Class, Rodney Dale

[notorial dissent]

Surprise, surprise...NOT!!!!!

Here's hoping the Appeals Court all get up on the wrong side of the bed that morning.

[Jeffrey]

Rod Class makes an appearance with none other than Dean Clifford last week in this clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnWWdFktV8Q

[mrjaycanadian]

I see where Rod Class is coming from, but he's trying to submit paperwork into a private, card carrying membership of the bar within the legal society.

His paperwork isn't gibberish, as it is all styled their way, but he is using copyright material, along with not having a bar card.

His plea deal as I see it was a last ditch effort to stay out of jail time and the probation is to keep him on a short leash.

Rod wants to "teach" his private attorney general position to people who lack knowing who they are, as in common law, a man/woman is the top of pyramid and everything else is below that status.

The courts are not so much corrupt, as in the legal society has used our good nature to trick us into thinking one can receive a fair & open trial, in the status of defendant, of which is the losing position from the start. No amount of paperwork will help you, did depends strictly on the judge's demeanor at that point of time, as in he may like you and throw you a bone, as is why some defendant's are successful from time to time.

It wasn't Rod's paperwork that had the judge continuously have him in contempt, it was he was trying to talk to a 2D pile of paper that was the plaintiff, the judge is a translator and couldn't translate for him, as it would be seen as gibberish.

The proper response when then judge asked for him to say guilty or not guilty was; "I require pen & paper and I require a leave of court, to answer the court proper".

Then wrote:
1) Is there a verified claim?
2) Is there a verified claim before the court?
3) Is there a man/woman present to testify that the verified claim is true, under oath or affirmation?

Yes, it may have been true that the judge agree with him, but the judge is bound by procedure and obligation within his duty.

The conspiracy wasn't that of Rod's paperwork or the jury selection would interfere with him getting a fair trial, as the reason he couldn't receive a fair trial is the giant Conflict of Interest going on - specifically:

1) The Judge, Prosecuting Attorney, Court clerk, Court reporter & Bailiff are Officers/Agents/Employees/etc., of the Complaining Party - aka the Government).
2) There is no 3rd Party impartial witness, as the Police Officers, IRS agents, Child Aid Workers, etc., are also under the scope of the Government.
3) There is no verified complaint and the man/woman to testify that the verified claim is true, under oath or affirmation.
4) As there is no verified claim outlining a wrong - a loss, injury or harm to be compensated.

*(This was the whole reason OJ Simpson got a not guilty for killing his wife, the Prosecuting Attorney, Marcia Clark had a truck load of facts & evidence, but no 3rd Party impartial witness to testify.)

Rod should have claimed the common law and stayed out of their society of legalese and legal fictions; with the only paperwork being entered into the court being his (1) page, (2 to 3) sentence proper claim.

[rogfulton]

I see where Rod Class is coming from, but he's trying to submit paperwork into a private, card carrying membership of the bar within the legal society.

His paperwork isn't gibberish, as it is all styled their way, but he is using copyright material, along with not having a bar card.

His plea deal as I see it was a last ditch effort to stay out of jail time and the probation is to keep him on a short leash.

Rod wants to "teach" his private attorney general position to people who lack knowing who they are, as in common law, a man/woman is the top of pyramid and everything else is below that status.

The courts are not so much corrupt, as in the legal society has used our good nature to trick us into thinking one can receive a fair & open trial, in the status of defendant, of which is the losing position from the start. No amount of paperwork will help you, did depends strictly on the judge's demeanor at that point of time, as in he may like you and throw you a bone, as is why some defendant's are successful from time to time.

It wasn't Rod's paperwork that had the judge continuously have him in contempt, it was he was trying to talk to a 2D pile of paper that was the plaintiff, the judge is a translator and couldn't translate for him, as it would be seen as gibberish.

The proper response when then judge asked for him to say guilty or not guilty was; "I require pen & paper and I require a leave of court, to answer the court proper".

