Are you looking for Solutions for America in Distress

You are in the right place to find out about what is really going on behind the scenes in the patriot movement in America, including solutions from Oathkeepers, Anna Von Reitz, Constitutional Sheriffs, Richard Mack, and many more people who are leading the charge to restore America to freedom and peace. Please search on the right for over 3300 articles.
You will find some conflicting views from some of these authors. You will also find that all the authors are deeply concerned about the future of America. What they write is their own opinion, just as what I write is my own. If you have an opinion on a particular article, please comment by clicking the title of the article and scrolling to the box at the bottom on that page. Please keep the discussion about the issues, and keep it civil. The administrator reserves the right to remove unwarranted personal attacks. Use the golden rule; "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Do not attempt to comment using the handle "Unknown" or "Anonymous". Your comment will be summarily deleted. Additionally we do not allow comments with advertising links in them for your products.

Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Good News from Friends in the Territorial/Municipal Trenches


From Anna Von Reitz

This announcement just came in from Rod Class --  he has won his Supreme Court Case which was argued October 4, 2017 by Jessica Amunson of Jenner and Block, Washington, DC.  Court case ID:  16-424 Class v. United States, decided today, February 21, 2018

It was a six to three decision with Breyer, Roberts, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Gorsuch vindicating, Alito, Kennedy, and Thomas dissenting. 

The Dropbox Link to today's Supreme Court Decision is here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mzzvyn80b6i6vcs/0000_18.2.21_Class_v_United_States_Case_16-424_6-3_Favorable_Decision.pdf?dl=0

The Link is in this Folder:


https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5xmpg5alst1rkle/AAAk8Q2pePW5PBoWjgdsIMnOa?dl=0

As many of you may recall, Rod Class was arrested in DC, simply for having firearms in his car.  Things got nasty and convoluted, as such things tend to do, and finally distilled into this Supreme Court action.

And here is the Dropbox link to the transcript of the oral arguments for those of you (like me) who prefer to read it and/or have a copy in written form.  


Rod has been on the forefront of the effort to limit government overreaches and get to the root of the problem of misadministration for many years now.  He has also trained many Private Attorney Generals to defend people who have been improperly addressed and attacked in federal and federated state courts. 

It's too early for me to assess the impact of this latest win as I haven't had time to review the transcript and think it through but, given the background, we can guess that it will lend substantial credence and strength to individual property rights claims, including gun rights, and may also underscore freedom to travel. 

 ----------------------------
See this article and over 800 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com
 To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website. 

31 comments:

  1. This is a great win for the collective push-back, and a victory for the 2nd Amendment and constitutional protections, in stare decisis fashion. Thanks for sharing, Anna!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Awesome! Congratulations to Rid Class and his dogged determination, and his brilliant mind! Us autists are still trying to wrap our minds around a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Put this together with the recent Bundy victory and I'm thinkin' 'the times they are a changin'!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Now if only we can RED PILL the populace at large... do we have enough feeding tube in this Land? Where is the Nursing Association when we need them the most? OH yes they are under FDA orders....that's right; the RED PILL is not on the OBAMA Care prescription approval list. maybe we can enlist the help of Veterinarians?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Here i am! What can i do for you?
    I have been prescribing wake-up pills to freedom-seeking minds and surley public servants for years!

    Stan Wolfe DVM

    ReplyDelete
  6. Here i am! What can i do for you?
    I have been prescribing wake-up pills to freedom-seeking minds and surley public servants for years!

    Stan Wolfe DVM

    ReplyDelete
  7. No injured party, no breach of the peace, no cause for action; here is a case by the para-legal Baron David Ward from jolly old England that quashes the 12 presumptions of colour of law; The hypocrisy of the secret ballot elective process, An englishman's home is his castle, No body gets paid on and for the record, The insanity of tax on and for the record, The companies act 2006 s.44 execution of documents, Affidavit of truth and statement of fact,
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/files/

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm so happy for Rod Class..I wonder if he would have won his case if Hillary won..!! I also wonder if Trump was informed of this case by his team of ATTORNEYS!! They sure wasted a lot of his time and money though..!! I hope he was successful in his "civil recouptment." I haven't read it yet but when I do I'll share my opinion..!!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I believe the main issue in this case was "What is meant by a guilty plea" as Rod did plea guilty to having a firearm in his vehicle. the court used this "PLEA" against him saying he could NOT raise another defense, such as the second Amendment, thus cutting the legs out from under Rod to defend himself via other arguments. The Supreme Court ruled that meaning or interpretation to NOT preclude "anything else whatsoever" as Rod was attempting to argue his case on the 2nd Amendment - they denied him bringing anything else in. Rod, apparently, just agreed that he did, in fact, have the guns in his car. The plea bargain did NOT have have stipulations as to what was or ws not barred. For years, people have gone to jail by admitting guilt and then were WRONGLY not allowed to bring Constitutional arguments. This ruling in the Rod Class hearing will prohibit that in the future. The case was NOT about the right to bear arms, but about the "meaning" of a guilty plea that has no written agreement. People may seek to reverse older cases based on this ruling!
    Tom Dooly

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Appreciate what you've presented here, Tom!

      Delete
    2. Tom yes people are assuming this is an overall gun right victory of some sorts, the only reason the court even accepted this case (which they reject 1,000's every year) is because they saw a legit Constitutional question that needed to be addressed and not clarified enough in previous cases it seems , they could care less about Rod or any of his rights. the fact is he plead guilty and the biggest reality in my mind is this boils down to contract law, the plea is essentially a contract , so after this ruling if they specify in more details what rights are being waved in a specific plea then you can still wave any future rights of appeal, so essentially the court showed the problem and they will fix it in future cases by making the plea deals more specific.

      Delete
    3. I read Rods petition to the court and his RIGHT to the "bounty huntrr" rule under the 14th amendment....it was a work of art, and spelled out the injustices of these tribunals. And where did it get him...he finally won, but only because he is one of those people, strong willed enough, to see the whole thing through to the end...stubborn until death..!! The point trying to make is his paperwork alone should have been cause for a "summery judgement"..!! That's why I harp so much about knowing courtroom proceedure..a minor insistence turned his life upside down..paperwork be damned!! When it's all done and said, you better be ready at a moment's notice how to deal with the courts and what to say to a judge, and to recognize the judges tricks into getting jurisdiction and turn it back on him...and to bond the case yourself, making the judge or prosecutor the "liable" ones..!! And unless you have done it a few times, it won't be easy, because we all know in the back of our minds that these courts can be the modern version of the "inquisition " if the judge determines that you are a threat to "public policy"!! And you don't have to get mad to do it, just smart and always remember that the most important word in any court is "Objection" of anything the judge says or does isn t in your favor, because if you let him get away with an infringement of "due process", it's gone for good after that.. and it's much harder to ever get back once you let the moment pass..!! You won't even be able to appeal it if you didn't "object" to something said by him or the prosecutor during the whole process..!! The last thing you want to do is drag a court case on forever...none of us are as strong willewilled enough, like Rod, to go through that..!! And the tone is immediately set at your first arraignmemt..!! Your "words" in front of a judge will override any paperwork you have filed or recorded, especially if you don't have any with you when your arrested...!!

      Delete
    4. ""because we all know in the back of our minds that these courts can be the modern version of the "inquisition " ""
      Almost correct but not "can be" they "are" , these are the modern day inquisitor for the State.


      CASE IN SUMMATION
      The Court of Appeals held that Class could not raise his constitutional claims because, by pleading guilty, he had waived them.
      VS
      The agreement said nothing about the right to raise on direct appeal a claim that the statute of conviction was unconstitutional.
      KEY SINGLE WORD IS "AGREEMENT" or CONTRACT as mentioned previously.

      Delete
    5. Why didn't he just "accept all charges(not the crimes) for value" , instead of pleading guilty and it would have ended right there.. !! Instead he pleads guilty and didn t even ask how much...that would have been the same as acceptance..!!

      Delete
    6. All this did was uphold that he had a right to appeal on constitutional grounds because he did not specifically wave those specific rights in the Plea Agreement.
      He still plead guilty and that still stands he is still guilty of the charges until he gets an appeal trial, at which point it may not even be overturned, I dont know the specifics did he have a State registered firearm ? which if registered as such with the State I'm not sure how you can claim 2nd amendment rights as a citizen gun owner? I didn't see Illegal-firearm or unregistered-firearm mentioned? And if he clearly had the registered firearm on Capitol grounds it seems like a pretty simply case to me... guilty as charged.

