Sat Mar 23, 2024 11:33 pm by globalturboROD CLASS AND THE "PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL HOAX"
Rodney DALE Class ("Rod Class") falsely claims to be a "Private Attorney General" under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and/or The Civil Rights Act Of 1866, BOTH of which are ordinary, FEDERAL, "CIVIL RIGHTS" STATUTES. Class also falsely claims that these two ordinary, FEDERAL, "CIVIL RIGHTS" STATUTES somehow "authorize" him personally to "represent" any party in any court and to otherwise practice law without a license in any court in any jurisdiction (STATE or FEDERAL) in that imaginary capacity. Finally, Class also falsely claims that as a "Private Attorney General", he is EXTREMELY important, EXTREMELY powerful and EXTREMELY knowledgeable.
But, contrary to Rod Class’ claims, THE TERM, "PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL" IS NOT A "PROFESSIONAL" OR "OCCUPATIONAL" TITLE (like "Attorney At Law" is or like "Attorney General" is), much less a "professional" or "occupational" TITLE for a non-lawyer who is knowledgeable in amateur/oppostional/defiant legal theories (FAKE laws) who is somehow authorized to represent a party in court and to otherwise practice law without a license in any court in any jurisdiction in that imaginary capacity.
FACT: THE TERM "PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL" DOES NOT APPEAR IN A SINGLE FEDERAL STATUTE, much less in Title 42 U.S.C. § 1988 or in the Civil Rights Act of 1866. FACT: Congress has NEVER "authorized" or "credentialed" any person to represent a party in court or to otherwise practice law without a license. FACT: Under the tenth amendment of the United States Constitution, Congress HAS NO POWER to "authorize" or to "credential" any person to represent a party in court or to otherwise practice law (only the STATES can do that).
THE TRUTH: The term, "Private Attorney General" is actually a temporary, JUDICIAL nickname created and used by the FEDERAL COURTS (that expires by the end of the case) for an "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF" (who has already WON an ordinary CIVIL case against a statutory violator) and who has NO knowledge of the law, who has NO legal authority, who has NO power and who has NO importance that any other "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF" does not already have.
There are ONLY THREE DIFFERENCES between a generic "Private Attorney General" and ANY OTHER "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF". First, a "Private Attorney General" is a (natural or artificial) person who/which is expressly authorized by the SAME STATUTE VIOLATED (or a statute that refers to the SAME STATUTE VIOLATED) TO BECOME AN "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF" and to FILE an ordinary CIVIL suit against the party who/that allegedly violated the statute. Second, a "Private Attorney General" is also statutorily entitled by the SAME STATUTE VIOLATED (or a statute that refers to that SAME STATUTE VIOLATED) to an award of legal fees from the other side IF, AND ONLY IF he/she/it hires a REAL ATTORNEY AT LAW who actually WINS the CIVIL suit that/he/she/it FILED against the alleged statutory violator. Third, a "Private Attorney General" must actually WIN the CIVIL suit that he/she/it FILED against the alleged statutory violator.
If you will actually read the words that appear in THESE TWO FEDERAL "CIVIL RIGHTS" STATUTES (and the FEDERAL "CIVIL RIGHTS" STATUTES referred to in them), you will discover that THEY ONLY DO TWO THINGS in terms of the "CONCEPT" of a "Private Attorney General". First, they permit a "VICTIM" (AND ONLY A "VICTIM") of a statutory violation of the words that actually appear IN THOSE TWO FEDERAL "CIVIL RIGHTS" STATUTES (and to those FEDERAL "CIVIL RIGHTS" STATUTES referred to in them) AND ONLY THOSE STATUTES to become an "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF" and to FILE an ordinary CIVIL suit against the alleged statutory violator IN FEDERAL COURT (AND ONLY IN FEDERAL COURT). Second, they permit the FEDERAL judge to award LEGAL FEES to the "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF" IF, AND ONLY IF he/she/it actually hired a REAL ATTORNEY AT LAW who actually WINS that CIVIL case. While all federal "civil rights" statute protect civil rights, THESE TWO FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTES DO NOTHING ELSE in terms of the "CONCEPT" of a "Private Attorney General".
Indeed, The formal name of Title 42 U.S.C. § 1988 is actually the "CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY’S FEES AWARDS ACT". This means that the SOLE PURPOSE of that statute is TO PROVIDE PAYMENT to REAL ATTORNEYS AT LAW who actually WIN such CIVIL cases on behalf of "CIVIL RIGHTS" VICTIMS who have suffered a VIOLATION of one or more of the FEDERAL "CIVIL RIGHTS" STATUTES specifically enumerated in that statute.
Both Title 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and the Civil Rights Act 0f 1866 are "FEE SHIFTING" statutes. This means that they "SHIFT" the WINNING party’s obligation to pay his/her/its OWN LEGAL FEES to the LOSING party. In this way, "CIVIL RIGHTS" "VICTIMS" who have no money, but who have meritorious "CIVIL RIGHTS" cases, are still able to obtain the legal services of a REAL ATTORNEY AT LAW who will likely be paid by the other side by the end of the case.
Contrary to Rod Class’ claims, there is NOTHING about these TWO FEDERAL "CIVIL RIGHTS" STATUTES that "authorizes" or "credentials" any non-lawyer to "represent" a party in court, to practice law without a license or to use the temporary, JUDICIAL nickname, "Private Attorney General", as if it were a "professional" or "occupational" TITLE (like "Attorney At Law" or like "Attorney General").
A person WHO REALLY IS a "Private Attorney General" under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and/or under The Civil Rights Act Of 1866 IS A "VICTIM" (and only a "victim") of a violation of those FEDERAL "CIVIL RIGHTS" that are protected and enforced by those two FEDERAL "CIVIL RIGHTS" STATUTES (not other statutes). A person WHO REALLY IS a "Private Attorney General" under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and/or the Civil Rights Act of 1866 IS A "PLAINTIFF" (NOT A "DEFENDANT"). A person WHO REALLY IS a "Private Attorney General" under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and/or the Civil Rights Act of 1866 IS IN "FEDERAL" COURT (NOT IN "STATE" COURT) (State courts have no jurisdiction to hear or decide cases involving alleged violations of FEDERAL "CIVIL RIGHTS" STATUTES.). A person WHO REALLY IS a "Private Attorney General" under Title 42 U.S.C.§ 1988 and/or the Civil Rights Act of 1866 IS A "PARTY" to the litigation (NOT A PERSON WHO PURPORTS TO "REPRESENT" A PARTY to the litigation). Finally, a person WHO REALLY IS a "Private Attorney General" under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and/or the Civil Rights Act of 1866 is an "ordinary civil plaintiff" who has already WON the CIVIL suit that he/she FILED against the alleged statutory violator.