Then wrote:
1) Is there a verified claim?
2) Is there a verified claim before the court?
3) Is there a man/woman present to testify that the verified claim is true, under oath or affirmation?

Yes, it may have been true that the judge agree with him, but the judge is bound by procedure and obligation within his duty.

The conspiracy wasn't that of Rod's paperwork or the jury selection would interfere with him getting a fair trial, as the reason he couldn't receive a fair trial is the giant Conflict of Interest going on - specifically:

1) The Judge, Prosecuting Attorney, Court clerk, Court reporter & Bailiff are Officers/Agents/Employees/etc., of the Complaining Party - aka the Government).
2) There is no 3rd Party impartial witness, as the Police Officers, IRS agents, Child Aid Workers, etc., are also under the scope of the Government.
3) There is no verified complaint and the man/woman to testify that the verified claim is true, under oath or affirmation.
4) As there is no verified claim outlining a wrong - a loss, injury or harm to be compensated.

*(This was the whole reason OJ Simpson got a not guilty for killing his wife, the Prosecuting Attorney, Marcia Clark had a truck load of facts & evidence, but no 3rd Party impartial witness to testify.)

Rod should have claimed the common law and stayed out of their society of legalese and legal fictions; with the only paperwork being entered into the court being his (1) page, (2 to 3) sentence proper claim.

I think even DMVP would have trouble following this authentic FOTL/sovcit gibberish

[Burnaby49]

I admit I had some problems trying to follow this;

It wasn't Rod's paperwork that had the judge continuously have him in contempt, it was he was trying to talk to a 2D pile of paper that was the plaintiff, the judge is a translator and couldn't translate for him, as it would be seen as gibberish.

[Jeffrey]

What's sad is that I fully understood what that guy wrote and knew where he got it from.

[mrjaycanadian]

Umm no, I am a man.

Freeman on the land is a process of dealing in any court where the prosecutor is the Government.

Parts of the FOTL are information, especially with the use of a notice and communicating with the other people, but its a little too angry & confrontational for me; along with the need of legal paperwork.

I'm talking about the common law, you are aware that both Canada & the USA have common law, as a choice of jurisdiction to proceed with a man/woman's claim.

Look at the US Court website:

http://www.broadmind.org/uploads/usdc_a ... 2._pdf.pdf

There are statutory claims courts & common law claims courts.

Statutory - based on paperwork & procedure - the Gov't is the prosecutor
Common law - based on man/woman vs another man/woman - the man/woman is the prosecutor

[Jeffrey]

I find it interesting that you deliberately ignore the "state criminal offenses" part of the website.

[rogfulton]

Umm no, I am a man.

Freeman on the land is a process of dealing in any court where the prosecutor is the Government.

Parts of the FOTL are information, especially with the use of a notice and communicating with the other people, but its a little too angry & confrontational for me; along with the need of legal paperwork.

I'm talking about the common law, you are aware that both Canada & the USA have common law, as a choice of jurisdiction to proceed with a man/woman's claim.

Look at the US Court website:

http://www.broadmind.org/uploads/usdc_a ... 2._pdf.pdf

There are statutory claims courts & common law claims courts.

Statutory - based on paperwork & procedure - the Gov't is the prosecutor
Common law - based on man/woman vs another man/woman - the man/woman is the prosecutor

FOTL is a man or woman who thinks they can hide behind their own version of common law, not 'information' or a 'process'.

By the way, your link is not to a court website. Just thought you would want to know.

[LPC]

I see where Rod Class is coming from, but he's trying to submit paperwork into a private, card carrying membership of the bar within the legal society.

Nothing like a fresh whiff of paranoid gibberish first thing in the morning.

What you write is not only not right, it's not even wrong.

And welcome to Quatloos.

[LPC]

I'm talking about the common law, you are aware that both Canada & the USA have common law, as a choice of jurisdiction to proceed with a man/woman's claim.

