Wallen Cases
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Wallen Cases as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 82,262
- Pages: 270
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : index
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases
U.S.A. v. Wallen [Note: Small numbers indicate number of bytes in ASCII portion of files (sans HTML)]
Table of Contents
1.
13592
AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT DOCUMENTING CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING ARREST
2.
11892
MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE FOR INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
3.
3686
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST FOR CREDENTIALS OF JOELYN D. MARLOWE
4.
3737
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST FOR VARIOUS IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS
5.
3356
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST FOR VARIOUS IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS
6.
3275
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST FOR CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF USDC
7.
3603
8.
2311
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL
9.
2318
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL
10.
4388
NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE
11.
8644
NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE
12.
5356
13.
61490
14.
16431
15.
105465
16.
9487
NOTICE OF REFUSAL FOR CAUSE
17.
5081
FINAL NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR PROOF OF POWER, STANDING, AND JURISDICTION
18.
120533
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST FOR STANDING OF USA TO SUE AS PLAINTIFFS
NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR THE RIGHT TO ENJOY THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL OF CHOICE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION FOR VIOLATING THE SIXTH AMENDMENT MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH GRAND JURY SELECTION POLICY AND CHALLENGE TO CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTE VERIFIED STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF CHALLENGE TO GRAND JURY SELECTION POLICY AND ITS FEDERAL STATUTE
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF CHALLENGE TO CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF COURT
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/ (1 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:12:54 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : index
19.
11911
20.
3144
NOTICE OF APPEAL
21.
4379
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FROM ALL QUALIFIED ARTICLE III FEDERAL JUDGES
22.
39707
23.
8736
AFFIDAVIT OF NON-WAIVER OF EXTRADITION
24.
9343
NOTICE OF REMOVAL AND PETITION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
25.
9228
NOTICE OF REMOVAL AND PETITION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
26.
13668
27.
4246
28.
5220
29.
28594
CLOSING STATEMENT TO THE JURY
NOTICE AND DEMAND TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGE OF THE COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE TO PRESIDE OVER THE DCUS NOTICE OF FORMAL OBJECTION TO TRANSCRIPT FEE IMPOSED
NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT AGAINST WILLIAM D. BROWNING COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
Return to Table of Contents for Supreme Law Library: Court Cases [Home] [Write Us] [Library] [School] [Forum] [Subscribe] [Donate]
Common Law Copyright 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 A.D.: Supreme Law Firm email: [email protected] Last Update: August 5, 2002 A.D.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/ (2 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:12:54 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : affidav
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona Under Protest, Necessity, and by Special Visitation Only
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Sheila Terese, Wallen, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________)
COMES NOW
Sheila Terese,
state and
Defendant in
Case No. 95-484-WDB AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT DOCUMENTING CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING ARREST: 28 U.S.C. 1746(1)
Wallen, Sui the above
Juris, Citizen of Arizona
entitled matter
(hereinafter
"Defendant"), being duly sworn upon oath, to depose and to affirm as follows: 1.
My entire
two gates; posted all
"No
any angle
20-acre property
is fenced and secured with
Trespassing" signs (3 on front gates alone) are
around my
property;
these can be clearly seen from
or position upon approaching my property (see attached
pictures, incorporated herein as EXHIBIT "A"). 2. a.m. in
On or
about September
the morning,
Wedgeford Road
in the
I was
29, 1995, at approximately 8:30
in bed
town of
in my
house at
the end of
Arivaca, Arizona state.
time, my front gate was closed and bolted shut.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/affidav.htm (1 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:02 PM]
At that
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : affidav
Affidavit of Defendant Documenting Arrest Circumstances: Page 1 of 8
3.
I was
Hello!
startled awake
Is there
to hear people shouting, "Hello!
anybody home?"
These same people were banging
their hands on the side of my house while they were shouting. 4.
I opened
"Who's there?" for a
the window
to my
bedroom
and
asked
them,
They responded by saying, "We need to talk to you
minute."
They then instructed me to come out of the house
by saying, "Come out here?" 5.
At that point, I got out of bed, put on my bathrobe and
went out wanted.
the front
door to the screened porch, to see what they
I could see that there were three (3) armed men in plain
clothes with
heavy builds.
The
guns were
strapped onto their
waists, and I could see their clearly exposed handles. 6.
They flashed
themselves as
what appeared to be badges and introduced
agents
of
the
Drug
Enforcement
("DEA") by saying, "My name is Dave Lowe. then introduced had called
me to Alan and Terry.
them to
Administration
I'm with the DEA."
He
They told me that someone
tell them that I had marijuana growing on my
property. 7.
I then asked them, "Do you have a warrant?"
8.
Dave Lowe
or we
then said, "You can either tell us about it,
can wait for a warrant."
stand here, comes, along apart."
and you
contemplating my presence of
will stand
with a
I paused
Then Terry Evans added, "We will there until
it
[the
warrant]
swarm of people and we will tear this place for
a
long
situation.
these unexpected,
time I
was
before very
saying frightened
armed visitors.
heart beating in my throat.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/affidav.htm (2 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:02 PM]
anything, by
the
I could feel my
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : affidav
9.
They violated my home and
my Person without a warrant,
in spite of my "No Trespass" signs.
Affidavit of Defendant Documenting Arrest Circumstances: Page 2 of 8
10.
Dave Lowe then said, "If you will cooperate and show us
where it is, everything will be OK." 11.
I asked
them, "Are you going to arrest me?"
Dave Lowe
answered, "If it's just a few plants, we'll just take 'em and go. We probably get some
won't even
clothes on."
have to arrest you."
without shoes
I
filled with
or socks,
was naked at that
I said, "I need to
under my
moment.
I
bath was
robe,
and
intimidated,
fear, both because of strange men with guns, as well
as federal agents, if they were, in fact, federal agents. 12.
I asked
"Why don't
you just
coming outside It seemed
them if they could wait outside and they said, show us?"
They
immediately, at
like they
that second,
wanted to
asked to come inside to wait.
seemed insistent about my
come into
without any delay.
the house.
They also
I told then, "It will just take me
a second to get dressed." 13.
Then they asked me, several times, if I had any guns on
the premises.
I responded by saying, "No, I don't allow guns on
my property."
At
so I
that moment, my back was turned towards them,
could not see what their response was.
But they were still
wearing their guns when I came back out of the house. 14.
I went back into the house to get my shoes, where I put
on some shorts and a T-shirt, and I carried my shoes out onto the porch, where
I put
hurry, otherwise
them on.
I felt
I
felt very pressured by them to
sure that
while I was dressing.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/affidav.htm (3 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:02 PM]
they might
invade my
house
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : affidav
Affidavit of Defendant Documenting Arrest Circumstances: Page 3 of 8
15.
We walked
outside, where
Officer Dave Lowe read me my
rights by saying, "You have the right to remain silent. you say
or do can and will be held against you."
I understood my rights. arrest me." him that
He
He asked me if
I said, "I thought you said you wouldn't
said, "You are not under arrest."
I understood
statement, after
my
rights.
I
was
I never told
confused
he just finished reading me my rights.
asked me if there were any more plants on the property. "You'd better
tell me
property anyway,
Anything
now, because
we are
by
this
He then He said,
going to search the
and it will be a lot easier for you if you just
tell me." 16. my head,
At this
point, I
felt the threat of jail hanging over
and that there was nothing I could do to stop them from
searching. 17.
Then my brother David walked up, and the agents started
to interrogate
him, asking
him who he was and what was he doing
there? 18.
I assured
the agents
that he
was not involved in any
19.
Terry and Alan stood there talking with David.
20.
He then
way.
asked me
if he
could use
my phone.
I said,
"You can use my phone if I am allowed to make a cup of coffee." 21.
While he
was talking on the telephone, I stood nearby,
brewing a cup of coffee. 22.
When
proceeded to searching the
he
finished
search other rest of
his
telephone
parts of my house.
conversation,
he
After he finished
my house, he went back outside and joined
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/affidav.htm (4 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:02 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : affidav
his companions. hours.
They
During this
were out there a long time, about two (2) period of
time, I
waited with
my brother
David inside the screened porch.
Affidavit of Defendant Documenting Arrest Circumstances: Page 4 of 8
23.
While we
deputies arrived.
were waiting They
on the porch, two (2) Sheriff's
told us not to go anywhere;
not even let us go to the bathroom. 24.
they would
When we did, they watched.
During this time, a helicopter arrived and landed on my
property.
The pilot
my porch.
and Dave Lowe, the DEA agent, then entered
Together, we went into my house, into the dining room,
and they said, "We need to get this right." 25.
Dave Lowe
several questions.
turned on
SEARCH" and
recorder and
asked
me
Then he showed me a form entitled "CONSENT TO
handed it
since you
his tape
to me, saying, "This is just a formality,
told us everything anyway."
The form said that I have
not been threatened nor forced in any way. 26.
When I read that phrase, I said, "I certainly have been
threatened. You stand
You said that you were going to tear my house apart. there with guns.
threatened!" it was
The helicopter
a promise."
myself, so
I am practically naked.
I have been
pilot said, "That wasn't a threat;
I couldn't sign the paper and still respect
I initialed
the CONSENT
TO SEARCH form, out of fear
and intimidation,
because I
still didn't want to go to jail and
they acted
they might
still just go away if I signed it.
as if
Throughout the entire day, I was lead to believe that, if I would cooperate, then I wouldn't be arrested. 27. time, two
Then they (2) female
told me
that I
was going to jail.
By that
DEA agents had arrived, and one watched me
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/affidav.htm (5 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:02 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : affidav
while I
took a shower and changed into other clothes.
They then
put handcuffs on me and put me in the front seat of their van.
Affidavit of Defendant Documenting Arrest Circumstances: Page 5 of 8
28.
During our
Los Angeles, parrots.
trip to Tucson, I told them about my job in
where I
One of
worked for
the female
a publisher of magazines about
agents mentioned
that she
owns a
parrot and we talked for quite some time about Amazon behavior told them that I
that I
had been in L.A. for about ten (10) years, and
had worked
time during
I
in publishing
for most
of that time.
At no
this trip to Tucson did I ever admit, in any way, to
having violated any law. 29.
First they
took me to a jail on Valencia Avenue, where
they took my finger prints.
Then they moved me to Wilmot prison,
where I was subjected to a strip search. a needle, was a
Then they poked me with
and the man who poked me with a needle told me that it
Tuberculosis test.
He did draw some of my blood with the
needle. 30. arrest, I
Approximately two came to
female agents
and one-half
discover a
stated that,
(2.5) months
after my
police report in which one of the
. "En
route to
Tucson, WALLEN told
TF/A Wright that she made anywhere from 70 to 80 thousand dollars a year in California selling marijuana. how long
she had
been selling
TF/A Wright asked WALLEN
marijuana.
WALLEN
said
'ten
year.'" 31.
This statement, as found in the Police Report dated 09-
29-95, is utterly false, because I never made any such statement, either in the truck, while the agents were searching my property, nor after I was taken from the truck to be finger-printed.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/affidav.htm (6 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:02 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : affidav
33.
I was
released from
jail when
my brother
and father
posted a surety bond to guarantee my appearance in court.
Affidavit of Defendant Documenting Arrest Circumstances: Page 6 of 8
34.
Therefore, I
firmly believe, based on all of the above
statements of fact, that the DEA agents involved in my arrest are guilty of
trespass without
a valid
search or
arrest
warrant,
kidnapping, conspiracy to kidnap, assault for prodding and poking my Person
in unspeakable places, all of which violate the Fourth
and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended. Further Affiant Sayeth Naught.
I hereby of the
certify, under
that the
United States
penalty of perjury, under the laws
of America,
above statements
without the
of mine
"United States",
are true and correct, to the
best of my current information, knowledge, and belief, so help Me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
Dated:
______________________
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Sheila Wallen ________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state
________________________________
Dated: ________________________
________________________________ First Witness to Signature
(printed name)
________________________________
Dated: ________________________
________________________________
(printed name)
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/affidav.htm (7 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:02 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : affidav
Second Witness to Signature
Affidavit of Defendant Documenting Arrest Circumstances: Page 7 of 8
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila
Terese,
penalty of
Wallen,
perjury, under
Sui
Juris,
the laws
of
hereby the
certify,
United
under
States
of
America, without the "United States," that I am at least 18 years of age,
a Citizen
of one
of the
United States of America, and
that I personally served the following document(s): AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT DOCUMENTING CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING ARREST: 28 U.S.C. 1746(1) by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United
States Mail,
with
postage
addressed to the following:
Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 Tucson [85701] ARIZONA STATE Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Executed on: _____________________________
/s/ Sheila Wallen __________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/affidav.htm (8 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:02 PM]
prepaid
and
properly
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : affidav
Affidavit of Defendant Documenting Arrest Circumstances: Page 8 of 8
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/affidav.htm (9 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:02 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : dismiss
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona Under Protest, Necessity, and by Special Visitation Only
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Sheila Terese, Wallen, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________)
COMES NOW
Sheila Terese,
state and
Defendant in
Case No. 95-484-WDB MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE FOR INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
Wallen, Sui the above
Juris, Citizen of Arizona
entitled matter
(hereinafter
"Defendant"), to move this honorable Court to dismiss the instant action with Counsel, i.e.
prejudice on
grounds of
the licensed
ineffective assistance
of
bar member appointed by the Court to
represent the Defendant (hereinafter the "Bar Member"). Defendant hereby incorporates by reference to two previously filed briefs
entitled:
(1) NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR RIGHT TO ENJOY
THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL OF CHOICE and AND
AUTHORITIES
IN
SUPPORT
OF
(2) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
DEFENDANT'S
CHALLENGE
TO
JURISDICTION FOR VIOLATING THE FUNDAMENTAL GUARANTEE OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: Sixth Amendment, as if they were set forth fully herein.
See Haynes v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/dismiss.htm (1 of 7) [4/8/2007 2:13:03 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : dismiss
Motion to Dismiss for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Page 1 of 7
This Court fact that
will please
the Bar
during a
made it
very clear
at every
available to
that
a criminal
proceeding, even
of Counsel
is available
to a
all criminal proceedings.
assistance
defendant at
if only
468 (1938), has
obligation of this Court to
point of
effective
Supreme Court
U.S. 458,
is the
effective assistance
event
The U.S.
Zerbst, 304
that it
criminal defendant the
conference.
Johnson v.
ensure that
judicial notice of the
Member failed to appear on Defendant's behalf
scheduled status
authority in
In
take formal
of
Counsel
is
not
every point of a criminal
for a moment, then the Court is ousted
of jurisdiction to proceed. Sixth Amendment
is not
jurisdiction to
proceed."
Quoting, "If this requirement of the
complied with,
the court
no longer has
Johnson v. Zerbst supra.
See Exhibit
"A" attached hereto (Status Conference). Furthermore, during whether or lawful in
not the the
obtained. he
government
Magistrate for
the
to why
to
agent)
a lawful
issue
a
warrant because attached
determine
Prosecutor no search
questioned
an
warrant had been
petitioned warrant,
search
and
a
United
warrant
said
States
Magistrate
because,
in
the
there was not probable cause to issue said
there was insufficient evidence to support same. Exhibit
Evidentiary Hearing). did proceed,
had
search
lawful
Magistrate's opinion,
See
to
seizure in the instant case were
instance,
agent as
hearing
The alleged government agent responded by saying that
(the
refused
search and
first
alleged government
the evidentiary
"B,"
attached
hereto
(Transcript
of
Nevertheless, the alleged government agent
with several
accomplices, to
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/dismiss.htm (2 of 7) [4/8/2007 2:13:03 PM]
conduct an
unlawful
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : dismiss
search and
seizure,
without
obtained by
any of
Defendant's
AFFIDAVIT
any
lawful
these alleged
warrant
having
government agents.
DOCUMENTING
See also
CIRCUMSTANCES
ARREST: 28 U.S.C. 1746(1), already lodged,
been
SURROUNDING
but not filed, in the
instant case, pursuant to this Court's Order dated July 17, 1996. Defendant hereby
formally objects to said Order, for the reasons
stated herein.
Motion to Dismiss for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Page 2 of 7
The Bar violation
Member failed
of
Amendment in
a
diligently to
fundamental
Right
the Constitution
pursue
guaranteed
this by
the
the Universal (federal
on Civil
Declaration of
government)
obligations, both remedies for
a
Under the
and Political Rights, and under
Human Rights,
is
Fourth
for the United States of America,
as lawfully amended (hereinafter "U.S. Constitution"). International Covenant
blatant
the
signatory
United
under
States
affirmative
legal and moral, to provide effective judicial
violations of
fundamental Rights,
violations were
committed by
capacities, and
also to
judicial remedies.
persons acting
develop the
These
even when those
in their
official
possibilities of effective
treaties are
supreme Law pursuant to
the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution. The Bar legally bound
Member is an officer of this Court and, as such, is
branches of
by these
two
the federal
federal judiciary.
and present
because
they
government, specifically
See 42 U.S.C. 1986.
Defendant's fundamental seizure constitutes
treaties,
bind
all
including the
His failure to assert
Immunity against unreasonable search and
ineffective assistance of Counsel, and clear
violation of
said treaties.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/dismiss.htm (3 of 7) [4/8/2007 2:13:03 PM]
Couple
this with the
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : dismiss
fact that neither the Bar Member nor the Defendant was present at the status
conference in
bereft of
question, leaving
any representation
was denied
jurisdiction to
or Counsel
Defendant
entirely
whatsoever.
The Court
proceed with that status conference,
and yet it did so anyway.
Motion to Dismiss for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Page 3 of 7
In the
event that
this
Court
should
NOTICE AND
DEMAND FOR
THE RIGHT
COUNSEL OF
CHOICE and
accompanying documents,
places all
interested parties
appeal this
case immediately
Appeals for
the Ninth
ENJOY
THE
Defendant's
ASSISTANCE
OF
Defendant hereby
on formal notice of Her intent to to
the
Circuit, on
Amendment violations, judgments issued
TO
refuse
United
on grounds
grounds of
States
of
arbitrary
Court
of
Fourth and Sixth and
capricious
by this Court in the instant case, specifically
the Order dated July 17, 1996, in which the presiding Judge ruled that there
was nothing
support an
attack on
of any
legal significance
the constitutional
which
would
infirmity of 28 U.S.C.
1865(b)(1), and on other grounds not mentioned herein but already raised in the formal Court record. Moreover, said subject to
On the
contrary, it
is a basic
commercial law that an affidavit is the highest form of
and
must
be
Furthermore, said
supported by
a
to the
separate
decisions
Evidently, this
answered
Order fails
Defendant's challenge
standing
that an Affidavit is hearsay not
cross-examination.
maxim of truth
Order held
of
by
affidavit,
the test of reductio ad absurdum. federal jury selection statute was
affidavit the
point-for-point.
United
which
contained
States
Supreme
numerous, Court.
Court has ruled that the decisions cited therein
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/dismiss.htm (4 of 7) [4/8/2007 2:13:03 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : dismiss
are also
hearsay, and
have no
absurd result,
which
places
situation (lex
non cogit
legal significance. the
Defendant
in
an
impossibilia), because
U.S. Supreme
Court has
relying upon
their decisions.
This is an impossible
that very same
ruled that no one should be punished for See U.S. v. Mason, 412 U.S. 391,
399-400 (1973).
Motion to Dismiss for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Page 4 of 7
If the
doctrine of stare decisis has any meaning at all, it
requires that
People in
upon decisions
of the
their everyday
penalized for
U.S. Supreme
such reliance.
affairs be able to rely
Court and not be needlessly
See U.S. v. Mason supra.
It will
be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of
the supreme
Law of
constitutional jurisprudence.
the Land
Court than of the
to exert
"No
finds lodgment
higher duty
in our
rests upon this
its full authority to prevent all violation
principles of the U.S. Constitution."
Downes v. Bidwell,
182 U.S. 244 (1901), Harlan dissenting. Finally, Defendant benefit of
cannot
Her discovery
proceed
to
trial
efforts, including
without
the
but not limited to
several Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") requests already made but not
received, and without the benefit of final review of Her
challenge to which She
the federal
raised with
jury selection
the federal
statutes.
grand jury
The problem
that issued
the
indictment against Her also exists with the federal procedure for selecting petit
(trial) jury candidates.
class discrimination
in
discrimination constitutes
all
of the
Defendant.
jury
Specifically, there is
selection
processes,
which
a violation of the fundamental Rights
Moreover, said
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/dismiss.htm (5 of 7) [4/8/2007 2:13:03 PM]
grand jury
was not lawfully
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : dismiss
convened, and it was denied facts which now show that the alleged government agents proceeded without any lawful warrants to search and seize Defendant's private property.
Motion to Dismiss for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Page 5 of 7
RELIEF SOUGHT Wherefore, Defendant immediate dismissal
moves
this
with prejudice,
honorable
Court
for
an
on grounds of violating the
Fourth, Sixth, and Tenth Amendments in the U.S. Constitution.
In
the alternative,
on
formal notice of Appeals
Defendant
all
interested
parties
of Her immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court
on grounds
contrary to
places
the Bill
of violations of Rights
of Her fundamental Rights,
and two
international treaties
which are all supreme Law pursuant to the Supremacy Clause.
Executed on July 22, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state and Counselor at Law and federal witness All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Motion to Dismiss for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Page 6 of 7
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila penalty of
Terese,
Wallen,
perjury, under
Sui
Juris,
the laws
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/dismiss.htm (6 of 7) [4/8/2007 2:13:03 PM]
of
hereby the
certify,
United
under
States
of
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : dismiss
America, without of age
the United
States, that I am at least 18 years
and a Citizen of one of the United States of America, and
that I personally served the following document: MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE FOR INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL by placing
said document
in first class U.S. Mail, with postage
prepaid and properly addressed to the following individuals:
Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 Tucson [85701] ARIZONA STATE
[hand-delivered]
Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Dated:
July 22, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen ________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Motion to Dismiss for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Page 7 of 7
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/dismiss.htm (7 of 7) [4/8/2007 2:13:03 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : marlfoia
Certified U.S. Mail Serial Number #Z-736-061-376 Return Receipt Requested
c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE July 26, 1996
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST
Disclosure Officer Office of the Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Subject:
Credentials of Joelyn D. Marlowe "Assistant United States Attorney" Tucson, Arizona state
Dear Disclosure Officer: This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., and regulations thereunder. This is My firm promise to pay fees and costs for locating, duplicating, and mailing to Me certified copies of the records requested below. If some of this request is exempt from release, please furnish Me with those portions reasonably segregable. I am requiring certified copies of the documents requested, in lieu of personal inspection of same. Admissible documents requested: 1.
Certified copy of the solemn oath of office of Joelyn D. Marlowe, as required by Article VI, Clause 3, of the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended.
2.
Certified copy of her fidelity bond or surety bond.
3.
Certified copy of her formal delegation of authority, beginning with the President, through the Attorney General, linking all officials in the chain of command between her and them.
4.
Certified copy of her State of Arizona.
The requested they:
records are
license to
not exempt
from
practice law in the
disclosure
because
(A)
could not reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings;
(B)
would not
deprive a
person of a right to a fair trial
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/marlfoia.htm (1 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:13:04 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : marlfoia
or an impartial adjudication; (C)
could not reasonably be expected to constitute unwarranted invasion of personal property;
(D)
could not reasonably be expected identity of a confidential source;
(E)
would not disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, and would not disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions;
(F)
could not reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.
to
disclose
an
the
[see Exemption 7 in FOIA]
If you are not the correct person to whom this Freedom of Information Act Request should be directed, kindly forward it to the correct person. Time is of the essence. If you have any questions about your rights and obligations under 5 U.S.C. 552, may we recommend that you contact the office of the Attorney General in Washington, D.C., for immediate assistance. Thank you very much for your consideration, and for your timely obedience to the controlling laws in this matter, specifically the Freedom of Information Act and the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice email:
[email protected]
website:
http://supremelaw.com
copy:
Joelyn D. Marlowe Office of United States Attorney Tucson, Arizona state
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/marlfoia.htm (2 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:13:04 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : marlfoia
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/marlfoia.htm (3 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:13:04 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : foia01
c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE July 26, 1996
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST
Disclosure Officer Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building One Columbus Circle, N.E. Washington, D.C. Dear Disclosure Officer: This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., and regulations thereunder. This is My firm promise to pay fees and costs for locating, duplicating, and mailing to Me certified copies of the records requested below. If some of this request is exempt from release, please furnish Me with those portions reasonably segregable. I am requiring certified copies of the documents requested, in lieu of personal inspection of same. Documents requested: 1.
Implementing regulations, as published in the Federal Register pursuant to the Federal Register Act, for the following United States Codes: (a)
18 U.S.C. 3231
(b)
26 U.S.C. 7402
(c)
21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1)
(d)
28 U.S.C. 1861 et seq. (Jury Selection and Service Act)
(e)
4 U.S.C. 104 et seq. (The Buck Act)
The requested they:
records are
not exempt
from
disclosure
because
(A)
could not reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings;
(B)
would not deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
(C)
could not reasonably be expected to constitute unwarranted invasion of personal property;
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/foia01.htm (1 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:13:05 PM]
an
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : foia01
(D)
could not reasonably be expected identity of a confidential source;
to
disclose
the
(E)
would not disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, and would not disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions;
(F)
could not reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual. [see Exemption 7 in FOIA]
Moreover, the blanket FOIA exemption for the federal judiciary is unconstitutional, under the original Thirteenth Amendment, because said amendment bars federal officers and employees from exercising privileges which are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. See U.S. v. Lopez, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995). Under the common law, and under commercial law, we are all equal before the law. This maxim is fundamental. If you are not the correct person to whom this Freedom of Information Act Request should be directed, kindly forward it to the correct person. Time is of the essence. If you have any questions about your rights and obligations under 5 U.S.C. 552, may we recommend that you contact the office of the Attorney General in Washington, D.C., for immediate assistance. Thank you very much for your consideration, and for your timely obedience to the controlling laws in this matter, specifically the Freedom of Information Act and the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, and Counselor at Law All Rights Reserved without Prejudice email:
[email protected]
website:
http://supremelaw.com
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/foia01.htm (2 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:13:05 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : foia01
U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/foia01.htm (3 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:13:05 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : foia02
c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE July 26, 1996
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST
Disclosure Officer Office of the Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington, D.C. Dear Disclosure Officer: This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., and regulations thereunder. This is My firm promise to pay fees and costs for locating, duplicating, and mailing to Me certified copies of the records requested below. If some of this request is exempt from release, please furnish Me with those portions reasonably segregable. I am requiring certified copies of the documents requested, in lieu of personal inspection of same. Documents requested: 1.
Implementing regulations, as published in the Federal Register pursuant to the Federal Register Act, for the following United States Codes: (a)
18 U.S.C. 3231
(b)
26 U.S.C. 7402
(c)
21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1)
(d)
28 U.S.C. 1861 et seq. (Jury Selection and Service Act)
(e)
4 U.S.C. 104 et seq. (The Buck Act)
The requested they:
records are
not exempt
from
disclosure
because
(A)
could not reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings;
(B)
would not deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
(C)
could not reasonably be expected to constitute unwarranted invasion of personal property;
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/foia02.htm (1 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:13:06 PM]
an
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : foia02
(D)
could not reasonably be expected identity of a confidential source;
to
disclose
the
(E)
would not disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, and would not disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions;
(F)
could not reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual. [see Exemption 7 in FOIA]
Under the common law, and under commercial law, we are all equal before the law. This maxim is fundamental. If you are not the correct person to whom this Freedom of Information Act Request should be directed, kindly forward it to the correct person. Time is of the essence. If you have any questions about your rights and obligations under 5 U.S.C. 552, may we recommend that you contact the office of the Attorney General in Washington, D.C., for immediate assistance. Thank you very much for your consideration, and for your timely obedience to the controlling laws in this matter, specifically the Freedom of Information Act and the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, amd Counselor at Law All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/foia02.htm (2 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:13:06 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : renofoi2
Certified U.S. Mail Serial Number #P-332-390-904 Return Receipt Requested
c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE August 6, 1996
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST
Disclosure Officer Office of the Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Subject:
Criminal Jurisdiction of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS
Dear Disclosure Officer: This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., and regulations thereunder. This is My firm promise to pay fees and costs for locating, duplicating, and mailing to Me certified copies of the records requested below. If some of this request is exempt from release, please furnish Me with those portions reasonably segregable. I am requiring certified copies of the documents requested, in lieu of personal inspection of same. Admissible documents requested: 1.
