Scanned Retina



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 333 Constitution Ave N.W. Washington, District of Columbia 20001

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CASE # 1:13 cr 00253 NO KNOW ADDRESS ENTITY UNDISCLOSED

Wrongdoer Fictitious, Foreign Plaintiff

VS

Title 28, Ch. 5, District Court, § 88 District of Columbia Constitutional Article III Court Judge Gladys Kessler

RODNEY DALE CLASS (Government Registered Trade Name, WARD, TRUST, ESTATE, JOINT STOCK SHARE) POST OFFICE BOX 435 CITY OF HIGH SHOALS STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ZIP CODE 28077

Rodney-Dale; Class Private Attorney General XXX Nxxxxx Lxxxxxx Street High Shoals, North Carolina America National

Third Party of Interest and Real Party of Interest, By Congressional Act Private Attorney General, Constitutional Bounty Hunter

COVER SHEET FOR ADDRESSES OF PARTIES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 333 Constitution Ave N.W. Washington, District of Columbia 20001

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CASE # 1:13 cr 00253 NO KNOW ADDRESS ENTITY UNDISCLOSED Wrongdoer Fictitious, Foreign Plaintiff

VS

Title 28, Ch. 5, District Court, § 88 District of Columbia Constitutional Article III Court Judge Gladys Kessler

RODNEY DALE CLASS (Government Registered Trade Name, WARD, TRUST, ESTATE, JOINT STOCK SHARE) POST OFFICE BOX 435 CITY OF HIGH SHOALS STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ZIP CODE 28077

rodney-dale; class Private Attorney General XXX Nxxxxx Lxxxxxx Street High Shoals, North Carolina America National

Third Party of Interest and Real Party of Interest, By Congressional Act Private Attorney General Constitutional Bounty Hunter

JUDICIAL NOTICE MOTION TO REMOVE UNITED STATES CODE 28 SECTION 2672

Administrative adjustment of claims

Attention Clerk of Courts

Fraud upon the court by Prosecution

Prayer to remove this action to the proper Administrate jurisdiction and venue; Capitol Police Board; the Architect of the Capitol, the Senate Sergeant at Arms, and the House Sergeant at Arms “OR” Prayer for UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT of Clerk of Court to Enter Motion for Summary Judgment Procedure error and legal error.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, approved October 21, 1968; Public Law 90-614 (82 Stat. 1203; D.C. Code § 1-1501 et seq.),

TITLE I: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

OTHER AUTHORITY Sec. 101. This title shall supplement all other provisions of law establishing procedures to be observed by the Mayor and agencies of the District government in the application of laws administered by them, except that this title shall supersede any such law and procedure to the extent of any conflict therewith.

(3) the term ``agency" includes both subordinate agency and independent agency;

(4) the term ``subordinate agency" means any officer, employee, office, department, division, board, commission, or other agency of the government of the District, other than an independent agency or the Mayor or the Council, required by law or by the Mayor or the Council to administer any law or any rule adopted under the authority of a law;

UNITED STATES CODE Title 28 section 2672 - Administrative adjustment of claims

Now Comes, Rodney-Dale; Class, (hereinafter “Declarant or Private Attorney General “PAG”), by Congressional Legislation, under the Statutes at Large and by United States Codes created by the United States Congress within the District of Columbia Territory, in the position of Private Attorney General and Bounty Hunter, and sets forth this document. This PAG is putting this motion before this court; JUDICIAL NOTICE MOTION TO REMOVE UNITED STATES CODE 28 SECTION 2672 Administrative adjustment of claims

I Proper Jurisdiction and Venue

All issues are incorporated in paragraphs 1 through 7 as a foundation of the Declarant's contention of Procedural Errors, Professional Ethics Violations, and Willful Intent To Mislead

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, approved October 21, 1968; Public Law 90-614 (82 Stat. 1203; D.C. Code § 1-1501 et seq.),

All issues are incorporated in paragraphs 1 through 7 as a foundation of the Declarant's contention of Procedural Errors, Professional Ethics Violations, and Willful Intent To Mislead

This Action that was brought before the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to which was dismissed before being brought before the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT this action was and still is an administrative complaint by Capitol Hill Police.