IQ TEST: So, if you are a "DEFENDANT" in federal court and you are charged with the "CRIME" of "carrying" "weapons" onto United States Capitol grounds, it is LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE for you to be a "Private Attorney General" under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and/or under The Civil Rights Act of 1866, or any other statute (because you are a "DEFENDANT" in a "CRIMINAL" case and to be a "Private Attorney General" under those TWO FEDERAL "CIVIL RIGHTS" STATUTES, or any other statute, you must be a "PLAINTIFF" who actually FILED and who already WON a FEDERAL"CIVIL RIGHTS" "CIVIL" suit against the alleged statutory violator). So, if you are a defendant in a "STATE" Traffic Ticket case OR a plaintiff in a "STATE" Administrative Court case, then it is LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE for you to be a "Private Attorney General" under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and/or under The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (because you are in "STATE" court case and to be a "Private Attorney General" under those TWO FEDERAL "CIVIL RIGHTS" STATUTES, you must be IN FEDERAL COURT). So, IF YOU PURPORT TO "REPRESENT" ANY "PARTY" to the litigation IN ANY COURT ANYWHERE, then it is \sect plain LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE for you to be a "Private Attorney General" under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and/or under The Civil Rights Act of 1866, or any other statute (because you are PURPORTING TO "REPRESENT" A "PARTY" to the litigation and to be a "Private Attorney General" under these TWO FEDERAL "CIVIL RIGHTS" STATUTES, or any other statute, YOU MUST BE A "PARTY" to the litigation, NOT someone WHO PURPORTS TO "REPRESENT" A "PARTY" to the litigation). So, if you have LOST EVERY SINGLE ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL CASE IN WHICH YOU HAVE EVER BEEN INVOLVED (OVER 70 CONSECUTIVE LOSSES IN A ROW), it is LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE for you to be a "Private Attorney General" under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and/or the Civil Rights Act of 1866, or any other statute (because you LOST every single case in which you have ever been involved and in order to be a "Private Attorney General" under these TWO FEDERAL "CIVIL RIGHTS" STATUTES, or any other statute, you must have already WON the CIVIL suit that you FILED against the alleged statutory violator).
Because an "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF" cannot represent a party in court or otherwise practice law without a license, and because a "Private Attorney General" IS AN "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF", a "Private Attorney General" cannot represent a party in court or otherwise practice law without a license either. This is because the term, "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF," and the term, "Private Attorney General", are two different terms THAT MEAN THE VERY SAME THING.
I.Q. TEST: An attorney at law IS an attorney IN EVERY sense of the word. But, a "Private Attorney General" IS NOT an attorney IN ANY sense of the word! An attorney at law represents a party in court. But, a "Private Attorney General" IS A PARTY IN COURT! An attorney at law represents a client in court. But, a "Private Attorney General" IS A CLIENT IN COURT! An attorney at law acts on behalf of people WHO ARE IN COURT. But, a "Private Attorney General" acts on his/her/its own behalf and on behalf of people WHO ARE OUT OF COURT! A person’s status as an attorney at law CONTINUES AFTER THE END OF THE CASE. But, a person’s status of a "Private Attorney General" is temporary and ENDS, AT THE LATEST, AT THE END OF THE CASE! A person CANNOT BE a "Private Attorney General" AFTER THE END OF THE CASE any more than a person can be an "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF" AFTER THE END OF THE CASE.
SOURCE: So, where did this insignificant, temporary, JUDICIAL nickname come from? Well, a REAL governmental "Attorney General" WINS lawsuits against statutory violators which helps to enforce the law thereby benefitting society as a whole. Likewise, an "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF" who WINS lawsuits against statutory violators also helps to enforce the law thereby benefitting society as a whole. Noting the similarity IN FUNCTION between a REAL governmental "Attorney General" who WINS such lawsuits and an "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF" who WINS such lawsuits, the FEDERAL courts, during that final portion of the case when legal fees might be awarded, began jokingly referring to such "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFFS" who WIN such lawsuits as "Private Attorneys General". The FEDERAL courts still use this temporary, JUDICIAL nickname, during that final portion of the case when legal fees might be awarded, to remind the litigants that such an "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF" who has already WON such a CIVIL suit against a statutory violator has rendered a public service by helping to enforcing the law and is, therefore, statutorily eligible for an award of legal fees IF, AND ONLY IF that "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF" was represented by a REAL ATTORNEY AT LAW in WINNING the case.
DURATION: The term, "Private Attorney General" ONLY APPLIES to such an "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF" from the time of any WIN of such a CIVIL case until the time WHEN ANY LEGAL FEES MIGHT BE AWARDED, or until the end of the case, whichever comes sooner. At that point, the temporary, JUDICIAL nickname, "Private Attorney General" has served its purpose AND EXPIRES FOREVER. So, there is NO SUCH THING as a "Private Attorney General" AFTER THE END OF THE CASE.
Thus, in creating and using this temporary, JUDICIAL nickname for an "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF" ("Private Attorney General"), the FEDERAL COURTS were NOT thereby elevating non-lawyers who were knowledgeable in amateur/oppositional/defiant legal theories (FAKE laws) to the professional level of REAL ATTORNEYS AT LAW or REAL "ATTORNEYS GENERAL". In so doing, the FEDERAL COURTS were NOT thereby creating a "special class" of FAKE, phony, pretend, make-believe, unlicensed, uneducated, unqualified, self-proclaimed, self-appointed "attorneys" who were somehow "authorized" to represent a party in court or to otherwise practice law without a license in any court in any jurisdiction. In so doing, the FEDERAL COURTS were NOT thereby creating a "professional" or "occupational" TITLE (like "Attorney At Law" or "Attorney General") for non-lawyers to use in defrauding the public, to use in court, to use on their court documents, to use as the name of their internet radio show, to use on a plaque hanging on their "back drop" on their video sets, to use on their "costumes", to use on their vehicles, to use in their seminars or to otherwise use when impersonating a REAL ATTORNEY AT LAW, a REAL ATTORNEY GENERAL or OTHER OFFICIAL AUTHORIZED AND EMPOWERED TO CARRY OUT OR ENFORCE THE LAW.
But, seeing an opportunity to defraud the American people (again), Rod Class and other amateur/oppositional/defiant legal theorists FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMED that this temporary, JUDICIAL nickname for an "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF" ("Private Attorney General") was a "professional" or "occupational" TITLE (like "Attorney At Law" and "Attorney General") for a non-lawyer who has knowledge of amateur/oppostional/defiant legal theories (FAKE laws) who is somehow "authorized" to represent a party in court and to otherwise practice law without a license in any court in any jurisdiction. IT IS THIS FAKE DEFINITION OF A "PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL" THAT FORMS THE BASIS FOR THE ENTIRE "PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL HOAX". Not surprisingly, the courts NEVER adopted this FAKE, DELUSIONAL, NON-SENSE definition for "Private Attorney General".