Okay, that's just plain wrong.

Common law is not about jurisdiction, because the jurisdiction of courts of the United States, both as to the subject matter of the proceedings before them and the personal jurisdiction over the parties before them, is determined by statute and by federal and state constitutions. Common law provides substantive civil remedies in some cases (I don't think that there is any state that recognizes any common law crimes), but has nothing to do with jurisdiction.

And there is no choice between common law and statutory law. If there is a statute, then the statute controls, and if there is no statute, then common law *might* apply (assuming that there is a history of common law on that subject).

So, for example, the Pennsylvania Uniform Trust Act (Chapter 77 of Title 20 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes), which was enacted in 2006, provides in 20 Pa.C.S. § 7706 that "The common law of trusts and principles of equity supplement this chapter, except to the extent modified by this chapter or another statute of this Commonwealth." (Emphasis added.)

[mrjaycanadian]

Hey Burnaby49

Sorry, I need to be more clear & simple, so I will try to explain.

The topic of going to court:

All government agents presume that their authority comes from statute and that statute has jurisdiction over everyone and that everyone is operating within their 'person'.

The courtroom setup - The government can only deal with other legal fictions, that's why the government created the Birth Certificate (I think its the Vital Statistics department that lists your birth as a creation event, as this department doesn't track people, only events).

*So no, the Birth Certificate isn't an evil or bad thing to have, as its not me a man, its my person -- a tool for me to use.

1) The Plaintiff (prosecutor) - is the Government, a body corporate (legal fiction).
[The Court is the prosecutor & its valid case -- its not the Judge.]

2) The Defendant - is one's legal person, its not the man/woman
[A man/woman are the surety for their person.]

3) The Judge/Magistrate is the referee/translator to case in front of him.

The Prosecuting Attorney is the representative for the Prosecutor (the mover of the case), who is the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff is the Government/a body corporate that only exists on paper through its Charter -- can only communicate through its paperwork & to be responded to with paperwork.

The Court clerk takes the parties paperwork, then the Judge reviews it & decides if it follows the rules of whoever is holding Court in front of him.
(The use of Motions, Demurs, forms, etc.)

Rod Class was the surety for his legal person, the procedure the judge will accept, its either with paperwork or the verbal statement of guilty or not guilty.

Since Rod did not respond properly, that's why the Judge continuously held him in contempt because anything else was seen as gibberish & cannot have been accepted by the Plaintiff.

I'm sorry & hope this helps explain what I stated earlier.

*I'm neither for nor against Rod Class - he should have stopped putting all his useless paperwork in that was merely his legal opinions.

Rod should have answer properly of requiring a pen & paper and a leave of Court; to ask the question of - Is their a verified claim before the Court?

(This is simply asking for clarification of - is their a claim of a wrong and is their a loss, injury or harm for the defendant to answer to. Its basic - as in it is asking for Full Disclosure, of which is afforded to all defendants, be it for the crime of murder or a traffic offense.)

Jay

[Judge Roy Bean]

Jay - you're so far off into the weeds that it isn't worth parsing the gibberish.

[Burnaby49]

All government agents presume that their authority comes from statute and that statute has jurisdiction over everyone and that everyone is operating within their 'person'.

And they're right.

[arayder]

The courtroom setup - The government can only deal with other legal fictions, that's why the government created the Birth Certificate (I think its the Vital Statistics department that lists your birth as a creation event, as this department doesn't track people, only events).

The idea that the court's get their authority through birth certificates is a dead end theory.

When you get in front of the judge, rather than prattle on about your birth certificate, he or she will correctly inform you that you are a natural person subject to the rule of law.

I have yet to hear anyone reconcile the jurisdiction-through-birth-certificate theory with the fact that years ago the courts had jurisdiction over natural persons who had their births recorded in no place other than the family Bible.

[notorial dissent]

To borrow from a previous post,

What you write is not only not right, it's not even wrong.