The Capitol Hill Police come under the Capitol Police Board under the control of the Architect of the Capitol, the Senate Sergeant at Arms, and the House Sergeant at Arms.

As this is an Administrative complaint by an agency or department define by administrative codes this issue is administrative and legislative in natural.

Judge Nash stated in Superior Court on the record on the 19th of July that Federal Statutes was not the issue but Washington D.C Codes were violated.

Washington D.C. Codes are administrative and legislative issue under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress

Capitol Police Board under the control of the Architect of the Capitol, Senate Sergeant at Arms, and the House Sergeant at Arms is the proper jurisdiction and venue to hear this action.

The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT lacks subject matter under judicial powers under the 11th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

The complaint is under City Code violation under the Firearm Control Regulation Act. Firearms (Exception are hand guns and long rifles that are properly registered )

Whereas the U.S. Congress lay within the District of Columbia borders of 10 mile square subject matter of this issue laid with the Capitol Police Board under the control of the Architect of the Capitol, Senate Sergeant at Arms, and the House Sergeant at Arms.

The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT is not an Administrative Court and as a judicial power court it cannot hear nor address legal arguments on the law pursuant to the 11th amendment of the constitution

The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT lack subject matter pursuant to the 11th amendment of the constitution as it refuse to address legal issue on the law and lack subject matter to address administrative codes.

II Grounds for Summary Judgment F.R.C.P Rule 56

All issues are incorporated in paragraphs 1 through 13 as a foundation of the Declarant's contention of Procedural Errors, Professional Ethics Violations, and Willful Intent To Mislead

The UNITED STATES Prosecutor Office is aware that this issue is administrative in natural as it is only a complaint by Capitol Hill Police which is an administrative office that cannot show injury party.

Howlett v. Rose - 496 U.S. 356 (1990

Parker v. District of Columbia 850 F.2d 708 271 U.S. App. D.C.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010)

United States v. Lopez, 514 US 549 - Supreme Court 1995

Bond vs UNITED STATES 529 U.S. 334 (2000), a case in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence

Bond v. United States , 564 U.S. (2011), a case in Tenth Amendment jurisprudence

U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Hornbuckle v. Toombs, 85 U.S. 18 Wall. 648 648 (1873)

The UNITED STATES Prosecutor Office is aware that the Firearm Control Regulation Act has to comply with the National Firearm Act of 1934.

The UNITED STATES Prosecutor Office is aware Firearm Control Regulation Act that handguns and long rifles are not firearm under the City Codes or by federal statutes.

The UNITED STATES Prosecutor Office is aware that “the following case law”; Parker v. District of Columbia 850 F.2d 708 271 U.S. App. D.C. 15, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010) ruled that the District of Columbia City Code are unconstitutional that the ownership of hand guns and long rifle fail to mean the definition of firearms. ( Saw off Shotgun or Saw off Rifle with a Barrel or Barrels under 18 inches, a fully automatic machine gun or a silencer )

The UNITED STATES Prosecutor Office is aware of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56 Summary Judgment require proof (B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.

The UNITED STATES Prosecutor Office is aware that in this PAG TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE: ADDENDUM JUST CAUSE FOR RETURN OF ALL PROPERTY & MOTION TO DISMISS MEMORANDUM IN LAW: CONGRESSIONAL STATUTES, CODES, TREATIES AND COURT DECISIONS WITH EXBIBITS that this PAG has already provide the evidence to support the facts that the complaint before the Clerk of Court is fraudulent and misleading. (THESE ARE CALL LEGAL ISSUE OR FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS IN LAW)

III Prayer for Summary Judgment F.R.C.P Rule 56

All issues are incorporated in paragraphs 1 through 19 as a foundation of the Declarant's contention of Procedural Errors, Professional Ethics Violations, and Willful Intent To Mislead

The UNITED STATES Prosecutor Office has not or cannot dispute case law or legislator definition in the federal statutes or in the Firearm Control Regulation Act that permits hand guns and long rifles ownership.

The Clerk of Court has Subject Matter to Dismiss any case placed before it on the ground of Fraud upon the Court.

The Clerk of Court holds Subject matter when Congressional Statutes definitions of word are exposed to the true intent and meaning to that of intentionally misapplied of the law with willful intent to defraud the legal system and the public interest to protect rights.