Rod Class and other amateur/oppostional/defiant legal theorists lavished this inapplicable, insignificant, but impressive-sounding , temporary JUDICIAL nickname ("Private Attorney General") UPON THEMSELVES as if it were a "professional" or "occupational" TITLE (like "Attorney At Law" is and like "Attorney General" is) and use it to create the "ILLUSION" that they are EXTREMELY powerful, EXTREMELY important and EXTREMELY knowledgeable in the law (NONE of which is actually the case).
CONCLUSION: Rod Class is not now and has never been a "Private Attorney General". He doesn’t even know the meaning of the term. If you have paid Rod Class for "training" on how to become a "Private Attorney General", then you are a VICTIM. (It is a federal felony to use a means of interstate commerce, like the internet, to obtain money by marketing seminars under fraudulent pretenses). You may have a right to a refund. If you have paid Rod Class a "retainer", "legal fees" and/or for his "expenses" for travel, food and lodging in connection with his providing you with "legal services" (in LOSING your case for you), then you are a VICTIM. You may have the right to a refund. Contact Rod Class or the state bar where the offense occurred.
THE LAW ON THE "PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL"
CASES THAT DEFINE A "PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL" UNDER TITLE 42 U.S.C. § 1988 AS AN "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF" WHO WINS A "CIVIL RIGHTS" CIVIL CASE.
(Look for BOLD PRINT in each case below.).
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4612481658703000905&q=+%2242+U.S.C.%22+1988+1983+%22Private+attorney+general%22+%22when+a+plaintiff+succeeds+in+remedying+a+civil+rights+violation%22+%22he+serves+as+a%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8789673379809042125&q=%22Civil+Rights+Attorney%27s+Fees+Awards+Act%22+1988+%22Congress+expressly+recognized+that+a+plaintiff+who+obtains+relief+in+a+Civil+rights+lawsuit+does+so%22+%22as+a+private+attorney+general%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
There are TWO sections of this case that appear in BOLD PRINT. Be sure to scroll down to the SECOND section of BOLD PRINT for the holding in this case (at about 40% through the text). Look for the term, "PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL".
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16098434127441351570&q=+%22as+a+Private+Attorney+General%22+%22When+a+plaintiff%22+%22obtains+an+injunction%22+%22he+does+so%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3704494267863674576&q=role+%22complainants+act%22+he+%22when+a%22+plaintiff+%22The+characterization+of+the%22+plaintiff+%22as+a+private+attorney+general%22+%22civil+rights+plaintiffs+act+not+only+in+their+own+interests+but%22+%22as+private+attorneys+general%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12968550988292561231&q=1988+%2242+U.S.C.+1988%22+%22both+fee+award+provisions%22+%22are+intended+to+reward+the+successful+plaintiff+acting+as+a%22+%22private+attorney+general%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
CASES THAT ROD CLASS LOST IN CONNECTION WITH HIS FALSE CLAIMS THAT HE IS A "PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL" WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO "REPRESENT" OTHERS IN COURT AND TO OTHERWISE PRACTICE LAW WITHOUT A LICENSE.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9078043099739209784&q=+plaintiff+%22does+not+permit%22+%22private+attorney+general%22+%22for+supplemental+representation+by+Mr.%22+%22this+court+denied+the+debtors%27+request%22+%22was+not+an+attorney%22+%22debtors+asked+this+court+to+allow+Mr.%22+Rodney+Dale+Class+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
IMPORTANT! Be sure to read footnote 8 (including its FINAL sentence) at the bottom of this case. It is the best (and most concise) summary of the law on the "Private Attorney General" as it relates to amateur/oppositional/defiant legal theory in the entire body of law.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6091131846651842220&q=%22he+serves+as+a%22+plaintiff+unauthorized+Rodney+Dale+Class++%22in+no+way+does+the+concept+of+a%22+%22private+attorney+general%22+%22permit+an+individual%22+%22not+licensed+to+practice+law%22+%22to+represent+a+party+in+a+court+proceeding%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14863743579773715064&q=%22private+attorney+general%22+rodney+dale+class+%22cannot+appear+as+counsel+for+others%22+%22as+a%22+%22lay+person%22+%22he+cannot+prosecute+a+claim+on+behalf+of%22+%22other+individuals%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2757756755752158953&q=%22not+available%22+denied+%22there+is+no+evidence+supporting%22+%22this+allegation%22%22Private+attorney+general%22+Rodney+Class+%22Defendant+claims+he+has+been+given+authority+by+the+house+and+senate+to+act+as+a%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
Scroll down to Ruling 35 in this case. But, be sure to read all of the other "denials" of Rod Class’ motions reflecting his other amateur/oppositonal/defiant legal theories ("capital letters", etc.). They are priceless. Finally, read footnotes 5-10 at the end of the case. They are excellent.
CASES LOST BY OTHER FAKE "PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL":
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5553195043949924185&q=%22practice+of+law%22+unauthorized+not++%22to+practice+law%22+%22permit+an+individual%22+%22not+licensed%22+%22to+represent+a+party+in+a+court+proceeding%22+%22In+no+way+does+the+concept+of+a%22+%22Private+Attorney+General%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
Note that this case actually cites and quotes the holding in Rod Class’ earlier LOSS on the very same issue in Pertuset I (above) as legal authority for the holding in this case.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2856702793495571504&q=%22to+appear%22%22as+an+attorney%22+%22for+others%22++authority+permit+%22has+no%22+%22not+authorize%22+%22practice+of+law%22+unauthorized+authorized+%22has+no%22+not+%22attorney+in+fact%22+%22power+of+attorney%22+%22Private+Attorney+General%22+%22Anthony+Williams%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
Note that the FAKE "Private Attorney General" in this case is the same FAKE "Private Attorney General" that is the subject of the three minute video below.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3572479853129620278&q=%22for+oneself%22+%22for+others%22+%22of+others%22+authorized+unauthorized+%22practice+of+law%22+lawyer+attorney+attorneys+non+%22Personally+or+by+counsel%22+cannot+not+%22power+of+attorney%22+POA+general+%22Private+attorney%22+%22private+attorney%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
THREE MINUTE VIDEO. MUST SEE!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLbXtscZBM8
NOTE: Note that NONE of the "Private Attorney General" cases shown above have anything to do with "doing accountability" against the state or federal government, their agencies or their personnel.
NOTE: We would have like to have provided you with links to more cases that Rod Class LOST in connection with his false claims that he is a "Private Attorney General". But, these cases are only available on Pacer.gov or other websites that will not allow us to link to cases in their databases. Among these other cases that Rod Class LOST on this very issue is Cherylyn Marcos Sellers v. Donald Zsemonadi, et al, Case no. CV 15-05949 SJO (Ex) (C. D. Cal. 2015) (available on Pacer.gov.). Simply key in THE DEFENDANT’S name (last name first) into the Pacer search bar. (For some reason, this case does not appear to come up on Pacer.gov any other way). The court rulings on Rod Class’s false claims that he is a "Private Attorney General" appear on the documents numbered 19 and 11 on the document index of this case. For a classic example of the kind of LOSING papers that Rod Class files in court in his imaginary capacity as a "Private Attorney General", see document 12 in this case.