Certified copies of all Acts of Congress, with implementing regulations (if any), granting criminal jurisdiction to United States District Courts, as distinct from district courts of the United States.
The requested they:
records are
not exempt
from
disclosure
because
(A)
could not reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings;
(B)
would not deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
(C)
could not reasonably be expected to constitute unwarranted invasion of personal property;
(D)
could not reasonably be expected identity of a confidential source;
(E)
would not disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, and would not disclose guidelines for law enforcement
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/renofoi2.htm (1 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:13:07 PM]
to
disclose
an
the
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : renofoi2
investigations or prosecutions; (F)
could not reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual. [see Exemption 7 in FOIA]
If you are not the correct person to whom this Freedom of Information Act Request should be directed, kindly forward it to the correct person. Time is of the essence. If you have any questions about your rights and obligations under 5 U.S.C. 552, may we recommend that you contact the office of the Attorney General in Washington, D.C., for immediate assistance. Thank you very much for your consideration, and for your timely obedience to the controlling laws in this matter, specifically the Freedom of Information Act and the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice email:
[email protected]
website:
http://supremelaw.com
copy:
Joelyn D. Marlowe Office of United States Attorney Tucson, Arizona state
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/renofoi2.htm (2 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:13:07 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : renofaoi
Certified U.S. Mail Serial Number #Z-736-061-377 Return Receipt Requested
c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE July 26, 1996
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST
Disclosure Officer Office of the Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Subject:
standing of "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" to sue as Plaintiff in district courts
Dear Disclosure Officer: This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., and regulations thereunder. This is My firm promise to pay fees and costs for locating, duplicating, and mailing to Me certified copies of the records requested below. If some of this request is exempt from release, please furnish Me with those portions reasonably segregable. I am requiring certified copies of the documents requested, in lieu of personal inspection of same. Admissible documents requested: 1.
Certified copies of all Acts of Congress, with implementing regulations (if any), granting standing to the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" [sic] to bring civil and/or criminal actions as Plaintiff before district courts of the United States and/or United States District Courts, as distinct from the Plaintiff "UNITED STATES" [sic]. See Hooven & Allison v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945); cf. "Union" in Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (1856).
The requested they:
records are
not exempt
from
disclosure
because
(A)
could not reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings;
(B)
would not deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
(C)
could not reasonably be expected to constitute unwarranted invasion of personal property;
(D)
could
not
reasonably
be
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/renofoia.htm (1 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:13:07 PM]
expected
to
disclose
an
the
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : renofaoi
identity of a confidential source; (E)
would not disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, and would not disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions;
(F)
could not reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual. [see Exemption 7 in FOIA]
If you are not the correct person to whom this Freedom of Information Act Request should be directed, kindly forward it to the correct person. Time is of the essence. If you have any questions about your rights and obligations under 5 U.S.C. 552, may we recommend that you contact the office of the Attorney General in Washington, D.C., for immediate assistance. Thank you very much for your consideration, and for your timely obedience to the controlling laws in this matter, specifically the Freedom of Information Act and the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice email:
[email protected]
website:
http://supremelaw.com
copy:
Joelyn D. Marlowe Office of United States Attorney Tucson, Arizona state
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/renofoia.htm (2 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:13:07 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : foiapp01
c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson, Arizona state zip code exempt August 19, 1996
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL
Disclosure Officer Office of the Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Dear Disclosure Officer: This is an appeal under the Freedom of Information Act. On July 26 and again on August 6, 1996, I requested documents under the Freedom of Information Act (see attached). To date, the requested documents have not been produced. I hereby appeal your failure to produce the requested documents. The documents that were withheld must be disclosed under the FOIA because the original Thirteenth Amendment prevents government officials from exercising privileges of a nobility class, such as being exempt from the principles of open government and freedom of information. Evidence of the original Thirteenth Amendment has been filed with the Foreperson of the Grand Jury and with the Clerk of the United States District Court in Tucson, Arizona state (a Republic). See Colorado Records Custodian. Disclosure of the documents which I requested is in the public interest because the information, and the procedure for obtaining the information, are likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations and activities of government and are not primarily in My commercial interest. Moreover, the information requested will help to improve public confidence in the integrity of the United States (federal government), or to confirm that there are persons attempting to exercise executive and judicial branch powers in America without any authority or jurisdiction whatsoever. See U.S. v. Lopez. Thank you for your careful consideration of this appeal.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/foiapp01.htm (1 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:13:08 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : foiapp01
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice copy:
Judge Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/foiapp01.htm (2 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:13:08 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : foiapp02
c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson, Arizona state zip code exempt August 19, 1996
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL
Disclosure Officer Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building One Columbus Circle, N.E. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Dear Disclosure Officer: This is an appeal under the Freedom of Information Act. On July 26, 1996, I requested Information Act (see attached). have not been produced.
documents under the Freedom of To date, the requested documents
I hereby appeal your failure to produce the requested documents. The documents that were withheld must be disclosed under the FOIA because the original Thirteenth Amendment prevents government officials from exercising privileges of a nobility class, such as being exempt from the principles of open government and freedom of information. Evidence of the original Thirteenth Amendment has been filed with the Foreperson of the Grand Jury and with the Clerk of the United States District Court in Tucson, Arizona state (a Republic). See Colorado Records Custodian. Disclosure of the documents which I requested is in the public interest because the information, and the procedure for obtaining the information, are likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations and activities of government and are not primarily in My commercial interest. Moreover, the information requested will help to improve public confidence in the integrity of the United States (federal government), or to confirm that there are persons attempting to exercise executive and judicial branch powers in America without any authority or jurisdiction whatsoever. See U.S. v. Lopez. Thank you for your careful consideration of this appeal.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/foiapp02.htm (1 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:13:09 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : foiapp02
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice copy:
Judge Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/foiapp02.htm (2 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:13:09 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judnoti2
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona Under Protest, Necessity, and by Special Visitation Only
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Sheila Terese, Wallen, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________)
Case No. 95-484-WDB NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE: Federal Rules of Evidence 201(d)
NOTICE AND DEMAND COMES NOW
Sheila Terese,
state and
Defendant in
"Defendant"), to
Wallen, Sui the above
Juris, Citizen of Arizona
entitled matter
(hereinafter
provide formal Notice to all interested parties
of Her Demand, made hereby pursuant to Rule 201(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, for mandatory judicial notice of the following attached documents: (1)
AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT AND OF PROBABLE CAUSE [cites omitted] submitted by Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Counselor at Law, in Case No. GJ-95-1-6: In re: Grand Jury Subpoena Served on New Life Health Center Company with PROOF OF SERVICE;
(2)
FINAL NOTICE AND DEMAND from Paul Andrew, Mitchell, Counselor at Law, to the District Court Executive and Clerk of Court, dated June 24, 1996, and attached to AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT AND OF PROBABLE CAUSE supra;
(3)
Two letters
from Bonnie
L. Gay,
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judnoti2.htm (1 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:13:10 PM]
Attorney in
Charge,
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judnoti2
U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Unit, both dated July 8, 1996, concerning FOIA requests and appeals for credentials of ROBERT L. MISKELL and JANET NAPOLITANO.
Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice: Page 1 of 3
The above-mentioned documents are incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein.
VERIFICATION The Undersigned under the
laws of
the United
"United States", correct, to
hereby certify,
that the
the best
under penalty
States of
America,
of perjury, without
the
above statements of fact are true and
of Our knowledge, materially complete, and
not misleading, so help Us God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
Executed on August 13, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen ________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell ________________________________________ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, and Counselor at Law
Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice: Page 2 of 3
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila
Terese,
penalty of
Wallen,
perjury, under
Sui
Juris,
the laws
of
hereby the
certify,
United
under
States
of
America, without the "United States," that I am at least 18 years of age,
a Citizen
of one
of the
United States of America, and
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judnoti2.htm (2 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:13:10 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judnoti2
that I personally served the following document(s): NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE: Federal Rules of Evidence 201(d) by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United
States Mail,
with
postage
prepaid
and
addressed to the following:
Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 Tucson [85701] ARIZONA STATE Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Executed on: August 13, 1996 /s/ Sheila Wallen __________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice: Page 3 of 3
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judnoti2.htm (3 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:13:10 PM]
properly
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judnotic
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona Under Protest, Necessity, and by Special Visitation Only
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Sheila Terese, Wallen, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________)
Case No. 95-484-WDB NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE: Federal Rules of Evidence 201(d)
NOTICE AND DEMAND COMES NOW
Sheila Terese,
state and
Defendant in
"Defendant"), to
Wallen, Sui the above
Juris, Citizen of Arizona
entitled matter
(hereinafter
provide formal Notice to all interested parties
of her Demand, made hereby pursuant to Rule 201(d) of the Federal Rules of Freedom of
Evidence, for mandatory judicial notice of the four (4)
26, 1996,
Information Act ("FOIA") requests, all mailed on July on Her
behalf by
Her Counsel
of
Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., to wit: (a)
TO:
Disclosure Officer Office of the Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judnotic.htm (1 of 5) [4/8/2007 2:13:12 PM]
choice,
Mr.
Paul
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judnotic
Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice: Page 1 of 5
(a)
FOR: 1.
(b)
TO:
(b)
FOR: 1.
(c)
TO:
(c)
FOR: 1.
Certified copy of the solemn oath of office of Joelyn D. Marlowe, as required by Article VI, Clause 3, of the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended.
2.
Certified copy of her fidelity bond or surety bond.
3.
Certified copy of her formal delegation of authority, beginning with the President, through the Attorney General, linking all officials in the chain of command between her and them.
4.
Certified copy of her license to practice law in the State of Arizona.
(d)
TO:
Certified copies of all Acts of Congress, with implementing regulations (if any), granting standing to the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" [sic] to bring civil and/or criminal actions as Plaintiff before district courts of the United States and/or United States District Courts, as distinct from the Plaintiff "UNITED STATES" [sic]. See Hooven & Allison v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945); cf. "Union" in Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (1856).
Disclosure Officer Office of the Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Certified copies of all Acts of Congress, with implementing regulations (if any), granting criminal jurisdiction to United States District Courts, as distinct from district courts of the United States.
Disclosure Officer Office of the Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Disclosure Officer Office of the Attorney General
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judnotic.htm (2 of 5) [4/8/2007 2:13:12 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judnotic
Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington, D.C.
Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice: Page 2 of 5
(d)
FOR: 1.
Implementing regulations, as published in the Federal Register pursuant to the Federal Register Act, for the following United States Codes: (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)
18 U.S.C. 3231 26 U.S.C. 7402 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) 28 U.S.C. 1861 et seq. (Jury Selection and Service Act) 4 U.S.C. 104 et seq. (The Buck Act)
(e)
TO:
Disclosure Officer Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building One Columbus Circle, N.E. Washington, D.C.
(e)
FOR: 1.
Implementing regulations, as published in the Federal Register pursuant to the Federal Register Act, for the following United States Codes: (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)
18 U.S.C. 3231 26 U.S.C. 7402 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) 28 U.S.C. 1861 et seq. (Jury Selection and Service Act) 4 U.S.C. 104 et seq. (The Buck Act)
Defendant also CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE
attaches a
judge in
that the
case, dated
United States
Defendant wishes
Her
Counsel's
written
AND DEMAND to William D. Browning, presiding
the instant
first class
copy of
mail on
July 25,
1996, and
the same day.
sent via
See attached.
to place all interesed parties on formal notice
deadline for
response from William D. Browning to said
NOTICE AND DEMAND was August 8, 1996 (25+14-31 = 8). Copies of
the above-mentioned
FOIA requests,
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judnotic.htm (3 of 5) [4/8/2007 2:13:12 PM]
and
of
the
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judnotic
letter from
Defendant's Counsel
attached and herein.
incorporated by
See attached.
grace, the
to
William
reference as
D.
Browning,
if set
forth
are fully
Allowing for weekends and an extra day of
deadlines for
responses to
said FOIA
requests will
fall on Monday, August 12, 1996.
Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice: Page 3 of 5
VERIFICATION The Undersigned under the
laws of
the United
"United States", correct, to
hereby certify,
that the
the best
under penalty
States of
America,
of perjury, without
the
above statements of fact are true and
of Our knowledge, materially complete, and
not misleading, so help Us God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
Executed on August 13, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen ________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell ________________________________________ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, and Counselor at Law
Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice: Page 4 of 5
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila
Terese,
penalty of
Wallen,
perjury, under
Sui
Juris,
the laws
of
hereby the
certify,
United
under
States
of
America, without the "United States," that I am at least 18 years of age,
a Citizen
of one
of the
United States of America, and
that I personally served the following document(s): http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judnotic.htm (4 of 5) [4/8/2007 2:13:12 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judnotic
NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE: Federal Rules of Evidence 201(d) by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United
States Mail,
with
postage
prepaid
and
addressed to the following:
Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 Tucson [85701] ARIZONA STATE Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Executed on: August 13, 1996 /s/ Sheila Wallen __________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice: Page 5 of 5
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judnotic.htm (5 of 5) [4/8/2007 2:13:12 PM]
properly
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counnad
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona Under Protest, Necessity, and by Special Visitation Only
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Sheila Terese, Wallen, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________)
COMES NOW
Sheila Terese,
state and
Defendant in
"Defendant"), to
Case No. 95-484-WDB NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR THE RIGHT TO ENJOY THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL OF CHOICE: Sixth Amendment
Wallen, Sui the above
demand this
Juris, Citizen of Arizona
entitled matter
honorable Court
(hereinafter
to recognize
Her
fundamental Right to enjoy the assistance of either Counsel(s) or Co-Counsel(s) of the State
Her choice
Bar of
who are
Arizona and
who are
not necessarily members of not necessarily licensed
attorneys, for the following reasons:
Notice and Demand to Enjoy the Assistance of Counsel: Page 1 of 4
1.
The Constitutional guarantee of right to "assistance of
counsel" is not qualified. 2.
The Constitution
established by
the People
of the State of Arizona, ordained and for Their
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counnad.htm (1 of 4) [4/8/2007 2:13:13 PM]
protection, shall
not
be
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counnad
superseded or
amended by
any
act
of
the
Legislature
or
by
anything in the Constitution or laws of any State. 3.
Defendant has
the fundamental
assistance of
Counsel of
the Defendant
while proceeding
Hill, (1969) denied 406
the effective
Her choice, to stand by, and to advise
70 C.2d 678, U.S.
Right to
In Propria
Persona.
People v.
971;
76 Cal.Rptr. 225, 452 P.2d 329, cert. People v.
Zamora, (1944) 66 Cal.App.2d
166, 152 P.2d 180. 4.
Within the
the assistance
unambiguous language
of Counsel
of the
Constitution,
does not restrict it to any state bar
associations. 5.
Defendant refuses
to waive
any fundamental
Rights or
Immunities in order to assert another Right or Immunity. 6.
The Right
to Counsel
has been deeply embedded in true
American tradition since the foundation of this Republic, and has been most
recently set
forth by the United States Supreme Court
in Faretta v. State of California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). The U.S. requirement of
Supreme Court the Sixth
has ruled
"If
not complied
with,
Amendment is
as follows:
court no longer has jurisdiction to proceed."
this the
Johnson v. Zerbst,
304 U.S. 458, 468 (1938). In addition,
if this Court fails to notify the Defendant of
its fundamental "Rights Sua Sponte" or those declared or demanded by the
Defendant, then
the Court
of its
own
volition
denies
itself jurisdiction.
Notice and Demand to Enjoy the Assistance of Counsel: Page 2 of 4
RELIEF REQUESTED Therefore, the
Defendant moves
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counnad.htm (2 of 4) [4/8/2007 2:13:13 PM]
the
Court
to
grant
this
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counnad
demand for whichever
the right the
of assistance
Defendant fair
Defendant
wishes
proceedings and
to
of Counsel have,
to
justice, which
or
Co-Counsel,
insure
to
the
Rights are
more
fully set forth in the attached brief in support of the absolute, unalienable Right to unfettered Counsel.
Executed on July 22, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, Counselor at Law and federal witness All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Notice and Demand to Enjoy the Assistance of Counsel: Page 3 of 4
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila penalty of
Terese,
Sui
perjury, under
America, without of age
Wallen,
Juris,
the laws
the United
of
hereby the
certify,
United
under
States
of
States, that I am at least 18 years
and a Citizen of one of the United States of America, and
that I personally served the following document: NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR THE RIGHT TO ENJOY THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL OF CHOICE: Sixth Amendment by placing
said document
in first class U.S. Mail, with postage
prepaid and properly addressed to the following individuals:
Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counnad.htm (3 of 4) [4/8/2007 2:13:13 PM]
[hand-delivered]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counnad
Tucson [85701] ARIZONA STATE Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Dated:
July 22, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen ________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Notice and Demand to Enjoy the Assistance of Counsel: Page 4 of 4
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counnad.htm (4 of 4) [4/8/2007 2:13:13 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona Under Protest, Necessity, and by Special Visitation Only
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Sheila Terese, Wallen, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________)
Case No. 95-484-WDB MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION FOR VIOLATING THE FUNDAMENTAL GUARANTEE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: Sixth Amendment
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Defendant asks the Court to take Judicial Notice of the fact that many of
the men
who contributed
to the writing or ratifying of
the Constitution
were attorneys,
such as
Justice of
the U.S.
Supreme Court,
John Jay, first Chief
and John
Marshall, a later
Chief Justice.
John Adams, James Wilson, John Blaire, and Oliver
Ellsworth were
among the
approving the
many fine
language used
in the
attorneys who
assisted
in
Constitution for the United
States of America (hereinafter "U.S. Constitution"). Are we
to believe
these "attorneys"
that the
with no
word "COUNSEL" was selected by
thought whatsoever
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (1 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
to its Common Law
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
meaning at that time?
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 1 of 32
In discussing
a defendant's
Right
to
Counsel,
the
U.S.
Supreme Court has held: ... [H]is right to be heard through his own counsel is UNQUALIFIED. Chandler v. Fretag, 348 U.S. 3 [emphasis added]
In consulting
Noah
Webster's
1828
dictionary,
the
word
"unqualified" is defined as: Not modified, limited, or restricted by conditions or exceptions; .... (Noah Webster's First Edition of an American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828, republished in facsimile edition by Foundation for American Christian Education, San Francisco, California, second edition, 1980)
It is undeniable that the explicit use of the word "Counsel" in the Sixth Amendment was intended to mean someone other than an attorney, as District Court
well as an attorney. when it
This view is upheld by a U.S.
recognized an accountant as Counsel, and
reprimanded an IRS employee: Yet while he was informing the prospective defendant of Right to Counsel, he was simultaneously requesting that Defendant's Counsel leave the interrogation. In effect, investigator informed Tarlowski that he might have attorney present, but not his accountant.
Ruling in
favor of
Tarlowski's motion
to suppress,
the
his the the his
Court
said: For a government official to mouth in a ritualistic way part of the warning about the right to counsel, while excluding the person relied upon as counsel is, in effect, to reverse the meaning of the words used. U.S. v. Tarlowski, 305 F.Supp. 112 (1969)
Defendant also asks the Court to take Judicial Notice of the use of the word "Counsel" in the 17th century: http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (2 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
... and in all courts persons of all persuaisions [sic] may freely appear in their own way, and according to their own manner and there plead their own causes themselves, or if unable, by their friends .... Fundamental Constitution for the Province of East Jersey (1683) [emphasis added].
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 2 of 32
To have
a "friend" act as Counsel was a Common Law Right and was
recognized as
such in the Bill of Rights when the term "Counsel"
was used instead of the term "attorney." The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely, except by reference to common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the convention who submitted it to the ratification of conventions of the thirteen states, were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law and thought and spoke in its vocabulary ... when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact , they expressed them in terms of common law, confident that they could by shortly and easily understood. Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 108 (1925) [emphasis added]
No limit the Right
or qualification
to "assistance
Defendant submits the Common
Law
Defendant, if mandatory in but most
"Counsel" was used in recognition of
to
he so
have
chose.
a proper
U.S.
one's
"friends"
Reference to
interpretation of
particularly in
preponderance of
of Counsel" in the Sixth Amendment and
the word Right
was ever intended to be put upon
the
Supreme
Bill
of
Court
the
speak Common
for Law
a is
the U.S. Constitution, Rights.
cases
which
There uphold
is
a the
position of Defendant on interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. ... as men whose intentions require no concealment, generally employ the words which most directly and aptly express the ideas they intend to convey: the enlightened patriots who framed our constitution and the people who adopted it must be understood to have employed the words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824).
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (3 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
And, ... In the construction of the constitution, we must look to the history of the times, and examine the state of things existing when it was framed and adopted. 12 Wheat 354; 6 Wheat 416; 4 Peters 431-2; to ascertain the old law, the mischief and the remedy. State of Rhode Island v. The State of Massachusetts, 37 U.S. 657 (1938)
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 3 of 32
And also,
in speaking
further of
Constitutional provisions, we
find: We agree, it is not to be frittered away by doubtful construction, but like every clause in every constitution it must have reasonable interpretation, and be held to express the intention of the framers. Woodson v. Murdock, 89 U.S. 351, 369 (1874)
And further, The necessities which gave birth to the Constitution, the controversies which precede its formation and the conflicts of opinion which were settled by its adoption, may properly be taken into view for the purposes of tracing to its source, any particular provision of the Constitution, in order thereby, to be enabled to correctly interpret its meaning. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 558
History shows conclusively that it was a Common Law Right to be represented in court by a "friend" rather than an attorney, if one chose.
Defendant
Amendment did
claims that right herein, which the Sixth
indeed secure, and is not subject to "revision" by
the American Bar Association. Undoubtedly what went before the adoption of the Constitution may be resorted to for the purpose of throwing light on its provisions. Marshall v. Gordon, 243 U.S. 521, 533 (1971)
Each word chosen.
has a
this land,
The word but, on
particular meaning
and
was
deliberately
"Counsel" was not idly set down as the law of the contrary,
was selected with great skill
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (4 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
and meaning. To disregard such a deliberate choice of words and their natural meaning, would be a departure from the first principle of Constitutional interpretation. "In expounding the Constitution of the United States," said Chief Justice Taney in Holmes v. Jennison, 14 540, 570, 571, "every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that, no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added." The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the Constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation and its force and effect to have been fully understood. Wright v. U.S., 302 U.S. 583 (1938) [emphasis added]
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 4 of 32
Little did
the Framers
of Our Constitution, who labored so
long and hard to fashion it, realize that the day might come when it would
be ridiculed
clerks, and
by law
consigned to
professors, snickered
at by
law
the wastebasket by attorneys, the bar,
and the Judiciary. To narrowly
interpret
"licensed attorneys"
is an
the
word
"Counsel"
infringement
of
to
mean
Defendant's
only Sixth
Amendment right to Counsel, which even the U.S. Supreme Court has held is "unqualified." The words ambiguous, and understood by
of the
See Chandler supra. Amendment
were obviously The People,
are
simple,
written by
as the
clear,
and
not
Our Forefathers to be
following citation undeniably
indicates: The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for interpolation or addition. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat 304; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat 1; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat 419; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet. 10; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U.S. 139; Lake County v. http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (5 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
Rollins, 130 U.S. 662; Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1; Edwards v. Cuba R. Co., 268 U.S. 628; The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655 (justice) Story on the Constitution, 5th ed., sec. 451; Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 2nd ed., P. 61, 70.
And further, It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect .... Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 174 (1803)
In passing, Marshall, who
it might
be
noted
that
Chief
Justice
John
principally was responsible for the holding in the
above cited Marbury case, and who seems to be looked upon by most attorneys and justices,
judges
is
as
reported
the to
greatest have
of
had
Our
two
Supreme
weeks
Court
law
school
preparation, at which time half his study was philosophy.
Also:
The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now. South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905).
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 5 of 32
Defendant
is
deeply
perturbed
at
the
erosion
of
his
fundamental Right to Counsel by the very legal profession itself. The restriction the result
of attorneys
upon laws
who sat
which involved,
which were, on the
of the Courts to professional attorneys only, is
and are,
benches
Sovereign will
of
in Our
for them,
legislatures and voted
a conflict of interest and
upheld by their brother attorneys, who sit Our
of The
Courts,
ruling
People, which
in
it is
violation
of
the
their sworn duty to
obey. Any State law which prohibits laymen from speaking on behalf of another,
when sought
Sixth Amendment.
Any
for that purpose, is a violation of the implementation of
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (6 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
such State
laws
also
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
violates Defendant's
rights to freedom of speech, wherein he may
speak through whom he chooses; he may
associate with
wherein he
whom he
is denied
consequence, he
to freedom of association wherein pleases;
Counsel of
to due process of law,
his choice
and therefore as a
impartial jury
is denied a fair trial, and he is also denied an by being
unable to speak, as he knows he should,
through Counsel of trust to the jury. To be
denied a layman to assist him with advice, and to act
as a spokesman at Defendant's request, is to subject Defendant to unequal treatment Defendant has
under the
less Rights
law.
As an
and worse
unconvicted
treatment than
Citizen, inmates in
state and
federal prisons, who are permitted "jailhouse" lawyers
-- laymen
who practice
law on
behalf of their fellow prisoners
with the approval of many Courts.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 6 of 32
As an
unconvicted Citizen, Defendant is denied the right to
contract when willing to
he is
forbidden the
speak for
Defendant's right occurs because bar association
him at
to contract,
(a monopoly
of
the
of
request.
it
attorneys, who
controlled legislature) protection
his
assistance
is
are, in they have
have purported
"public";
one
is
denial
of
The
who
respectfully
submitted,
this State, members of a promoted to make
through
whereas,
their
they
a "law" for the have
actually
instigated a self-serving franchise, in great part at the expense of the
public and,
in Defendant's
view, to
the
detriment
of
Constitutional government. Again, Defendant jury when
a so-called
is denied
a "fair trial" and an impartial
"law" prohibits him from contracting with
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (7 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
someone of
his choosing
hostile government, of the
for Defendant's legal defense against a
bent on punishing Defendant for the exercise
very fundamental
Rights which
the government
should be
upholding rather than attacking. The denied
aforementioned when
the
attorneys may
word
rights
are
"Counsel"
infringed,
is
abridged,
qualified
to
mean
speak for the defense in a Court of Law.
and only
This was
not the case in Tarlowski, where the "Counsel" referred to by the Court was an accountant. It appears words of
to Defendant that a careful consideration of the
the Sixth
Counsel of
Amendment, securing his fundamental Right to
CHOICE must
idly selected
be undertaken here.
Since no words were
by the Forefathers, let us emphasize them here and
now so that there can be no misunderstanding as to their meaning, for
Defendant
believes
constitutionally correct.
his
stand
in
this
matter
is
The vital words here are:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused SHALL ENJOY the RIGHT ... to have the ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL for his defence.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 7 of 32
Defendant requests the Court's indulgence and patience for a brief analysis
of the words capitalized above because, where his
Life, Liberty, or Property are involved, it is not a matter which he takes lightly. For the when
the
source of the common meaning of common words in use
U.S.
Webster's First Language, Foundation
1828, for
Constitution
was
written,
we
refer
to
Noah
Edition of an American Dictionary of the English republished American
in
Christian
facsimile Education,
edition
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (8 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
San
by
the
Francisco,
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
California, Second Edition, 1980. ALL: a. Every one ... the whole quantity, extent, duration, amount, quality, or degree; ... This word signifies the whole or entire thing ....
It is
obvious on its face that the word "all" allows for no
exceptions and
is all-inclusive, and it is also obvious that the
Sixth Amendment, therefore, allows for no criminal trial where it does not apply. SHALL: v.i. In the present tense, shall ... forms the future tense; ... informs another that a fact is to take place .... In the second and third persons, shall implies a promise, command or determination. "You shall receive ...."
The word
"shall," in legal contemplation, is mandatory;
word "of
command ... must be given a compulsory meaning."
clearly so
stated on
it is a It is
page 1233 of Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth
Edition, 1979. ENJOY: v.t ... To feel or perceive with pleasure; to take pleasure or satisfaction in the possession or experience of .... We enjoy a free constitution and inestimable privileges.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 8 of 32
Defendant confidence
has
in
the
Mitchell, Dean, He is
informed legal
of
that
he
Haldeman,
has
little
Erlichman,
necessity, not
out of
desire.
a few attorneys whom he trusts, but their
multi-thousand dollar
whom the
profession
out of
aware of
Defendant.
Court
Nixon and Agnew, and not to mention many others.
defending himself
Defendant is
the
fees are
out of
the
question
for
this
He does not trust just any attorney out of a grab-bag government is
defendant be
willing to
satisfied with
U.S. Constitution.
