.P. Rule 16, And a Clarification of Bonds Used by the Plaintiff” [Doc. No. 47]

37. The government construes the above pleading as a motion to compel discovery. The government cannot discern the documents or information sought by the defendant and therefore opposes his request for relief.

Defendant’s “By Congressional Act: A Right to Act as a Private Attorney General, and by Constitutional Authority: to Receive Letters of Marque and Reprisal” [Doc. No. 48]

38. The government construes the above pleading as a motion to dismiss or a request that the defendant be declared a “Private Attorney General.” The government opposes both requests.

Defendant’s “Administrative Notice; In the Nature of Writ of Error Coram Nobis & A Demand For Dismissal or State the Proper Jurisdiction” [Doc. No. 49]

39. The government construes the above pleading as a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The government opposes this request.

Respectfully Submitted,

RONALD C. MACHEN JR. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY BAR NO. 447-889

By: _____/s/_____________________________ PETER C. LALLAS

Assistant United States Attorney New York Bar (202) 252-6879 Peter.Lallas@usdoj.gov

 

Advertisements