FACT: Rod Class has known about ALL OF THE COURT RULINGS IN ALL OF HIS OWN CASES (shown above) for several years. THESE CASES HAVE ALWAYS DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED ALL OF ROD CLASS’ CLAIMS about what a "Private Attorney General" is, that he was "authorized" and "credentialed" by "Congress" to represent others in court and to otherwise practice law without a license, about what his role was in court in that imaginary capacity and what he allegedly achieved in court in that imaginary capacity.
QUESTION: HAS ROD CLASS BEEN HONEST WITH YOU ABOUT ALL OF THE RULINGS IN ALL OF HIS OWN CASES (shown above) which have always held that a "Private Attorney General" IS NOT WHAT HE TOLD YOU IT IS? That the "powers" of a "Private Attorney General" ARE NOT WHAT HE TOLD YOU THEY WERE? That HE WAS NEVER "authorized" or "credentialed" by "Congress" to do anything? That HE HAS NEVER BEEN ALLOWED to represent another person in court? That he has LOST each and every single one of the cases (shown above) on the issue of whether he was a "Private Attorney General" who is "authorized" to represent others in court?
QUESTION: HAS ROD CLASS BEEN HONEST WITH YOU about the true status OF THE LAW on the "Private Attorney General" AS WAS CLEARLY AND REPEATEDLY EXPLAINED, IN GREAT DETAIL, BY ALL OF THE COURTS IN ALL OF HIS OWN CASES, (INCLUDING FOOTNOTE 8 IN PERTUSET I)? (shown above)?
FACT: Rod Class is so unimportant and so powerless that HE DOES NOT NOW HAVE, AND NEVER HAD, THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO EVEN SPEAK IN A COURT ROOM AT ALL except as necessary a "PARTY" to the litigation or as necessary as a "FACT WITNESS" if called to the witness stand TO DESCRIBE "FACTS" ("The traffic light was red"). Rod Class is so unimportant and so powerless that HE DOES NOT NOW HAVE, AND NEVER HAD, THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO EVEN SPEAK IN A COURT ROOM AT ALL IN ANY OTHER CAPACITY, NOT as an "expert witness" AS TO THE LAW, LEGAL CONCLUSIONS OR OPINIONS ("The law says... .", "So, this means that... ."), NOT as a FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, SECTION 4 "BOUNTY HUNTER" (another Rod Class hoax) in the performance of his imaginary "duties" in that imaginary capacity AND CERTAINLY NOT AS A "PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL" in the performance of his imaginary "duties" in that imaginary capacity. Any words that Rod Class ever speaks in a court room (except as necessary as a "PARTY" and as necessary as a "FACT WITNESS") are either ILLEGAL, UNAUTHORIZED OR AGAINST THE RULES OF COURT. Any such statements are subject to being STRICKEN from the record, can result in him being forcibly REMOVED and/or BANNED from the courtroom (or court floor) and can result in him being ARRESTED AND CHARGED WITH THE "UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW". Except for filings in cases for which the applicable statute of limitations has already expired, ROD CLASS IS ACTUALLY SUBJECT TO ARREST AND CONVICTION FOR EACH AND EVERY DOCUMENT THAT HE HAS EVER SIGNED AND FILED IN A COURT FILE ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PERSON (this is precisely what happened to Anthony Williams as seen in the video above).
FACT: AS OF TODAY, ROD CLASS (OR CLASS’ SIDE) HAS LOST OVER 70 CONSECUTIVE ADMINISTRATIVE OR JUDICIAL CASES IN A ROW (Class just LOST Carl & Vera Pertuset’s latest foreclosure case, LOST Harold Stanley’s criminal tax evasion case, LOST Harold Stanley’s retaliatory civil suit against the prosecutor and others involved in his criminal tax evasion case, LOST Daryl Zenon Bodan’s traffic case, LOST a retaliatory Administrative Court case that he filed on behalf of Daryl Zenon Bodan in connection with his traffic case). More importantly, Class just LOST HIS OWN APPEAL in his "D.C. Carrying Weapons case" (which may render him INELIGIBLE for a conceal & carry permit and for gun possession in North Carolina). Rod Class has NEVER obtained a single administrative or judicial ruling that governments, government agencies or governmental employees were "private entities" (a plural term), private contractors", "Corporate Appellees" or for-profit "corporations", much less "FOUR" of them. That is another Rod Class hoax.
FACT: THIS MEANS THAT EVERY, SINGLE, FICTIONAL, HALLUCINATORY, SELF-GLORIFYING "WAR STORY" THAT ROD CLASS HAS EVER TOLD YOU ABOUT HIS COUNTLESS VICTORIES IN COURT WAS A "WAR STORY" THAT AROSE OUT OF A CASE THAT HE ACTUALLY LOST (and a case that he had no legal authority to even speak in AT ALL except as necessary as a "PARTY" or as necessary as a "FACT WITNESS" if called to the witness stand)!!!
ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH:
Snoop4truth is a legal expert who opposes the mainstream media and legal disinformation for precisely the same reason, the people behind both disseminate INTENTIONALLY FALSE INFORMATION in order to advance their own agenda at the expense of the American people whom they pretend to serve.
Had it not been for Rodney DALE Class’("Rod Class’") role in manufacturing and perpetuating the "Judge DALE Hoax" and the "Debra Jones Hoax", Snoop4truth would not have exposed the "Private Attorney General Hoax" here.
Snoop4truth did not expose the "Private Attorney General Hoax" to harm Rod Class. Instead, Snoop4truth exposed the "Private Attorney General Hoax" SOLELY TO REDUCE THE CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE that such INTENTIONAL FRAUD inflicts upon the American people every single day. Deliberately lying to the American people about their law and their legal system is a willful act of treason and should be treated accordingly.
NOTE: If Rod Class had simply told you the truth, then he would not be exposed now. The lesson? Just tell the truth and you will never be exposed.
TITLE 42 U.S.C. 1988 (BE SURE TO LOOK FOR § (b))
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1988
THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866 (Pub. Law 88-352 (BE SURE TO LOOK FOR § 204(b))
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-78/pdf/STATUTE-78-Pg241.pdf
PHOTOS of ROD CLASS’ VEHICLE!!!
http://www.nc4x4.com/forum/threads/douche-bag-attractant.159266/
More ROD CLASS’’ HOAXES!!!
https://plus.google.com/114857294023663868625/posts/coN5QFxud7J
https://plus.google.com/114857294023663868625/posts/BQkDtiiNTH6
Just tell the truth.