The
furnish;
neither would this
such an "attorney's" concept of the
average attorney,
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (9 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
full
of
law-school
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
brainwashing, thinks judges say
it is,
that the
U.S.
Constitution
is
what
the
rather than what the Constitution itself says
it is. If Defendant cannot "enjoy" the "assistance of Counsel" from the
Bar
(i.e.
undeniable Right
the
legal
establishment),
of Counsel
which he
then
can enjoy.
he
has
the
To deny this
Right is to deny his Rights under the Sixth Amendment to Counsel. It is
the use
gives a
of the
word "ENJOY," as well as "COUNSEL," which
Defendant the
licensed or
Right
unlicensed, as
to
Fathers, and
of which
the
Counsel
was provided
for
of by
his the
choice, Founding
the Ninth Amendment clearly prohibits any
denial or disparagement: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 9 of 32
What honest denial of
attorney or
Counsel of
judge can
fail to see that in the
choice to a Defendant in court, that he is
not "denying" or "disparaging" both enumerated and non-enumerated rights? And what
honest attorney
or judge
can fail to see that in
enforcing a so-called statute denying a layman the opportunity to speak in lawyer or
defense of
a friend at the friend's request, that said
judge is rendering infidelity to his oath of office to
support the Constitution which states, in Article VI, Clause 2? This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [emphasis added]
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (10 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
Attorneys are required to
called "officers take oaths
of
the
to support
the attorneys
attempt to
defendants in
court to
the attorneys
are involved
court,"
and
they
the U.S. Constitution.
prevent the
are When
exercise of the Rights of
speak through lay friends of confidence, in denying
that which they swear to
uphold -- to their eternal discredit and dishonor. The fact time, and
that the attorneys have been successful for a long
that colleagues
does not make it right; it certainly American
exercise your to jail,"
enhance the
who
exorbitant legal
robes have
upheld them,
it does not make it constitutional;
does not
People
in judicial
are
tired
Rights of
of
being
the
and
grass-roots
subjected
to
the
fees of a closed-shop union which says, "If you
fundamental Rights,
we will see to it that you go
and now, "You have to go our route because the loss of
your fundamental Rights is a settled matter." How could the legal
any decent
person uphold such a system?
How can
and the judicial profession escape tarnished "images?"
Is the denial of fundamental Rights to the Defendant "frivolous?" Is it
not better
restless People
to restore
by attorneys,
rise up? and for
fundamental Rights
than to have a
Must we have "government of attorneys,
attorneys?"
Especially, after Watergate,
the People are not going to stand for it.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 10 of 32
It is
important to
"enjoy" follows command of right to
the word
the sovereign
note
that
the
"shall," and power that
Counsel is mandatory.
Sixth it would
Amendment
the ability
word
therefore be a to enjoy
the
The words "shall ... enjoy" make
this very clear.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (11 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
The judgment as to what Counsel the Defendant can "enjoy" is left entirely in his hands, and nowhere in the Sixth Amendment is this prerogative given to the Courts;
it remains the fundamental
"Right" of the Defendant. RIGHT: n. Conformity to the will of God, or to His law, the perfect standard of truth and justice ... Just claim; immunity; privilege. All men have the right to the secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty, and property. We deem the right of trial by jury invaluable, particularly in the case of crimes.
The "right" law,
nature,
to "enjoy" and
disparaged by
Counsel is
tradition,
any private
sympathizers employed
and
claimed by Defendant by
may
not
association, its
in government.
It
be
infringed
members, or is a
or
by its
right which the
People retained for themselves and it is to be protected by their Judiciary.
It is
protect the
vested interests
the rights
of The
right to
function of
the
a Defendant
Courts are
People's
Courts
to
of any private monopoly as against
Sovereign People.
speak for
Otherwise, the are, in
not a
in
Non-attorneys have as much Our
run only
Courts
as
attorneys.
for "special interests" and
fact, protecting a monopoly, in violation of the Sherman
Anti-Trust Act. commerce and
Such
to restrain
monopoly practices, substantially lower. they would
a monopoly
have to
business which
acts to
competition and
the cost
of justice
restrain trade;
interstate
without
such
to The People would be
Attorneys could still ply their trade, but be competent
they would
and
acquire from
deserve those
more who
fully
the
voluntarily
trusted them. ASSISTANCE: on. Help; aid; furtherance; succor; a contribution of support in bodily strength or other means.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 11 of 32
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (12 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
The common understanding of the word "assistance" is that it comes from
one who
assistance is
acts in
given to
"assists" him.
a President
helper.
by
a
Vice
For example, President
one who
The common
The above mentioned dictionary defines an serves in
a subordinate
position,
the original
reestablishing.
decision is
Common Law
and may
Courts or
a
right which
this motion
is
It is an aimed
at
Defendant may also promote assistant Counsel to
co-Counsel wherein such a
as
practice today of the Defendant "assisting"
the defense attorney is one to which Defendant objects. erosion of
who
We find a definition of "assistant" which follows
the word "assistance." assistant as
a secondary capacity.
the Bar
they share theirs, not
in the
not be
defense and maintain that
the Court's.
denied or
Association.
It
is theirs by
infringed by
It is
also their
either
the
fundamental
Right. COUNSEL: n. Advice; opinion or instruction ... Those who give counsel in law; any counselor or advocate, or any number of counselors, barristers, or sergeants; as the plaintiff's counsel, or the defendant's counsel. COUNSELOR: Gan. Any person who gives advice; .... One who is consulted by a client in a law case; one who gives advice in relation to a question of law; one whose profession is to give advice in law and manage causes for clients.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 12 of 32
If the a licensed
men who framed the Bill of Rights meant by "COUNSEL" attorney, they
Surely, the
Court cannot
would have refuse to
said "licensed attorney". recognize
this.
In
the
interest of fairness, let the Court grant the Defendant's motion. Neither the President of the United States nor the Governors who head
the executive branches of government are required to be
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (13 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
attorneys in judges are
order to not required
statute, to
to
by the
be attorneys.
Legislators who have
administer and enforce the laws. U.S. Constitution,
Congressmen,
be
pass legislation,
"attorneys."
"attorneys." Does it
represent himself
Magistrates
not seem
in Court
or by valid
Senators,
statutes, and do
Federal
and
other
"laws" do
not
have
to
not be
strange that a Defendant cannot
without being an "attorney?"
Are we
playing games with the meaning of "represent"? Why
then,
the
representative in
Defendant
Court be
Defendant's representative enforcer, the do not
need?
asks,
a licensed
must
have a
the
attorney?
Defendant's Why must the
title which the lawmaker, the
federal law adjudicator, and the Defendant himself Speak, Oh Learned Ones!
And please speak without
attempting to turn white into "black," and black into "white," as the graduates of law schools seem so gifted at doing. speak without
being in
contempt of
the
And please
Constitution
for
the
United States, as lawfully amended.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 13 of 32
I THE WILL OF THE SOVEREIGN POWER The U.S. Constitution is the will of The People, clearly set down for
their agents, elected and appointed, to follow.
No law
supersedes the U.S. Constitution and only those in "pursuance" of it may
stand.
Even treaties must be made "in Pursuance" of the
U.S. Constitution. We the People ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Preamble to the U.S. Constitution (1789)
In establishing this government, the People said that: http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (14 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
This Constitution, and the Laws ... thereof ... shall be the supreme Law Article VI, Cl. 2, U.S. Constitution.
made in Pursuance of the Land ....
And they also commanded that: ... [A]ll ... judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; .... Article VI, Clause 3, U.S. Constitution
It is People, to
clearly the close the
will of the bar associations, not of the Courts to all but licensed attorneys.
Use
of the word "Counsel" rather than "attorneys" denotes the will of the Sovereign Power, which cannot be lawfully overridden. In the United States, Sovereignty resides in the people, who act through the organs established by the Constitution. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 471; Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 Dall. 54, 93; McCullock v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 404, 405; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370; ... Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the people to override their will as thus declared. Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935)
In the Sixth Amendment, the People declared their will as to the rights right of
of the Accused in all criminal prosecutions the Defendant
was purposely to include
couched in
to "enjoy"
those friends
and the
the "assistance of Counsel"
the Common Law term, "Counsel," so as upon whom
Defendants may
depend for
advice and protection. In a
speech by Judge Learned Hand at the Mayflower Hotel in
Washington, D.C.,
on May 11, 1929, entitled, "Is There a Common
Will?" in speaking of judges, he said: He is not to substitute even his juster will for theirs; otherwise it would not be the "common will" which prevails, and to that extent, the people would not govern.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 14 of 32
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (15 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
Defendant has
the right
to be
foolish as well as wise, and his
liberty is his to do with as he pleases. of choice
in this
the defense,
To deny him his freedom
matter of Counsel is unduly to interfere with
and constitutes a denial of the will of The People,
from whom the Courts' authority is derived, and a substitution in lieu thereof is being used -- that of the "will of attorneys." Bills of rights are, in their origin, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Hamilton, Federalist Papers, No. 84.
The right
to have
a "friend" plead one's case, or to assist one
in Court, is a Common Law right secured by the Sixth Amendment. History is clear that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted to secure certain common law rights of the people against invasion by the Federal Government. Bell v. Hood, 71 F. Supp., 813, 816 (1947) U.S.D.C., So. Dist. Calif.
Our Founding
Fathers spoke
and wrote
in the
vernacular of the
Common Law, and "Counsel" was the word they chose. conclusive contention.
on
this
point,
Interpretation
and of
the the
record word
The facts are supports
"Counsel"
to
this mean
"attorney only" is a departure from the safeguards of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was provided as a barrier, to protect the individual against arbitrary exactions of ... legislatures, (and) courts ... it is the primary distinction between democratic and totalitarian way. Re Stoller, Supreme Court of Florida, en banc, 36 So.2d 443, 445 (1948).
A more
recent confirmation
of fundamental Rights of the Accused
says: Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1968) Even though
the Miranda
decision
referred
to
the
Fifth
Amendment right in toto, the above stated principle is of general
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (16 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
application, wherein the word "rights" is not qualified.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 15 of 32
II DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION In Tarlowski
supra, the Court said, in suppressing evidence
at the request of Tarlowski's motion: When a federal official's interference with the right of free association takes the form of limiting the ability of a criminal suspect to consult with and be accompanied by a person upon whom he relies for advice and protection, he gravely transgresses. For these reasons, the Motion to suppress must be granted.
It was
in this
case that Tarlowski was denied the Counsel of an
accountant, not of a lawyer. Defendant has associate with
a right
whom he
under the
pleases
preparation and
presentation, so
with
and
decorum,
procedure which
do not
U.S. Constitution. Amendment Right
without
First Amendment freely to
in
his
defense
long as
contempt
and
such is
for
in
its
respectful,
orderly
rules
of
deprive one of Rights guaranteed by the
To deny this Right is also to deny his Fifth
to Due
Process of
Law, which
is
actually
a
guarantee of fundamental fairness.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 16 of 32
III DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES The First Amendment states, in pertinent part: Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (17 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
Defendant asks, for redress
"How can I maintain my maximum Right to petition
of grievances, if that person whom I choose to speak
for me is not permitted to do so?" If Congress abide a of a
passes a
statute of
statute requiring
a federal court to
the State in which it sits, and said statute
state purports
to make
it a
crime for
a Defendant to be
represented by a non-attorney, then Congress has effectively done not only
what the U.S. Constitution does not authorize it to do,
but it has done what is also expressly forbidden. If such
is the
frustrates the
case, then
Right of
The
Congress has made a "law" which
People,
and
the
Defendant,
"to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Of what Grievances
use if
is
the
the
government?
This
Right
Defendant
to is
Petition
for
of
handicapped
by
handicap arises
personally
Redress
because the Defendant needs
assistance in his petitioning, and yet the he is limited by a bar association, or
a state,
"friend" cannot
be permitted to speak for the Petitioner because
said "friend" schools.
has not been brainwashed in certain "approved" law
In is
in such law schools that the deprivation of the
fundamental Rights, language
in
or a court which says that a competent
the
although set U.S.
forth in plain and unambiguous
Constitution
itself,
is
not
"settled
doctrine." The "licensed attorneys" and "attorney-judges" say that "The Constitution is
what the Supreme Court says it is."
Congress passes
a law
layman's wife
saying that
any bureaucrat
What if the can rape any
and the Supreme Court says, "Yes, that's perfectly
in harmony with the Constitution?"
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (18 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 17 of 32
Then, are we The People to stand for it? authority?
Now, what
should The
Congress and
such a
brave enough
to challenge
Who gave them said
People do
Supreme Court?
who
have
such
a
Are the lower court judges
it, or are they "bound" to follow the
higher Court judges? And where who now
is the
steps forward
member of the bar, the licensed attorney, and announces his license
that the go to?
Supreme Court is
mistaken?
Where does
Now, who is going to
permit him
to appear in Court if he doesn't buckle down and stop
rocking the establishment? Obviously, an significant.
extreme example
Laymen would
has been
used;
but it
is
not have to stand for such nonsense.
Licensed attorneys ... who knows? That
laymen
should
be
subjected
to
a
"drifting"
and
"unstable" Constitution -- which happens to be what some justices "think it a jury
is" at the moment -- can be very frustrating, and that
cannot hear
damnable floating
a "Counsel"
impartial
for Redress
preserve the jury,
Grievances to not beholden perverted the
let
a
of Grievances."
semblance
the
the jury to
not beholden
to such a
doctrine, are indeed a denial of "the Right to
Petition (effectively) justice, to
who is
of
Defendant
and
fair
petition
through "Counsel
corrupt
a
To preserve
trial for
and
an
Redress
of
of his choice," who is
degenerate
system
which
has
very Law by which it pretends to rule and which it
pretends to protect and uphold.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 18 of 32
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (19 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
Defendant believes choice, or
that true religion guarantees freedom of
freedom to
choose, to
elect, and
to select, taking
responsibility for the consequences of said choices. Defendant further
believes that
he has
the right
to help
others and, in turn, to be helped by those willing voluntarily to answer his means in
call for
assistance.
its own
the Courtroom laws and
where a
In this case, he particularly hostile government is violating
trampling upon
the Rights
of
the
Sovereign
People, which its officers are sworn to protect. When all
the mighty
arrayed against out
the
a lone
force of an all powerful government is individual who
government's
entitled, most
of
inequities,
all,
to
the
has the courage to point
said
individual
protection
of
should
his
be
religious
convictions and rights. Under the right to rights
First Amendment,
believe, as of
long as the same does not trample upon the
others,
government.
the right of conscience and the
is
the
number
one
right
protected
by
In pertinent part, the First Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ....
Defendant's religious oppression
and
conviction, again,
freedom
legislation slapped
on a
from
same.
soul-stifling
special
interest
freedom-loving individual on behalf of
self-serving perpetrators profession, at
calls for freedom from
of special
the expense
advantages
to
the
legal
of the long-suffering victims of the
Let the legal profession compete like men with the Counsel
Defendant chooses for his defense, and for the proper exercise of his religious
Rights, chief
among which
is the
freedom of any
choice which does not trample upon the Rights of others.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (20 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 19 of 32
IV DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION Defendant's right
to equal
protection of the laws is guaranteed
through the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment: The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment guarantees to each citizen the equal protection of the laws and prohibits a denial thereof by any Federal official. Bolling v. Sharpe, 327 U.S. 497
Defendant asks
the Court
to take
Judicial Notice of an article
from Newsweek, September 2, 1974, which tells how a layman, James Yager, handled the legal problems of 3,500 clients (see paragraph 1).
The same
paragraph also
appearance," which
took place
speaks of
"His most recent court
in Atlanta.
It
describes
how
"Yager paced the courtroom floor," as he addressed the jury.
Mr.
Yager is engaging in the practice of law, which is his Right as a Layman, or desire.
laymen, to
than to
To deny
assist him
this motion
in his
is to
a Free and Natural Person.
defense, if
they
so
give prisoners more Rights Such inequity before the law
is intolerable. Said article mentions various others who have adopted law as an avocation inmate now
and goes
on to mention a Mr. Green, another former
on parole,
and says that:
"Green is a familiar face
in the Boston courtrooms, where he maintains his legal activities by submitting interesting to and James
amicus briefs know if
X, are
for other
felons."
It
would
be
Mr. Green and Yeager, like Mr. Jefferson
also black
men, and if therefore, fundamental
Rights are only available to black men. In both United Mine Workers v. Illinois Bar Association, 389 U.S. 217,
and NAACP
v.
Button,
371
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (21 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
U.S.
415,
and
also
in
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
Brotherhood of 1 (1964),
Railhood Trainmen v. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S.
it was
held
that
a
State
may
not
pass
statutes
prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law or to interfere with the Right to freedom of speech, secured by the First Amendment.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 20 of 32
Defendant is
entitled to
equal protection
of the laws and
that includes his right to speak through whom he pleases, when he pleases.
The only
reasonable condition
is that the decorum of
the Court and the rules not in conflict with individual Rights be maintained;
otherwise there
inalienable and legal Right. has every
intention of
can be
no valid
denial
of
this
Defendant is agreeable to this, and
obeying the proper rules and maintaining
the decorum of the Court. Defendant herein
To do otherwise is unthinkable.
also believes
that it
is
vital
to
his
defense to
seek whatever assistance he can trust, and that if he
decides to
be assisted by either licensed or unlicensed Counsel,
he has
every Right
combination of
to do
both may
so.
If the Defendant believes that a
be to
his advantage,
to deny him this
Right would constitute an unreasonable and arbitrary interference with his defense, by denying him his fundamental Rights freely to associate with
whom he
chooses;
to freedom
freedom to Petition for Redress of Grievances;
of
speech;
to
and his religious
Right of conscience and freedom of choice, without which religion is worth but little. Defendant also other Defendants
asks the
in criminal
Court to take Judicial Notice that cases are
allowed to
plan
their
defenses without interference by the Courts, and Defendant herein claims that same Right. http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (22 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 21 of 32
Surely, we special grants same
cannot have
of privilege
privileges
are
special laws
to them
denied
for attorneys
and
as a class when these very
all
other
citizens.
The
Constitutional prohibitions against Titles of Nobility in Article I, Section 9, clause 7, and in the original Thirteenth Amendment, are
violated
when
privileges, i.e. the Courts.
"attorney"
"Nobility."
Presently,
Courts whom
becomes We must
a
Title
of
special
all have equal access to
the Courts
only those attorneys have access to the approve and, as a result, all "approved"
attorneys are considered Officers of the Court. Where does defended by Court to
the defendant
an Officer
force the
the defense the very
of the
attorney among
he does
Court?
not wish
to be
To use the power of the
defense to retain an Officer of the Court at
table offends
core.
go when
the sensibilities of the Defendant to
Defendant may
wish voluntarily
to
select
an
his Counsels, but this Defendant believes that he
should not
be forced
freedom of
choice in the matter of whether he has no Counsel and
represents himself,
to do
or uses
so.
Defendant is
licensed legal
simply
seeking
Counsel (attorney),
mixed Counsel (attorneys and laymen) or lay Counsel only. The "stealthy Counsel who monopoly
of
is not
encroachment" upon
the
licensed by legal
Defendant's
the Bar
is
establishment,
the
both
Right
to
a
result
of
a
in
and
out
of
government, State and Federal, to "protect" their "price fixing"; to maintain few in
artificially high legal fees;
law schools
protect attorneys
maintained largely from competition
at public
from
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (23 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
to educate the chosen
those
expense; who
know
to that
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
attorneys have People at
obstructed the
the mercy
of a
U.S. Constitution
swarm
of
and
bureaucrats
left
with
the
endless
attorney-promoted regulations and laws which make "crimes" out of the exercise wherein the
of natural
attorney-controlled
Sovereign Citizen arms
of
and Constitutionally
his
and force
attorney
government
protected Rights,
him into
can
prosecute
the
the waiting, outstretched
"brotherhood,"
who
will
"advise"
and
"defend" him for a considerable fee.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 22 of 32
Little wonder when it and
is full
that People
Deans."
of licensed Little
contemplating what
are fed
up with
the profession
"Haldemans, Erlichmans, Mitchells,
wonder
many
attorneys have
People done
to
almost this
vomit once
when
mighty,
powerful, and independent Republic. Legal fees the same
come too
average Citizen
high for
many average Citizens.
cannot turn
Yet,
to laymen who may be well
versed in the necessary legal area, and this restricts the Courts to attorneys
and those
afford attorneys unjust a
must suffer
system of
some persons
who can
afford them.
along as
Laymen who cannot
best they can.
justice as one could conjure up.
may qualify
for a
Public Defender.
It is as Of course,
That is like
being alone in a pit of cobras, and someone comes along and wants to throw
in another
needed is cobra.
a mongoose
cobra.
Under those circumstances, what is
(read "Counsel
of Choice"),
not
another
Perhaps the STAR CHAMBERS weren't so bad after all.
V DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (24 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
Defendant has also to
not only
speak through
First Amendment evident as which are
whom he pleases.
Right to
a part
the Right to speak for himself, but
freedom of
speech.
It is also self-
of the Natural Rights Doctrine.
called inherent
Declaration of
This is inherent in the
and inalienable
Independence,
They are
natural or
rights.
Defendant
which
God-given, points
"attorney-given" rights,
out
are outlined
antedates
rather that
all
than he
Those Rights in the
government.
government-given,
does
not
claim
any
but demands that his God-given, Natural
Rights not be infringed upon.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 23 of 32
This
fundamental
referred to
Right
previously, but
of
separately to
freedom
Defendant
of
speech
wishes
to
has
set
been
it
out
emphasize it to the Court, and herein refers again
to United
Mine Workers
v. Button
supra, and
v. Illinois Bar Association supra, NAACP the Brotherhood
of Railroad
Trainmen
v.
Virginia State Bar supra, in support of said Right. It is
indicative that
the words
in
the
First
Amendment
embrace freedom "of" speech, and not just freedom "to" speak, and while Defendant does not wish to prolong this Brief by a detailed discussion of wishes to
the difference
bring
to
the
between the
Court's
two terms,
attention
that
he simply
there
is
a
difference, and that its application is obvious.
VI DENIAL OF FREEDOM OF COUNSEL RESULTS IN A CONFLICT OF INTEREST Defendant's request non-attorney Counsel
for the Court to recognize his Right to
in lieu
of, or
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (25 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
in addition
to,
attorney
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
Counsel, would trial on
mean that
a motion
the Court
would have
regarding Defendant's
to rule
Right to
during
non-attorney
assistance, including that of assistant spokesman. If presiding Judge of this Honorable Court has, in the past, ever been
a member
member of
a Bar
connected
with
difficult
to
of any
Bar Association or is, at present, a
Association, or has close friends or associates a
Bar
see
Association,
how
the
Court
then
Defendant
finds
it
could
possibly
render
an
unprejudiced and impartial ruling on Defendant's motion regarding his Right to non-attorney Counsel.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 24 of 32
It appears variance with
to Defendant that the Court would find itself at his own
standards, mainly the Cannons of Judicial
Ethics, No. 29, which states: A judge should abstain from performing or taking part in any judicial act in which his personal interests are involved. If he has a personal litigation in the court of which he is judge, he need not resign his judgeship on that account, but he should, of course, refrain from any judicial act in such controversy.
It
is
apparent
Defendant's motion part of least in
to
the
Defendant
herein would
most reasonable
call for
persons, that
that
the
denial
the thinking,
of
on the
the denial was based, at
part, on a conflict of interest and upon a "hardship of
the case," meaning upon the unfortunate Bar Associations. Granting the being a
motion,
conflict of
would occur
however,
interest, but
despite personal
could not be interpreted as rather, granting
the motion
interest and in favor of fairness,
of due process, and the justice to which the Sovereign Citizen of this Republic is entitled under the Sixth Amendment.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (26 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 25 of 32
VII FEDERAL COURT'S ENFORCEMENT OF PRACTICE-OF-LAW STATE STATUTE ABRIDGES FIRST, NINTH, AND TENTH AMENDMENTS The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states: The powers not delegated to the United States by Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The power
to abrogate
delegated to
mentioned herein has not been
the United States nor to any State through the U.S.
Constitution.
Such a power is an undelegated colorable "office."
Nothing
in
authorizes a
the
U.S.
Constitution
delegation of
frustrate the
foregoing
religion, of of due
the Rights
the are
power to
Rights,
of
this
the state
i.e.
freedom
Union
state
to
thwart
and
of
speech,
of
assembly, of petitioning for redress of grievances,
process, of the Right to contract, and of equal treatment
under the law. Therefore, assuming remains with
the People,
as heretofore power for
the foregoing is true, then the "power" who are the Sovereigns in this country
pointed out.
his choice
Constitution
or
Therefore, the Defendant retains the
of a spokesman in Court, "any Thing in the
Laws
of
any
State
to
notwithstanding."
See Article VI, Clause 2.
state's
or
statutes
invalidate the
any
arbitrary
rule
Said
pretended
Contrary
Regardless of this it
cannot
Rights protected
by the
Defendant's fundamental
U.S. Constitution.
the
right
making,
to
"regulate"
the
"practice of law" must fall, or recede, when placed alongside the Defendant's fundamental jury, with
due
process,
Right to freedom
a fair of
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (27 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
trial by
speech,
and
an impartial freedom
of
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
contract, as heretofore demonstrated. It is
impossible to
delegator does right to
another
not himself possess.
compel the
therefore,
delegate to
this
to a
is
which
the
Defendant does not have the
inadequate representation
Defendant
tyrannical power
that
powerless
to
of another delegate
and,
such
a
legislature, whether or not controlled by
attorneys or any Bar association.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 26 of 32
To summarize this
State
the foregoing,
and
Courts
to a
non-attorney spokesman
not given
to the
from
Amendment prohibits
its
fundamental Right power is
the Tenth
restricting
State by
Defendant's
in court.
Such
either the U.S. or by the
State Constitutions.
Therefore, in civil cases, the Legislature
has usurped,
prodding of attorneys, the so-called Right
at the
to institute a statute prohibiting a Defendant, in a prosecution against him
by his
spokesman of no valid
government, from
trust and confidence.
reason, statute,
fundamental Right
relying upon
In criminal cases, there is
or Court
to Counsel,
a preferred
ruling that
and the
can alter the
Courts, in denying said
spokesman, are arbitrarily usurping Defendant's Right. The Ninth They are
Amendment
not to
The mention
reserves
all
non-enumerated
Rights.
be denied or disparaged, though not enumerated.
and enumeration
Supreme authority
of the
of the
Right to
Counsel under the
Sixth Amendment cannot be construed to
deny or disparage the Right to that Counsel being a non-attorney, or a
non-member of
any Bar
Association licensed
to only
plea
bargain and lose. It would
appear
that
any
decent
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (28 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
person
would
have
no
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
difficulty agreeing
with the
above, and
that any
other ruling
would indeed be "frivolous" and without constitutional authority. Again, imposing restrictions on Defendant's Counsel violates and circumvents Defendant's Fifth Amendment Rights.
In addition,
it imposes
Defendant by
cruel and
forcing him
to seek
unusual punishment legal assistance,
upon the
when and if he needs it,
from those whom he either does not trust or cannot afford.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 27 of 32
VIII DENIAL OF NON-ATTORNEY COUNSEL VIOLATES CIVIL RIGHTS Denial of choice is
Defendant's desire
law, in
also a
for
a
non-attorney
of
his
deprivation of his Civil Rights under color of
by 42
violation of Defendant's fundamental Rights as protected U.S.C. 1983,
1985, and
1986.
See Owens
v. The City of
Independence. CONCLUSION Any denial of Counsel is an attempt to accomplish that which is specifically recognized
prohibited by
therein
counsel," and
says
the Sixth
nothing
that fundamental
about
Right is
Amendment. only
The Right
"court-approved
in no way qualified or
limited. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Miller v. Milwaukee, 272 U.S. 713, 715, reach a
that if
a statute
is part
of an
unlawful scheme to
prohibited result, then "... the statute must fail ...."
This was again upheld in McCallen v. Massachusetts, 279 U.S. 620, 630.
Legislators, whether Federal or State, may not restrict the
Courts only to attorneys in order to deny effective assistance of
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (29 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
Counsel to or
any Defendant
assisted
by
"attorney."
a
who evinces a desire to be represented
"friend,"
What cannot
in
be done
preference by the
to
a
licensed
front door
cannot be
lawfully done by way of the back door. Legislators who do
those
who
execute
Presidents, etc. need not
pass laws
playground
for
violation of choice, due
the
Even
law,
i.e.
the Justices
be licensed
defending their
do not have to be attorneys, nor
attorneys.