      Delete
    7. what he should have done is raised that from the beginning and stood on it. he never should have plead until they answered the FRCP 5.1(a) as well as FRCP 12(b)2 subject- matter jurisdiction; he lost from the intial proceedings by starting the case off and creating a controversy really instead making them prove there is a true genuine dispute or valid claim. he does not truly know who he is; he is a little mixed up using their rules and codes submitting to their jurisdiction and playing their game too far.

      and no james he did not win, it was remanded back down to District and he still faces 10 years and a pretty large fine. he should revoke and rescind his previous plea, maybe ask for forgiveness and that a mistake was made, potentially submit GSA bonds and bring back up FRCP 5.1, see what they can do to him from there.

      Delete
    8. went wrong when acknowledging authority and disclosing a 'status ' Why would one designate oneself as any subject ,when one should remain in a non representative capacity from the initial contact by Corporate Officer ?
      I DENT IT Y

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    10. I've followed Class for a few years and he has beat up the issue of the corporate state pretty well BUT as mention seems to not understand his relationship and capacities in it or not in it.
      I am just going through old stuff from Alfred Adask and right here he backs up exactly what I stated before about the Agreement/Contract:
      "Contracts are examples of 'private law" in which We The People make our own (limited) laws to govern you, me, or whoever signs our contracts. This contractual power is superior to the Constitution and protected as such in Article 1, Sect. 10 of the Constitution (No State shall . . .pass any . . . law impairing the Obligation of Contracts)."

      Delete
    11. I think if he had an unregistered gun in a non-citizen capacity he has a chance with challenging subject matter, But if he had a registered piece as a US citizen we are technically back to a contract he signed and that trumps everything else, I do not know what was the probably cause to even find the gun in the first place ??? This is no different to a traffic stop where they find drugs BUT had no initial cause to even make the stop ??? unless you gave consent to the search which again is a verbal contract and negates the lack of initial cause.

      Delete
  10. I listened to the oral arguments, you can too, Tom Dooly is very close... Rod Class did plead guilty, Rods argument, the guilty plea did not preclude him from appealing on other issues, being that they did not state in his guilty plea specifically barring him from appealing on other grounds such constitutional or improper application of the statute... He was in a Federal Government parking lot in D.C. with guns in his jeep. The statute barred guns on government property.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Appreciate your mention of the key element of "government property" as this can add clarity for understanding how government's jurisdiction is proprietary based.

      Delete
    2. read what i said just above that is where/why he went wrong.

      Delete
  11. So now he can go back to the lower court resume his arguments on either, statute improperly applied, improperly ratified, or violates constitutional issues/rights.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can follow or listen to back calls on Rod Class's D.C. gun case on talkshoe, many many hours worth on this case.

      Delete
    2. yes, he can try and raise both FRCP 5.1(a) and 12(b) 2 as that would be his only valid defense. he also needs to rescind and revoke his plea as a mistake was made and due to new information re-try the case and see what they say. apparently he does not know who is with unalienable, god-given rights, he must still think he s a 14th amendemnt/U.S.Citizen with civil rights which are really benefits and privileges for legal persons/voluntary servitude.

      Delete
  12. Good, now we need at least 50 more cases like this and we will be getting somewhere.
    Thanks for this news letter and the informative comments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. not really, it is remanded back down to District Court but they did give people a little nugget as to what they need to do from the onset by raising a Constitutional Challenge/Question of their unlawful statutes and codes, special, expost facto law

      Delete
  13. Dave Myrland breaks down the case

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fShiqo0Wutw

    ReplyDelete
  14. For more on Rod Class, click here. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99447-Rod-Class-his-many-hoaxes.

    ReplyDelete

Place your comment. The moderator will review it after it is published. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason.
DO NOT COMMENT USING THE HANDLE "Anonymous".or "unknown" YOUR COMMENT WILL BE DELETED IMMEDIATELY.