Rodney DALE Class ("Rod Class") falsely claims to be a "Private Attorney General" under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and/or The Civil Rights Act Of 1866, BOTH of which are ordinary, FEDERAL, "CIVIL RIGHTS" STATUTES. Class also falsely claims that these two ordinary, FEDERAL, "CIVIL RIGHTS" STATUTES somehow "authorize" him personally to "represent" any party in any court and to otherwise practice law without a license in any court in any jurisdiction (STATE or FEDERAL) in that imaginary capacity. Finally, Class also falsely claims that as a "Private Attorney General", he is EXTREMELY important, EXTREMELY powerful and EXTREMELY knowledgeable.
But, contrary to Rod Class’ claims, THE TERM, "PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL" IS NOT A "PROFESSIONAL" OR "OCCUPATIONAL" TITLE (like "Attorney At Law" is or like "Attorney General" is), much less a "professional" or "occupational" TITLE for a non-lawyer who is knowledgeable in amateur/oppostional/defiant legal theories (FAKE laws) who is somehow authorized to represent a party in court and to otherwise practice law without a license in any court in any jurisdiction in that imaginary capacity.
FACT: THE TERM "PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL" DOES NOT APPEAR IN A SINGLE FEDERAL STATUTE, much less in Title 42 U.S.C. § 1988 or in the Civil Rights Act of 1866. FACT: Congress has NEVER "authorized" or "credentialed" any person to represent a party in court or to otherwise practice law without a license. FACT: Under the tenth amendment of the United States Constitution, Congress HAS NO POWER to "authorize" or to "credential" any person to represent a party in court or to otherwise practice law (only the STATES can do that).
THE TRUTH: The term, "Private Attorney General" is actually a temporary, JUDICIAL nickname created and used by the FEDERAL COURTS (that expires by the end of the case) for an "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF" (who has already WON an ordinary CIVIL case against a statutory violator) and who has NO knowledge of the law, who has NO legal authority, who has NO power and who has NO importance that any other "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF" does not already have.
There are ONLY THREE DIFFERENCES between a generic "Private Attorney General" and ANY OTHER "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF". First, a "Private Attorney General" is a (natural or artificial) person who/which is expressly authorized by the SAME STATUTE VIOLATED (or a statute that refers to the SAME STATUTE VIOLATED) TO BECOME AN "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF" and to FILE an ordinary CIVIL suit against the party who/that allegedly violated the statute. Second, a "Private Attorney General" is also statutorily entitled by the SAME STATUTE VIOLATED (or a statute that refers to that SAME STATUTE VIOLATED) to an award of legal fees from the other side IF, AND ONLY IF he/she/it hires a REAL ATTORNEY AT LAW who actually WINS the CIVIL suit that/he/she/it FILED against the alleged statutory violator. Third, a "Private Attorney General" must actually WIN the CIVIL suit that he/she/it FILED against the alleged statutory violator.
If you will actually read the words that appear in THESE TWO FEDERAL "CIVIL RIGHTS" STATUTES (and the FEDERAL "CIVIL RIGHTS" STATUTES referred to in them), you will discover that THEY ONLY DO TWO THINGS in terms of the "CONCEPT" of a "Private Attorney General". First, they permit a "VICTIM" (AND ONLY A "VICTIM") of a statutory violation of the words that actually appear IN THOSE TWO FEDERAL "CIVIL RIGHTS" STATUTES (and to those FEDERAL "CIVIL RIGHTS" STATUTES referred to in them) AND ONLY THOSE STATUTES to become an "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF" and to FILE an ordinary CIVIL suit against the alleged statutory violator IN FEDERAL COURT (AND ONLY IN FEDERAL COURT). Second, they permit the FEDERAL judge to award LEGAL FEES to the "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF" IF, AND ONLY IF he/she/it actually hired a REAL ATTORNEY AT LAW who actually WINS that CIVIL case. While all federal "civil rights" statute protect civil rights, THESE TWO FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTES DO NOTHING ELSE in terms of the "CONCEPT" of a "Private Attorney General".
Indeed, The formal name of Title 42 U.S.C. § 1988 is actually the "CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY’S FEES AWARDS ACT". This means that the SOLE PURPOSE of that statute is TO PROVIDE PAYMENT to REAL ATTORNEYS AT LAW who actually WIN such CIVIL cases on behalf of "CIVIL RIGHTS" VICTIMS who have suffered a VIOLATION of one or more of the FEDERAL "CIVIL RIGHTS" STATUTES specifically enumerated in that statute.
Both Title 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and the Civil Rights Act 0f 1866 are "FEE SHIFTING" statutes. This means that they "SHIFT" the WINNING party’s obligation to pay his/her/its OWN LEGAL FEES to the LOSING party. In this way, "CIVIL RIGHTS" "VICTIMS" who have no money, but who have meritorious "CIVIL RIGHTS" cases, are still able to obtain the legal services of a REAL ATTORNEY AT LAW who will likely be paid by the other side by the end of the case.
Contrary to Rod Class’ claims, there is NOTHING about these TWO FEDERAL "CIVIL RIGHTS" STATUTES that "authorizes" or "credentials" any non-lawyer to "represent" a party in court, to practice law without a license or to use the temporary, JUDICIAL nickname, "Private Attorney General", as if it were a "professional" or "occupational" TITLE (like "Attorney At Law" or like "Attorney General").
A person WHO REALLY IS a "Private Attorney General" under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and/or under The Civil Rights Act Of 1866 IS A "VICTIM" (and only a "victim") of a violation of those FEDERAL "CIVIL RIGHTS" that are protected and enforced by those two FEDERAL "CIVIL RIGHTS" STATUTES (not other statutes). A person WHO REALLY IS a "Private Attorney General" under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and/or the Civil Rights Act of 1866 IS A "PLAINTIFF" (NOT A "DEFENDANT"). A person WHO REALLY IS a "Private Attorney General" under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and/or the Civil Rights Act of 1866 IS IN "FEDERAL" COURT (NOT IN "STATE" COURT) (State courts have no jurisdiction to hear or decide cases involving alleged violations of FEDERAL "CIVIL RIGHTS" STATUTES.). A person WHO REALLY IS a "Private Attorney General" under Title 42 U.S.C.§ 1988 and/or the Civil Rights Act of 1866 IS A "PARTY" to the litigation (NOT A PERSON WHO PURPORTS TO "REPRESENT" A PARTY to the litigation). Finally, a person WHO REALLY IS a "Private Attorney General" under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and/or the Civil Rights Act of 1866 is an "ordinary civil plaintiff" who has already WON the CIVIL suit that he/she FILED against the alleged statutory violator.