Sheriffs,
of the
Governors,
U.S. Supreme Court
To exclude
the
People
from
"friends" in the Courts turns said Courts into a the
legal
establishment,
the Defendant's process of
and
fundamental Right
is to
a
blatant
Counsel
of
law, and equal protection under the law.
Justice Brandeis said: Discrimination is the act of treating differently two persons or things under like circumstances. National Life Insurance Co. v. United States, 277 U.S. 508, 630.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 28 of 32
As far with the rampant.
back as
unjust and The
Court
1886, the
U.S. Supreme Court was concerned
illegal discriminations frowned
upon
law
which were running
administered
with
an
"unequal hand": ... [S]o as practically to make unjust and illegal discrimination between persons in similar circumstances material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution. Yick Wo v. Hopkins supra.
Therefore, the
Courts cannot
be the
exclusive territory
of
a
legal "elite corps," but must be open to all the Sovereign People alike --
on an
equal basis,
providing due
process of
Law and
equal protection under that Law. The Ninth
and Tenth
Amendments also prohibit the denial of
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (30 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
Counsel of
choice.
delegated such of the
Nowhere has
and if
Tenth Amendments,
the Court will closely examine the it will
find
Counsel of
choice, such
as Defendant
secured in
the penumbra
of these
Ninth Amendment, 41 L.W.
his predecessors
restrictive powers to the United States or to any
Union states,
Ninth and
Defendant or
that
herein
the
claims,
Shapiro
is
to also
Amendments, particularly
which is protected in the states.
4213 (1973);
Right
the
Roe v. Wade,
v. U.S., 641, 394 US 618 (1966);
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1964).
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 29 of 32
Speaking of
controlling constitutional
law, as
opposed to
mere statute law, Chief Justice Marshall said: Those then, who controvert this principle, that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution and see only the law.
And the Court concluded that: This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 176
The United States Supreme Court also pointed out in this decision that, in
declaring what
should be
the supreme Law of the Land,
the U.S. Constitution itself was first mentioned and "... not the laws of the United States generally ...." The attorneys Congress have abolish, Our the United
who sit
no right
in Our State legislatures and in Our
to pass
fundamental Rights
laws which
States of
unconstitutional laws
infringe
upon,
or
under the U.S. Constitution for
America, as which purport
lawfully to do
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (31 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
amended, so must
and
such
be declared
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
null and
void and
not binding
upon the Courts.
See Miranda v.
Arizona supra, at 491.
VERIFICATION The Undersigned under the
laws of
the United
"United States," correct, to
hereby certify,
that the
the best
under penalty
States of
America,
of perjury, without
the
of My
above statements of fact are true and current information, knowledge, and
belief, so help Me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 30 of 32
Executed on July 22, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state and Counselor at Law and federal witness All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 31 of 32
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila penalty of
Terese,
Sui
perjury, under
America, without of age
Wallen,
Juris,
the United
the laws
of
hereby the
certify,
United
under
States
of
States, that I am at least 18 years
and a Citizen of one of the United States of America, and
that I personally served the following document: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (32 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION FOR VIOLATING THE FUNDAMENTAL GUARANTEE OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: Sixth Amendment by placing
said document
in first class U.S. Mail, with postage
prepaid and properly addressed to the following individuals:
Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 Tucson [85701] ARIZONA STATE
[hand-delivered]
Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Dated:
July 22, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen ________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris, Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 32 of 32
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (33 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jurychal
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona Under Protest, Necessity, and by Special Visitation Only
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Sheila Terese, Wallen, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) ________________________________)
COMES NOW
Sheila Terese,
state and
Defendant in
Case No. 95-484-WDB NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH GRAND JURY SELECTION POLICY, AND NOTICE OF CHALLENGE AND CHALLENGE TO CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTE 28 U.S.C. 297, 517, 518, 1861, 1865, and 1867(d),(e), F.R.Cr.P. Rule 6(b)(2)
Wallen, Sui Juris, Citizen of Arizona the above
entitled matter (hereinafter
"Defendant"), to Petition this honorable Court for a stay of the instant proceedings, 1867(d), pending
pursuant to
proper review
the provisions
of 28
U.S.C.
of the Defendant's challenge to
the constitutionality of 28 U.S.C. 1865, to wit:
1865.
Qualifications for jury service
(a)
The chief judge of the district court, or such other district court judge as the plan may provide ... shall determine solely on the basis of information provided on the juror qualification form and other competent evidence whether a person is unqualified for, or exempt, or to be excused from jury service. ...
(b)
In making such determination the chief judge of the district court, or such other district court judge as
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jurychal.htm (1 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:18 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jurychal
the plan may provide, shall deem any person qualified to serve on grand and petit juries in the district court unless he -(1)
is not a citizen of the United States eighteen years old who has resided for a period of one year within the judicial district; .... [28 U.S.C. 1865, emphasis added]
Motion to Stay Proceedings: Page 1 of 8
In stark that all
contrast, it
citizens shall
is the
have the
policy of the United States opportunity to be considered
for service on grand juries in the district courts of the United States.
To be
constitutional, and
legislative intent, used in
28 U.S.C.
Citizens of
the term 1861, must
the freely
to be
consistent with its
"all citizens", be
construed
as that
associated compact
to
term is
include
states who
also
are not
also citizens of the United States (a/k/a "federal citizens"): 1861.
Declaration of policy
It is the policy of the United States that all litigants in Federal courts entitled to trial by jury shall have the right to grand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross section of the community in the district or division wherein the court convenes. It is further the policy of the United States that all citizens shall have the opportunity to be considered for service on grand and petit juries in the district courts of the United States, and shall have an obligation to serve as jurors when summoned for that purpose. [28 U.S.C. 1861, emphasis added]
Defendant hereby of Her
sworn
provides notice to all interested parties
(verified)
statement
of
law
and
facts
which
constitute a substantial failure to comply with the Constitution for
the
United
(hereinafter "U.S. Title 28,
States
of
America,
Constitution"), and
United States
Code, Section
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jurychal.htm (2 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:18 PM]
as
lawfully
with the 1861:
amended
provisions of Declaration
of
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jurychal
Policy.
See 28
U.S.C. 1867(d)
Jury consisted
of members
United States,
not necessarily
and (e).
all of
The indicting Grand
whom were
of
the
Citizens of Arizona state.
See
Dyett v. Turner and State v. Phillips infra;
citizens
Right of Election;
voter registration affidavits.
Motion to Stay Proceedings: Page 2 of 8
of introduction
to the crucial matters of fact and
which
are
at
law
By way
discussed
(verified) statement, as if
set forth
in
Defendant's
sworn
which is hereby incorporated by reference
fully herein,
respectfully requested
length
to take
this honorable formal judicial
Court is hereby notice of
the
additional standing authorities on this question: We have in our political system a Government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own .... Slaughter-House Cases [United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)] [emphasis added]
A person who is a citizen of the United States** is necessarily a citizen of the particular state in which he resides. But a person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen of the United States. To hold otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty, -- the right to declare who are its citizens. [State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380] [6 S. 602 (1889), emphasis added]
There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state. One class of citizenship may exist in a person, without the other, as in the case of a resident of the District of Columbia; but both classes usually exist in the same person. [Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155] [48 S. 788, 791 (1909), emphasis added]
There are
over 100,000 elementary and secondary schools in
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jurychal.htm (3 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:18 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jurychal
the United States. ... Each of these now has an invisible federal zone extending 1,000 feet beyond the (often irregular) boundaries of the school property. [U.S. v. Lopez, 115 S.Ct. 1624 (1995)]
Motion to Stay Proceedings: Page 3 of 8
As a
Party to
the
instant
case,
the
Defendant
hereby
challenges the indicting Grand Jury on the ground that such jury was not
selected in
because Citizens
conformity with
of Arizona
section 1861 of Title 28,
state who are not also citizens of
the United States (a/k/a federal citizens) are disqualified from serving by
virtue of
U.S.C. 1867(e);
their chosen
Right
Citizenship status.
of Election;
15
Statutes
Chapter 249
(Section 1), enacted July 27, 1868;
sanguinis.
Specifically,
the
offensive
at
See 28 Large,
jus soli;
statute
forces
jus the
following unconstitutional result upon Citizens of Arizona state who choose
not also
to be citizens of the United States (a/k/a
federal citizens): citizen of United States Yes Yes No No
Citizen of Arizona state
Qualified to serve
Yes No No Yes
Yes Yes No No
**
This result ("**") violates the Tenth Amendment by disqualifying Citizens of
Arizona state
from serving on federal grand juries
when they are not also federal citizens, thus denying to accused Citizens of
Arizona state
a grand
jury of
Their Peers when a
grand jury consists only of federal citizens. An intentional solely because
discrimination against
of their
class, by
a class of persons,
officers in
charge of
the
selection and summoning of grand jurors in a criminal case, is a http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jurychal.htm (4 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:18 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jurychal
violation of v. Texas,
the fundamental Rights of an accused.
339 U.S. 282;
v. Louisiana, the fact
Atkins v. Texas, 325 U.S. 398;
306 U.S. 354.
that the
the necessary
prescribed by statute.
Pierre
Such a violation is not excused by
persons actually
otherwise possess
See Cassell
selected for
jury service
qualifications for
jurors
as
See State v. Jones, 365 P.2d 460.
Motion to Stay Proceedings: Page 4 of 8
Discrimination prohibited by
the
in U.S.
systematic noninclusion classes of
the
selection
of
Constitution, because of
citizenship in
grand
means
class.
America.
a
an
jury,
as
intentional,
There are
E.g. Gardina
two (2)
supra.
The
statute 28 U.S.C. 1865(b)(1) specifically excludes those classes of Citizens who are not mentioned. alterius.
Expressio unius est exclusio
The following statute dramatically demonstrates that
Congress appreciates the difference between the two classes, and knows how
to discriminate between "white citizens" (read "state
Citizens") and citizens).
"citizens of
the United
States" (a/k/a federal
U.S. Statutes
The Act of Congress called the Civil Rights Act, 14 at Large,
p. 27, which was the forerunner of the
so-called 14th Amendment, amply shows the intent of Congress, as follows: ... [A]ll persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color ... shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States ... to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens. [emphasis added]
Once a
prima facie
case for
the existence
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jurychal.htm (5 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:18 PM]
of purposeful
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jurychal
discrimination is made out, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove
otherwise.
Reliance on matter is
See Whitus
the so-called
v.
Georgia,
385
U.S.
545.
moot, because
Fourteenth Amendment to resolve this the
Fourteenth
Amendment
was
never
lawfully ratified, and because the authorities cited supra allow for the possibility that a Person can be a state Citizen without also being
a federal
Amendment was
citizen, whether
lawfully ratified.
P.2d 936, 941 (1975); 266, 270
(1968);
Review 22;
See
or not
the
State v.
Phillips, 540
Dyett v. Turner, 20 Utah 2d 403, 439 P.2d
Full Faith and Credit Clause;
11
Fourteenth
South
Carolina
Law
Quarterly
28 Tulane Law 484;
House
Congressional Record, June 13, 1967, p. 15641 et seq.
Motion to Stay Proceedings: Page 5 of 8
As such, there is no constitutional provision which makes a federal citizen resides, nor
also a citizen of the Union state in which s/he
is there any constitutional provision which states
that the validity of the public debt shall not be questioned. The judicial which
is
rich
Defendant's sworn when those of the
history of in
nuance
detail,
a term
found that
of municipal
is municipal
as
demonstrated
in
For example, at a time
in the federal zone, the Supreme Court
Philippine Islands
Court, it
and
(verified) statement.
Islands were
speaking, is
American citizenship is a subject
law which
"citizenship,"
law and,
strictly
according to
regulates the
that
conditions on
which citizenship is acquired: Citizenship, says Moore on International Law, strictly speaking, is a term of municipal law and denotes the possession within the particular state of full civil and political rights subject to special disqualifications, such as minority, sex, etc. The conditions on which citizenship are [sic] acquired are regulated by municipal law. There http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jurychal.htm (6 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:18 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jurychal
is no such thing as international citizenship nor international law (aside from that which might be contained in treaties) by which citizenship is acquired. [Roa v. Collector of Customs] [23 Philippine 315, 332 (1912)]
Indeed, international (1) public
law is
divided roughly
into two groups:
international law and (2) private international law.
Citizenship is as municipal
a term law) in
of private international law (also known which the
terms
"state",
"nation"
and
"country" are all synonymous:
Motion to Stay Proceedings: Page 6 of 8
Private international law assumes a more important aspect in the United States than elsewhere, for the reason that the several states, although united under the same sovereign authority and governed by the same laws for all national purposes embraced by the Federal Constitution, are otherwise, at least so far as private international law is concerned, in the same relation as foreign countries. The great majority of questions of private international law are therefore subject to the same rules when they arise between two states of the Union as when they arise between two foreign countries, and in the ensuing pages the words "state," "nation," and "country" are used synonymously and interchangeably, there being no intention to distinguish between the several states of the Union and foreign countries by the use of varying terminology. [16 Am Jur 2d, Conflict of Laws, Sec. 2] [emphasis added]
Congress does
refer to the Union states as "countries."
See 28
U.S.C. 297. RELIEF SOUGHT Wherefore, Defendant indefinite stay
of the proceedings in the instant case, pending
proper review
of the
are
in
alleged
petitions this honorable Court for an
Defendant's sworn
this
substantial issues Motion
and
of law and fact which
which
are
contained
in
(verified) statement which is attached hereto
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jurychal.htm (7 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:18 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jurychal
and incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein.
Executed on: _________________________
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Sheila Wallen Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Motion to Stay Proceedings: Page 7 of 8
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila
Terese, Wallen,
penalty of
perjury, under
Sui
America, without years of
Juris,
the laws
the "United
hereby
of the
certify,
States," that
United I am
under
States
of
at least
18
age, a Citizen of one of the United States of America,
and that I personally served the following document(s): NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH GRAND JURY SELECTION POLICY, AND NOTICE OF CHALLENGE AND CHALLENGE TO CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTE: 28 U.S.C. 297, 517, 518, 1861, 1865, and 1867(d) by placing first
class
one true United
and correct States
copy of
Mail,
with
properly addressed to the following:
Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 Tucson [85701] ARIZONA STATE Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jurychal.htm (8 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:18 PM]
said document(s) postage
prepaid
in and
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jurychal
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Executed on: _____________________________
/s/ Sheila Wallen __________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Motion to Stay Proceedings: Page 8 of 8
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jurychal.htm (9 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:18 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona Under Protest, Necessity, and by Special Visitation Only
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic], ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Sheila Terese, Wallen, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________)
COMES NOW
Sheila Terese,
state and
Defendant in
"Defendant"), to Challenge Statute.
to
VERIFIED STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF CHALLENGE TO GRAND JURY SELECTION POLICY AND ITS FEDERAL STATUTE: 28 U.S.C. 1746(1), 1861, 1865
Wallen, Sui Juris, Citizen of Arizona the above
record Her
Grand
Case No. 95-484-WDB
Jury
entitled matter (hereinafter
Verified Statement Selection
Policy
and
in Support its
Meaning
"We are no longer subjects of a government." of
American
Citizenship"
by
the
of
Federal See "The
Commissioner
of
Immigration and Naturalization infra and EXHIBIT "A" attached.
VERIFICATION The Undersigned under the
laws of
"United States," correct, to
hereby verifies, under penalty of perjury, the United
that
the best
the
States of
following
America, without
Statement
is
true
the and
of My current information, knowledge, and
belief, so help Me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1): http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (1 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 1 of 36
Chapter 11: Sovereignty The issue of sovereignty as it relates to jurisdiction is a major key to understanding our system of government under the Constitution. In the most common sense of the word, "sovereignty" is autonomy, freedom from external control. The sovereignty of any government usually extends up to, but not beyond, the borders of its jurisdiction. This jurisdiction defines a specific territorial boundary which separates the "external" from the "internal", the "within" from the "without". It may also define a specific function, or set of functions, which a government may lawfully perform within a particular territorial boundary. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, defines sovereignty to mean: ... [T]he international independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign dictation.
On a similar theme, Black's defines "sovereign states" to be those which are not under the control of any foreign power: No foreign power or law can have control except by convention. This power of independent action in external and internal relations constitutes complete sovereignty.
It is a well established principle of law that the 50 States are "foreign" with respect to each other, just as the federal zone is "foreign" with respect to each of them (In re Merriam's Estate, 36 NE 505 (1894)). The status of being foreign is the same as "belonging to" or being "attached to" another state or another jurisdiction. The proper legal distinction between the terms "foreign" and "domestic" is best seen in Black's definitions of foreign and domestic corporations, as follows: Foreign corporation. A corporation doing business in one state though chartered or incorporated in another state is a foreign corporation as to the first state, and, as such, is required to consent to certain conditions and restrictions in order to do business in such first state. Domestic corporation. When a corporation is organized and chartered in a particular state, it is considered a domestic corporation of that state.
The federal zone is an area over which Congress exercises exclusive legislative jurisdiction. It is the area over which the federal government exercises its sovereignty. Despite its http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (2 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
obvious importance, the subject of federal jurisdiction had been almost entirely ignored outside the courts until the year 1954. In that year, a detailed study of federal jurisdiction was undertaken. The occasion for the study arose from a school playground, of all places. The children of federal employees residing on the grounds of a Veterans' Administration hospital were not allowed to attend public schools in the town where the hospital was located. An administrative decision against the children was affirmed by local courts, and finally affirmed by the State supreme court. The residents of the area on which the hospital was located were not "residents" of the State, since "exclusive legislative jurisdiction" over this area had been ceded by the State to the federal government.
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 2 of 36
A committee was assembled by Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Jr. Their detailed study was reported in a publication entitled Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States, April 1956 (Volume I) and June 1957 (Volume II). The committee's report demonstrates, beyond any doubt, that the sovereign States and their laws are outside the legislative and territorial jurisdiction of the United States** federal government. They are totally outside the federal zone. A plethora of evidence is found in the myriad of cited court cases (700+) which prove that the United States** cannot exercise exclusive legislative jurisdiction outside territories or places purchased from, or ceded by, the 50 States of the Union. Attorney General Brownell described the committee's report as an "exhaustive and analytical exposition of the law in this hitherto little explored field". In his letter of transmittal to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Brownell summarized the two volumes as follows: Together, the two parts of this Committee's report and the full implementation of its recommendations will provide a basis for reversing in many areas the swing of "the pendulum of power * * * from our states to the central government" to which you referred in your address to the Conference of State Governors on June 25, 1957. [Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States] [Letter of Transmittal, page V, emphasis added]
Once a State is admitted into the Union, its sovereign jurisdiction is firmly established over a predefined territory. The federal government is thereby prevented from acquiring legislative jurisdiction, by means of unilateral action, over any area within the exterior boundaries of this predefined territory. State assent is necessary to transfer jurisdiction to Congress: The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State. Article 1, Section 8, http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (3 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
Clause 17, of the Constitution, provides that legislative jurisdiction may be transferred pursuant to its terms only with the consent of the legislature of the State in which is located the area subject to the jurisdictional transfer. [Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States] [Volume II, page 46, emphasis added]
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 3 of 36
Under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, States of the Union have enacted statutes consenting to the federal acquisition of any land, or of specific tracts of land, within those States. Secondly, the federal government has also made "reservations" of jurisdiction over certain areas in connection with the admission of a State into the Union. A third means for transfer of legislative jurisdiction has also come into considerable use over time, namely, a general or special statute whereby a State makes a cession of specific functional jurisdiction to the federal government. Nevertheless, the Committee report explained that "... the characteristics of a legislative jurisdiction status are the same no matter by which of the three means the Federal Government acquired such status" [Volume II, page 3]. There is simply no federal legislative jurisdiction without consent by a State, cession by a State, or reservation by the federal government: It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction (1) pursuant to clause 17 by a Federal acquisition of land with State consent, or (2) by cession from the State to the Federal Government, or unless the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction upon the admission of the State, the Federal Government possesses no legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State, such jurisdiction being for exercise entirely by the State .... [Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States] [Volume II, page 45, emphasis added]
The areas which the 50 States have properly ceded to the federal government are called federal "enclaves": By this means some thousands of areas have become Federal islands, sometimes called "enclaves," in many respects foreign to the States in which they are situated. In general, not State but Federal law is applicable in an area under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the United States**, for enforcement not by State but Federal authorities, and in many instances not in State but in Federal courts. [Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States] [Volume II, page 4, emphasis added]
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (4 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
These federal enclaves are considered foreign with respect to the States which surround them, just as the 50 States are considered foreign with respect to each other and to the federal zone: "...[T]he several states of the Union are to be considered as in this respect foreign to each other ...." Hanley v. Donoghue, 116 U.S. 1 (1885). Once a State surrenders its sovereignty over a specific area of land, it is powerless over that land; it is without authority; it cannot recapture any of its transferred jurisdiction by unilateral action, just as the federal government cannot acquire jurisdiction over State area by its unilateral action. The State has transferred its sovereign authority to a foreign power:
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 4 of 36
Once a State has, by one jurisdiction to the United powerless to control many jurisdiction, it is without of the problems, and having United States**, it cannot transferred jurisdiction.
means or another, transferred States**, it is, of course, of the consequences; without the authority to deal with many transferred jurisdiction to the unilaterally capture any of the
[Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States] [Volume II, page 7, emphasis added]
Once sovereignty has been relinquished, a State no longer has the authority to enforce criminal laws in areas under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States**. Privately owned property in such areas is beyond the taxing authority of the State. Residents of such areas are not "residents" of the State, and hence are not subject to the obligations of residents of the State, and are not entitled to any of the benefits and privileges conferred by the State upon its residents. Residents of federal enclaves usually cannot vote, serve on juries, or run for office. They do not, as matter of right, have access to State schools, hospitals, mental institutions, or similar establishments. The acquisition of exclusive jurisdiction by the Federal Government renders unavailable to the residents of the affected areas the benefits of the laws and judicial and administrative processes of the State relating to adoption, the probate of wills and administration of estates, divorce, and many other matters. Police, fire-fighting, notaries, coroners, and similar services performed by, or under, the authority of a State may result in legal sanction within a federal enclave. The "old" State laws which apply are only those which are consistent with the laws of the "new" sovereign authority, using the following principle from international law: The vacuum which would exist because of the absence of State law or Federal legislation with respect to civil matters in areas under Federal exclusive legislative http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (5 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
jurisdiction has been partially filled by the courts, through extension to these areas of a rule of international law that[,] when one sovereign takes over territory of another[,] the laws of the original sovereign in effect at the time of the taking[,] which are not inconsistent with the laws or policies of the second[,] continue in effect, as laws of the succeeding sovereign, until changed by that sovereign. [Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States] [Volume II, page 6, commas added for clarity] [emphasis added]
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 5 of 36
It is clear, then, that only one "state" can be sovereign at any given moment in time, whether that "state" be one of the 50 Union States, or the federal government of the United States**. Before ceding a tract of land to Congress, a State of the Union exercises its sovereign authority over any land within its borders: Save only as they are subject to the prohibitions of the Constitution, or as their action in some measure conflicts with the powers delegated to the national government or with congressional legislation enacted in the exercise of those powers, the governments of the states are sovereign within their territorial limits and have exclusive jurisdiction over persons and property located therein. [72 American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 4] [emphasis added]
After a State has ceded a tract of land to Congress, the situation is completely different. The United States**, as the "succeeding sovereign", then exercises its sovereign authority over that land. In this sense, sovereignty is indivisible, even though the Committee's report documented numerous situations in which jurisdiction was actually shared between the federal government and one of the 50 States. Even in this situation, however, sovereignty rests either in the State, or in the federal government, but never both. Sovereignty is the authority to which there is politically no superior. Outside the federal zone, the States of the Union remain sovereign, and their laws are completely outside the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the federal government of the United States**. This understanding of the separate sovereignties possessed by each of the State and federal governments was not only valid during the Eisenhower administration; it has been endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court as recently as 1985. In that year, the high Court examined the "dual sovereignty doctrine" when it ruled that successive prosecutions by two States for the same conduct were not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The "crucial determination" turned on whether http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (6 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
State and federal powers derive from separate and independent sources. The Supreme Court explained that the doctrine of dual sovereignty has been uniformly upheld by the courts: It has been uniformly held that the States are separate sovereigns with respect to the Federal Government because each State's power to prosecute derives from its inherent sovereignty, preserved to it by the Tenth Amendment, and not from the Federal Government. Given the distinct sources of their powers to try a defendant, the States are no less sovereign with respect to each other than they are with respect to the Federal Government. [Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82, 89-90 (1985)]
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 6 of 36
Now, if a State of the Union is sovereign, is it correct to say that the State exercises an authority to which there is absolutely no superior? No, this is not a correct statement. There is no other organized body which is superior to the organized body which retains sovereignty. The sovereignty of governments is an authority to which there is no organized superior, but there is absolutely a superior body, and that superior body is the People of the United States*** of America: The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the "sovereign people," and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. [Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1856)] [emphasis added]
The source of all sovereignty in a constitutional Republic like the 50 States, united by and under the Constitution for the United States of America, is the People themselves. Remember, the States, and the federal government acting inside those States, are both bound by the terms of a contract known as the U.S. Constitution. That Constitution is a contract of delegated powers which ultimately originate in the sovereignty of the Creator, who endowed creation, individual People like you and me, with sovereignty in that Creator's image and likeness. Nothing stands between us and the Creator. I think it is fair to say that the Supreme Court of the United States was never more eloquent when it described the source of sovereignty as follows: Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (7 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is indeed, quite true, that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision; and in many cases of mere administration the responsibility is purely political, no appeal except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgement, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth "may be a government of laws and not of men." For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself. [Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)] [emphasis added]
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 7 of 36
More recently, the Supreme Court reiterated the fundamental importance of US the People as the source of sovereignty, and the subordinate status which Congress occupies in relation to the sovereignty of the People. The following language is terse and right on point: In the United States***, sovereignty resides in the people who act through the organs established by the Constitution. [cites omitted] The Congress as the instrumentality of sovereignty is endowed with certain powers to be exerted on behalf of the people in the manner and with the effect the Constitution ordains. The Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the people to override their will as thus declared. [Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935)] [emphasis added]
No discussion of sovereignty would be complete, therefore, without considering the sovereignty that resides in US, the People. The Supreme Court has often identified the People as the source of sovereignty in our republican form of government. Indeed, the federal Constitution guarantees to every State in the Union a "Republican Form" of government, in so many words: Section 4.
The
United States
shall guarantee
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (8 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
to
every
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; .... [United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 4] [emphasis added]
What exactly is a "Republican Form" of government? It is one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the People and exercised by the People. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, makes this very clear in its various definitions of "government": Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627.