You need not strive any further for simplicity, you have proven your simpleness, and what you are presenting is gibberish. Class is the poster child for geriatric senility, none of his "stuff" has any basis in reality, and he has lost at his every attempt in court, far from being afraid of him, the courts laugh at him, and regrettably tolerate his senile antics to a degree. Instead of being out on parole, which he will eventually violate, he should be in prison where he belongs for the simple reason he is a dangerous lunatic.

You are simply, completely, and absolutely WRONG in every respect.

[Famspear]

All government agents presume that their authority comes from statute and that statute has jurisdiction over everyone and that everyone is operating within their 'person'.

Your use of terms is incorrect. Strictly speaking "statutes" don't have "jurisdiction". Statutes are laws enacted by a legislature. These laws apply to people and situations. Government agents do probably assume that their authority comes from statutes.

There is no such thing in law as operating "outside" your "person" in the sense in which I suspect you mean. You're been reading gibberish, and you're repeating it.

The courtroom setup - The government can only deal with other legal fictions....

Completely incorrect. You and I are not legal fictions. And the government can most certainly "deal" with us.

......that's why the government created the Birth Certificate (I think its the Vital Statistics department that lists your birth as a creation event, as this department doesn't track people, only events).

Baloney. Birth certificates were created as a way of providing documentation for births. The creation of birth certificates has nothing to do with whether the government can deal only with "legal fictions."

....The Plaintiff (prosecutor) - is the Government, a body corporate (legal fiction).
[The Court is the prosecutor & its valid case -- its not the Judge.]

That's gibberish. The Court is not "the prosecutor". And yes, generally speaking, "the court" is a term that in some legal context means "the judge."

The Defendant - is one's legal person, its not the man/woman
[A man/woman are the surety for their person.]

Again, that's gibberish. You don't know what you're talking about. If you are a defendant in a court case, you are the defendant. Your statement that a man or woman is a "surety" for "their person" is gibberish.

.....The Judge/Magistrate is the referee/translator to case in front of him.

The judge is the person who decides questions of law in a court case. Your use of the term "translator" is another example of your use of gibberish.

The Prosecuting Attorney is the representative for the Prosecutor (the mover of the case), who is the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff is the Government/a body corporate that only exists on paper through its Charter -- can only communicate through its paperwork & to be responded to with paperwork.

That's more gibberish.

Rod Class was the surety for his legal person....

No. Again, that's gibberish. Your statement has no meaning in American law -- at least not with respect to the Rod Class case.

I'm sorry & hope this helps explain what I stated earlier.

What your statements illustrate is that you don't know what you're talking about.

I hope that helps.

[Famspear]

Mrjaycanadian wrote:

Statutory - based on paperwork & procedure - the Gov't is the prosecutor
Common law - based on man/woman vs another man/woman - the man/woman is the prosecutor

That's gibberish.

In law, the term "statutory" means "relating to a statute." A statute is a law enacted by a legislature. In a given case, a statute may apply. That case may involve a criminal prosecution or it may involve a "civil" (in the sense of non-criminal) matter.

In a criminal case, the government is indeed the "prosecutor." And, in the United States at least, most or perhaps all criminal cases involve violations of statutes. (There may be a state somewhere that has retained the common law of crimes, but I'm not aware of any.)

Common law is not "based on man/woman vs another man/woman." Common law is a term with various legal meanings.

In the United States (and presumably in England, Canada, Australia, and so on), the term "common law" refers to the common law of England. In this respect, the term can mean, variously:

A. the primarily judge-made law from England which spread from England to its colonies, and which forms the basis of American law and which remains the law to the extent not changed by statute, etc.; or

B. the system of law received by the United States from England, including the "law courts" (and the rules promulgated or interpreted by those courts) and the "equity courts" (and the rules promulgated or interpreted by those courts).

The term "common law" is also used to differentiate the system of law of places such as England, the United States and Canada from the so-called "civil law" system found in many places on the continent of Europe.

