I'm still watching the fallout from the Restore America Plan, it's amazing, how long can absolutely no tangible results be used as proof that the plan is working? But RAPs slow disintegration has kicked a few new (to me) players up in it's wake. One is "Dr." Dale Livingston, he of the Ultimate Lawsuit fame and author of the instant classic ONE - HUNDRED - ONE ( 1 0 1 ) TORTURES TO THE DEATH. But even with all that Dr.Dale can't hold a candle to Rodney (Rod) Class.Let me tell you a little story 'bout a man named Rod,
poor sov-er-reign on a mission from God.
Then one day in an Admiralty court,
down through the clouds came a robot named Gort.
Klaatu barada nikto that is.
Random leaps of paradigm.,.
don't always make sense.
The first mention I've found of Rod is from a news story where Rod's brother blames the police for shooting a sovereign who pulled a gun during a traffic stop. I can't find the story on the Canton Repository website, that link goes to a FreeRepublic forum post quoting the article (on August 13th, 2002). The only mention of Rod is:
That New Philadelphia case is pure Rod Class, he got pulled over for expired plates and they found his license was both expired and under suspension. Surprisingly enough, Rod represented himself pro sey yet amazingly, he was convicted. Of course he appealed and his appeal was denied, but he didn't give up there. And here's where the amazing leaps of paradigm start, he tried to appeal it to the United States Coast Guard:Class said he has filed lawsuits over traffic violations involving himself and Rodney Class. One of the cases involves New Philadelphia police, he said.
Mmm, that's some authentic sovereign gibberish. I would love to be proved wrong on this point but I don't believe this petition ever resulted in a case number. That's OK, Rod has gotten further in his study of the legal system and is a genuine Private Attorney General now to boot. For most of the last year Rod has been flogging a lawsuit he had in court that would really cripple the evil US Corp. He sounded positively optimistic on some of his old talkshoe shows both for the outcome of the case and damage it will do to the IRS and all other entities they filed against, he's also fond of begging donations to assist him in his process. Well the second of this month the final judgment has been entered, Rod's case is dismissed:The above named Petitioners have cause to notify the Office of the United States Coast Guard for a claim of injury and pattern of un-Lawful activity. This injury was committed within a “Political subdivision “ of the “State” by “THE STATE OF OHIO” under provisions of the War Powers Act and Title 50 section 1621”Declarationof national emergency”. These administrative courts have failed to meet “Full Faith and Credit” obligations of contract that have a nation wide implication within the NDR Act of 1982. As the injured party , we claim a Right of Review actionable within the United States CodeTITLE 5 > PART I > CHAPTER 7 >,§ 702. Right of review. This Practice of Law TITLE 28 > PART I > CHAPTER 21 > § 454 and TITLE 28 > PART III > CHAPTER 41 > § 607, violates Article I section 10 “Obligation of Contract” and is by definition a “Bill of Attainder”.
But Rod's secret of success is his ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm, he's now steering himself (and his loyal donors) back into familiar waters. He's petitioning the US Coast Guard again (Microsoft Word .doc link).
<snip>
Buess and Class’s complaint is precisely the sort of complaint that warrants dismissal
under Rule 12(b)(6). “[T]he courts have unhesitatingly dismissed actions where the complaint[]
consisted of ‘a labyrinthian prolixity of unrelated and vituperative charges that def[y]
comprehension . . .’ [or] was ‘. . . confusing, ambiguous, redundant, vague and, in some respects,
unintelligible . . . .’” Brown, 75 F.R.D at 499 (quoting Prezzi v. Schelter, 469 F.2d 691, 692 (2d
Cir. 1972); Wallach v. City of Pagedale, 359 F.2d 57, 58 (8th Cir. 1968)). Over the course of its
thirty pages, Buess and Class’s complaint cites a disjointed jumble of cases, statutes and
doctrines, arguing that the U.S. government was replaced by a corporate shadow government as a
result of the 1933 amendments to the Trading with the Enemy Act, 12 U.S.C. § 95a.
<snip>
Because Buess and Class’s complaint presents “a confused and rambling narrative of charges and
conclusions,” Brown, 75 F.R.D. at 499, and “tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further
factual enhancement,’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, — U.S. —, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557), this action must be dismissed.
BILL OF INDICTMENT ATTACHED
Now Comes, We the People of the united States to bring claims of administrative violations against the UNITED STATES, d/b/a as a Corporation, a/k/a UNITED STATES,...
<snip>
"...The Eleventh Amendment affects Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between a State and Citizens of another State. By the same token, this clearly shows that the UNITED STATES or a State can not bring a Controversy in Law or Equity against any of the the People as well ! The Eleventh Amendment amended the whole of Section of 2 under Article III, not just where the People can not bring a claim against the UNITED STATES or the States. The Courts are, therefore, operating with NO Judicial Power to hear any controversies, and all controversies and trials are by jury, by the people (See Article 9 of the organic 1789 Bill of Rights in the National Archives, or the 7th Amendment in YOUR booklet.) There is no place in the 1787, 1860, or even in YOUR 2007 Constitution booklet that gives a Judge, alone, the power to make a decsion in any case. It cannot be found in ANY version of the published Constitutions, whichever year you choose to use. The Eleventh Amendment is in all of the Different Constitutions (since 1795) and clearly removes Judical Power in Law or Equity: The Eleventh Amendment also removes the rest of the organic clause 1 of Article III, Section 2, meaning, No Controversies in Law or Equity can be heard..."
<snip>
"...The Fourteenth Amendment clearly places this whole country under Military Rule / Law as the the Fourteenth Amendment has NOT been amended as Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution WAS. If the Fourteenth Amendment was a Fraud passed to usurp and overthrow a Constitutional form of government (See Exhibit A) then the military has the Duty and Authority under the Fourteenth Amendment to address This Petition / Complaint in an administrative hearing, as the military court is the ONLY court having power..."
And I was worried he couldn't make an argument for why the Coast Guard has jurisdiction.
I've never heard the "11th amendment brought judicial power to an end" argument before, is it original? I'm a mere mortal, not a limber minded sovereign citizen so I find some of Rod's leaps of logic a little hard to follow. But he sure is good at passing the offering plate at his online sovereign sermons. For these reasons, and for others, I predict rod will find himself on the medals podium in this years Sovereign Special Olympics.