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 8 of 36
The Supreme Court has clearly distinguished between the operation of governments in Europe, and government in these United States*** of America, as follows: In Europe, the executive is almost synonymous with the sovereign power of a State; and generally includes legislative and judicial authority. ... Such is the condition of power in that quarter of the world, where it is too commonly acquired by force or fraud, or both, and seldom by compact. In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people. [Glass v. The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)] [emphasis added]
The federal Constitution makes a careful distinction between natural born Citizens and citizens of the United States** (compare 2:1:5 with Section 1 of the so-called 14th Amendment). One is an unconditional Sovereign by natural birth, who is endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights; the other has been granted the revocable privileges of U.S.** citizenship, endowed by the Congress of the United States**. One is a Citizen, the other is a subject. One is a Sovereign, the other is a subordinate. One is a Citizen of our constitutional Republic; the other is a citizen of a legislative democracy (the federal zone). Notice the superior/subordinate relationship between these two statuses. I am forever indebted to M. J. "Red" Beckman, co-author of The Law That Never Was with Bill Benson, for clearly illustrating the important difference between the two. Red Beckman has delivered many eloquent lectures based on the profound simplicity of the http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (9 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
following table: Chain of command and authority in a: Majority Rule Democracy
Constitutional Republic
X Majority Government Public Servants Case & Statute Law Corporations individual
Creator Individual Constitution Government Public Servants Statute Law Corporations
In this illustration, a democracy ruled by the majority places the individual at the bottom, and an unknown elite, Mr. "X" at the top. The majority (or mob) elects a government to hire public "servants" who write laws primarily for the benefit of corporations. These corporations are either owned or controlled by Mr. X, a clique of the ultra-wealthy who seek to restore a two-class "feudal" society. They exercise their vast economic power so as to turn all of America into a "feudal zone". The rights of individuals occupy the lowest priority in this chain of command. Those rights often vanish over time, because democracies eventually self-destruct. The enforcement of laws within this scheme is the job of administrative tribunals, who specialize in holding individuals to the letter of all rules and regulations of the corporate state, no matter how arbitrary and with little if any regard for fundamental human rights:
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 9 of 36
A democracy that recognizes only manmade laws perforce obliterates the concept of Liberty as a divine right. [A Ticket to Liberty, November 1990 edition, page 146] [emphasis added]
In the constitutional Republic, however, the rights of individuals are supreme. Individuals delegate their sovereignty to a written contract, called a constitution, which empowers government to hire public servants to write laws primarily for the benefit of individuals. The corporations occupy the lowest priority in this chain of command, since their primary objectives are to maximize the enjoyment of individual rights, and to facilitate the fulfillment of individual responsibilities. The enforcement of laws within this scheme is the responsibility of sovereign individuals, who exercise their power in three arenas: the voting booth, the trial jury, and the grand jury. Without a jury verdict of "guilty", for example, no law can be enforced and no penalty exacted. The behavior of public servants is tightly restrained by contractual http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (10 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
terms, as found in the written Constitution. Statutes and case law are created primarily to limit and define the scope and extent of public servant power. Sovereign individuals are subject only to a Common Law, whose primary purposes are to protect and defend individual rights, and to prevent anyone, whether public official or private person, from violating the rights of other individuals. Within this scheme, Sovereigns are never subject to their own creations, and the constitutional contract is such a creation. To quote the Supreme Court, "No fiction can make a natural born subject." Milvaine v. Coxe's Lessee, 8 U.S. 598 (1808). That is to say, no fiction, be it a corporation, a statute law, or an administrative regulation, can mutate a natural born Sovereign into someone who is subject to his own creations. Author and scholar Lori Jacques has put it succinctly as follows: As each state is sovereign and not a territory of the United States**, the meaning is clear that state citizens are not subject to the legislative jurisdiction of the United States**. Furthermore, there is not the slightest intimation in the Constitution which created the "United States" as a political entity that the "United States" is sovereign over its creators. [A Ticket to Liberty, November 1990 edition, page 32] [emphasis added]
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 10 of 36
Accordingly, if you choose to investigate the matter, you will find a very large body of legal literature which cites another fiction, the so-called 14th Amendment, from which the federal government presumes to derive general authority to treat everyone in America as subjects and not as Sovereigns: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States**, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States** and of the State wherein they reside. [United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment [sic]] [emphasis added]
A careful reading of this amendment reveals an important subtlety which is lost on many people who read it for the first time. The citizens it defines are second class citizens because the "c" is lower-case, even in the case of the State citizens it defines. Note how the amendment defines "citizens of the United States**" and "citizens of the State wherein they reside"! It is just uncanny how the wording of this amendment closely parallels the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) which promulgates Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). Can it be that this amendment had something to do with subjugation, by way of taxes and other means? Yes, it most certainly did. Section 1 of the http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (11 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
IRC is the section which imposes income taxes. The corresponding section of the CFR defines who is a "citizen" as follows: Every person born or naturalized in the United States** and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. [26 CFR 1.1-1(c), emphasis added]
Notice the use of the term "its jurisdiction". This leaves no doubt that the "United States**" is a singular entity in this context. In other words, it is the federal zone. Do we dare to speculate why the so-called 14th Amendment was written instead with the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? Is this another case of deliberate ambiguity? You be the judge. Not only did this so-called "amendment" fail to specify which meaning of the term "United States" was being used; like the 16th Amendment, it also failed to be ratified, this time by 15 of the 37 States which existed in 1868. The House Congressional Record for June 13, 1967, contains all the documentation you need to prove that the so-called 14th Amendment was never ratified into law (see page 15641 et seq.). For example, it itemizes all States which voted against the proposed amendment, and the precise dates when their Legislatures did so. "I cannot believe that any court, in full possession of its faculties, could honestly hold that the amendment was properly approved and adopted." State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d. 936, 941 (1975). The Utah Supreme Court has detailed the shocking and sordid history of the 14th Amendment's "adoption" in the case of Dyett v. Turner, 20 Utah 2d 403, 439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968).
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 11 of 36
A great deal of written material on the 14th Amendment has been assembled into computer files by Richard McDonald, whose mailing address is 585-D Box Canyon Road, Canoga Park, California Republic (not "CA"). He requests that ZIP codes not be used on his incoming mail (use "ZIP code exempt (DMM 122.32)" instead). Richard McDonald has done a mountain of legal research and writing on the origins and effects of the so-called 14th Amendment. He documents how key court decisions like the Slaughter House Cases, among many others, all found that there is a clear distinction between a Citizen of a State and a citizen of the United States** . A State Citizen is a Sovereign, whereas a citizen of the United States** is a subject of Congress. The exercise of federal citizenship is a statutory privilege which can be taxed with excises. The exercise of State Citizenship is a Common Law Right which simply cannot be taxed because governments cannot tax the exercise of a right, ever. The case of U.S. v. Cruikshank is famous, not only for confirming this distinction between State Citizens and U.S.** http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (12 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
citizens, but also for establishing a key precedent in the area of due process. This precedent underlies the "void for vagueness" doctrine which can and should be applied to nullify the IRC. On the issue of citizenship, the Cruikshank court ruled as follows: We have in our political system a government of the United States** and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States** and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other. SlaughterHouse Cases [United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)] [emphasis added]
The leading authorities for this pivotal distinction are, indeed, a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions known as the Slaughter House Cases, which examined the so-called 14th Amendment in depth. An exemplary paragraph from these cases is the following: It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States** and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual. [Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 16 Wall. 36] [21 L.Ed. 394 (1873), emphasis added]
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 12 of 36
A similar authority is found in the case of K. Tashiro v. Jordan, decided by the Supreme Court of the State of California almost fifty years later. Notice, in particular, how the California Supreme Court again cites the Slaughter House Cases: That there is a citizenship of the United States** and a citizenship of a state, and the privileges and immunities of one are not the same as the other is well established by the decisions of the courts of this country. The leading cases upon the subjects are those decided by the Supreme Court of the United States and reported in 16 Wall. 36, 21 L. Ed. 394, and known as the Slaughter House Cases. [K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 256 P. 545, 549 (1927)] [affirmed 278 U.S. 123 (1928)] [emphasis added]
The Slaughter
House Cases are quite important to the issue
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (13 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
of citizenship, but the pivotal case on the subject is the famous Dred Scott decision, decided in 1856, prior to the Civil War. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote one of the longest decisions in the entire history of American jurisprudence. In arriving at their understanding of the precise meaning of Citizenship, as understood by the Framers of the Constitution, the high Court left no stone unturned in their search for relevant law: We have the language of the Declaration of Independence and of the Articles of Confederation, in addition to the plain words of the Constitution itself: we have the legislation of the different States, before, about the time, and since the Constitution was adopted; we have the legislation of Congress, from the time of its adoption to a recent period; and we have the constant and uniform action of the Executive Department, all concurring together, and leading to the same result. And if anything in relation to the construction of the Constitution can be regarded as settled, it is that which we now give to the word "citizen" and the word "people." [Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1856)] [emphasis added]
In the fundamental law, the notion of a "citizen of the United States" simply did not exist before the 14th Amendment; at best, this notion is a fiction within a fiction. In discussing the power of the States to naturalize, the California State Supreme Court put it rather bluntly when it ruled that there was no such thing as a "citizen of the United States": A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective States. [Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)] [emphasis added]
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 13 of 36
This decision has never been overturned! What is the proper construction and common understanding of the term "Citizen of the United States" as used in the original Constitution, before the so-called 14th Amendment? This is an important question, because this status is still a qualification http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (14 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
for the offices of Senator, Representative and President. No Person can be a Representative unless he has been a Citizen of the United States for seven years (1:2:2); no Person can be a Senator unless he has been a Citizen of the United States for nine years (1:3:3); no Person can be President unless he is a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States (2:1:5). If these requirements had been literally obeyed, there could have been no elections for Representatives to Congress for at least seven years after the adoption of the Constitution, and no one would have been eligible as a Senator for nine years after its adoption. Author John S. Wise, in a rare book now available on Richard McDonald's electronic bulletin board system (BBS), explains away the problem very simply as follows: The language employed by the convention was less careful than that which had been used by Congress in July of the same year, in framing the ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory. Congress had made the qualification rest upon citizenship of "one of the United States***," and this is doubtless the intent of the convention which framed the Constitution, for it cannot have meant anything else. [Studies in Constitutional Law: [A Treatise on American Citizenship] [by John S. Wise, Edward Thompson Co. (1906)] [emphasis added]
This quote from the Northwest Ordinance is faithful to the letter and to the spirit of that law. In describing the eligibility for "representatives" to serve in the general assembly for the Northwest Territory, the critical passage from that Ordinance reads as follows: ... Provided, That no person be eligible or qualified to act as a representative, unless he shall have been a citizen of one of the United States*** three years, and be a resident in the district, or unless he shall have resided in the district three years; .... [Northwest Ordinance, Section 9, July 13, 1787] [The Confederate Congress, emphasis added]
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 14 of 36
Without citing the case as such, the words of author John S. Wise sound a close, if not identical parallel to the argument for the Respondent filed in the case of People v. De La Guerra, decided by the California Supreme Court in 1870. The following long passage elaborates the true meaning of the Constitutional qualifications for President and Representative: As it was the adoption of the Constitution by the Conventions of nine States that established and created the United States***, it is obvious there could not then have http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (15 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
existed any person who had been seven years a citizen of the United States***, or who possessed the Presidential qualifications of being thirty-five years of age, a natural born citizen, and fourteen years a resident of the United States***. The United States*** in these provisions, means the States united. To be twenty-five years of age, and for seven years to have been a citizen of one of the States which ratifies the Constitution, is the qualification of a representative. To be a natural born citizen of one of the States which shall ratify the Constitution, or to be a citizen of one of said States at the time of such ratification, and to have attained the age of thirty-five years, and to have been fourteen years a resident within one of the said States, are the Presidential qualifications, according to the true meaning of the Constitution. [People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870)] [emphasis added]
Indeed, this was the same exact understanding that was reached by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision. There, the high Court clearly reinforced the sovereign status of Citizens of the several States. The sovereigns are the Union State Citizens, i.e. the Citizens of the States United: It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else. And the personal rights and privileges guarantied [sic] to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several state communities, or who should afterwards, by birthright or otherwise, become members, according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded. [Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 404 (1856)] [emphasis added]
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 15 of 36
Thus, the phrase "Citizen of the United States" as found in the original Constitution is synonymous with the phrase "Citizen of one of the United States***", i.e., a Union State Citizen. This simple explanation will help to cut through the mountain of propaganda and deception which have been foisted on all Americans by government bureaucrats and their high-paid lawyers. With this understanding firmly in place, it is very revealing to discover that many reprints of the Constitution now utilize a lower-case "c" in the sections which describe the qualifications for the offices of Senator, Representative and President. This is definitely wrong, and it is probably deliberate, so as to http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (16 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
confuse everyone into equating Citizens of the United States with citizens of the United States, courtesy of the so-called 14th Amendment. There is a very big difference between the two statuses, not the least of which is the big difference in their respective liabilities for the income tax. Moreover, it is quite clear that one may be a State Citizen without also being a "citizen of the United States", whether or not the 14th Amendment was properly ratified! According to the Louisiana Supreme Court, the highest exercise of a State's sovereignty is the right to declare who are its own Citizens: A person who is a citizen of the United States** is necessarily a citizen of the particular state in which he resides. But a person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen of the United States**. To hold otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty, -- the right to declare who are its citizens. [State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380] [6 S. 602 (1889), emphasis added]
In a book to which this writer has returned time and time again, author Alan Stang faithfully recites some of the other relevant court authorities, all of which ultimately trace back to the Slaughter House Cases and the Dred Scott decision: Indeed, just as one may be a "citizen of the United States" and not a citizen of a State; so one apparently may be a citizen of a State but not of the United States. On July 21, 1966, the Court of Appeal of Maryland ruled in Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections, 221 A.2d 431; a headnote in which tells us: "Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state ...." At page 434, Judge Oppenheimer cites a Wisconsin ruling in which the court said this: "Under our complex system of government, there may be a citizen of a state, who is not a citizen of the United States in the full sense of the term ...." [Tax Scam, 1988 edition, pages 138-139] [emphasis added]
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 16 of 36
Conversely, there may be a citizen of the United States** who is not a Citizen of any of the 50 States. In People v. De La Guerra quoted above, the published decision of the California Supreme Court clearly maintained this crucial distinction between the two classes of citizenship, and did so only two years after the alleged ratification of the so-called 14th Amendment:
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (17 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
I have no doubt that those born in the Territories, or in the District of Columbia, are so far citizens as to entitle them to the protection guaranteed to citizens of the United States** in the Constitution, and to the shield of nationality abroad; but it is evident that they have not the political rights which are vested in citizens of the States. They are not constituents of any community in which is vested any sovereign power of government. Their position partakes more of the character of subjects than of citizens. They are subject to the laws of the United States**, but have no voice in its management. If they are allowed to make laws, the validity of these laws is derived from the sanction of a Government in which they are not represented. Mere citizenship they may have, but the political rights of citizens they cannot enjoy until they are organized into a State, and admitted into the Union. [People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 342 (1870] [emphasis added]
Using language that was much more succinct, author Luella Gettys, Ph.D. and "Sometime Carnegie Fellow in International Law" at the University of Chicago, explained it quite nicely this way: ... [A]s long as the territories are not admitted statehood no state citizenship therein could exist.
to
[The Law of Citizenship in the United States] [Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1934, p. 7]
This clear distinction between the Union States and the territories is endorsed officially by the U.S. Supreme Court. Using language very similar to that of the California Supreme Court in the De La Guerra case, the high Court explained the distinction this way in the year 1885, seventeen years after the adoption of the so-called 14th amendment: The people of the United States***, as sovereign owners of the national territories, have supreme power over them and their inhabitants. ... The personal and civil rights of the inhabitants of the territories are secured to them, as to other citizens, by the principles of constitutional liberty, which restrain all the agencies of government, state and national; their political rights are franchises which they hold as privileges in the legislative discretion of the congress of the United States**. This doctrine was fully and forcibly declared by the chief justice, delivering the opinion of the court in National Bank v. County of Yankton, 101 U.S. 129. [Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 (1885)] [italics in original, emphasis added]
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 17 of 36 http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (18 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
The political rights of the federal zone's citizens are "franchises" which they hold as "privileges" at the discretion of the Congress of the United States**. Indeed, the doctrine declared earlier in the National Bank case leaves no doubt that Congress is the municipal authority for the territories: All territory within the jurisdiction of the United States* not included in any State must, necessarily, be governed by or under the authority of Congress. The Territories are but political subdivisions of the outlying dominion of the United States**. They bear much the same relation to the General Government that counties do to the States, and Congress may legislate for them as States do for their respective municipal organizations. The organic law of a Territory takes the place of a constitution, as the fundamental law of the local government. It is obligatory on and binds the territorial authorities; but Congress is supreme and, for the purposes of this department of its governmental authority, has all the powers of the People of the United States***, except such as have been expressly or by implication reserved in the prohibitions of the Constitution. [First National Bank v. Yankton, 101 U.S. 129 (1880)] [emphasis added]
This knowledge can be extremely valuable. In one of the brilliant text files on his electronic bulletin board system (BBS), Richard McDonald utilized his voluminous research into the so-called 14th Amendment and related constitutional law when he made the following pleading in opposition to a traffic citation, of all things, in Los Angeles county municipal court: 17. The Accused Common-Law Citizen [Defendant] hereby places all parties and the court on NOTICE, that he is not a "citizen of the United States**" under the so-called 14th Amendment, a juristic person or a franchised person who can be compelled to perform to the regulatory Vehicle Codes which are civil in nature, and challenges the In Personam jurisdiction of the Court with this contrary conclusion of law. This Court is now mandated to seat on the law side of its capacity to hear evidence of the status of the Accused Citizen. [see MEMOLAW.ZIP on Richard McDonald's electronic BBS] [see also FMEMOLAW.ZIP and Appendix Y, emphasis added]
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 18 of 36
You might be wondering why someone would go to so much trouble to oppose a traffic citation. Why not just pay the fine and get on with your life? The answer lies, once again, in the fundamental and supreme Law of our Land, the Constitution for http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (19 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
the United States of America. Sovereign State Citizens have learned to assert their fundamental rights, because rights belong to the belligerent claimant in person. The Constitution is the last bastion of the Common Law in our country. Were it not for the Constitution, the Common Law would have been history a long time ago. The interpretation of the Constitution is directly influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law: There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history. [United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 891, 893 (1898)] [emphasis added]
Under the Common Law, we are endowed by our Creator with the right to travel. "Driving", on the other hand, is defined in State Vehicle Codes to mean the act of chauffeuring passengers for hire. "Passengers" are those who pay a "driver" to be chauffeured. Guests, on the other hand, are those who accompany travelers without paying for the transportation. Driving, under this definition, is a privilege for which a State can require a license. Similarly, if you are a citizen of the United States**, you are subject to its jurisdiction, and a State government can prove that you are obligated thereby to obey all administrative statutes and regulations to the letter of the law. These regulations include, of course, the requirement that all subjects apply and pay for licenses to use the State and federal highways, even though the highways belong to the People. The land on which they were built, and the materials and labor expended in their construction, were all paid for with taxes obtained from the People. Provided that you are not engaged in any "privileged" or regulated activity, you are free to travel anywhere you wish within the 50 States. Those States are real parties to the Constitution and are therefore bound by all its terms. Another one of your Common Law rights is the right to own property free and clear of any liens. ("Unalienable" rights are rights against which no lien can be established precisely because they are un-lien-able.) You enjoy the right to own your vehicle outright, without any lawful requirement that you "register" it with the State Department of Motor Vehicles. The State governments violated your fundamental rights when they concealed the legal "interest" which they obtained in your vehicle, by making it appear as if you were required to register the vehicle when you purchased it, as a condition of purchase. This is fraud. If you don't believe me, then try to obtain the manufacturer's statement of origin (MSO) the next time you buy a new car or truck. The implications and ramifications of driving around without a license, and/or without registration, are far beyond the scope of this book. Suffice it to say that effective methods have already been developed to deal with law enforcement officers and courts, if and when you are pulled over and cited http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (20 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
for traveling without a license or tags. Richard McDonald is second to none when it comes to preparing a successful defense to the civil charges that might result. A Sovereign is someone who enjoys fundamental, Common Law rights, and owning property free and clear is one of those fundamental rights.
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 19 of 36
If you have a DOS-compatible personal computer and a 2400baud modem, Richard McDonald can provide you with instructions for accessing his electronic bulletin board system (BBS). There is a mountain of information, and some of his computer files were rather large when he began his BBS. Users were complaining of long transmission times to "download" text files over phone lines from his BBS to their own personal computers. So, McDonald used a fancy text "compression" program on all the text files available on his BBS. As a consequence, BBS users must first download a DOS program which "decompresses" the compressed files. Once this program is running on your personal computer, you are then free to download all other text files and to decompress them at your end. For example, the compressed file "14AMREC.ZIP" contains the documentation which proves that the so-called 14th Amendment was never ratified. If you have any problems or questions, Richard McDonald is a very patient and generous man. And please tell him where you read about him and his computer bulletin board (voice: 818-703-5037, BBS: 818-8889882). As you peruse through McDonald's numerous court briefs and other documents, you will encounter many gems to be remembered and shared with your family, friends and associates. His work has confirmed an attribute of sovereignty that is of paramount importance. Sovereignty is never diminished in delegation. Thus, as sovereign individuals, we do not diminish our sovereignty in any way by delegating our powers to State governments, to perform services which are difficult, if not impossible for us to perform as individuals. Similarly, States do not diminish their sovereignty by delegating powers to the federal government, via the Constitution. As McDonald puts it, powers delegated do not equate to powers surrendered: 17. Under the Constitutions, "... we the People" did not surrender our individual sovereignty to either the State or Federal Government. Powers "delegated" do not equate to powers surrendered. This is a Republic, not a democracy, and the majority cannot impose its will upon the minority because the "LAW" is already set forth. Any individual can do anything he or she wishes to do so long as it does not damage, injure, or impair the same Right of another individual. This is where the concept of a corpus delicti comes from to prove a "crime" or a civil damage. [see MEMOLAW.ZIP on Richard McDonald's electronic BBS] [see also FMEMOLAW.ZIP and Appendix Y, emphasis added]
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (21 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 20 of 36
Indeed, to be a Citizen of the United States*** of America is to be one of the Sovereign People, "a constituent member of the sovereignty, synonymous with the people" [see 19 How. 404]. According to the 1870 edition of Bouvier's Law Dictionary, the People are the fountain of sovereignty. It is extremely revealing that there is no definition of "United States" as such in this dictionary. However, there is an important discussion of the "United States of America", where the delegation of sovereignty clearly originates in the People and nowhere else: The great men who formed it did not undertake to solve a question that in its own nature is insoluble. Between equals it made neither superior, but trusted to the mutual forbearance of both parties. A larger confidence was placed in an enlightened public opinion as the final umpire. The people parcelled out the rights of sovereignty between the states and the United States**, and they have a natural right to determine what was given to one party and what to the other. ... It is a maxim consecrated in public law as well as common sense and the necessity of the case, that a sovereign is answerable for his acts only to his God and to his own conscience. [Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 14th Edition, 1870] [defining "United States of America"] [emphasis added]
We don't need to reach far back into another century to find proof that the People are sovereign. In a Department of Justice manual revised in the 1990 (Document No. M-230), the meaning of American Citizenship was described with these eloquent and moving words by the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization: "You are no longer a subject of a government!"
The Meaning of American Citizenship Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization Today you have become a citizen of the United States of America. You are no longer an Englishman, a Frenchman, an Italian, a Pole. Neither are you a hyphenated-American -- a Polish-American, an Italian-American. You are no longer a subject of a government. Henceforth, you are an integral part of this Government -- a free man -- a Citizen of the United States of America. This citizenship, which has been solemnly conferred on you, is a thing of the spirit -- not of the flesh. When you took the oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, you claimed for yourself the God-given unalienable rights which that sacred document sets forth as the natural right of all men. You have
made sacrifices
to reach this desired goal.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (22 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
We, your fellow citizens, realize this, and the warmth of our welcome to you is increased proportionately. However, we would tincture it with friendly caution. As you have learned during these years of preparation, this great honor carries with it the duty to work for and make secure this longed-for and eagerly-sought status. Government under our Constitution makes American citizenship the highest privilege and at the same time the greatest responsibility of any citizenship in the world. The important rights that are now yours and the duties and responsibilities attendant thereon are set forth elsewhere in this manual. It is hoped that they will serve as a constant reminder that only by continuing to study and learn about your new country, its ideals, achievements, and goals, and by everlastingly working at your citizenship can you enjoy its fruits and assure their preservation for generations to follow. May you find in this Nation the fulfillment of your dreams of peace and security, and may America, in turn, never find you wanting in your new and proud role of Citizen of the United States. [Basic Guide to Naturalization and Citizenship] [Immigration and Naturalization Service] [U.S. Department of Justice] [page 265, emphasis added]
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 21 of 36
Executed on ___________________________
/s/ Sheila Wallen _______________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 22 of 36
EXHIBIT "A": "The Day Our Country Was Stolen:" "How the 14th Amendment" [sic] "Enslaved Us All" "Without a Shot Fired"
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 23 of 36 http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (23 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
The Day Our Country Was Stolen: How the 14th Amendment [sic] Enslaved Us All Without a Shot Fired by L. C. Lyon
Most Americans would agree that we, as a people, are treated by our public servants -- the judges, politicians, law enforcement and bureaucrats who are paid their salaries by our taxes -- as if we were in complete bondage to them. When we joke about being slaves to the Government, we don't realize that we are exactly correct, joke or not. In fact, all those 99% of Americans who call themselves "U.S. citizens" are actually subjects of the corporate United States Government -- not the sovereign states of the Union. The moment you uttered your first cry on American soil, you became the chattel property of the corporation known as the United States of America which, because of the federal debt, handed title (Birth Certificate) to your body and soul to the Federal Reserve Bank, to be held in the archives of the Department of Health and Human Services. As incredible as this sounds, it is sadly true. The next question is: How did I automatically become subject to a government, when I'm supposedly a free American? How did this all come about, that I should be made to register myself, my family, and all that I own; be made to obey oppressive laws; and forfeit almost half of my earnings upon threat of jail? Only those who are "subject" to a government can be made to do these things. Free American Inhabitants are subject to no one but God, and all the laws and responsibilities which that Divine allegiance entails.
Which "United States" Do You Live In? The answer to the above questions goes back to the American Civil War. The war that was supposedly fought to free the slaves from bondage actually did just the opposite -- for all Americans then and in the future. By enacting the 14th Amendment (which technically is an Article, not a true amendment, but that's a topic for another discussion), a whole nation of newly freed slaves and free-born white American Inhabitants became "citizens of the United States", i.e. of a federal government corporation, at the stroke of a pen and without a shot being fired. Because we Americans are a different breed and demand the right to personal freedom, those who had planned decades ago to enslave us (even if it took generations to do so) knew that, as long as we were armed and willing to fight to maintain our freedom, the only way to accomplish this enslavement was by deception. http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (24 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 24 of 36
To proceed further, we must understand that there are two "United States". There is the "united States" (note the small "u" in "united") which describes the ideological and geographical position of the sovereign states of America. An individual was the voluntary inhabitant of the state in which he resided. If he did not like the laws or practices of that state, he could simply move to another state. Each state was sovereign to itself, and could not be forced to accept the laws and practices of any other state. The "United States of America", however, is the name of the corporate entity (note the capital "U" in "United") that exists to carry out the functions delegated to it by the States for the protection of the Union. This corporate entity's jurisdiction is supposed to be (according to the Constitution) confined to the District of Columbia, the federal territories and the federal enclaves. Enclaves are areas within a State's boundaries which are ceded to the Federal Government by the State Legislature. Anyone can come under the direct jurisdiction of the corporate United States in three ways: (1) by living in one of its territories (Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, etc.), (2) by living in the District of Columbia, or (3) simply by choice. Back when America still had vast territories not-yetbecome states and several thousands of people lived in these territories, these people had no rights protected by state sovereignty. They lived under federal jurisdiction, which was the reason why people living in territories were so anxious to achieve statehood. The President could order federal troops into any territory and enact any edicts he wanted. Once a territory became a state, it had sovereignty and, from that point on, the state's rights prevailed. So, if you don't live in a territory or enclave, and you don't live in the District of Columbia, then the only way you could have fallen under the jurisdiction of the United States Government is by choice. But neither I, nor anyone I know, voluntarily or knowingly surrendered their personal sovereignty to the Government, which means that it (our sovereignty) was taken from us by deception. This deception, which took place in the year 1868, is what this article will explain -- how our ancestors were tricked and coerced into giving up their rights (and ours!) to the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 25 of 36
Civil War Sets the Stage for Takeover http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (25 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
The Constitution for the United States of America specifies in the opening paragraph that the Constitution was written for the newly formed corporation, not for us, the People living in America. Our rights come from God and are inalienable. They do not come from a piece of paper. And, because the Federal Government exists only on paper -- a man-created entity -- it can also be dismantled anytime We the People decide it has become a threat to our inalienable God-given rights of sovereignty. The Constitution is the contract between those who administer the Government's affairs and the People of the united States. In essence, it states that the People will give the Government certain powers necessary to administer the defense of the States, and control the commerce into the States from foreign countries. In exchange, the State governments (not the individual people -- direct taxation by the Federal Government is unconstitutional) would provide the Federal Government the money it needs to operate. The Federal Government had limited powers; in fact, the Bill of Rights was hotly debated at the time of its passage because there were several people who wisely cautioned that the Bill of Rights would eventually be construed as rights endowed by the Constitution, not protected by it (which is exactly what has happened). How often do you hear patriots mistakenly vow to defend "their Constitutional rights"? This thinking reflects the decades of public school brainwashing to which we have all been subjected. We need to correct each other and understand that our rights are God-given, not constitutional. So, how does the Civil War enter into this present-day power struggle between the Federal Government and Us the People? Slavery was not the true underlying reason for the war. It was an emotional, social issue that was used as an excuse to incite people to go to war, people who did not realize that foreign agencies were responsible for that conflict. International bankers, seeing the slavery issue as an opportunity not only to divide the country, but make millions of dollars as well, fanned the flames of debate until, under cover of the most bloody war in the history of the world, they were to accomplish that very objective -- the complete takeover of America. They almost succeeded years sooner, except for the intervention of one man -- President Abraham Lincoln.