IQ TEST: So, if you are a "DEFENDANT" in federal court and you are charged with the "CRIME" of "carrying" "weapons" onto United States Capitol grounds, it is LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE for you to be a "Private Attorney General" under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and/or under The Civil Rights Act of 1866, or any other statute (because you are a "DEFENDANT" in a "CRIMINAL" case and to be a "Private Attorney General" under those TWO FEDERAL "CIVIL RIGHTS" STATUTES, or any other statute, you must be a "PLAINTIFF" who actually FILED and who already WON a FEDERAL"CIVIL RIGHTS" "CIVIL" suit against the alleged statutory violator). So, if you are a defendant in a "STATE" Traffic Ticket case OR a plaintiff in a "STATE" Administrative Court case, then it is LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE for you to be a "Private Attorney General" under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and/or under The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (because you are in "STATE" court case and to be a "Private Attorney General" under those TWO FEDERAL "CIVIL RIGHTS" STATUTES, you must be IN FEDERAL COURT). So, IF YOU PURPORT TO "REPRESENT" ANY "PARTY" to the litigation IN ANY COURT ANYWHERE, then it is \sect plain LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE for you to be a "Private Attorney General" under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and/or under The Civil Rights Act of 1866, or any other statute (because you are PURPORTING TO "REPRESENT" A "PARTY" to the litigation and to be a "Private Attorney General" under these TWO FEDERAL "CIVIL RIGHTS" STATUTES, or any other statute, YOU MUST BE A "PARTY" to the litigation, NOT someone WHO PURPORTS TO "REPRESENT" A "PARTY" to the litigation). So, if you have LOST EVERY SINGLE ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL CASE IN WHICH YOU HAVE EVER BEEN INVOLVED (OVER 70 CONSECUTIVE LOSSES IN A ROW), it is LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE for you to be a "Private Attorney General" under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and/or the Civil Rights Act of 1866, or any other statute (because you LOST every single case in which you have ever been involved and in order to be a "Private Attorney General" under these TWO FEDERAL "CIVIL RIGHTS" STATUTES, or any other statute, you must have already WON the CIVIL suit that you FILED against the alleged statutory violator).
Because an "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF" cannot represent a party in court or otherwise practice law without a license, and because a "Private Attorney General" IS AN "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF", a "Private Attorney General" cannot represent a party in court or otherwise practice law without a license either. This is because the term, "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF," and the term, "Private Attorney General", are two different terms THAT MEAN THE VERY SAME THING.
I.Q. TEST: An attorney at law IS an attorney IN EVERY sense of the word. But, a "Private Attorney General" IS NOT an attorney IN ANY sense of the word! An attorney at law represents a party in court. But, a "Private Attorney General" IS A PARTY IN COURT! An attorney at law represents a client in court. But, a "Private Attorney General" IS A CLIENT IN COURT! An attorney at law acts on behalf of people WHO ARE IN COURT. But, a "Private Attorney General" acts on his/her/its own behalf and on behalf of people WHO ARE OUT OF COURT! A person’s status as an attorney at law CONTINUES AFTER THE END OF THE CASE. But, a person’s status of a "Private Attorney General" is temporary and ENDS, AT THE LATEST, AT THE END OF THE CASE! A person CANNOT BE a "Private Attorney General" AFTER THE END OF THE CASE any more than a person can be an "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF" AFTER THE END OF THE CASE.
SOURCE: So, where did this insignificant, temporary, JUDICIAL nickname come from? Well, a REAL governmental "Attorney General" WINS lawsuits against statutory violators which helps to enforce the law thereby benefitting society as a whole. Likewise, an "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF" who WINS lawsuits against statutory violators also helps to enforce the law thereby benefitting society as a whole. Noting the similarity IN FUNCTION between a REAL governmental "Attorney General" who WINS such lawsuits and an "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF" who WINS such lawsuits, the FEDERAL courts, during that final portion of the case when legal fees might be awarded, began jokingly referring to such "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFFS" who WIN such lawsuits as "Private Attorneys General". The FEDERAL courts still use this temporary, JUDICIAL nickname, during that final portion of the case when legal fees might be awarded, to remind the litigants that such an "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF" who has already WON such a CIVIL suit against a statutory violator has rendered a public service by helping to enforcing the law and is, therefore, statutorily eligible for an award of legal fees IF, AND ONLY IF that "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF" was represented by a REAL ATTORNEY AT LAW in WINNING the case.
DURATION: The term, "Private Attorney General" ONLY APPLIES to such an "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF" from the time of any WIN of such a CIVIL case until the time WHEN ANY LEGAL FEES MIGHT BE AWARDED, or until the end of the case, whichever comes sooner. At that point, the temporary, JUDICIAL nickname, "Private Attorney General" has served its purpose AND EXPIRES FOREVER. So, there is NO SUCH THING as a "Private Attorney General" AFTER THE END OF THE CASE.
Thus, in creating and using this temporary, JUDICIAL nickname for an "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF" ("Private Attorney General"), the FEDERAL COURTS were NOT thereby elevating non-lawyers who were knowledgeable in amateur/oppositional/defiant legal theories (FAKE laws) to the professional level of REAL ATTORNEYS AT LAW or REAL "ATTORNEYS GENERAL". In so doing, the FEDERAL COURTS were NOT thereby creating a "special class" of FAKE, phony, pretend, make-believe, unlicensed, uneducated, unqualified, self-proclaimed, self-appointed "attorneys" who were somehow "authorized" to represent a party in court or to otherwise practice law without a license in any court in any jurisdiction. In so doing, the FEDERAL COURTS were NOT thereby creating a "professional" or "occupational" TITLE (like "Attorney At Law" or "Attorney General") for non-lawyers to use in defrauding the public, to use in court, to use on their court documents, to use as the name of their internet radio show, to use on a plaque hanging on their "back drop" on their video sets, to use on their "costumes", to use on their vehicles, to use in their seminars or to otherwise use when impersonating a REAL ATTORNEY AT LAW, a REAL ATTORNEY GENERAL or OTHER OFFICIAL AUTHORIZED AND EMPOWERED TO CARRY OUT OR ENFORCE THE LAW.
But, seeing an opportunity to defraud the American people (again), Rod Class and other amateur/oppositional/defiant legal theorists FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMED that this temporary, JUDICIAL nickname for an "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF" ("Private Attorney General") was a "professional" or "occupational" TITLE (like "Attorney At Law" and "Attorney General") for a non-lawyer who has knowledge of amateur/oppostional/defiant legal theories (FAKE laws) who is somehow "authorized" to represent a party in court and to otherwise practice law without a license in any court in any jurisdiction. IT IS THIS FAKE DEFINITION OF A "PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL" THAT FORMS THE BASIS FOR THE ENTIRE "PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL HOAX". Not surprisingly, the courts NEVER adopted this FAKE, DELUSIONAL, NON-SENSE definition for "Private Attorney General".
