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/mzzv
The Link is in this Folder:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5xm
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.
The Link is in this Folder:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5xm
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.
17.10.4_Rod_Class_Supreme_Cour
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qeei
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qeei
Rod has been on the forefront of the effort to limit government
over-reaches and get to the root of the problem of mis-administration
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
6 comments:
Class' win has nothing to do with property rights or right to travel. The Supreme Court overturned the case on a technicality. Class challenged the constitutionality of the statute he was charged with after pleading guilty. The District and Appellate courts said you can't do that, you must do it before pleading guilty. This violated well settled prior decisions to the contrary, and the Supreme Court said yes, he can challenge the statute's constitutionality any time; they overturned the conviction and remanded back to the District Court.
Class can be prosecuted again. The District Court must rule on the constitutional challenges, and if they rule against Class he can be retried.
Don't let fake judge anna try to twist this into something it is not.
All the same; I think I'll wait to hear what the judge has to say.
its what he should have challenged and stood on that in the first place. FRCP 5.1(a) as a matter of fact everybody should; another good case challenging constitutional capacity and authority is john trowbridge jr v US
You're joking, right? Read it for yourself and make up your own mind. That lazy attitude is why nothing can ever ne accomplished. get out of the cult.
This was a criminal case, not a civil case. You don't seem to understand. The Supreme Court just sent it back and said correct this defect and then proceed accordingly.
The District and Appellate Courts said you signed a contract, waiving your right to appeal.
I'm surprised many didn't pay attention to the outlandish terms of the contract.
Bundy is not as studied as Rod and avoided signing their documents.
Rod signed himself into jail. He said he was sick and needed medical care and accepted their terms and then challenged the agreement because of the statue it was connected to.
No signature under duress, no constructive fraud written on their documents.
People asked him how did he sign on the calls when he got out and he never stated.
His signature was good enough for them to lock him out of the appeal on an unconstitutional statute.
Their case against Rod was weak. The plea(his signature on an agreement) contract held their claim against him.
Without it they had nothing even if a jury said guilty, he'd have to sign a contract with a prison to sit in jail.
You all look at what is shown to you and those that rely.on what Anna thinks to know what to think should do more research because Anna communicates on multiple levels and can't get you out of your own bindings because you can't see (or see only what things show you) and can't think (too unmotivated to research it)
Talkshoe is deleting old audios. Chances are likely the history of Rod's encounter and what he did are being deleted as they age two years.
He agreed and they held his agreement against him.
You need to learn to not agree to anything put before you, because they will use it against you.
Traffic tickets got words violator violation, and want you to sign to agree to appear or agree to contest or to have a hearing
These guys are using official oppression to give you that agreement, in crimes and punishment code, there is intent to defraud, coercion is in the code, extortion is in the code. None of Rod's paperwork claim those things. He studied it enough to be trapped inside the code, like Morpheus, not Neo
Post a Comment