"Honest Abe" Knew the Truth President Lincoln was against slavery, but he understood that it was wrong to force the southern States to give up slavery -- to force Federal jurisdiction over the issue of States' Rights. Four of the southern States were already considering the abolition of slavery, but they couldn't just abandon it overnight. It would take time. After all, their whole economy was built upon slavery; a sudden disruption would bankrupt the South. Lincoln understood this. But, it wasn't until Lincoln got into office that he began to see the whole picture. He learned that the war was begun by the International http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (26 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
Bankers as a means of dividing the country in two, forcing both sides to borrow heavily from the Bankers to pay war debts. Then, when failing to repay those loans, the divided America would be forced into bankruptcy. The Rothschilds and other bankers could then simply foreclose on the corporations known as the United States of America and the Confederate States of America. President Lincoln knew he had to keep the nation together at all costs -- including war.
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 26 of 36
Saved by the National Banks Near the end of the war, the South was on its knees and the U.S. Government was nearly bankrupt. Seeing their opportunity, the Bankers offered to loan the U.S. Government enough to see it through. Lincoln said no. He would find another way. What he did then was to ask Congress for permission to print paper money. Even though he knew it was unconstitutional (only gold and silver are lawful U.S. money), it was the only way he knew to buy provisions for the Army -- but only if the U.S. banks would accept it. They did. When Lincoln gave his word that the Government would redeem those notes for gold and silver at a later time, they believed him and honored the notes. By doing this, the planned takeover by the Bankers was averted -- at that time.
The Bankers' Revenge -- Assassination Because he had given his word to the nation's bankers; because he had promised the South that, upon surrender, the Government would help them rebuild; and because he had promised the Southerners there would be no recriminations or punishments if they again swore loyalty to the Union, Lincoln knew he had to get re-elected, though he was tired, tormented by migraine headaches, and worried about his suffering family life. He had to make sure those promises were kept. Lincoln's complete thwarting of the International Bankers' plans doomed him to assassination at their hands. Papers found in Booth's locker show communications with an agent hired by the Rothschild family. Weeks before he was killed, Lincoln knew he would die in office. His spies were reporting plots to kill him; it was only a matter of who got to him first. So, he met regularly with his Vice President, Andrew Johnson, and educated him as quickly as he could so that he could follow through on Lincoln's promises. Johnson listened carefully and understood what was expected of him, and why. Then, after Lincoln's murder, he did exactly as he was supposed to do. In school, when we were taught this part of American history, we were told that Andrew Johnson was uneducated and http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (27 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
ignorant, and fumbled continuously in office, which was supposedly why he was impeached. Johnson was of humble origin, but he was an honest, self-educated man who stood firmly for what he saw clearly were the best interests of his country. This is what got him impeached.
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 27 of 36
Impeachment! At this time, the only men in Congress were those representing the northern States. After Fort Sumter, all the southern States had seceded. After Lincoln's death, Congress began passing laws to punish the South, in contradiction to Lincoln's promise. Johnson began vetoing them, sometimes three and four times, until Congress began passing them over his veto. One particular bill that he vetoed, the Civil Rights Bill, was intended to make all former slaves automatic citizens of the Federal Government, and under its direct jurisdiction (and protection). This seemed like a compassionate and generous gesture to the newly freed slaves but, as Johnson pointed out, it would have serious consequences for the Negroes. In his veto message in March of 1866, Johnson pointed out the pitfalls of this bill: He [the Negro] must, of necessity, from his previous unfortunate condition of servitude, be less informed as to the nature and character of our institutions than he who, coming from abroad, has to some extent at least, familiarized himself with the principles of a government to which he voluntarily entrusts "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". The 1st Section of the bill also contains an enumeration of the rights to be enjoyed by these classes so made citizens "in every state and territory in the United States". These rights are "to make and enforce contracts; to sue, be parties, and give evidence; to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property"; and to have "full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens". So too, they are made subject to the same punishment, pains and penalties, in common with white citizens .... [emphasis added]
Johnson could clearly see that to immediately place a string of governmental "rights and benefits" upon a totally naive and uneducated people as the Negroes, would also make them easy prey for every carpetbagger who would trick them into contracts, in which they would have no knowledge of the legal ramifications. This bill would, in effect, make the former slaves as slaves again to different masters: unscrupulous businessmen, attorneys and judges. http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (28 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 28 of 36
Johnson saw that this bill was also a means of foisting unconstitutional jurisdiction of the Federal Government in every state: Thus a perfect equality of the white and colored races is attempted to be fixed by federal law in every state of the Union over the vast field of state jurisdiction covered by these enumerated rights. If Congress can declare by law who shall hold lands, who shall testify, who shall have capacity to make a contract in a state, then Congress can by law also declare who, without regard to color or race, shall have the right to sit as a juror or as a judge, to hold any office, and finally, to vote "in every state and territory of the United States". The legislation thus proposed invades the judicial power of the state. It says to every state court or judge: if you decide that this act is unconstitutional; if you refuse, under the prohibition of a state law, to allow a Negro to testify; if you hold that over such a subject matter the state law is paramount ... your error of judgment, however conscientious, shall abject you to fine and imprisonment. The Legislative Department of the government of the United States thus takes from the Judicial Department of the states the sacred and exclusive duty of judicial decision and converts the state judge into a mere ministerial officer, bound to decide according to the will of Congress. [emphasis added]
Johnson then continued with an additional warning as to the virtually unlimited power given to appointed agents: The Section of the bill provides that officers and agents of the Freedman's Bureau shall be empowered to make arrests and also that other officers may be specially commissioned for that purpose by the President of the United States. It also authorizes circuit courts of the United States and the superior courts of the territories to appoint, without limitation, commissioners, who are to be charged with the performance of quasi-judicial duties. These numerous agents are made to constitute a sort of police, in addition to the military, and are authorized to summon a posse comitatus, and even to call to their aid such portion of the land and naval forces of the United States or of the militia ....
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (29 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
This extraordinary power is to be conferred upon agents irresponsible to the government and to the people, to whose number the discretion of the commissioners is the only limit and in whose hands such authority might be made a terrible engine of wrong, oppression and fraud. The 7th Section provides that a fee ... shall be paid to each commissioner in every case brought before him, and a fee ... to his deputy or deputies for each person he or they may arrest and take before any such commissioner .... All those fees are to be "paid out of the Treasury of the United States" whether there is a conviction or not; but in the case of conviction they are to be recoverable from the defendant. It seems to me that under the influence of such temptations, bad men might convert any law, however beneficent, into an instrument of persecution and fraud. To me, the details of the bill seem fraught with evil. It is another step, or rather stride, toward centralization and the concentration of all legislative powers in the national government. [emphasis added]
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 29 of 36
It is plain to see here that President Johnson saw far into the future as to the potential for legal and political abuse of such arbitrary powers -- powers that had never before been placed into the hands of a bureaucracy that had not been subjected to referendum by the people or constitutional question by any federal court. This bill (which was passed over Johnson's veto) did, in fact, set the precedent for hundreds of federal, state and local bureaucracies that have since choked the lifeblood of millions of Americans. Also, this bill blatantly usurped all States Rights and opened a very wide door for the further usurpation of these rights, using other social agendas. The reason Andrew Johnson was impeached was because he fought so hard against this bill and the subsequent 14th Amendment. His enemies purposely did not mention to the press (nor to the public) the legal and political ramifications of this bill which Johnson had so succinctly pointed out; but instead they broadcasted the notion that he was reneging on Lincoln's promises to "heal the wounds" of the nation by fighting full rights for the Negro -- thus making it an emotional social issue. In fact, Johnson was keeping Lincoln's promises by trying to protect the rights of the newly freed slaves, as well as the rights of those states which knew their own former slaves better than anyone, and knew the Negroes were not yet ready for the responsibilities of citizenship. As Johnson had predicted, http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (30 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
after passage of the bill, so many of the Negroes had indeed been robbed of goods and property by white charlatans and/or thrown into jails for breaking commercial laws they did not understand that, when the Negroes did come to full awareness of the massive duplicity perpetrated by these scoundrels, a racial hatred and mistrust of all whites became a nationwide phenomenon that has never been erased to this day.
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 30 of 36
The Final Axe Falls After the bill was passed over Johnson's veto, and there was no general hue and cry from the public, Congress then proceeded with the next step -- the 14th Amendment. In order to understand the ramifications of this heinous act of Congress, it must be analyzed section-by-section: ARTICLE XIV. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [emphasis added]
In the very first line, the amendment states that all persons born (all babies from this point on) or naturalized (the newly freed slaves who were then just inhabitants of America) are now citizens of the United States (the Federal Government) and of the State (the State Government) where they lived. From the Declaration of Independence on, all people in America who lived here were Americans, residing in a particular geographical state, and free to move from state to state, or even to another country. The Federal Government, according to the Constitution, is a corporate fiction that does the bidding of the body of collective states called Congress. At this time, the state governments had similar limited jurisdiction over their inhabitants, as did the federal government. The state government's primary function was to act as a collective voice of all its inhabitants to convey their wishes to Congress. Congress controlled the federal government. The rule of Common Law, which was the law of the land at that time, was carried out exclusively by the County Sheriff -the Common Law concept of Posse Comitatus. Neither the State nor the Federal Government had any jurisdiction in the County, where Home Rule was the law. Only by permission or invitation by the Sheriff could either of the other two governments step foot in his County. The Civil Rights Bill, in one bold act, forced Federal Government jurisdiction into the sanctity of http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (31 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
State rule. But Posse Comitatus still reigned in each state, and the conspirators found the way to usurp jurisdiction here through the 14th Amendment.
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 31 of 36
Citizens, Subjects
=
Slaves
In order for any government to grab power and maintain it, it must have "subjects" or "citizens". According to Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. (Herriot v. City of Seattle, 81 Wash.2d. 48, 500 P.2d. 101, 109)" So, by declaration of the 14th Amendment, all persons born from that point forward, and all naturalized people, had just become citizens (i.e. subjects) of the United States Government, obviously without their knowledge (babies) or understanding (the Negroes). The Federal Government had just reached past the jurisdictional boundaries of the state and county lines and claimed all its babies and all Negroes. In Section 2, it then states that only males 21 years of age who are citizens of the United States may be allowed to vote in Federal and State elections. That means that only those men who willingly claimed U.S. citizenship on voter's registration cards (though they didn't realize the implications) were also brought in as subjects of the Federal Government. (The Federal Government's power and control are growing fast!) However, it stipulated that those who had participated in rebellion (the South) were excluded.
The Back Door At this point, any intelligent person can figure out that the Conspirators who were using this Amendment to claim all Americans as its citizens -- by deception -- were obviously performing an illegal and unconstitutional act. The conspirators in Congress (and every Congressman knew what was being perpetrated, and either promoted it or simply pretended not to notice) established a "loophole" for themselves and to cover themselves in case people began to catch on. This loophole was 15 Statutes at Large, Chapter 249 (Section 1), enacted July 27, 1868, one day before the 14th Amendment was declared "ratified". You will not see this statute published anywhere except in very old books. The Conspirators do not want their "citizens" to know it exists, and it has never been repealed. The text follows: CHAP. CCXLIX. -- An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (32 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed: Therefore, Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 32 of 36
On the surface, this seems to guarantee that "foreigners" who live in the borders of America cannot be forced to claim citizenship. But, what this also says is that anyone who wishes to expatriate (i.e. renounce their U.S. citizenship) may do so, by inherent right, and no one can deny him this right. The Conspirators knew that, the "letter of the law" having been satisfied with this exemption from compelled performance (having U.S. citizenship thrust upon us), they could then hide the exemption from general view, start promoting the "benefits" of U.S. citizenship in the media (and later, in public schools) and begin setting up all of us for manipulation to obey millions of codes, statutes, and laws; exacting fines for breaking these laws; and extracting license fees and taxes upon penalty of seizure or jail. Free American Inhabitants are not subject to the Federal Government by virtue of their not claiming U.S. citizenship. Those of us who have renounced our U.S. citizenship and declared our status as American Inhabitants, using 15 Statutes at Large as the legal foundation for this Declaration of Status, are the only ones living in the united States of America. The rest of America (U.S. citizens -- about 99%) are living in a 4th dimension, i.e. in a fictitious corporation called the United States of America. As far as America is concerned (except that 1%), there's nobody home!
Slavery by Election We can see that, in the 14th Amendment, those Southerners who had participated in the Civil War were excluded from this "benefit" (U.S. Citizenship) on purpose -- to punish them so http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (33 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
severely with sanctions, punishing fines and terrorism from the newly formed Freeman's Bureau, that a few years later, the Southerners would be grateful for any consideration the Federal Government would extend to them. When the opportunity was ripe, such a consideration was enacted -- the 15th Amendment. It reads (in part): Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
By this gracious gesture, Congress extended full forgiveness to the South, and restored their right to vote (at that time, considered to be the most sacred right of an American). At the next national election after the enactment of this amendment, there was the largest turnout of voters this nation had ever seen. The South wanted desperately to be restored to the Union and heal their wounds. When they heard that, in order to vote, they had to swear allegiance to the United States of America and thus become a "citizen of the United States" (as required by the 14th Amendment), they did so willingly and without a clue as to what they had just done to themselves and to their posterity. With the stroke of a pen, the 14th Amendment, and the subsequent 15th Amendment, had just enslaved an entire nation without a shot being fired.
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 33 of 36
The "Forgotten" Clause Obviously, this treacherous act by Congress was enough to have all of them hanged as traitors; but, there was one more act of treachery that has been overlooked by most people. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment reads: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. [emphasis added]
At that time, a hue and cry was raised concerning Lincoln's promises to "forgive" the South's debts as part of Reconstruction, with good reason. But mainly overlooked was the first part of Section 4, which says that the debts incurred by http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (34 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
the U.S. government were not to be questioned, that the enforcers whom the Government hired to quell insurrection (today, the CIA, FBI, BATF, DEA, U.S. Marshals, etc.) would be paid by the Government. And where was the Government's money to come from? Answer: Its newly acquired subjects -- U.S. citizens. The States had just signed into constitutional amendment the permission for the Federal Government to hire thugs and thieves to control us, to pay them with our own money, and that no question could be brought to court about the constitutionality of these actions. This is why any effort to bring a suit against the Government about the Federal debt will never be entertained by the Supreme Court!
A Dangerous Game In Europe, Africa and other places in the world, a despot simply took over a country by waging war. Here in America, however, as long as Americans were armed and prepared for hostile armed takeover, the Conspirators knew that a different technique -- a grand deception by manipulation of the laws, the courts, the schools, the media -- must be employed to obtain the same results. They waged war on us long ago, but we've been too naive to see it. There are many who are waking up now, but they don't see the whole picture. They think that if they reverse a certain portion of Government abuse, we can take our country back. Tax protestors (as IRS calls them) have perfectly correct reasons to point out that they are not required to file -- but they forget they are still U.S. citizens (i.e. subjects). Home schoolers fight bravely for their right to protect their children against Government control -- but they forget they are still U.S. citizens. Legal eagles have found many statutory "loopholes" to win a few battles in court -- but they forget they are still U.S. citizens.
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 34 of 36
Playing the "patriot game" without fully understanding the constitutional hold the Federal, State and local governments have over them is playing a dangerous game. They may win a few skirmishes in their battles with Government (the Government allows these "wins" to encourage us to continue wasting our energies in useless effort), but they will never win the war, and will only bring the wrath of Government down upon the head of yet another one of its subjects. For now, at least, the Government is respecting the status of American Inhabitants. We (your publisher L. C. Lyon and writer George Sibley) have not had any legal hassles from any Government entity, because we are no longer U.S. citizens. We are the same as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and all the other patriots were in their time -- free American Inhabitants. Any U.S. citizen can give up this enslaving status at any time, but it must be done properly. If everyone
in America
were to
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (35 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
take back their rights as
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
free Americans again, through the revocation process, Government would have no more subjects, and no more power!
the
IT'S TIME TO TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK!
[Minor grammatical and spelling edits were done to this essay by John E. Trumane. These edits were done without permission of the author, because Mr. Trumane did not have the author's mailing address at the time the edits were done.]
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 35 of 36
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila
Terese, Wallen,
penalty of
perjury, under
Sui
America, without years of
Juris,
the laws
the "United
hereby
of the
certify,
States," that
United I am
under
States
of
at least
18
age, a Citizen of one of the United States of America,
and that I personally served the following document(s): VERIFIED STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF CHALLENGE TO GRAND JURY SELECTION POLICY AND ITS FEDERAL STATUTE: 28 U.S.C. 1746(1), 1861, 1865 by placing first
class
one true United
and correct States
copy of
Mail,
with
properly addressed to the following:
Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 Tucson [85701] ARIZONA STATE Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (36 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
said document(s) postage
prepaid
in and
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
Executed on: _____________________________
/s/ Sheila Wallen __________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 36 of 36
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (37 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : refusal
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Sheila Terese, Wallen,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) United States, ) and Does 1-99, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________)
COMES NOW
Sheila Terese,
state and
Plaintiff in
"Plaintiff"), to
Case No. 95-484-TUC NOTICE OF REFUSAL FOR CAUSE: FRCP Rules 9(a); 9(b); 12(b)(1),(2),(4),(5)
Wallen, Sui the above
Juris, Citizen of Arizona
entitled matter
(hereinafter
provide formal Notice to all interested parties
that She has refused William D. Browning's ORDER dated August 15, 1996, for the following causes (refused copy attached). Her previous
NOTICE OF
SHOW CAUSE
[cites
"NOTICE OF
REMOVAL") was
COURT OF
PETITION FOR
JURY
DEMANDED
THE UNITED
omitted]
REMOVAL AND TRIAL
filed with
STATES", not
ORDER TO
(hereinafter
the Clerk of the "DISTRICT
with the
"CLERK U S DISTRICT
COURT", as shown by the Clerk's file stamp dated "AUG 13 1996" on said NOTICE erred by
OF REMOVAL
(see copy attached).
stamping Plaintiff's
The Clerk of Court
NOTICE OF REMOVAL in this manner.
See FRCP Rule 9(b). http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/refusal.htm (1 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:13:28 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : refusal
Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 1 of 6
Furthermore, Mr. now proceeding
in
("DCUS"), nor
Rules
the
not presiding over the action
District
has Mr.
jurisdiction in Person of
Browning is
Court
of
the
Browning demonstrated
said DCUS
over the
United
that
he
States has
subject matter, or over the
the Plaintiff, in the above entitled action.
12(b)(1),(2),(4),
requisite jurisdiction
and
(5).
Accordingly,
having been
any
demonstrated as
See FRCP
without
the
a matter of
record, he has no authority to deny any of Plaintiff's pleadings, motions, or to dismiss
demands as
filed in the DCUS or in the USDC, except
the alleged criminal action for want of jurisdiction,
as required by Law. Mr. Browning,
as an Article IV judge, is a "taxpayer" whose
compensation is diminished during his continuance in office. Internal Revenue cannot preside
over any
United States Section 1,
Code, Section
7701(a).
proceeding in
("DCUS"), because
to do
See
As such, Mr. Browning a District
Court of the
so violates Article III,
of the Constitution for the United States of America,
as lawfully amended (hereinafter "U.S. Constitution"), to wit: The Judges ... shall ... receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. [Art. III, Sec. 1, U.S. Constitution, emphasis added]
The United matter
of
States has never demonstrated jurisdiction, as a
Plaintiff in
record,
to
bring
the United
any
criminal
case
against
States District Court ("USDC").
contrary, Plaintiff's
NOTICE AND
DEMAND TO
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
(hereinafter "NOTICE
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/refusal.htm (2 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:13:28 PM]
the
On the
DISMISS FOR LACK OF AND DEMAND") and Her
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : refusal
MEMORANDUM
OF
LAW
JURISDICTION OF i.e. the
IN
SUPPORT
THIS COURT
USDC, plainly
different from to prosecute within the
OF
CHALLENGE
TO
(hereinafter "MEMORANDUM
prove that
the USDC,
as
CRIMINAL OF
LAW"),
distinct
and
the DCUS, has no criminal jurisdiction whatsoever Plaintiff, unless
federal zone.
See
the alleged cites in
crime was committed
Plaintiff's NOTICE AND
DEMAND and MEMORANDUM OF LAW.
Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 2 of 6
Mr. Browning NOTICE's
AND
also claims
DEMAND's
FOR
to have "denied" two (2) separate MANDATORY
JUDICIAL
NOTICE,
filed
pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 201(d), to wit: (d) When mandatory. A court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information. [Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 201(d)] [emphasis added]
Said Rule
leaves no
matter of
the evidence
terms "when
room for
submitted thereby.
mandatory" and
is indicative
of their
authority whatsoever
any judicial
discretion
in
the
The language of the
"a court shall take judicial notice"
imperative meaning.
to "deny"
Mr. Browning has no
mandatory judicial
notice
when
invoked pursuant to Rule 201(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Furthermore, as
a matter
of evidence, Plaintiff enjoys the
fundamental Right to incorporate by reference all prior pleadings filed or
lodged in
those pleadings Plaintiff argues
the USDC,
were set
forth fully
that, for
evidentiary material
no matter
who filed
them, as if
in Her NOTICE OF REMOVAL.
Mr. Browning
to deny this essential
in the above entitled action is to obstruct
justice, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1506 , to wit: 1506.
Theft or alteration of record or process;
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/refusal.htm (3 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:13:28 PM]
false bail
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : refusal
Whoever feloniously steals, takes away, alters, falsifies, or otherwise avoids any record, writ, process, or other proceeding, in any court of the United States, whereby any judgment is reversed, made void, or does not take effect; ... Shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. [18 U.S.C. 1506]
Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 3 of 6
Moreover, the to bring
alleged United States Attorneys who attempted
failed
a criminal to
action against
demonstrate
on
Plaintiff in
record
any
power
the USDC have
of
attorney
to
represent the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic] in said action; UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA
have not
been shown on record to have
any standing to bring a criminal action before the USDC; USDC has
the
and the
not been shown to have any criminal jurisdiction over a
crime alleged
to have
been committed inside the state zone (the
Arizona Republic) and outside the federal zone. Lastly, Mr.
Browning's ORDER
was
improperly
served
upon
Plaintiff via United States Mail, because it was addressed to: Sheila Terese Wallen [sic] PO Box 335 [sic] Arivaca, AZ 85601 [sic] Plaintiff has previously notified all interested parties that She will refuse
all mail
unless
location as
shown on
the face page of this pleading.
hereby reiterates
Her intent
it
to
is
directed
refuse
all
to
the
mailing
U.S.
Plaintiff Mail
which
exhibits "AZ" or unqualified zip codes and which fails to exhibit her proper receive (but
mailing location as shown supra, and of Her intent to not necessarily
accept) all
U.S.
directed to Her proper mailing location. Notice to agents is notice to principals.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/refusal.htm (4 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:13:28 PM]
Mail
which
is
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : refusal
Notice to principals is notice to agents.
Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 4 of 6
SUMMARY Wherefore, Plaintiff refuses Mr. William D. Browning's ORDER dated August 15, 1996, for all the reasons stated above.
Executed on August 20,1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness Counselor at Law, and Counsel of Record
Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 5 of 6
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila
Terese,
penalty of
Wallen,
perjury, under
Sui
Juris,
the laws
of
hereby the
certify,
United
under
States
of
America, without the "United States," that I am at least 18 years of age,
a Citizen
of one
of the
United States of America, and
that I personally served the following document(s): NOTICE OF REFUSAL FOR CAUSE: FRCP Rules 9(a); 9(b); 12(b)(1),(2),(4),(5) by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United
States Mail,
with
postage
addressed to the following:
Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 Tucson [zip code exempt] http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/refusal.htm (5 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:13:28 PM]
prepaid
and
properly
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : refusal
ARIZONA STATE William D. Browning, Doe No. 1 44 East Broadway Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Executed on August 20, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen __________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 6 of 6
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/refusal.htm (6 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:13:28 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : finalnad
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Sheila Terese, Wallen,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) United States, ) and Does 1-99, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________)
COMES NOW
Sheila Terese,
state and
Plaintiff in
"Plaintiff"), to
Case No. 95-484-TUC FINAL NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR PROOF OF POWER, STANDING, AND JURISDICTION IN THE PARTICULARS
Wallen, Sui the above
make this
Juris, Citizen of Arizona
entitled matter
(hereinafter
formal Demand upon Defendant "United
States", and upon Defendant "William D. Browning" (Doe No. 1), to enter into
the official Court record of the above entitled case,
certified documentary
evidence of
the following, and to provide
formal Notice to all interested parties of same: 1.
Lawful Powers of Attorney for "JANET NAPOLITANO" and "JOELYN D. MARLOWE" to represent the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" in a criminal action before a "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT".
2.
Statutory, regulatory, and constitutional authority which grants legal standing to the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" to bring a criminal action before a "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT".
3.
Statutory,
regulatory,
and
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/finalnad.htm (1 of 4) [4/8/2007 2:13:29 PM]
constitutional
authority
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : finalnad
which grants jurisdiction to a "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT", as opposed to a "DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES", to hear a criminal case against a Union State Citizen when the alleged crime was committed inside the state zone and outside the federal zone.
Final Notice & Demand for Proof of Power/Standing/Jurisdiction: Page 1 of 3
NOTICE OF DEADLINE Formal notice the Plaintiff
in the
named certified official Court Plaintiff by
is hereby
given to all interest parties that
above entitled case will require the above
evidentiary documents
to be
entered
into
the
record of the instant case, and to be served upon transmitting said
documents to Her via first class
United States Mail directed to the following mailing location: Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE no later
than 5:00
p.m. on Friday, August 30, 1996.
Failure to
do either (filing and service) will constitute an open admission, for all
the world
to see,
that the
requested proofs of power,
standing, and/or jurisdiction do not exist in the first instance.
Executed on August 20, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, Counselor at Law and Counsel of Record
Final Notice & Demand for Proof of Power/Standing/Jurisdiction: Page 2 of 3
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/finalnad.htm (2 of 4) [4/8/2007 2:13:29 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : finalnad
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila
Terese,
penalty of
Wallen,
perjury, under
Sui
Juris,
the laws
of
hereby the
certify,
United
under
States
of
America, without the "United States," that I am at least 18 years of age,
a Citizen
of one
of the
United States of America, and
that I personally served the following document(s): FINAL NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR PROOF OF POWER, STANDING, AND JURISDICTION IN THE PARTICULARS by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United
States Mail,
with
postage
prepaid
and
properly
addressed to the following:
Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE William D. Browning, Doe No. 1 44 East Broadway Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Executed on: _____________________________ /s/ Sheila Wallen __________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Final Notice & Demand for Proof of Power/Standing/Jurisdiction: Page 3 of 3 http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/finalnad.htm (3 of 4) [4/8/2007 2:13:29 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : finalnad
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/finalnad.htm (4 of 4) [4/8/2007 2:13:29 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona Under Protest, Necessity, and by Special Visitation Only
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Sheila Terese, Wallen, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) ) ________________________________)
COMES NOW
Sheila Terese,
state and
Defendant in
Case No. 95-484-WDB MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF CHALLENGE TO CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT [i.e. There is none.] Rules 301, 302: Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 54: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
Wallen, Sui the above
Juris, Citizen of Arizona
entitled matter
(hereinafter
"Defendant"), to present this Her Memorandum of Law in Support of Her Challenge to the Jurisdiction of this Court, i.e. there is no jurisdiction in a United States District Court [sic], as distinct from a
District Court
criminal prosecution
of the
States
Code,
for alleged
Section
detailed Memorandum Authority within
United States
on the
the several
bring a
violations of Title 21, United
841(a)(1).
of Law
[sic], to
Defendant subject of
States of
"the several States"), to wit:
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (1 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
now
presents
a
Federal Judicial
the Union
(hereinafter
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 1 of 40
Federal Judicial Authority within the Several States This memorandum will be construed to comply with provisions necessary to establish presumed fact (Rules 301 and 302, Federal Rules of Evidence, and attending State rules), should interested parties fail to rebut any given allegation of fact, or matter of law, addressed herein. This position will be construed as adequate to meet all requirements of judicial notice, thus preserving fundamental Law. Matters addressed herein, if not rebutted, will be construed to have general application. This memorandum addresses jurisdiction of United States District Courts and related agencies of the United States (federal government).
