Rod Class v. North Carolina

Moderators: Prof, Judge Roy Bean

User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 4959
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: Rod Class v. North Carolina

Postby Pottapaug1938 » Sat Jun 06, 2015 1:58 am

mrjaycanadian wrote:Hey Pottapaug1938.

The law & physics are to totally different topics.

Jay


Do tell.

You completely missed my point, Pal. Let me repeat it: whether it be physics, law, French cuisine or how to get the Red Sox to be able to hit their way out of a wet paper bag, I defer to the experts if I don't have enough knowledge of the subject. And yes, you WOULD have a bunch of physicists telling you that your assertions were gibberish if you cut and pasted them from various crank Internet sources and obsolete physics textbooks and journals. Your legal fantasies are NOT being rejected, just because you don’t have a Bar card and a membership to the lawyer’s club; they are rejected because they have no basis in the law. I no longer have a Bar card or a membership in any Bar association; but I am trained in how to study and interpret the law. An old friend of mine went to law school but never took the Bar Exam, simply because, as a retired Army colonel, he felt that he wanted to be able to know how to research the law correctly.

Crain and Wnuck are indeed legal opinions; and THEY ARE THE LAW, at least in the jurisdictions which handed them down. I commend them to you, because they will tell you a lot about why we don't like to dignify word salad with a reasoned response.

I'm not sure what you mean -- if anything worthwhile, by asking if you "can use" common law in the USA and Canada; but along with statutory law, it defines your rights and liabilities in a given jurisdiction.

And yes, the problem IS "word salad" -- out-of-context quotes taken from fringe sites and out-of-date legal dictionaries.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7197
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Rod Class v. North Carolina

Postby Famspear » Sat Jun 06, 2015 2:05 am

mrjaycanadian wrote:Hey Burnaby49.

No, I am fully aware that the Courts don't follow my rules, even moreso, I wouldn't even pretend they did.

Sorry to say it, but I fear the Courts don't have to follow any rules.......

I simply believe the Courts should at the very least follow their own rules of law.

As it has been explained to me, the Court is = A Prosecutor (the mover) and his (case), as it is his Court, he defines the rules of his Courts.


That is incorrect. The "court" is the judge. (The term "court" is also used to describe the court room, of course.) The court is not a "mover". A party that files a "motion" is called "movant." Perhaps you're confused. The judge has some limited power to set rules in his court but, in general, the job of the judge is to interpret the law, to preside over cases, to make rulings, to issue decrees, orders or judgments.

Examples:
- A Prosecutor in Family Court, would follow the rules of Family Court?
- A Prosecutor in Tax Court, would follow the rules of Tax Court?
- A Prosecutor in Bankruptcy Court, would follow the rules of Bankruptcy Court?

Aren't the above (3) examples true?


You keep using the word "prosecutor." The term "prosecution" is sometimes used to refer to the action of a plaintiff in pursuing a civil case

But usually the term "prosecutor" refers to a government official who represents the government in a criminal case. In that sense, there is no "prosecutor" in Family Court, Tax Court, or Bankruptcy Court. And the judge is not the "prosecutor" either.

If I bring a proper claim into Court, and I move that claim under the rules setup in that Court, as I and my claim (the case) are the Court. Is that true or not true?


No, you are not "the court". You are a party in the case. The judge is "the court".
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 4959
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: Rod Class v. North Carolina

Postby Pottapaug1938 » Sat Jun 06, 2015 2:13 am

Our latest troll said:

Let’s see – I go into Court & submit paperwork siting Smith vs Smith, Johns vs Keating & Ford vs USA.

What is the Judge going to say – “Jay, that’s your opinion and as you are not licensed, your opinion lacks merit.”

What are you going to say: “Jay, you are completely wrong.”


No. You will be asked to show how these three cases support the legal position which you are taking in court. If you are proceeding pro se, if your cases actually do support your position, you have increased the likelihood that it will prevail. You will only be told "you are completely wrong" if the court rules that the cases don't apply, that they are outdated and have since been overruled by later decisions or by subsequent legislation, or you have misinterpreted what the cases say.

Now, stop moving the goalposts.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools

User avatar
Dr. Caligari
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Crickets
Posts: 1520
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 11:02 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Rod Class v. North Carolina

Postby Dr. Caligari » Sat Jun 06, 2015 2:43 am

Question 1 - Are these Crain and Wnuck decisions you mention – Are these legal opinion of some type?


Yes, they are court decisions that have some precedential authority in U.S. courts.

Question 2 – Is the common law available to me to use in Canada & the USA?


It depends upon what sense you are using the words "common law" in. Do you mean "common law" as the opposite of "civil law" (as in "the United States and Canada are common law jurisdictions, but France and Spain are civil law jurisdictions")? Or "common law" as the opposite of "statutory law" (as in "cases to which the UCC does not apply are usually governed by the common law of contracts")? Or "common law" as the opposite of "equity" (as in "there is no Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in an injunction case, because injunctions are not a common law remedy")?

Question 3 – Would I be able to bring a verified claim into court, to be settled?


Depends on the court; some permit verified claims, some don't.