Rod Class and other amateur/oppostional/defiant legal theorists lavished this inapplicable, insignificant, but impressive-sounding , temporary JUDICIAL nickname ("Private Attorney General") UPON THEMSELVES as if it were a "professional" or "occupational" TITLE (like "Attorney At Law" is and like "Attorney General" is) and use it to create the "ILLUSION" that they are EXTREMELY powerful, EXTREMELY important and EXTREMELY knowledgeable in the law (NONE of which is actually the case).
CONCLUSION: Rod Class is not now and has never been a "Private Attorney General". He doesn’t even know the meaning of the term. If you have paid Rod Class for "training" on how to become a "Private Attorney General", then you are a VICTIM. (It is a federal felony to use a means of interstate commerce, like the internet, to obtain money by marketing seminars under fraudulent pretenses). You may have a right to a refund. If you have paid Rod Class a "retainer", "legal fees" and/or for his "expenses" for travel, food and lodging in connection with his providing you with "legal services" (in LOSING your case for you), then you are a VICTIM. You may have the right to a refund. Contact Rod Class or the state bar where the offense occurred.
THE LAW ON THE "PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL"
CASES THAT DEFINE A "PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL" UNDER TITLE 42 U.S.C. § 1988 AS AN "ORDINARY CIVIL PLAINTIFF" WHO WINS A "CIVIL RIGHTS" CIVIL CASE.
(Look for BOLD PRINT in each case below.).
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4612481658703000905&q=+%2242+U.S.C.%22+1988+1983+%22Private+attorney+general%22+%22when+a+plaintiff+succeeds+in+remedying+a+civil+rights+violation%22+%22he+serves+as+a%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8789673379809042125&q=%22Civil+Rights+Attorney%27s+Fees+Awards+Act%22+1988+%22Congress+expressly+recognized+that+a+plaintiff+who+obtains+relief+in+a+Civil+rights+lawsuit+does+so%22+%22as+a+private+attorney+general%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
There are TWO sections of this case that appear in BOLD PRINT. Be sure to scroll down to the SECOND section of BOLD PRINT for the holding in this case (at about 40% through the text). Look for the term, "PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL".
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16098434127441351570&q=+%22as+a+Private+Attorney+General%22+%22When+a+plaintiff%22+%22obtains+an+injunction%22+%22he+does+so%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3704494267863674576&q=role+%22complainants+act%22+he+%22when+a%22+plaintiff+%22The+characterization+of+the%22+plaintiff+%22as+a+private+attorney+general%22+%22civil+rights+plaintiffs+act+not+only+in+their+own+interests+but%22+%22as+private+attorneys+general%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12968550988292561231&q=1988+%2242+U.S.C.+1988%22+%22both+fee+award+provisions%22+%22are+intended+to+reward+the+successful+plaintiff+acting+as+a%22+%22private+attorney+general%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
CASES THAT ROD CLASS LOST IN CONNECTION WITH HIS FALSE CLAIMS THAT HE IS A "PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL" WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO "REPRESENT" OTHERS IN COURT AND TO OTHERWISE PRACTICE LAW WITHOUT A LICENSE.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9078043099739209784&q=+plaintiff+%22does+not+permit%22+%22private+attorney+general%22+%22for+supplemental+representation+by+Mr.%22+%22this+court+denied+the+debtors%27+request%22+%22was+not+an+attorney%22+%22debtors+asked+this+court+to+allow+Mr.%22+Rodney+Dale+Class+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
IMPORTANT! Be sure to read footnote 8 (including its FINAL sentence) at the bottom of this case. It is the best (and most concise) summary of the law on the "Private Attorney General" as it relates to amateur/oppositional/defiant legal theory in the entire body of law.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6091131846651842220&q=%22he+serves+as+a%22+plaintiff+unauthorized+Rodney+Dale+Class++%22in+no+way+does+the+concept+of+a%22+%22private+attorney+general%22+%22permit+an+individual%22+%22not+licensed+to+practice+law%22+%22to+represent+a+party+in+a+court+proceeding%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14863743579773715064&q=%22private+attorney+general%22+rodney+dale+class+%22cannot+appear+as+counsel+for+others%22+%22as+a%22+%22lay+person%22+%22he+cannot+prosecute+a+claim+on+behalf+of%22+%22other+individuals%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2757756755752158953&q=%22not+available%22+denied+%22there+is+no+evidence+supporting%22+%22this+allegation%22%22Private+attorney+general%22+Rodney+Class+%22Defendant+claims+he+has+been+given+authority+by+the+house+and+senate+to+act+as+a%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
Scroll down to Ruling 35 in this case. But, be sure to read all of the other "denials" of Rod Class’ motions reflecting his other amateur/oppositonal/defiant legal theories ("capital letters", etc.). They are priceless. Finally, read footnotes 5-10 at the end of the case. They are excellent.
CASES LOST BY OTHER FAKE "PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL":
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5553195043949924185&q=%22practice+of+law%22+unauthorized+not++%22to+practice+law%22+%22permit+an+individual%22+%22not+licensed%22+%22to+represent+a+party+in+a+court+proceeding%22+%22In+no+way+does+the+concept+of+a%22+%22Private+Attorney+General%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
Note that this case actually cites and quotes the holding in Rod Class’ earlier LOSS on the very same issue in Pertuset I (above) as legal authority for the holding in this case.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2856702793495571504&q=%22to+appear%22%22as+an+attorney%22+%22for+others%22++authority+permit+%22has+no%22+%22not+authorize%22+%22practice+of+law%22+unauthorized+authorized+%22has+no%22+not+%22attorney+in+fact%22+%22power+of+attorney%22+%22Private+Attorney+General%22+%22Anthony+Williams%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
Note that the FAKE "Private Attorney General" in this case is the same FAKE "Private Attorney General" that is the subject of the three minute video below.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3572479853129620278&q=%22for+oneself%22+%22for+others%22+%22of+others%22+authorized+unauthorized+%22practice+of+law%22+lawyer+attorney+attorneys+non+%22Personally+or+by+counsel%22+cannot+not+%22power+of+attorney%22+POA+general+%22Private+attorney%22+%22private+attorney%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
THREE MINUTE VIDEO. MUST SEE!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLbXtscZBM8
NOTE: Note that NONE of the "Private Attorney General" cases shown above have anything to do with "doing accountability" against the state or federal government, their agencies or their personnel.
NOTE: We would have like to have provided you with links to more cases that Rod Class LOST in connection with his false claims that he is a "Private Attorney General". But, these cases are only available on Pacer.gov or other websites that will not allow us to link to cases in their databases. Among these other cases that Rod Class LOST on this very issue is Cherylyn Marcos Sellers v. Donald Zsemonadi, et al, Case no. CV 15-05949 SJO (Ex) (C. D. Cal. 2015) (available on Pacer.gov.). Simply key in THE DEFENDANT’S name (last name first) into the Pacer search bar. (For some reason, this case does not appear to come up on Pacer.gov any other way). The court rulings on Rod Class’s false claims that he is a "Private Attorney General" appear on the documents numbered 19 and 11 on the document index of this case. For a classic example of the kind of LOSING papers that Rod Class files in court in his imaginary capacity as a "Private Attorney General", see document 12 in this case.