Part I:
Foundation of Law, Jurisdiction, Principles & History
In the American system of Government, the Separation of Powers Doctrine works in two ways: First, it assures separation between the three branches of government, the branches being legislative, executive, and judicial. Second, the Doctrine effects vertical separation between the operations of the state and federal governments, or put another way, operations of the government of the United States and the governments of the several States which are parties to the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended (hereinafter "U.S. Constitution"). In this system, as asserted by American Founders in the Declaration of Independence, all Men (and Women) are created equal, and are equally endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable or inherent Rights, those listed in the Declaration of Independence being the Rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or in the less poetic phrasing of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: life, liberty and property. This list, of course, is not exhaustive, as articulated in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and all, individually and collectively, are accountable in the framework of "the laws of Nature and Nature's God." The phrase, in modern terms, is better understood as physical and moral law. Man cannot author or amend the laws of Nature and Nature's God, but is directly accountable in the framework of cause and effect, or where moral law is concerned, cause and consequence. By establishing these principles prior to addressing the reasons for, and the power and operation of, government, American Founders preserved the essence of English and American-lineage Common Law which evolved and was proven by cultural experience over many hundreds of years. The Magna Charta, drafted and signed by King John in 1215, is commonly recognized as the point of demarcation so far as a formal proclamation of common rights is concerned. The foundation was basically biblical, with the understanding that People are individually created and are, therefore, individually accountable to God. Even when governments encroache on the special relationship between Man and God, Man is still accountable, individually and collectively, and http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (2 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
s/he invariably suffers the consequences of tyranny.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 2 of 40
The Founders went on to say that governments are established among Men for the sole purpose of securing inherent Rights, and governments so established may rule only by the consent of the Governed. In July 1776, the notion of specifically delegated authority conveyed by constitutions was well understood, because the English considered the Magna Charta and subsequent similar documents to be elements of their unwritten constitution. On the other hand, American colonies had continuing experience with written constitutions for civil government which began in 1636 (Massachusetts). Lowell H. Becraft, Jr., an attorney from Huntsville, Alabama, addresses historical events leading to the American Revolution, in his privately distributed memorandum on federal jurisdiction, as follows: The original thirteen colonies of America were each separately established by charters from the English Crown. Outside of the common bond of each being a dependency and colony of the mother country, England, the colonies were not otherwise united. Each had its own governor, legislative assembly and courts, and each was governed separately and independently by the English Parliament. The political connections of the separate colonies to the English Crown and Parliament descended to an unhappy state of affairs as the direct result of Parliamentary acts adopted in the late 1760's and early 1770's. Due to the real and perceived dangers caused by these various acts, the First Continental Congress was convened by representatives of the several colonies in October, 1774, the purpose of which was to submit a petition of grievances to the British Parliament and Crown. By the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress, dated October 14, 1774, the colonial representatives labeled these Parliamentary acts of which they complained as "impolitic, unjust, and cruel, as well as unconstitutional, and most dangerous and destructive of American rights," and the purpose of which were designs, schemes and plans "which demonstrate a system formed to enslave America." Revolution was assuredly in the formative stages absent conciliation between the mother country and colonies. Between October, 1775, and the middle of 1776, each of the colonies separately severed their ties and relations with England, and several adopted constitutions for the newly formed States. By July, 1776, the exercise of British authority in any and all colonies was not http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (3 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
recognized in any degree. The capstone of this actual separation of the colonies from England was the more formal Declaration of Independence.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 3 of 40
The legal effect of the Declaration of Independence was to make each new State a separate and independent sovereign over which there was no other government of superior power or jurisdiction. This was clearly shown in M'Ilvaine v. Coxe's Lessee, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 209, 212 (1808), where it was held: This opinion is predicated upon a principle which is believed to be undeniable, that the several states which composed this Union, so far at least as regarded their municipal regulations, became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign states, and that they did not derive them from concessions made by the British king. The treaty of peace contains a recognition of their independence, not a grant of it. From hence it results, that the laws of the several state governments were the laws of sovereign states, and as such were obligatory upon the people of such state, from the time they were enacted.
And a further expression of similar import is found in Harcourt v. Gaillard, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 523, 526, 527 (1827), where the Court stated: There was no territory within the United States that was claimed in any other right than that of some one of the confederated states; therefore, there could be no acquisition of territory made by the United States distinct from, or independent of some one of the states. Each declared itself sovereign and independent, according to the limits of its territory. [T]he soil and sovereignty within their acknowledged limits were as much theirs at the declaration of independence as at this hour.
Thus, unequivocally, in July, 1776, the new States possessed all sovereignty, power, and jurisdiction over all the soil and persons in their respective territorial limits. This condition of supreme sovereignty of each State over all property and persons within the borders thereof http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (4 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
continued notwithstanding the adoption of the Articles of Confederation. In Article II of that document, it was expressly stated: Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 4 of 40
As the history of the confederation government demonstrated, each State was indeed sovereign and independent to the degree that it made the central government created by the confederation fairly ineffectual. These defects of the confederation government strained the relations between and among the States and the remedy became the calling of a constitutional convention. The representatives which assembled in Philadelphia in May, 1787, to attend the Constitutional Convention met for the primary purpose of improving the commercial relations among the States, although the product of the Convention produced more than this. But, no intention was demonstrated for the States to surrender in any degree the jurisdiction so possessed by the States at that time, and indeed the Constitution as finally drafted continued the same territorial jurisdiction of the States as existed under the Articles of Confederation. The essence of this retention of state jurisdiction was embodied in Art. I, 8, Cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which reads as follows: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dockYards, and other needful Buildings; ....
The necessity for granting federal government sovereignty over land which would serve as the seat of that government became conspicuous during the Revolution, when a contingent of irate folks from the Continental Army beleaguered Congress while it was in session in Philadelphia. Members of Congress fled Philadelphia to Princeton, New Jersey, and from there to Annapolis, Maryland. Philadelphia and Pennsylvania governments were unable, or unwilling, to disperse the rebels who taunted and insulted Members of Congress. Problems persisted for the weak http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (5 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
government under the Articles of Confederation following the Revolution, and it was in this framework that the Constitutional Convention was called in 1787. The purpose for establishing a seat of government under Congress' exclusive legislative jurisdiction was addressed in Essay No. 43 of The Federalist: The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government carries its own evidence with it. It is a power exercised by every legislature of the Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy. Without it not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity, but a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government for protection in the exercise of their duty might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy. This consideration has the more weight as the gradual accumulation of public improvements at the stationary residence of the government would be both too great a public pledge to be left in the hands of a single State, and would create so many obstacles to a removal of the government, as still further to abridge its necessary independence. The extent of this federal district is sufficiently circumscribed to satisfy every jealousy of an opposite nature. And as it is to be appropriated to this use with the consent of the State ceding it; as the State will no doubt provide in the compact for the rights and the consent of the citizens inhabiting it; as the inhabitants will find sufficient inducements of interest to become willing parties to the cession; as they will have had their voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them; as a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them; and as the authority of the legislature of the State, and of the inhabitants of the ceded part of it, to concur in the cession will be derived from the whole people of the State in their adoption of the Constitution, every imaginable objection seems to be obviated. The necessity of a like authority over forts, magazines, etc., established by the general government, is not less evident. The public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, require that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular State. Nor would it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire Union may depend to be in any degree dependent on a particular member of it. All objections and scruples are here also obviated by requiring the concurrence of the States concerned in every such establishment.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 5 of 40
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (6 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
Becraft cites several early court cases which addressed the matter of State versus "United States" (federal government) jurisdiction, with each of the decisions reinforcing the principle of State sovereignty, unless or until land is ceded by a State legislature to the United States: Perhaps one of the earliest decisions on this point was United States v. Bevans, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 336 (1818), which involved a federal prosecution for a murder committed on board the Warship, Independence, anchored in the harbor of Boston, Massachusetts. The defense complained that only the state had jurisdiction to prosecute and argued that the federal Circuit Courts had no jurisdiction of this crime supposedly committed within the federal government's admiralty jurisdiction. In argument before the Supreme Court, counsel for the United States admitted as follows:
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 6 of 40
The exclusive jurisdiction which the United States have in forts and dock-yards ceded to them, is derived from the express assent of the states by whom the cessions are made. It could be derived in no other manner; because without it, the authority of the state would be supreme and exclusive therein, 3 Wheat., at 350, 351.
In holding that the State of Massachusetts jurisdiction over the crime, the Court held: What, then, is the extent of jurisdiction which a state possesses? We answer, without hesitation, the jurisdiction of a state is co-extensive with its territory; co-extensive with its legislative power, 3 Wheat., at 386, 387. The article which describes the judicial power of the United States is not intended for the cession of territory or of general jurisdiction. ... Congress has power to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over this district, and over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings. It is observable that the power of exclusive legislation (which is jurisdiction) is united with cession of territory, which is to be the free act of the states. It is difficult to compare the two sections together, without http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (7 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
had
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
feeling a conviction, not to be strengthened by any commentary on them, that, in describing the judicial power, the framers of our constitution had not in view any cession of territory; or, which is essentially the same, of general jurisdiction, 3 Wheat., at 388.
Thus in Bevans, the Court established a principle that federal jurisdiction extends only over the areas wherein it possesses the power of exclusive legislation, and this is a principle incorporated into all subsequent decisions regarding the extent of federal jurisdiction. To hold otherwise would destroy the purpose, intent and meaning of the entire U.S. Constitution. The decision in Bevans was closely followed by decisions made in two state courts and one federal court within the next two years. In Commonwealth v. Young, Brightly, N.P. 302, 309 (Pa. 1818), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was presented with the issue of whether lands owned by the United States for which Pennsylvania had never ceded jurisdiction had to be sold pursuant to state law. In deciding that the state law of Pennsylvania exclusively controlled this sale of federal land, the Court held:
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 7 of 40
The legislation and authority of congress is confined to cessions by particular states for the seat of government, and purchases made by consent of the legislature of the state, for the purpose of erecting forts. The legislative power and exclusive jurisdiction remained in the several states, of all territory within their limits, not ceded to, or purchased by, congress, with the assent of the state legislature, to prevent the collision of legislation and authority between the United States and the several states.
A year later, the Supreme Court of New York was presented with the issue of whether the State of New York had jurisdiction over a murder committed at Fort Niagara, a federal fort. In People v. Godfrey, 17 Johns. 225, 233 (N.Y. 1819), that court held that the fort was subject to the jurisdiction of the State since the lands therefor had not been ceded to the United States. The rationale of its opinion stated: To oust this state of its jurisdiction to support and maintain its laws, and to punish crimes, it must be shown that an offense committed within the acknowledged limits of the state, is clearly and exclusively cognizable by http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (8 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
the laws and courts of the United States. In the case already cited, Chief Justice Marshall observed, that to bring the offense within the jurisdiction of the courts of the union, it must have been committed out of the jurisdiction of any state; it is not (he says,) the offense committed, but the place in which it is committed, which must be out of the jurisdiction of the state.
The case supra.
relied upon
by this court was U.S. v. Bevans
At about the same time that the New York Supreme Court rendered its opinion in Godfrey, a similar fact situation was before a federal court, the only difference being that the murder committed in the case occurred on land which had been ceded to the United States. In United States v. Cornell, 25 Fed.Cas. 646, 648 No. 14,867 (C.C.D.R.I., 1819), the court held that the case fell within federal jurisdiction, describing such jurisdiction as follows:
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 8 of 40
But although the United States may well purchase and hold lands for public purposes, within the territorial limits of a state, this does not of itself oust the jurisdiction or sovereignty of such State over the lands so purchased. It remains until the State has relinquished its authority over the land either expressly or by necessary implication. When therefore a purchase of land for any of these purposes is made by the national government, and the State Legislature has given its consent to the purchase, the land so purchased by the very terms of the constitution ipso facto falls within the exclusive legislation of Congress, and the State jurisdiction is completely ousted.
Through the first half of the 19th century, State and United States territorial jurisdiction was reasonably clear-cut, as accounts above evidence. But, during the Civil War and afterwards, entrenched powers concluded that Congress, on behalf of the United States, has a unique role in and through the territorial United States in those lands, whether ceded by legislatures of the several States, or acquired, by war or otherwise, by the United States. This alleged authority is at Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) of the U.S. Constitution: The Congress
shall have
Power to
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (9 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
dispose of and make
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
all needful Territory and States ....
Rules and Regulations respecting the other Property belonging to the United
During the Reconstruction period immediately following the Civil War, an Imperial Congress postured to make an end run around the U.S. Constitution. One of the first important measures was promulgation in their proposal for a Fourteenth Amendment. This amendment, secured at bayonet point, created a colorable citizenship known as a "citizen of the United States". To that point, People generally thought of themselves as United States citizens just as they do today; and the body of the U.S. Constitution even makes rhetorical use of the term "Citizen of the United States", but People were Citizens of their respective Union States, and this term could have referred to no other status, since there was no such thing as "federal citizenship" when the U.S. Constitution was written. The distinction between separate classes of citizens is best demonstrated by comparing court decisions, the first in 1855, the second in 1875: A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective States. (Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855))
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 9 of 40
We have in our political system a Government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other. (United States v. Cruikshank, 95 U.S. 542 (1875))
Where the State Citizen, identified in the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution and in 1:2:2, 1:3:3, 3:2:1, and 4:2:1, is a Sovereign or Principal, the Fourteenth Amendment citizen of the United States belongs to a subject, or subordinate class, as demonstrated by Section 1 of that "amendment": Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (10 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The citizen of the United States (a/k/a "federal citizen") was distinct from the State Citizen, or there wouldn't have been any need to restate due process rights already articulated in the Fifth Amendment. In the framework of what has already been covered, it is clear that Citizens of the States (a/k/a State Citizens) were not then, and are not now, "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States within the several States. This matter was addressed by Thomas Jefferson by way of "The Kentucky Resolutions" in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798. The second of nine resolutions addressed the matter of United States authority to punish crimes: 2. Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes whatsoever.
Where Jefferson articulated the limited, direct authority which the United States could exercise over State Citizens, the Fourteenth Amendment citizen of the United States appears to be subject to United States authority wherever s/he might be, whether in the geographical United States (a/k/a "the federal zone"), or in any of the several States which are parties to the U.S. Constitution (a/k/a "the state zone"). More to the point, however, the subject class of citizens of the United States would be viewed on a par with corporations, associations, and other artificial entities created, franchised, and/or sanctioned by government, and United States authority would reach into the States under the auspices not of inherent or unalienable Rights -- Rights which American Founders proclaimed to be the direct endowments from God, but under the notion of civil rights -rights granted by government to its subject classes.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 10 of 40
From this point forward, the American dialogue concerning Law was to change, departing the biblical base of Common Law where God is Sovereign and Man is endowed directly by His Creator, to embrace a secular view of man whereby the individual is little more than a chattel property, and exists solely for the convenience and exploitation of entrenched powers (read "Oligarchy"). This change is easily demonstrated in the Roe v. Wade decision which threw the door open to abortion on demand. Even though medical science long ago demonstrated that life http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (11 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
begins at conception, the U.S. Supreme Court did not consider either the existence or sanctity of life in the landmark decision. The unborn baby, conveniently referred to as a "fetus," does not qualify as a "person" in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment definition promulgated by Congress, so, since the unborn lacks legal standing, the law is indifferent to his existence; whether or not life has intrinsic value or unborn babies have God-given rights wasn't and isn't even considered. The so-called Fourteenth Amendment effected a subtle perversion of first causes. Where State Citizens, being Sovereign, have God-given rights which are merely secured by the state and federal constitutions, the subject citizen of the United States falls under Congress' Article IV legislative jurisdiction; the list of his constitutionally assured rights is itemized in the Fourteenth Amendment. Beyond that, he is dependent on Congress for grants of privilege; rather than God, government is the federal citizen's prime mover. The next important move was incorporation of the District of Columbia as a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the geographical, or self-interested, United States (federal government). Original incorporation was in 1871, with several re-organizations during that decade and since. Thereafter, the corporate federal government became increasingly important, particularly through late-century westward development, as the United States (federal government) managed settlement territory simultaneously with post-Civil War reconstruction -- the days of Carpet Bagger plunder. Then, in 1884, the Supreme Court gave way to powerful influences in the Julliard case when it reversed Justice Fields from four years earlier by concluding that Congress could print paper money because the U.S. Constitution does not expressly prohibit United States paper money. Considering provisions of Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 5 (1:8:5), and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 (1:10:1), of the U.S. Constitution, which stipulate that Congress will mint coin and regulate value, and the several States cannot make anything but gold and silver coin a tender for payment of debt, the Julliard decision was conspicuously contrary to constitutional intent, but as Naval Academy founder George Bancroft pointed out in a detailed rebuttal to the decision (A Plea for the Constitution of the United States: Wounded in the House of Its Guardians), Julliard was based on Congress' legislative jurisdiction under Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, in the geographical United States. Thus, manifestation of Congress' dual role -- exercise only of delegated power under Article I within the several States, and exercise of any power not specifically prohibited by the U.S. Constitution within the geographical United States (the federal zone) under Article IV. So far as lawful implication, the People and the governments of the several States had the Right to reject United States paper money, as several court decisions confirm; but, as a practical matter, the nation was largely changed over to paper money, rather than gold and silver coin, by the time the Federal Reserve Act established the Federal Reserve System in 1913. By 1933, the Federal Reserve Note, not to be confused with the current Federal Reserve Bank Note, was backed 60% by obligations of the United States, and by 40% gold.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (12 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 11 of 40
Congress also engaged in massive land-grabs both within the Continental United States and abroad. Takeover of the Hawaiian Islands, going to war with Spain to take the Philippines, Puerto Rico, etc., and nearly all States admitted to the Union after the Civil War were blackmailed into land concessions. Oklahoma, admitted in 1907, adopted the following provision at Article I, Section 3 of the state constitution: The people inhabiting the State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title in or to any unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof.
Even though the U.S. Constitution grants authority for the United States (federal government) to establish nothing more than forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings within the several States, from the time of the Civil War, well into this century, including mineral-rich Alaska, Congress indulged its greed for land; whereas the intent of American Founders, via the U.S. Constitution, the "Ordinance of 1887: The Northwest Territorial Government", and other such instruments, was clearly to keep the federal beast locked soundly within its box which was, for the most part, limited to the ten miles square (100 square miles) authorized for the seat of the federal government. Toward the end of the 19th century, some of the retained federal lands within the several States were declared to be national parks. Development of federally owned resources accelerated in the 1930's via public works programs, such as building dams for flood control and electrical generation, and a multitude of other enterprises. On the enforcement and judicial fronts, there was a corresponding re-organization. The Department of Justice was created by Act of Congress on June 22, 1870 (Forty-First Congress, Session II, Chapter 150, pages 162 et seq.), with the Attorney General at the head of this organization. To that point, each government agency or department pretty well took care of its own legal affairs, but the Act establishing the Justice Department consolidated authority over most enforcement and legal matters, including those of the Department of the Interior. Changing United States courts around was a somewhat longer process, but it was managed over time. The United States Circuit Courts became United States Courts of Appeal via Act of Congress on March 3, 1891, and organization of United States District Courts, with amendments since, was accomplished by Act of Congress on March 3, 1911 (Sixty-First Congress, Session III, Chapter 231, pages 1087 et seq.).
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (13 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
Page 12 of 40
Part II:
Current Federal Jurisdiction in the States
While some of the seemingly unrelated history conveyed in Part I of this memorandum might appear not to address United States judicial authority within the several States, it will fall into place when the office of "federal magistrate" is addressed. Magistrates in United States District Courts are simply federal park commissioners and nothing more. The name was changed, but the character and jurisdiction of the office did not. The territorial jurisdiction of federal magistrates, which is easily demonstrated by way of two statutes, is concurrent with jurisdiction of United States District Courts within the several States. Or at least it would appear so. The first definition, in relative part, comes from Title 18 of the United States Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, at Section 7, with particular attention to 7(3) (U.S.C., 1979 edition): 7. Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined The term "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States", as used in this title [18 U.S.C. 1 et seq.], includes: (3) Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building.
The second comes from the so-called Buck Act, at 4 U.S.C. 110 (1995 Lawyer's Cooperative CD-ROM edition): 110. Same;
definitions
As used in sections 105-109 of this title -- ... (d) The term "State" includes possession of the United States.
any
Territory
or
(e) The term "Federal area" means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State. [emphasis added]
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 13 of 40 http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (14 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
Definition of the term "State" as included in the above cite as used in both the United States Code and in the codes of the various States is essential to understanding that most statutes in the United States Code presume application in federal "States" such as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, etc., and not within the several States which are parties to the U.S. Constitution. The distinction in 18 U.S.C. 7(3) is subtle, but becomes clearer when read very carefully: special territorial jurisdiction, where the United States Code of Criminal Procedure is applicable, embraces: (1) "Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction," (2) "or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building." In the first instance, the United States (federal government) has exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction over any land acquired for any purpose; whereas, in the second instance, the United States (federal government) has jurisdiction only over lands which are acquired for a constitutional purpose, as specified in Article I, after the land has been ceded to the United States by the State Legislature. In the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and other United States (federal government) possessions classified as "States" in federal municipal law, Congress has unrestricted and exclusive legislative jurisdiction, pursuant to Article IV, so purchase of land for United States (federal government) use automatically comes under Congress' legislative jurisdiction, with or without consent of the State Legislative body. In the second instance, legislatures of the several States must cede jurisdiction over acquired property to the United States (federal government) before any judicial authority can be exercised. The Buck Act definition of "State" is about as straightforward as any of the various definitions of "State" which refer to the federal "States": The term "State" includes any Territory or possession of the United States.
A similar definition of the term is located in Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: "State" includes District of territory and insular possession.
Columbia,
Puerto
Rico,
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 14 of 40
Jurisdiction of United States District Courts, being limited to federal "States" and to federal enclaves within the several States, is further reinforced by another Rule 54 application: http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (15 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
"Act of Congress" includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession.
The distinction between federal "States" and the several [Union] States is clarified in the jurisdiction and venue statute (territorial jurisdiction) governing conduct of United States District Courts. According to The United States Government Manual for 1995/96, at page 75, is 18 U.S.C. 3231 (1979 edition, U.S.C.): 3231. District courts The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States. Nothing in this title [18 U.S.C. 1 et seq.] shall be held to take away or impair the jurisdiction of the courts of the several States under the laws thereof.
If the distinction between the federal "States" and the several [Union] States is not made clear enough by 3231, proof of the distinction is found in the legislative history for 18 U.S.C. 3241, again using the 1979 edition of the United States Code ("U.S.C."): 3241. Jurisdiction of offenses under certain sections The United States District Court for the Canal Zone and the District Court of the Virgin Islands shall have jurisdiction of offenses under the laws of the United States, not locally inapplicable, concurrently within the territorial jurisdiction of such courts, and jurisdiction, concurrently with the district courts of the United States, of offenses against the laws of the United States committed upon the high seas.
At various times, other territorial courts were included in this statute. The district court of the Philippines was removed in 1946 when the island nation became an independent commonwealth; then "Act July 7, 1958 deleted 'District Court for the Territory of Alaska'...." In other words, up until the point at which Alaska was admitted to the Union, that Territory was considered a federal "State." Once admitted to the Union, Alaskan courts no longer qualified as courts of the United States. State courts, because of Tenth and Eleventh Amendments and the Separation of Powers Doctrine, could not legitimately exercise any federal authority. The Canal Zone district court has been removed from this statute since the 1979 U.S.C. edition was published, so the District Court of the Virgin Islands is the only remaining federal "State" court that exercises concurrent jurisdiction with United States District Courts under 18 U.S.C. 3241. http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (16 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 15 of 40
We turn now to the "special territorial" jurisdiction found at 18 U.S.C. 7(3) by way of examining the evolution of what are today known as "federal magistrate judges", formerly known as "federal magistrates", and before that, as "national park commissioners". The first selection comes from historic and amendment notes following 28 U.S.C. 631, which provides for appointment and tenure of federal magistrate judges (1995 Lawyer's Cooperative CD-ROM edition of U.S.C.): 1979. Act Oct. 10, 1979, in subsec. (a), substituted "Where the conference deems it desirable, a magistrate may be designated to serve in one or more districts adjoining the district for which he is appointed. Such a designation shall be made by the concurrence of a majority of the judges of each of the district courts involved and shall specify the duties to be performed by the magistrate in the adjoining district or districts." for "Where an area under the administration of the National Park Service, or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, or any other Federal agency, extends into two or more judicial districts and it is deemed desirable by the conference that the territorial jurisdiction of a magistrate's appointment include the entirety of such area, the appointment or reappointment shall be made by the concurrence of a majority of all judges of the district courts of the judicial districts involved, and where there is no such concurrence by the concurrence of the chief judges of such district courts."; in subsec. (b), in the introductory matter, inserted "reappointed to", in para. (1), inserted ", and has been for at least 5 years,", in cl. (A), inserted "or", in cl. (B), deleted "or" following "Islands;" deleted cl. (C) which read: "in an area under the administration of the National Park Service, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, or any other Federal agency that extends into two or more States, a member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of one of those States;"' in para. (4), substituted "; and" for a period and added para. (5), redesignated subsecs. (f)ü(j) as subsecs. (g)ü(k) respectively; and added new subsec. (f). [emphasis added]
Before examining deletions made in the 1979 amending Act, it will be useful to import the index from earlier law pertaining to national park commissioners before all the name changes, with the current Magistrate Act at 28 U.S.C. 631-639: Amendments U.S.C.):
(1995
Lawyer's
Cooperative
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (17 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
CD-ROM
edition
of
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 16 of 40
1954. Act Aug. 13, 1954, ch 728, 1(c), 68 Stat. 704, amended the analysis of this chapter by adding "and expenses" to item 633. 1968. Act Oct. 17, 1968, P. L. 90-578, Title I, 101, 82 Stat. 1108, amended the analysis of this chapter by substituting items 632 through 639 for items which read: "632 .Park procedure
commissioners;
jurisdiction
and
powers;
"633 .Fees and expenses "634 .Salaries fees
of Park
"635 .Park Commissioners;
Commissioners;
disposition of
residence
"636 .Accounts "637 .Oaths, depositions
acknowledgments,
affidavits
and
"638 .Seals "639 .Dockets and forms; 1972. Act amended the powers, and item 636.
United States Code".
Mar. 1, 1972, P.L. 92-239, 3, 86 Stat. 47, analysis of this chapter by substituting ", temporary assignment" for "and powers" in
It is also useful the last century:
to see the evolution of this Act dating to
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., 526 and 527, sections 27, 66, 80e, 100, 117e, 129, 172, 198e, 204e, 256d, 395e, 403c-5, 403h-5, 404c-5, and 408m of title 16, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Conservation, and section 863 of title 48, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Territories and Insular Possessions (May 27, 1894, ch. 72, 5, 28 Stat. 74; May 28, 1896, ch. 252, 19, 20, 29 Stat. 184; Apr. 12, 1900, ch. 191, 34, 31 Stat. 84; Mar. 2, 1901, ch. 814, 31 Stat. 956; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, 291, 36 Stat. 1167; Jan. 7, 1913, ch. 6, 37 Stat. 648; Aug. 22, 1914. Section consolidates section 526 and a portion of 527, both of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with provisions of sections 27, 66, 80e, 100, 117e, 129, 172, 198e, 204e, 256d, 395e, 403c-5, 403h-5, 404c-5 and 408m of title 16, U.S.C., 1940 ed., and provisions of section 863 of title 48, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Territories and Insular Possessions, relating to appointment of United States commissioners. For other provisions of said sections see http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (18 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
Distribution Table.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 17 of 40
Some of the provisions of section 863 of title 48, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Territories and Insular Possessions were retained in that title. The provision of sections 395e, 403c-5, 404c-5, and 408m of title 16, U.S.C., 1940 ed., for appointment of the Park Commissioner in the Hawaii National Park, Shenandoah National Park, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Mammoth Cave National Park and Isle Royale National Park upon "the recommendation of the Secretary of the Interior" was omitted as inconsistent not only with other provisions of this title but with other statutes applicable to other national parks. All such park commissioners are United States commissioners and the revision of these sections makes possible uniformity and consistency in administrative matters concerning such commissioners. (See, also, sections 604 and 634 of this title.) Words "the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts" were substituted for "Attorney General" in section 526 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., in view of the general supervision by the Director over clerks and commissioners under section 601 et seq. of this title. A provision in section 526 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., that commissioners should have the same powers and duties as are conferred and imposed by law, was omitted as superfluous. [emphasis added]
Jurisdiction provisions relating to federal magistrate judges/national park commissioners were enacted in definitive terms for the Grand Canyon National Park Commissioner: Special commissioner for Grand Canyon National Park; appointment; jurisdiction; compensation. Act Sept. 14, 1959, P. L. 86-258, 1-3, 73 Stat. 546, provided: "Sec .1. The United States District Court for the District of Arizona shall appoint a special commissioner for the Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. The commissioner shall hold office for four years, unless sooner removed by the district court, and he shall be subject to the general laws and requirements applicable to United States commissioners. "Sec .2. The jurisdiction of the commissioner in adjudicating cases brought before him shall be limited to http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (19 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
the trial, and sentencing upon conviction, of persons charged with the commission of those misdemeanors classified as petty offenses (18 U.S.C. 1) [18 U.S.C. 1] relating to the violation of Federal laws or regulations applicable within the park: Provided, That any person charged with a petty offense may elect to be tried in the district court of the United States; and the commissioner shall apprise the defendant of his right to make such election, but shall not proceed to try the case unless the defendant, after being so apprised, signs a written consent to be tried before the commissioner. The exercise of additional functions by the commissioner shall be consistent with and be carried out in accordance with the authority, laws, and regulations of general application to United States commissioners. The rules of procedure set forth in title 18, section 3402, of the United States Code [18 U.S.C. 3402], shall be followed in the handling of cases by such commissioner. The probation laws shall be applicable to persons tried by the commissioner and he shall have power to grant probation. [emphasis added]
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 18 of 40
Now we go to a few court cases to nail the matter down: Powers and duties were coextensive with limits of judicial district in which he was appointed. United States v. Harden, 10 F 802 (D.C. N.C., 1881); United States v. Stern, 177 F 479 (D.C. Pa. 1910). Purpose of Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. 631 et seq., was to provide method to relieve judges of some of their non-Article III functions. United States v. First National Bank of Rush, 576 F.2d 852 (10th Cir., 1978), 78-1 USTC 9462, 42 AFTR 2d 78-5049. Purpose of Federal Magistrates Act (28 U.S.C. 631638) is to remove from workload of United States District Courts matters which are more desirably performed by lower tier of judicial officers. United States v. Richardson, 57 FRD 196 (D.C. N.Y., 1972).
