IN THE MATTER OF RODNEY DALE CLASS VS. U.S.
Published on 10-30-2014 by THE REIGN OF THE HEAVENS SOCIETY POST
The Committee on Human Rights is approached by the brother of Rod Class this afternoon on 10-30-2014:
The Brother of Rod Class is extremely concerned about Rod Class based on his recent arrest over a two or three year argument about alleged weapons violations.
The Committee heard some of the details of the case and decided that the Class brothers cannot be worked with at this time. Further, there are no human rights being violated against Rod Class.
As a matter of fact, Rod Class is actually violating Article 20, section 1 and 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, the U.S. has not filed any Human Rights Violations against Rod Class with the Clerk of The Human Rights Tribunal at this time.
Rod Class is arguing U.S. Constitution and Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) as a defense, yet has never signed the U.S. constitution nor is Rod Class licensed to use the UCC. The People of the United States have not invited Rod Class to be a part of that association.
Rod Class is forcing the U.S. constitution association on people through administrative law that are not a party to that constitution, including Rod Class, yet feels justified in telling others what they are doing wrong in administrative procedures that are being implemented by Metro. Metro has nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution as a private membership association and Rod Class is not using any administrative procedure to create a peaceful settlement or solution.
Rod Class is practicing Administrative Law as a weapon which is not a part of the UCC nor the U.S. constitution.
On or about July 11th, 2014, Rod Class was speaking to a woman named Debra. Debra tried to explain to Rod Class many times in that recording what to do and how to do it, meaning getting out of the empire. Rod Class did not listen to a thing Debra was saying and basically wasted Debra’s precious time for about an hour and a half.
The Committee tried to explain how to fix the issue, however, the explanation fell on deaf ears because of the constant will to fight rather than resolve the issue and move on.
The failure of Metro to resolve this issue by and between Rod Class and the U.S. is a real problem. It is a failure of the Metro administrative system to remain neutral in resolving issues administratively as a third party settlement board. The Metro System is actually agitating the problem rather than resolving the problem by not explaining the true purpose of administrative procedure.
However, there are no human rights violations at this time and all parties are at fault in one way or another. The Human Rights Tribunal will remain neutral unless approached by Rod Class AND the U.S. to resolve the matter.
Human Rights Definition:
Many countries provide separate legal systems for handling non-criminal conflicts between citizens and the state, which are usually called systems of administrative law. Even where, as in the United Kingdom, there is no formally separate system, a functional division is likely to exist, with judges specializing in such conflicts, and with the development of special procedures and legal doctrines. At one time the dominant thinking in the UK was that administrative law should not be a separate system, because there would actually be less control over the executive if public bodies were not subjected to the same controls as all other citizens through the common law. This view, associated with A.V.Dicey (1835–1922), held that European societies were executive-dominated because the administrative law system allowed public servants to hide from the scrutiny of truly independent courts. It has largely been discredited, at least in part because the UK found it necessary to develop de-facto, if not de-jure, administrative law courts of its own. Administrative law is characterized by a very strong insistence that all acts of public officials be clearly intra-vires, fully authorized by a legitimate rule or statute. Administrative law seldom goes beyond that, because the courts in question are expressly not authorized to challenge the legitimacy of the authorizing legislation itself. Thus in countries such as Germany and Italy, and, in a different way, France, which have both administrative law and constitutional law, questions of the validity of the authorizing laws are strictly reserved to the constitutional courts. There are other doctrines,sometimes very powerful ones, used in European administrative law which, unlike the basic intra vires test, have no clear counterpart in common law jurisdictions. Two of the more important doctrines are those governing misuse of power, best known by its French label of détournement de pouvoir, and the concept of proportionality in administrative action. Misuse of power here means using an acknowledged legitimate power for ends that were not intended by the legislature, while proportionality means that no more far reaching administrative action is justified than is minimally necessary to achieve the legitimate aims of the legislation authorizing the actions. This latter doctrine is beginning to be accepted into common law jurisdictions, especially in Canada and, to a lesser extent, in the UK. As the European Court of Justice (ECJ) develops increasing power,and hears more and more appeals from citizens of member states under the Article 177 proceedings, something like a European administrative or public law system is developing, helped by the fact that the ECJ has incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights directly into European Union law.