Question 4 – Am I bound to only filing some type of complaint into court?


If you want to win, yes, you can only file a complaint that (a) is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the particular court (you can't, for example, sue for a divorce in traffic court), and (b) has some legal and factual merit under the governing law (you can't sue me for not wearing green on St. Patrick's Day and expect to recover damages).
Dr. Caligari
(Du musst Caligari werden!)

User avatar
arayder
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 4:17 pm

Re: Rod Class v. North Carolina

Postby arayder » Sat Jun 06, 2015 4:09 am

mrjaycanadian wrote:Hey arayder.

I never wrote anything about conspiracies or anything about the Court getting its authority through birth certificates.


I see we are going to be playing these word games with you again.

The fact is you clearly referenced the theory that the courts get jurisdiction over folks from having tricked their parents into registering their births.

And you say the same thing in your reply and assume nobody will notice. . .

Jurisdiction is about having control over something, and one’s birth certificate is merely evidence of one’s person.


I see your new persona is no more genuine than your last one.

You still haven't explained how the courts in days of old (if I remember correctly you love the days of old) established jurisdiction over people who didn't have birth certificates.

Substance please.

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6363
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Rod Class v. North Carolina

Postby wserra » Sat Jun 06, 2015 12:24 pm

mrjaycanadian wrote:If I was charged with a crime, I would tell the court that - 'I, a man Jay, am here and the person is present; by Special Appearance'.


And the court would say. "There is no such thing as a special appearance in a criminal case." And the court will have the last word.

Then I would say - "I require pen & paper and a leave of Court, to properly answer the Court."


And the court will say, "This isn't a stationery store." And the court will have the last word.

They can use force and/or violence since they have guns, tasers, pepper-spray, nightsticks, etc., yes, they can throw me in jail.


Yes they can, and - if it comes to that - yes they will. As they would with Karl Lentz, from whom you're getting this nonsense.

That's doesn't mean they are or more to the point, acting lawfully.


Well then, I'm sure that you (or Lentz) have sued and won for false arrest. Cite, please.

For example, its the same way if I was to use force and/or violence to rape you and then to physical detain you in my basement. Anyone can force another to do something against their will, that doesn't mean they are right, nor that there isn't a remedy.


So please prove that anyone has successfully used your "remedy" against a court that has failed to recognize the brilliance of your arguments. There are plenty of examples of "remedy" against someone who "was to use force and/or violence to rape you and then to physical detain you in my basement". Provide one in which you (or Lentz) successfully sued a court.

You wrote: "What then? What do you do if the court decides (as they always do), that they don't need your consent."

I would sue then in law; common.


Now we're getting somewhere. Citation, please.

But the bigger question is - 'Do you believe that the Government has the authority to do whatever it wants, especially without some type of lawful process?'


Of course I don't. And I have the six and seven figure verdicts and settlements that prove I back that up where it counts - in the real world.

Please show us yours.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 4429
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 6:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker
Contact:

Re: Rod Class v. North Carolina

Postby Gregg » Sat Jun 06, 2015 1:38 pm

You still haven't explained how the courts in days of old (if I remember correctly you love the days of old) established jurisdiction over people who didn't have birth certificates.


By tricking the parents into being in the USA (or wherever applicable to the argument) when you were born?
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.

User avatar
Duke2Earl
Eighth Operator of the Delusional Mooloo
Posts: 590
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 11:09 pm
Location: Neverland

Re: Rod Class v. North Carolina

Postby Duke2Earl » Sat Jun 06, 2015 3:07 pm

The essence of the problem here is that some people think that if they really, really, really believe something, that makes it true despite all evidence to the contrary.
My choice early in life was to either be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politican. And to tell the truth there's hardly any difference.

Harry S Truman

User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 4959
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: Rod Class v. North Carolina

Postby Pottapaug1938 » Sat Jun 06, 2015 3:14 pm

Duke2Earl wrote:The essence of the problem here is that some people think that if they really, really, really believe something, that makes it true despite all evidence to the contrary.


To quote Charles P. Pierce's Third Great Premise of Idiot America: "Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is determined by how fervently they believe it."
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools

LightinDarkness
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1326
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 4:40 pm

Re: Rod Class v. North Carolina

Postby LightinDarkness » Mon Jun 08, 2015 1:48 pm

Mrjay, do you know how many times this has worked for Karl Lentz or any of his followers?

Let me add up the numbers...

0.

This is really simple, my dear mrjay: put up the evidence. Give one single court cite where someone presented these arguments and won. There are none. Wait, let me guess, that is because everyone except YOU has been wrong on the exact magical incantation to cite to pull this off in court?

rogfulton
Caveat Venditor
Posts: 528
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 11:08 am
Location: No longer behind the satellite dish, second door along - in fact, not even in the same building.

Re: Rod Class v. North Carolina

Postby rogfulton » Tue Jun 09, 2015 1:15 am

LightinDarkness wrote:Mrjay, do you know how many times this has worked for Karl Lentz or any of his followers?

Let me add up the numbers...

0.