So, the term "common law," like many other terms, has different shades of meaning depending on how it is used.

But, trying to define "common law" as being merely the system "based on man/woman vs another man/woman" is really just another example of your use of gibberish.

Gibberish. unintelligible or meaningless language [ . . . ] pretentious or needlessly obscure language.

--Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 484, G. & C. Merriam Co. (8th Ed. 1976).

So, jay, if I were you, I would not make any more attempts to explain the law.

I hope that helps.

[Famspear]

Here is an example illustrating why jay’s explanations of “common law” and “statutory law” are incorrect or at best misleading: U.S. Federal income tax refund suits.

Under English common law, there was no right to sue the Crown for a tax refund of an overpaid tax. Instead, the English common law provided that the taxpayer could maintain a lawsuit only against the Crown’s “collector” of internal revenue for an “unjustified collection.”

In 1887, the U.S. Congress passed a statute called the Tucker Act of 1887 (the Act of March 3, 1887, ch. 359, 24 Stat. 505). Today’s version of that part of the Tucker Act relevant to this discussion is found at 28 U.S.C. section 1346(a), which reads (in part):

(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, concurrent with the United States Court of Federal Claims, of:

(1) Any civil action against the United States for the recovery of any internal-revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority or any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected under the internal-revenue laws.....

The common law right to sue the “collector” for an unjustified collection has been removed by Congress, by statute. Today, the Internal Revenue Code (a statute) provides (in part):

§ 7422. Civil actions for refund

(a) NO SUIT PRIOR TO FILING CLAIM FOR REFUND.--No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Secretary [of the Treasury or his delegate], according to the provisions of law in that regard, and the regulations of the Secretary established in pursuance thereof [ . . . ]

(f) LIMITATION ON RIGHT OF ACTION FOR REFUND.--

(1) GENERAL RULE.--A suit or proceeding referred to in subsection (a) may be maintained only against the United States and not against any officer or employee of the United States (or former officer or employee) or his personal representative. [ . . . ]

--from Internal Revenue Code section 7422, 26 U.S.C. section 7422.

Thus, the common law right to sue for a U.S. federal tax refund no longer exists.

A suit by an individual taxpayer for a U.S. federal income tax refund is a suit by an individual (not a prosecution by the government). In this kind of suit -- based on a set of statutes -- the government is not the plaintiff, and is certainly not the “prosecutor.” In fact, the “United States” (that is, the national government of the United States of America) is actually the proper defendant.

Jay’s idea that, in statutory law, the “the Gov't is the prosecutor” is sometimes correct, and (as illustrated here) is sometimes incorrect.

I hope that helps.

[mrjaycanadian]

Hey arayder.

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

I wrote that the government created the Birth Certificate & I think it’s the Vital Statistics department that lists a birth as a documented event.

Also, I never wrote anything about getting in front of the judge and speaking, especially about a birth certificate, Buddha, bananas or anything else.

Exactly what part of not speaking in Court at all, you use your paperwork by writing your response and entering it into the Court and have it presented to the Prosecutor for reading & inspection.

*(I base my position on that ‘anything you say, can & will be held against you’. You never talk to government agents about yourself, that’s self-incrimination.)
Jurisdiction is about having control over something, and one’s birth certificate is merely evidence of one’s person.

Yes you are correct, when you get in front of the Judge, he or she will correctly inform you that you are a natural person subject.

Black’s Law 4Th Ed. - A person is such, not because he is human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to him. The person is the legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes. An individual human being considered as having such attributes is what lawyers call a natural person. Pollock, First Book of Jurispr. 110. Gray, Nature and Sources of Law, ch. IL

If one consents to giving the Court personal jurisdiction over their person that’s what would give the Court jurisdiction, not the fact that the date one was born, is recorded in a family Bible. Again the birth certificate has nothing to do with jurisdiction or anything else, accept for it is evidence of one’s person.