Rod Class Update: Headed to the Supreme Court

Those who've followed Rod's work know his "DC gun case" will be heard in the Supreme Court of the United States, sometime in October/November of this year.

A well-known law firm, Jenner & Block, took an interest in his case when they saw the un-constitutional behavior of the court, and noticed how Rod laid the facts out so well they could not be disputed.  Jenner & Block was asked by the court to submit a brief in Rod's favor during his appeal (presumably because Rod refused a public defender from beginning to end), and that's when they saw what Rod had accomplished, and the courts ignored.  I'm not a fan of the BAR but when you think about it, BAR members have no consistent injuries from the system -- they're sworn officers of the court, for a reason.

Maybe it took one person to make a claim that one law firm could grab a hold of to expose a corrupt system full of lies and deceit.  The court absolutely prosecuted Rod with malice and viciousness, in retaliation for his exposing the fact that they refuse to abide by superior case law and the Constitution.

A favorable ruling (and we expect they can't rule otherwise unless they expose themselves to deceit) should offer a new tool for anyone who's been forced to sign a plea agreement and waive their Constitutional rights in exchange for the ability to return to their families while they await trial, rather than be incarcerated for what could be years. Moreover and even more importantly, it will expose the vicious nature of a court system gone rogue -- that prosecutes the public with malice when you question its methods and law.  This case also shows how the courts take a dislike to the fact that it's unconstitutional to prosecute anyone for lawfully carrying arms for protection.

Listen to Rod's latest talkshoe recording on the Supreme Court case here.

Docket for the Supreme Court case is here.  Question presented to be answered:

16-424 CLASS V. UNITED STATES
DECISION BELOW: 15-3015
CERT. GRANTED 2/21/2017

QUESTION PRESENTED:
 

     In Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 (1974), and Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61 (1975),  this Court held that a defendant who pleads guilty can still raise on appeal any constitutional claim that does not depend on challenging his "factual guilt." In Blackledge and Menna, the Court held that double jeopardy and vindictive prosecution are two such claims that are not inherently resolved by pleading guilty, because those claims do not challenge whether the government could properly meet its burden of proving each element of the crime. In the years since this Court decided Blackledge and Menna, the circuit courts have deeply divided on whether a defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of his statute of conviction survives a plea, or instead is inherently waived as part of the concession of factual guilt.

The question presented is:

Whether a guilty plea inherently waives a defendant's right to challenge the constitutionality of his statute of conviction?

LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 15-3015

Note:  Pay no attention to the recommendations you pay Westlaw or any other such BAR-related entity for access to the briefs that have been filed.  You can view and download them here for free.  (insert facepalm here).