The Clerk of Court has Subject to dismiss under Summary Judgment for lack of jurisdiction “OR” have it place before the judge to dismiss for fraud upon the court for Summary Judgment .

The Capitol Hill Police “And” the UNITED STATES Prosecutor Officers has failed to stated a claim to which relief can be granted under 12(b) (6) of the F.R.C.P. nor and adequate remedy has been address in the past 90 plus days of this action .

Rule 56 Summary judgment

(e) Failing to Properly Support or Address a Fact. If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party’s assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may:

(3) grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials — including the facts considered undisputed — show that the movant is entitled to it

The Prosecution has failed to dispute or rebut this PAG filing as a matter of fact or as a matter of law.

Because the District of Columbia administrative codes allow handguns and long rifles within the City Limits.

Therefore the Prosecution cannot rebut without causing a controversies in law to which arise a legal issue to be addressed before any Court, to which the Superior Court or the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT claims they are barred from hearing.( the 11th amendment of the U.S. Constitution)

Therefore a Summary Judgment is proper as the prosecution has failed to rebut.

IV Prosecutor Grand Jury Fraud

All issues are incorporated in paragraphs 1 through 24 as a foundation of the Declarant's contention of Procedural Errors, Professional Ethics Violations, and Willful Intent To Mislead

The Declarant will point out any grand jury indictment was on the Superior Court case number allegation by the same United States Prosecutor that is now before the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.

The Declarant will point out that the Superior Court case was dismissed under the Latin term NOLLE. (The Prosecutor cannot prove their case OR the defendant is innocent)

The United States Prosecutor had the Superior Court dismissed after the grand jury had made it decision.

The Declarant will point out the prosecution cannot get an indictment before your are formally arrested and charged.

The Declarant Superior Court was dismissed and the Declarant was rearrested, recharged and was required to place in another plea on a charged that was dismissed under ( Nolle).

V Failure to State Adequate Claim for Relief

All issues are incorporated in paragraphs 1 through 35 as a foundation of the Declarant's contention of Procedural Errors, Professional Ethics Violations, and Willful Intent To Mislead

The Capitol Hill Police or the UNITED STATES Prosecutor Office cannot ask for relief on the ground that three Court Ruling have Rule the Distinct of Columbia Firearm Control Regulation Act have been found to be unconstitutional.

The mere fact that the Capitol Hill Police has been misinform to the codes intend that Hand gun and long rifles are not firearms and are allowed under Distinct of Columbia Firearm Control Regulation Act they cannot request relief for procedural error nor legal error.

The UNITED STATES Prosecutor Office lack the ability to request relief as they have and hold a law degree in “Law” and are aware that three Higher Courts have Rule in favor of the PAG on this very issue.

The UNITED STATES Prosecutor Office lacks the ability to request relief on legal issue to which creates a controversy in law before all Courts.

The UNITED STATES Prosecutor Office is aware of the National Firearm Act of 1934 to which the foundation of all gun laws is and how firearm are to be defined.

The UNITED STATES Prosecutor Office lacks the ability to request relief as the Public Law No. 33 the Dick Act of 1902 invalidates all gun laws” OR any Weapon” that are or can be issue to the Military, the Reserves, or Militia in the District of Columbia or any other State in the United States of America.

The UNITED STATES Prosecutor Office lacks the ability to request relief on the grounds that I Rodney Dale Class by Congressional legislation hold lawful position as a Private Attorney General and a 14th Amendment Bounty Hunter under Title 42 Public health and warfare sections 1983 and 1988 and hold law enforcement abilities under Title 18 USC section 242 Color of Law and under Title 10 USC. ( Lieber Code)

The UNITED STATES Prosecutor Office lacks the ability to request relief when intentional fraud is place before the any Court or any jury that they know violate the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Supreme Law of the land, Higher Court Ruling and or Congressional “Intent” of definition of a word.

The UNITED STATES Prosecutor Office lacks the ability to request relief when there a willful intent to violate their professional ethic code of honest service.

When 18 USC section 1001 is violate to get a conviction

When 18 USC section 1346 is violated to get a conviction Definition of "scheme or artifice to defraud" For the purposes of this chapter, the term "scheme or artifice to defraud" includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services. (sham court hearing)

When18 USC section 242 is violated to get a conviction Deprivation or Rights under color of law

When 18 USC section 1621 Perjury generally is violated to get a conviction. The prosecutor was requiring swearing an oath to up hold the law of the land.

The UNITED STATES Prosecutor Office lacks the ability to request relief as it lack jurisdiction to prosecute as it cannot respond to this PAG filing to rebut or dispute.

The UNITED STATES Prosecutor Office lacks the ability to request relief on any administrative claim cause by any agency or department under Title 5 U.S.C. or by any of District of Columbia Administration that bring an action against a non employee of it administration pursuant to Title 5 Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 ,60 stat 237 and by District of Columbia administrative procedure ; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, approved October 21, 1968; Public Law 90-614 (82 Stat. 1203; D.C. Code § 1-1501 et seq.),

Conclusion

This PAG Move The UNITED STATES DICTRIST COURT for the District of Columbia Clerk of Courts to remove this action to the proper Administrate jurisdiction and venue; Capitol Police Board ; the Architect of the Capitol, the Senate Sergeant at Arms, and the House Sergeant at Arms “OR” Prayer for Superior Court Clerk of Court to Enter Motion for Summary Judgment Procedure error and legal error.

“mistaken application of the law”

Rodney-Dale; Class Private Attorney General Seal Private Attorney General XXX Nxxxxx Lxxxxxx Street High Shoals N.C. 28077

Bounty Hunter Seal

PROOF OF SERVICE

Now Comes Rodney–Dale; Class, by Congressional Legislation under the Statutes at Large and by United States Codes created by the United States Congress within the District of Columbia Territory, in the position of Private Attorney General and Bounty Hunter to set forth this document JUDICIAL NOTICE MOTION TO REMOVE UNITED STATES CODE 28 SECTION 2672 Administrative adjustment of claims be placed before the Superior Court Judge and the Clerk of Court of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on this 11th day of March in the year of our Lord 2014 AD. Declarant also delivered a copy to the Prosecutor.

Rodney-Dale; Class Private Attorney General XXX Nxxxxx Lxxxxxx Street High Shoals N.C. 28077

itconstitutional@

Cc

PETER LALLAS (Or designee) ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

555 4TH STREET, N.W., ROOM 4110 WASHINGTON, DC 20530

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 333 Constitution Ave N.W. Washington, District of Columbia 20001

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CASE # 1:13 cr 00253 NO KNOW ADDRESS ENTITY UNDISCLOSED

Wrongdoer Fictitious, Foreign Plaintiff

VS

Title 28, Ch. 5, District Court, § 88 District of Columbia Constitutional Article III Court Judge Gladys Kessler

RODNEY DALE CLASS (Government Registered Trade Name, WARD, TRUST, ESTATE, JOINT STOCK SHARE) POST OFFICE BOX 435 CITY OF HIGH SHOALS STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ZIP CODE 28077

Rodney-Dale; Class Private Attorney General 432 North Lincoln St. High Shoals, North Carolina America National

Third Party of Interest and Real Party of Interest, By Congressional Act Private Attorney General, Constitutional Bounty Hunter

Entry of Judgment for Summary Judgment

The Superior Court Clerk of Court fined that fraud has been place upon the Clerk of Court office and fines that this office has no subject matter or authority to expect any complaint by the Capitol Hill Police nor the District of Columbia Prosecutor Office as this issue is Administrative under; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT Public Law 90-614 (82 Stat. 1203; D.C. Code § 1-1501 et seq.),

The District of Columbia Prosecutor Office or the Capitol Hill Police refusal to remove this action from the Superior Court Clerk of Court Office and place it before the proper jurisdiction and venue which is define in the District of Columbia Administrative Procedure Act will constitute that the Clerk of Court will have no choice but to Dismiss this action in a Summary Judgment in favor of Rodney Dale Class.

Whereas Mr. Class has placed facts and conclusion of law in his Court filing before the Clerk of Court office to show that legal error and misapplications of the law by the Capitol Hill Police and the District of Columbia Prosecutor Office the Clerk of Court fines grounds enough to comply with Federal Rule Civil Procedure 56 Summary Judgment.

SO ORDER on this date of ______________________

______________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Clerk of Courts

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download