FACT: Rod Class has known about ALL OF THE COURT RULINGS IN ALL OF HIS OWN CASES (shown above) for several years. THESE CASES HAVE ALWAYS DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED ALL OF ROD CLASS’ CLAIMS about what a "Private Attorney General" is, that he was "authorized" and "credentialed" by "Congress" to represent others in court and to otherwise practice law without a license, about what his role was in court in that imaginary capacity and what he allegedly achieved in court in that imaginary capacity.
QUESTION: HAS ROD CLASS BEEN HONEST WITH YOU ABOUT ALL OF THE RULINGS IN ALL OF HIS OWN CASES (shown above) which have always held that a "Private Attorney General" IS NOT WHAT HE TOLD YOU IT IS? That the "powers" of a "Private Attorney General" ARE NOT WHAT HE TOLD YOU THEY WERE? That HE WAS NEVER "authorized" or "credentialed" by "Congress" to do anything? That HE HAS NEVER BEEN ALLOWED to represent another person in court? That he has LOST each and every single one of the cases (shown above) on the issue of whether he was a "Private Attorney General" who is "authorized" to represent others in court?
QUESTION: HAS ROD CLASS BEEN HONEST WITH YOU about the true status OF THE LAW on the "Private Attorney General" AS WAS CLEARLY AND REPEATEDLY EXPLAINED, IN GREAT DETAIL, BY ALL OF THE COURTS IN ALL OF HIS OWN CASES, (INCLUDING FOOTNOTE 8 IN PERTUSET I)? (shown above)?
FACT: Rod Class is so unimportant and so powerless that HE DOES NOT NOW HAVE, AND NEVER HAD, THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO EVEN SPEAK IN A COURT ROOM AT ALL except as necessary a "PARTY" to the litigation or as necessary as a "FACT WITNESS" if called to the witness stand TO DESCRIBE "FACTS" ("The traffic light was red"). Rod Class is so unimportant and so powerless that HE DOES NOT NOW HAVE, AND NEVER HAD, THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO EVEN SPEAK IN A COURT ROOM AT ALL IN ANY OTHER CAPACITY, NOT as an "expert witness" AS TO THE LAW, LEGAL CONCLUSIONS OR OPINIONS ("The law says... .", "So, this means that... ."), NOT as a FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, SECTION 4 "BOUNTY HUNTER" (another Rod Class hoax) in the performance of his imaginary "duties" in that imaginary capacity AND CERTAINLY NOT AS A "PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL" in the performance of his imaginary "duties" in that imaginary capacity. Any words that Rod Class ever speaks in a court room (except as necessary as a "PARTY" and as necessary as a "FACT WITNESS") are either ILLEGAL, UNAUTHORIZED OR AGAINST THE RULES OF COURT. Any such statements are subject to being STRICKEN from the record, can result in him being forcibly REMOVED and/or BANNED from the courtroom (or court floor) and can result in him being ARRESTED AND CHARGED WITH THE "UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW". Except for filings in cases for which the applicable statute of limitations has already expired, ROD CLASS IS ACTUALLY SUBJECT TO ARREST AND CONVICTION FOR EACH AND EVERY DOCUMENT THAT HE HAS EVER SIGNED AND FILED IN A COURT FILE ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PERSON (this is precisely what happened to Anthony Williams as seen in the video above).
FACT: AS OF TODAY, ROD CLASS (OR CLASS’ SIDE) HAS LOST OVER 70 CONSECUTIVE ADMINISTRATIVE OR JUDICIAL CASES IN A ROW (Class just LOST Carl & Vera Pertuset’s latest foreclosure case, LOST Harold Stanley’s criminal tax evasion case, LOST Harold Stanley’s retaliatory civil suit against the prosecutor and others involved in his criminal tax evasion case, LOST Daryl Zenon Bodan’s traffic case, LOST a retaliatory Administrative Court case that he filed on behalf of Daryl Zenon Bodan in connection with his traffic case). More importantly, Class just LOST HIS OWN APPEAL in his "D.C. Carrying Weapons case" (which may render him INELIGIBLE for a conceal & carry permit and for gun possession in North Carolina). Rod Class has NEVER obtained a single administrative or judicial ruling that governments, government agencies or governmental employees were "private entities" (a plural term), private contractors", "Corporate Appellees" or for-profit "corporations", much less "FOUR" of them. That is another Rod Class hoax.
FACT: THIS MEANS THAT EVERY, SINGLE, FICTIONAL, HALLUCINATORY, SELF-GLORIFYING "WAR STORY" THAT ROD CLASS HAS EVER TOLD YOU ABOUT HIS COUNTLESS VICTORIES IN COURT WAS A "WAR STORY" THAT AROSE OUT OF A CASE THAT HE ACTUALLY LOST (and a case that he had no legal authority to even speak in AT ALL except as necessary as a "PARTY" or as necessary as a "FACT WITNESS" if called to the witness stand)!!!
ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH:
Snoop4truth is a legal expert who opposes the mainstream media and legal disinformation for precisely the same reason, the people behind both disseminate INTENTIONALLY FALSE INFORMATION in order to advance their own agenda at the expense of the American people whom they pretend to serve.
Had it not been for Rodney DALE Class’("Rod Class’") role in manufacturing and perpetuating the "Judge DALE Hoax" and the "Debra Jones Hoax", Snoop4truth would not have exposed the "Private Attorney General Hoax" here.
Snoop4truth did not expose the "Private Attorney General Hoax" to harm Rod Class. Instead, Snoop4truth exposed the "Private Attorney General Hoax" SOLELY TO REDUCE THE CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE that such INTENTIONAL FRAUD inflicts upon the American people every single day. Deliberately lying to the American people about their law and their legal system is a willful act of treason and should be treated accordingly.
NOTE: If Rod Class had simply told you the truth, then he would not be exposed now. The lesson? Just tell the truth and you will never be exposed.
TITLE 42 U.S.C. 1988 (BE SURE TO LOOK FOR § (b))
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1988
THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866 (Pub. Law 88-352 (BE SURE TO LOOK FOR § 204(b))
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-78/pdf/STATUTE-78-Pg241.pdf
PHOTOS of ROD CLASS’ VEHICLE!!!
http://www.nc4x4.com/forum/threads/douche-bag-attractant.159266/
More ROD CLASS’’ HOAXES!!!
https://plus.google.com/114857294023663868625/posts/coN5QFxud7J
https://plus.google.com/114857294023663868625/posts/BQkDtiiNTH6
Just tell the truth.