This is really simple, my dear mrjay: put up the evidence. Give one single court cite where someone presented these arguments and won. There are none. Wait, let me guess, that is because everyone except YOU has been wrong on the exact magical incantation to cite to pull this off in court?

No LiD, it's because the cases are double-secret, don't reveal or you'll get federally mudered decisions. :haha: :brickwall:
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor."
- President Theodore Roosevelt

Jeffrey
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:16 am

Re: Rod Class v. North Carolina

Postby Jeffrey » Tue Jul 12, 2016 2:24 am

Micro-update. Rod's appeal was denied on the basis that he gave up his right to appeal as part of his guilty plea.

Interestingly he got an actual law firm to file an amicus brief on his behalf, which didn't do him any good since it was moot at that point.

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10911
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Rod Class v. North Carolina

Postby notorial dissent » Tue Jul 12, 2016 4:20 am

Amazing, that only took them what half a year to decide? When it should have been a foregone conclusion.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Paths of the Sea
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 808
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:18 pm

Re: Rod Class v. North Carolina

Postby Paths of the Sea » Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:25 pm

Small world!

Ken Scott (aka Rivers of Life News) posted an anti-driver's license video recently which caught my attention, and we have been bantering in the comments section following it.

Today he referred me to a Rod Class video from 2013 which appears to headline his North Carolina case.

I was glad to see, not unexpectedly though, that the Quatloosians were up on it, and so I referred Ken to this thread as part of my response.

Ken's video link:

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

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10911
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Rod Class v. North Carolina

Postby notorial dissent » Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:44 pm

For completeness, Class is back annoying the NC State Industrial Commission over having gotten tossed out of a driver's license hearing when he tried to represent the actual party involved. The actual hearing on why he got tossed is forthcoming.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Paths of the Sea
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 808
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:18 pm

Re: Rod Class v. North Carolina

Postby Paths of the Sea » Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:07 am

notorial dissent wrote:For completeness, Class is back annoying the NC State Industrial Commission over having gotten tossed out of a driver's license hearing when he tried to represent the actual party involved. The actual hearing on why he got tossed is forthcoming.


That might be a nice followup to post something on where I am archiving the exchange with Ken Scott and maybe even on Ken's video page.

Thanks,
Maury Enthusiast!

GlimDropper
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 308
Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 5:58 pm

Re: Rod Class v. North Carolina

Postby GlimDropper » Wed Feb 22, 2017 1:00 am

OK, I understand that sometimes God likes to have a little joke with all of us and though the Supreme Court isn't exactly God but they might have a sense of humor as well yet none of that accounts for this:

CERTIORARI GRANTED
16-424 CLASS, RODNEY V. UNITED STATES
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cou ... r_o759.pdf (pg 4 of 42 per my pdf viewer)

Ummm,...I feel like I'm missing something here.

ETA: A little more info: http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/02/one-n ... r-dissent/

Class v. United States is the case of Rodney Class, a retired veteran who has a permit to carry a concealed firearm in North Carolina, where he lives. But when Class traveled to Washington and parked his car – containing three guns – in a parking lot near the U.S. Capitol, he was arrested and charged with violating a federal law prohibiting weapons on the Capitol grounds. Class pleaded guilty and then tried to argue on appeal that the law was unconstitutional, for two reasons: It violated his Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” for self-defense and it failed to provide sufficient notice of where weapons are prohibited. The government countered that the plea agreement, even if it did not do so explicitly, waived Class’s right to appeal, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed. The case will almost certainly be argued in the fall, with a decision expected by summer 2018.
Last edited by GlimDropper on Wed Feb 22, 2017 1:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10911
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Rod Class v. North Carolina

Postby notorial dissent » Wed Feb 22, 2017 1:17 am

The only thing Federal he has going currently was the Appellate case he lost on his conviction from last year. They told him NO he couldn't appeal as it was part of the plea. He appealed anyway. I can't imagine why the USSC accepted it, but we shall see I guess.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

GlimDropper
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 308
Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 5:58 pm

Re: Rod Class v. North Carolina

Postby GlimDropper » Wed Feb 22, 2017 1:23 am

I squeezed in my edit a moment after ND made his post but from a layman's perspective it looks like in all the flurry of horse hockey Rod Class has filed in his career he may have finally and more or less inadvertently hit on a valid legal issue. Question, who is going to argue his case before the court*? If it's him, do they sell tickets?

The sad thing is that this will make Rodney Dale Class the most accomplished (pretend) Private Attorney General in all of the fantasy Republic.

*- Copy of the petition which is clearly nothing at all, not in the least very little bit anything even remotely like Class's work and which lists R. TRENT MCCOTTER (in all caps) as counsel of record.

Paths of the Sea
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 808
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:18 pm

Re: Rod Class v. North Carolina

Postby Paths of the Sea » Wed Feb 22, 2017 2:22 am

So, if Mr. Class wins his appeal before the Supreme Court, the case will simply be returned to the appeals court to decide the merits of the appeal; on which he might be expected to lose again, after which the Supreme Court will then deny certiorari???

I guess Mr. Class will get his bonus points regardless of the outcome.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!


Return to “US”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests