ROD CLASS (THE KING OF HOAXES WHO HAS LOST 73 CASES IN A ROW) NOW FRAUDULENTLY TAKES CREDIT FOR THE SUCCESS OF HIS ATTORNEYS IN GETTING THE SUPREME COURT TO CONSIDER A NEW LEGAL QUESTION THAT CLASS NEVER KNEW ABOUT AND NEVER RAISED ANYWHERE AT ANYTIME. http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=48361&cmd=tc (See Episode 1004, Dated 05-26-2017).
Class entered into a plea deal whereby he would plead GUILTY to the FELONY charge against him in exchange for the prosecutor recommending a light sentence to the judge. As part of the plea deal, CLASS WAIVED ("GAVE UP") HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL, first in the plea agreement itself and again in open court.
Thereafter, Class realized that his GUILTY plea to a FELONY (in the plea deal) would make him ineligible for his conceal and carry permit from the State Of North Carolina (which does not allow CONVICTED FELONS to have such permits). So, Class VIOLATED the terms of his own plea agreement (in which he WAIVED his right to appeal) AND FILED AN APPEAL OF HIS CASE ANYWAY.
In his appeal, Class raised a number of amateur legal theories. Class also MISTAKENLY claimed that the statute that he was convicted of violating HAD ALREADY BEEN DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL and he MISTAKENLY claimed that under the "full faith and credit" clause, he was authorized by his North Carolina conceal and carry permit him to "CARRY" handguns/firearms into Washington, D.C. AND onto United States Capitol grounds (which behavior, unknown to Class, ACTUALLY VIOLATED the terms his conceal and carry permit from that state). BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, CLASS NEVER KNEW TO RAISE (AND DID NOT RAISE) THE ISSUE OF WHETHER HE COULD FILE AN APPEAL OF HIS CASE IN THE FIRST PLACE (a right that he had TWICE unconditionally WAIVED, first in his plea deal and again in open court).
The Court Of Appeals received Class' amateur appellate brief and the entire court file from the trial court below (which contained Class' PSYCHIATRIC records). Both PROVED that Class was ILLITERATE, UNEDUCATED and MENTALLY ILL. So, as the trial court had done below (with "STAND BY" counsel to represent Class), the Court Of Appeals ALSO hired, AT THE GOVERNMENT'S EXPENSE, a law firm to represent Class on appeal and ordered it, in writing, to "act on Class' behalf". Because Class wanted to represent himself on appeal, the Court of Appeals "humored" Class by calling the law firm that it hired to represent Class an "amicus curiae" ("friend of court"). But, the reality is that this law firm was under written court orders to represent Class as his law firm on appeal, regardless of the terminology used. Class' law firm DID NOT TAKE CLASS' CASE "FREE" AS A MATTER OF "PRINCIPLE". IT TOOK CLASS' CASE FOR THE MONEY! And, lucky for Class.
Class' law firm immediately realized that Class had MISTAKENLY FAILED to raise the "THRESHOLD QUESTION" of WHETHER HE COULD EVEN FILE AN APPEAL OF HIS CASE IN THE FIRST PLACE (after TWICE waiving that right, in the plea agreement and again in open court). Without addressing and disposing of this legal issue, THERE WOULD BE NO APPEAL. But, Class did not know this. So, Class' law firm "COVERED" FOR HIS MISTAKE by raising this omitted legal issue for him (thereby saving the entire appeal). Unfortunately, the Court Of Appeals held that Class HAD WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL.
In response to this adverse ruling, Class' law firm ALONE filed an appeal to the Supreme Court. CLASS WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM (AND WILL NEVER BE SO INVOLVED). The SOLE QUESTION in this new appeal before the Supreme Court is WHETHER A PERSON (ANY PERSON) CAN FILE AN APPEAL challenging the constitutionality of a statute WHICH THEY HAVE ALREADY PLED GUILTY TO VIOLATING. THIS IS THE ONE AND ONLY ISSUE ON APPEAL. See SECOND PAGE, MARKED PAGE "i", BOTTOM PARAGRAPH. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/16-424-brief-of-petitioner.pdf . THIS ISSUE IS A NEW LEGAL ARGUMENT THAT CLASS NEVER KNEW TO RAISE (AND DID NOT RAISE) ANYWHERE AT ANY TIME. Class' amateur legal theories ARE NOT NOW (AND WILL NEVER BE) BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT TO CONSIDER. ONLY REAL LAW CONCEIVED AND PRESENTED BY CLASS' LAW FIRM (NOT ROD CLASS) WILL BE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT TO CONSIDER.
THE HOAX: Class FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMS that the Court Of Appeals hired his law firm to represent him because his amateur "paperwork" WAS SO GOOD. Class also FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMS that his law firm and other interested parties who joined in the current appeal did so to "BACK UP' his amateur "paperwork". But, none of this so.
THE TRUTH: The Court Of Appeals hired Class' law firm to represent him because his amateur "paperwork" WAS SO BAD! Further, the Court Of Appeals HAD PROOF in its own files that Class was FUNCTIONALLY-ILLITERATE, UNEDUCATED AND MENTALLY ILL. FACT: COURTS DO NOT PROVIDE ATTORNEYS TO LITIGANTS WHO ARE CAPABLE OF REPRESENTING THEMSELVES. COURTS ONLY PROVIDE ATTORNEYS TO LITIGANTS WHO ARE INCAPABLE OF REPRESENTING THEMSELVES (as was the case here). Further, the other interested parties who joined in the current appeal DO NOT "BACK UP" Class' amateur "paperwork" either! Instead, they ONLY "BACK UP" CLASS' LAW FIRM IN ITS ENTIRELY SEPARATE LEGAL ARGUMENT WHICH CLASS NEVER KNEW ABOUT AND WHICH CLASS NEVER RAISED ANYWHERE AT ANYTIME.
WHAT THOSE INVOLVED DO NOT YET KNOW:
1. Class WAS ACTUALLY ON PROBATION at the time of his ARREST in this case for a previous North Carolina CRIMINAL CONVICTION (which PROBATION was conditioned upon Class NOT POSSESSING ANY "WEAPONS" OF ANY KIND for a year ). Lincoln Cty [North Carolina] Gen. Ct. Of Justice, Dist. Ct. Div. Case No. 13CR050407. Thus, Class WAS IN ILLEGAL POSSESSION of "WEAPONS" at the time of his ARREST in this case (not even considering his additional violation of FEDERAL law). SO, CLASS WAS NOT A "LAW ABIDING CITIZEN" AT THE TIME OF HIS ARREST, as he fraudulently contends.
2. Class SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD a conceal and carry permit from the state of North Carolina in the first place. This is because Class was ALREADY A CONVICTED FELON before applying for such a permit from that state (and that state DOES NOT issue such permits to CONVICTED FELONS). N.C.G.S. 14_415.12(b)(3). http://ncleg.net/gascripts/statutes/statutelookup.pl?statute=14-415.12 . Specifically, in 2001, Class was CONVICTED in Ohio of the FELONY POSSESSION (in his car) a fully-loaded, ILLEGALLY-SAWED-OFF Springfield shotgun. Ct. of Common Pleas, Tuscarawas Cty, Ohio, Case No. 2001 CR 12 0298. Ironically, Class WAS ALSO ON PROBATION at the time of that FELONY ARREST for a previous Ohio gun-related CRIME (which constituted another PROBATION VIOLATION by Class). Canton [Ohio] Mun. Ct., Case No. 1999CRB05550). Regardless, Class DID NOT fit any exception to the conceal and carry statute and WAS NOT eligible for the "restoration" of his firearm rights (so as to be issued such a permit from that state). N.C.G.S. 14_415.4 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (j). http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-415.4.html . Thus, Class apparently obtained his conceal and carry permit from North Carolina by FRAUD (itself a criminal act). N.C.G.S. 14_415.4(l) (this is an "L"). http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-415.4.html. Further, the sentencing judge in this case DID NOT KNOW that Class was ALREADY a CONVICTED FELON at the time of sentencing (Class INTENTIONALLY OMITTED this fact from the pre-sentencing statement upon which the judge and prosecutor relied). Astonishingly, Class was also ARRESTED and JAILED TWO MORE TIMES during this case, once for refusing to appear at his own trial and once for resisting arrest following a traffic stop.
3. Unknown to Class, IT WAS ALSO ILLEGAL for him to have "CARRIED" handguns or firearms onto United States Capitol grounds UNDER HIS OWN CONCEAL AND CARRY PERMIT FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA. Unknown to Class, his permit from that state EXPRESSLY FORBADE CLASS FROM POSSESSING OR CARRYING HANDGUNS OR FIREARMS ON ANY FEDERAL PROPERTY WHERE SUCH WEAPONS ARE NOT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. N.C.G.S. 14_415.11(C)(4). http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-415.11.html . So, contrary to Class' understanding, his having a North Carolina “conceal and carry” permit DID NOT constitute a "defense" to the federal charges against him in this case.
4. Even if Class had a "second amendment" defense to "CARRYING" three loaded handguns and one fully loaded rifle onto United States Capitol grounds, Class HAD NO "SECOND AMENDMENT DEFENSE" to "CARRYING" THE OTHER "DANGEROUS WEAPONS" onto United States Capitol grounds WHICH WERE ALSO PROHIBITED BY THE SAME FEDERAL STATUTE (one machete, fourteen knives and daggers, one illegal switch blade, three axes, etc.).
5. It is true that Class may not have realized that he had driven and parked his vehicle (loaded with "DANGEROUS WEAPONS") on United States Capitol grounds. Thus, Class may not have had "mens rea" (knowledge of wrongdoing) in connection with that prohibited act. But, Class DID HAVE "MENS REA" ABOUT BEING ON PROBATION AT THE TIME AND THAT HIS PROBATION MADE HIS POSSESSION OF ANY "WEAPON" AT THE TIME ILLEGAL.
None of the foregoing facts (in paragraphs 1-5) have yet been made known to any court or prosecutor in this case.