Evolution of the federal magistrate judge demonstrates that he is merely a glorified national park commissioner, who is a barlicensed attorney, and his territorial jurisdiction is concurrent with jurisdiction of the United States District Court where he serves. As previously demonstrated via analysis of 18 U.S.C. 7(3) and 4 U.S.C.110(d) & (e), there is a gray area where there might be some discretion. In the federal "States", United States District Court venue and jurisdiction may extend to national parks and other lands retained by the United States, but in the several States which are parties to the U.S. Constitution, United States judicial authority may be exercised only on federal http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (20 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
enclaves, i.e. lands ceded to the United States by legislatures of the several States, "for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building" (1979 edition, U.S.C.). There is, and was, no constitutional authority for Congress to retain land for the United States, as was the case in Oklahoma, Colorado, Nevada, Alaska, etc., in States admitted to the Union subsequent to the Civil War. Nevada appears to be leading the charge on this issue, namely, the right of the United States (federal government) to retain land in the several States other than for constitutional purposes; and it is clear, by distinctly separate authorities pertaining to federal "States" and to the several States in 18 U.S.C. 7(3) & 3231 and 4 U.S.C. 1001(d) & (e), that application of judicial authority in the United States Code of Criminal Procedure limits jurisdiction to federal enclaves which have been ceded by legislatures of the several States for constitutional purposes only.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 19 of 40
Still, this is a vague area which has yet to be thoroughly explored: Within the several States, the United States has judicial authority either: (1) on federal enclaves ceded by legislatures of the several States for constitutional purposes, or (2) on federal enclaves ceded for constitutional purposes and in national parks. In his memorandum, Becraft frames his conclusion concerning United States judicial jurisdiction by basing it on an 1885 Supreme Court decision, even though the decision was premised on facts relative to the federal reservation at Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas: The single most important case regarding the subject of federal jurisdiction appears to be Fort Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, 531, 5 S.Ct. 995 (1885), which sets forth the law on this point fully. There, the railroad company property which passed through the Fort Leavenworth federal enclave was being subjected to taxation by Kansas, and the company claimed an exemption from state taxation. In holding that the railroad company's property could be taxed, the Court carefully explained federal jurisdiction within the States: The consent of the states to the purchase of lands within them for the special purposes named, is, however, essential, under the constitution, to the transfer to the general government, with the title, of political jurisdiction and dominion. Where lands are acquired without such consent, the possession of the United States, unless political jurisdiction be ceded to them in some other way, is simply that of an ordinary proprietor. The property in that case, unless used as a means to carry out the purposes of the government, is subject to the legislative authority and control of the states equally with the property of private individuals.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (21 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
Thus, the cases decided within the 19th century clearly disclosed the extent and scope of both State and federal jurisdiction. In essence, these cases, among many others, hold that the jurisdiction of any particular State is co-extensive with its borders or territory, and all persons and property located or found therein are subject to such jurisdiction; this jurisdiction is superior. Federal jurisdiction results only from a conveyance of state jurisdiction to the federal government for lands owned or otherwise possessed by the federal government, and thus federal jurisdiction is extremely limited in nature. And there is no federal jurisdiction if there be no grant or cession of jurisdiction by the State to the federal government. Therefore, federal territorial jurisdiction exists only in Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the States, and the territories and possessions of the United States.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 20 of 40
During the Eisenhower administration, the matter of federal jurisdiction within the States was addressed at length by a specially formed Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States, with both State and United States (federal government) representatives participating in the study. Assistant Attorney General Mansfield D. Sprague chaired the committee. Part I of the report, titled "The Facts and Committee Recommendations," was submitted to Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Jr., then transmitted to President Eisenhower in April, 1956, and Part II, titled "A Text of the Law of Legislative Jurisdiction," was submitted in June, 1957. The latter report, in particular, affirms the conclusion that United States judicial authority within the several States extends only so far as the constitutional grant: The Constitution gives express recognition to but one means of Federal acquisition of legislative jurisdiction ... by State consent under Article I, section 8, clause 17. ... Justice McLean suggested that the Constitution provided the sole mode for transfer of jurisdiction, and that if this mode is not pursued, no transfer of jurisdiction can take place. [Page 41] It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction (1) pursuant to clause 17 by a Federal acquisition of land with State consent, or (2) by cession from the State to the Federal Government, or unless the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction upon the admission of the State, the Federal Government possesses no legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State, such jurisdiction being for exercise by the State, subject to non-interference by the State with Federal functions. [Id., at 45] The Federal
Government cannot, by unilateral action on
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (22 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State. [Id., at 46] On the other hand, while the Federal Government has power under various provisions of the Constitution to define, and prohibit as criminal, certain acts or omissions occurring anywhere in the United States, it has no power to punish for various other crimes, jurisdiction over which is retained by the States under our FederalState system of government, unless such crime occurs on areas as to which legislative jurisdiction has been vested in the Federal Government. [Id., at 107]
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 21 of 40
The 1957 report appears to accommodate United States (federal government) retention and/or acquisition of land, and therefore legislative and judicial jurisdiction, other than that specifically prescribed in the U.S. Constitution under Article I authority. Therefore, if the report is correct on this hairsplitting matter, congressional blackmail of States admitted to the Union after the Civil War would appear to be legitimized, and the report seems to accommodate legislative cession of land to the United States (federal government) for other than constitutional purposes ... national parks, flood control, and electrical generation dams, etc. However, the jury is still out on this matter, because recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as New York v. United States et al., 505 U.S. ___, 120 L.Ed.2d 120, 112 S.Ct. 2408 (1992), seem to condemn this conclusion under authority of the Tenth Amendment and the Separation of Powers Doctrine. The United States (federal government) cannot exercise any authority within the several States which is not specifically enumerated in Article I of the U.S. Constitution; and officers of the several States cannot accommodate any United States (federal government) exercise of power which is not specifically delegated under Article I, without first securing a constitutional amendment. Regardless of the Tenth Amendment and the Separation of Powers issues, any given Act of Congress, under United States judicial authority, applies only to the extent of the Act and attending regulations, with territorial limits prescribed at 18 U.S.C. 7(3) and 4 U.S.C. 110(d) & (e). Generally speaking, territorial bounds for United States judicial authority are applicable with respect to both civil and criminal matters, with diversity of citizenship being the only exception in civil matters. This expansion of United States judicial authority does not extend to criminal matters, except as specified by Thomas Jefferson in "The Kentucky Resolutions." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly prescribed the limits of federal criminal jurisdiction in definitive terms. The conclusive statement is this: "[Federal] legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears [in the legislation] ...." See http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (23 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211, 215 (1894), 14 S.Ct. 513; American Banana Company v. United Fruit Company, 213 U.S. 347 (1909), 357, 29 S.Ct. 511; United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94 (1922), 97, 93, 43 S.Ct. 39; Blackmer v. United States, 284 U.S. 421 (1932), 437, 52 S.Ct. 252; Foley Bros. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1949), 285, 69 S.Ct. 575; United States v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217, 222 (1949), 70 S.Ct. 10; and United States v. First National City Bank, 321 F.2d 14, 23 (2nd Cir. 1963). The matter is addressed in Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure [selected portions, 1978 edition, U.S.C.]: Rule 54. Application and Exception (a) Courts. These rules apply to all criminal proceedings in the United States District Courts .... (c) Application of terms. As used in these rules the following terms have the designated meanings. "Act of Congress" includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession. The words "demurrer," "motion to quash," "plea abatement," "plea in bar" and "special plea in bar," words to the same effect, in any act of Congress shall construed to mean the motion raising a defense objection provided in Rule 12.
in or be or
"Federal Magistrate" means a United States magistrate as defined in 28 U.S.C. 631-639, a judge of the United States or another judge or judicial officer specifically empowered by statute in force in any territory or possession, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia, to perform a function to which a particular rule relates. "Judge of the United States" includes a judge of a district court, court of appeals, or the Supreme Court. "Law" includes statutes and judicial decisions. "Magistrate" includes a United States magistrate as defined in 28 U.S.C. 631-639, a judge of the United States, another judge or judicial officer specifically empowered by statute in force in any territory or possession, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia, to perform a function to which a particular rule relates, and a state or local judicial officer, authorized by 18 U.S.C. 3041 to perform the functions prescribed in Rule 3, 4, and 5. "State" includes District of Columbia, territory and insular possession.
Puerto
Rico,
"United States magistrate" means the officer authorized by 28 U.S.C.631-639. http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (24 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 22 of 40
Application of Acts of Congress was clearly articulated in Caha v. United States supra, where the Supreme Court stated as follows: The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.
Application of terms in Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure appears to exclude jurisdiction of United States courts on national parks within the several States, as has repeatedly been demonstrated via 4 U.S.C. 110(d) & (e) and 18 U.S.C. 7(3) definitions and applications, and the definition of "State" cited above; but, regardless of this hair splitting, United States judicial authority via United States District Courts, which is concurrent with the jurisdiction of national park commissioners (now known as federal magistrate judges), does not extend to the several States in any general way, other than in territory ceded by the legislatures of the several States, whether for constitutional purposes or for national parks. Thus, the law of legislative jurisdiction is preserved in the convoluted United States Code by tracking the history and evolution of United States courts and their officers.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 23 of 40
Part III:
Character of Law & Court Effect on Jurisdiction
Judicial authority of the United States Article III of the U.S. Constitution:
is
established
Article III Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. Section 2. [1] The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; -to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (25 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
in
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
Ministers and Consuls; -- to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; -- to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; -- to Controversies between two or more States; -- between a State and Citizens of another State; -- between Citizens of different States; -- between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under the Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. [2] In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Counsels, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. [3] The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. Section 3. [1] Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or, in adhering to their Enemies, giving Aid and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. [2] The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. [copied from Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition]
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 24 of 40
The U.S. Supreme Court has classified the judicial authority which is granted under Article III into three categories: First, those cases in Common Law and equity which are cognizable within the framework of the Section 2, Clause 1 "arising under" clause; second, admiralty and maritime jurisdiction under Section 2, Clause 1; and third, cases pertaining to ambassadors, etc. Cases relating to the several States are affected by the Eleventh Amendment, ratified in 1798, but don't materially affect the instant matter. Concern in this context focuses on two types of law and the originating source. Use of the term "law" in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, as is the case for due process amendments in the Bill of Rights (first Ten Amendments, particularly the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh), contemplates the Common Law of English-American lineage. Equity, also known as chancery, http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (26 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
pertains primarily to commercial or contract law, and is voluntary on the part of participating parties. In other words, Common Law was assumed and construed to be the Law of the Land applicable both within the United States (federal zone) and within the several States. Constitutional intent was carried out by the first Congress via the Judicial act of 1789. In this Act, original cognizance over admiralty and maritime affairs was vested in courts of the United States, exclusive of the several States, with a safeguard built in, known as the "saving to suitors clause." Suitors, or parties to an action, could remove to Common Law jurisdiction where the Common Law was competent to provide a remedy. The saving to suitors clause is retained in the current United States Code. See 28 U.S.C. 1333(1). In the beginning, admiralty and maritime jurisdiction applied only to matters concerning international contracts and affairs on the high seas, with the law of nations providing a guiding light. The Supreme Court, early on, concluded that, while admiralty jurisdiction is conveyed in Article III, 2, Clause 1, it is distinct from authority pertaining to law and equity and, therefore, does not fall under authority of the "arising under" clause See American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 26 U.S. 511 (1828), 7 L.Ed 242; Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354 (1959), 3 L.Ed.2d 368, 79 S.Ct. 468, reh. den. 359 U.S. 962, 3 L.Ed.2d 769, 79 S.Ct. 795.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 25 of 40
The nature and origin of admiralty law is set out in Vol. 1 of Corpus Juris, 1914 edition, p. 1249, as follows: I. DEFINITION [1] Admiralty is that branch or department of jurisprudence which relates to and regulates maritime property, affairs, and transactions, whether civil or criminal. In a more limited sense it is the tribunal exercising jurisdiction over maritime causes and administering the Maritime law by a procedure peculiar to itself and distinct from that followed by courts either of equity or of common law.
II. ORIGIN AND GROWTH [2] A. Under the Civil Law. Admiralty courts owe their origin and procedure largely to the civil law, which prevailed in Italy and along the north coast of the Mediterranean, where naval commerce was originally most active, and where, after the fall of the Western Empire, the merchants and traders by sea brought about the establishment of a court of consuls in each of the principal maritime cities to hear causes arising out of maritime commerce and property. The judges of these http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (27 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
consular courts were chosen on Christmas of each year by the chief merchants, and they enforced and applied to controversies the customs of the sea, whose origin is long anterior to the civil law itself. These courts gradually developed and extended their jurisdiction as maritime commerce became more profitable and important, until ultimately, in most states, they were merged into, and became known as, courts of admiralty. [3] B. In England. The admiralty is a court of ancient origin, traceable back in English jurisprudence to the reign of Edward I, and exercising a jurisdiction coeval and coextensive with that of other foreign maritime courts; indeed, by some authorities it is said to have existed long before that time. But owing to the hostility which, from historic causes, gradually developed in England against the civil law, the jurisdiction of admiralty was there greatly restricted and limited, both by statute and by decisions of the common-law courts interpreting the same. A reaction in favor of the admiralty courts has now taken place, however, and by acts of parliament they have regained much of their lost jurisdiction, and have acquired jurisdiction over all claims for damages done by any ship, whether on land or water. [4] C. In the United States. It is now well settled, after much controversy, that the jurisdiction of the courts of admiralty in the United States is not limited to that of the English admiralty at the time of the Revolution, but is derived from the early usages of the statutes and the federal laws and decisions.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 26 of 40
The history related above hardly does justice to the continued English-American battle over imposition of admiralty law which, as the article suggests, is in the nature of Roman Civil Law, British feudal law, or simply Civil Law, whereby legislative and administrative bodies are ultimate authorities without any reference to an independent judicial body. This kind of rule had the effect of setting English Barons against King John I, with the results being the Magna Charta, signed in 1215, and in 1640, the Popular Rebellion which ended Star Chambers and convoluted ecclesiastical courts under Charles I. American founders were fully aware of the effects of admiralty or Civil Law -- the viceadmiralty courts of George III were largely responsible for the Revolution. Thus, the "saving to suitors" clause was incorporated in the Judicial Act of 1789. However, in the period following the Civil War, Congress found admiralty rule convenient and, as the geographical United States, under Congress' alleged Article IV legislative jurisdiction, became an increasingly powerful influence, admiralty rule was extended. First, as already noted from The United States Government Manual of 1995/96, circuit courts were changed to http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (28 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
courts of appeal by Act of March 3, 1891, then United States District Courts were reorganized and set by Act of March 3, 1911 (Sixty-First Congress, Sess. III, Chap. 231, pp. 1087, et seq. [Public No. 475]). The nature of United States District Courts is revealed in the Act at 9: "The district courts, as courts of admiralty and as courts of equity ...." In other words, the district courts of the United States, from the Act of March 3, 1911 on, if not before, have never really had a Common Law character in federal territories, and their legitimate relationship to and within the several States has at best been at arm's length and shaky, where the real party of interest is the geographical United States (federal government) under Congress' Article IV legislative jurisdiction, exclusive of Article I delegated authorities. However, within federal areas or territories, as described in the Buck Act at 4 U.S.C. 4(e), and the first part of 18 U.S.C. 7(3), the same limitation does not apply, as disclosed at 11 of Corpus Juris supra, p. 1251: [11] 7. Territorial courts. Although admiralty jurisdiction can be exercised in the states in those courts only which are established in pursuance of the third article of the constitution, the same limitation does not extend to the territories, and congress may vest admiralty jurisdiction in courts created by a territorial legislature as well as in territorial courts created by act of congress, and it has exercised this power in both instances. [In re Cooper, 143 U.S. 472, 12 Sec. 453, 36 L.Ed 232; The City of Panama, 101 U.S. 453, 25 L.Ed. 1061; American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton supra ....]
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 27 of 40
To say that United States district courts didn't have a Common Law character isn't precisely correct. In diversity suits at law or in equity, or suits covered by other provisions of the "arising under" clause, they appear to have had a "law" character. However, in 1938, via Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that there is no longer a national or general Common Law. Today, they operate exclusively under "Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States," as defined at 18 U.S.C. sec. 7(3), under admiralty/civil law rules, which are contrary to the Common Law indigenous to the several States. In fact, court decisions disclose that they have only admiralty and vice-admiralty capacities and, in effect, they either accommodate private international law or they serve as administrative law courts (see 5 U.S.C. sec, 701 et seq.). The U.S. Supreme Court is the only remaining United States court which has a true Article III judicial character and, under Rule 17.1 of the Supreme Court Rules, has original jurisdiction over actions at law. The fine line determining applicability of the Article III, 2, Clause 1 "arising under" clause is the real party of interest. So long as an agent or agency of the United States (federal http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (29 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
government) is carrying out an Article I delegated power within the several States, courts of the United States have jurisdiction by way of the "arising under" clause, whether as the complaining party or defendant. However, if an agent or agency of the United States operates under Congress' article IV legislative jurisdiction, which is exclusive to the geographical United States (read "the federal zone"), or to the United States (federal government), which is a foreign corporation with respect to the several States, the "arising under" clause does not apply because the act is perpetrated under color of law. In other words, the "Act of Congress" which is locally applicable only in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, etc., does not legitimately reach the several States or the population of State Citizens inhabiting those several States. For example, in Dan Meador's Public Notice Memorandum pertaining to the character of the "Internal Revenue Service" and proper application of the Internal Revenue Code (which to date has been published as legal notice in Oklahoma, Nebraska and Montana newspapers), He demonstrated that IRS is an agency of the Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico (Congress never created a Bureau of Internal Revenue, predecessor of IRS), and that no taxing statute in the Internal Revenue Code is applicable to the several States, save as pertains to import duties on alcohol, tobacco, and firearms in Subtitle E, and certain items in Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue code (i.e. Windfall Profits Tax on off-shore and imported petroleum). In the event that officers and agents who allege to represent United States (federal government) laws and interests prove to be operating under color of law within the several States, then United States judicial authority cannot spare them from accountability in the framework of laws and courts of the several States.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 28 of 40
Suppose a soldier stationed at Ft. Sill robbed a store or murdered someone in Lawton, Oklahoma. The fact that he is in United States military service and might have even used an Armyissued gun does not affect the law he broke, or the sovereign territorial authority which originates there, and is responsible for enforcing the law. In other words, immunity travels only so far as legislative jurisdiction and the precise limit of any given law. Under Congress' Article I delegated authority, agents and officers of the United States have certain legitimate duties which reach the several States, but under Congress' Article IV authority in the geographical, self-interested United States (federal zone), the cloak of immunity is shed at borders of the several States, except on federal enclaves which have been ceded by legislatures of the States to the United States (federal government) for constitutional purposes only. This distinction between United States "arising under" and admiralty jurisdiction is territorial in nature, particularly when admiralty jurisdiction is exercised under authority of Article IV in the geographical United States and when it represents United States (federal government) interests outside http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (30 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
of Congress' role as the Article I legislative body for national government. Even then, this authority must comply with the law of legislative jurisdiction. If this is not the case, then the limitations of the Tenth Amendment and of the Separation of Powers Doctrine are of no effect.
Part IV:
Statute Application Determined by Regulation
The Administrative Procedures Act, located at 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., and the Federal Register Act, located at 44 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., provide the means for determining what statutes in any given Act of Congress are applicable where. If a statute has general application, then the agency head responsible for carrying out whatever duties the statute prescribes is required to promulgate regulations disclosing the who, what, when, where and how, and have the regulation published in the Federal Register, if it has general application. If regulations are not published in the Federal Register, they have at best limited application. The controlling statute in the Federal Register Act is 44 U.S.C. 1505(a): 1505. Documents to be published in Federal Register. (a) Proclamations and Executive Orders; having general applicability and legal effect; required to be published by Congress.
documents documents
There shall be published in the Federal Register -(1) Presidential proclamations and Executive orders, except those not having general applicability and legal effect or effective only against Federal agencies or persons in their capacity as officers, agents, or employees thereof; (2) documents or classes of documents that the President may determine from time to time have general applicability and legal effect; and (3) documents or classes of documents that may required so to be published by Act of Congress.
be
For the purposes of this chapter [44 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.] every document or order which prescribes a penalty has general applicability and legal effect.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 29 of 40
At 44 U.S.C. 1507, the provision is made that, "The contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed ...", and at 1510, which establishes the Code of Federal Regulations, it provides at subsection (e) that, "The codified documents [in the Code of Federal Regulations] of the several agencies published in the supplemental edition of the Federal Register ... shall be http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (31 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
prima facie evidence of the text of the documents and of the fact that they are in effect on and after the date of publication." In other words, where the several States and the general population are concerned, a statute created by Act of Congress is somewhat like a hot air balloon that will not get off the ground until someone pumps hot air into it (as if it does not have enough hot air already). Regulations are to statutes as hot air is to the balloon. As stated in 1505(a)(1), if regulations for any given statute aren't published in the Federal Register, application is limited to Federal agencies or persons acting in their capacity as officers, agents, or employees of Federal agencies. Provisions of 44 U.S.C.1505(a) are restated at 1 CFR 5.2: 5.2 Documents required inspection and published.
to
be
filed
for
public
The following documents are required to be filed for public inspection with the Office of the Federal Register and published in the Federal Register: (a) Presidential proclamations and Executive orders in the numbered series, and each other document that the President submits for publication or orders to be published. (b) Each document or class of documents required to be published by act of Congress. (c) Each document legal effect.
having
general
applicability
and
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 30 of 40
Citations of authority requirements are as follows: 21.40 General requirements:
Authority citations.
Each section in a document subject to codification must include, or be covered by, a complete citation of the authority under which the section is issued, including -(a) General or specific authority delegated by statute; and (b) Executive delegations, if any, necessary the statutory authority to the issuing agency.
to link
21.41 Agency responsibility. (a) Each issuing agency is responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the citations of authority in the documents it issues. http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (32 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
(b) Each issuing agency citations of authority in reflect any changes thereto.
shall formally amend the its codified material to
The character of Federal statutory law, and the need for regulations, have been addressed time and again by the U.S. Supreme Court and Circuit Courts of Appeal. Many of the clearer statements relate to application of the Internal Revenue Code, as in California Bankers Association v. Schultz, 416 U.S. 21 (1974), 26, 94 S.Ct. 1494, 1500, 39 L.Ed.2d 812: Because it has a bearing on our treatment of some of the issues raised by the parties, we think it important to note that the Act's civil and criminal penalties attach only upon violation of regulations promulgated by the Secretary; if the Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself would impose no penalties on anyone.
In Foley Brothers v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1949), the high court said, "It is a well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears." In order for a contrary intent to be facilitated, delegations of authority and implementing regulations must be published in the Federal Register, and/or any given statute must clearly articulate application. Fortunately, there is a reasonably easy way to discern what statutes in the United States Code have general application to the several States and to the population at large. This is through the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, which begins on page 751 of the 1995 Index Volume to the Code of Federal Regulations. Its authority is located at 1 CFR 8.5(a): (a) Parallel tables of statutory authorities and rules. In the Code of Federal Regulations Index or at some other place as the Director of the Federal Register considers appropriate, numerical lists of all sections of the current edition of the United States Code (except section 301 of title 5) which are cited by issuing agencies as rule-making authority for currently effective regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations. The lists shall be arranged in the order of the titles and sections of the United States Code with parallel citations to the pertinent titles and parts of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 31 of 40
This handy finding aid lists United States Code statutes by title and section in the left-hand column, if implementing regulations have been published in the Federal Register, and applicable regulations by title and part, in the right-hand http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (33 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
column. If the statute doesn't appear, it doesn't have implementing regulations which have been published in the Federal Register, signifying that, in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 1505(a)(1) provisions, the statute is applicable only to Federal agencies, or the officers, agents, and employees of Federal agencies. If the statute number does appear and a regulation is cited, the regulation must be consulted to determine application. Where the instant matter is concerned, the table immediately resolves the matter of territorial jurisdiction for United States District Courts: there are no implementing regulations for 18 U.S.C. 7 & 3231. The absence of implementing regulations for these two statutes confirms that the special maritime and territorial authority of the United States District Court does not reach into the several States and to the population at large; the authority applies only on federal enclaves which have been ceded to the United States for constitutional purposes, and as the second paragraph of 3231 specifies, the laws and judicial authority of the several States are superior and govern within areas of the States which are not within federal enclaves that have been ceded to Congress by the legislatures of the several States. Further, there are no implementing regulations for 28 U.S.C. 631-639, the Federal Magistrate Act. That is to say, these glorified national park rangers in black robes, known as federal magistrate judges, have no authority within in the several States. Therefore, the United States District Courts have no authority within in the several States, per the following: Powers and duties were coextensive with limits of judicial district in which he was appointed. United States v. Harden, 10 F 802 (D.C. N.C., 1881); United States v. Stern, 177 F 479 (D.C. Pa., 1910).
Where matters pertaining to alleged offenses under the Internal Revenue Code are concerned, there are no implementing regulations to support 26 U.S.C. 7402, which prescribes jurisdiction for United States District Courts. This confirms proofs in Meador's Public Notice Memorandum which demonstrate that there are no implementing regulations for Internal Revenue Code statutes prescribing taxing, assessment, and collection authority, save as relates to import duties on distilled spirits, etc., itemized in Subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code, with the general authority being 27 CFR, Part 70, which is under Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ("BATF") exclusive administration.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 32 of 40
Matters relating to United States securities, etc., are commonly at issue in federal prosecutions, so it is useful to briefly examine underlying the authorities. The U.S. Constitution, at Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 1, provides, "The Congress shall have Power [1:8:5] to coin Money [and] regulate http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (34 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
the Value thereof," and at 10, Clause 1, stipulates that, "No State shall ... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts ...." Since these provisions have never been amended or repealed, underlying authorities for current United States credit and monetary systems should be examined for application: 12 U.S.C. 226. 12 U.S.C. 227. 12 U.S.C. 228.
"Federal Reserve Act" "Banking Act of 1933" "Banking Act of 1935"
NO REGULATION NO REGULATION NO REGULATION
There are no regulations applicable to the several States for the Jury Selection and Service Act, 28 U.S.C. 1861 et seq. Use of the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules is probably easiest to demonstrate by analysis of an actual case issued via the Department of Justice and/or a United States Attorney. In order to do this, we will use United States of America v. Kenney F. Moore, Colleen Moore, and Wayne Gunwall, 96 CR-082C, United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, Tulsa, under stamped impressions of Neal Kirkpatrick, Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Fred White, grand jury foreperson. The same people were charged in 95 CR-129C in the fall of 1995 by the same Assistant U.S. Attorneys, with Mr. White serving as grand jury foreperson. The case was assigned to the same judge. However, the grand jury foreperson was presented with some of the same information included in this memorandum, and subsequently the Moores and Mr. Gunwall filed criminal complaints against federal government principals, sending complaints and evidence to the United States District Court in care of the court Clerk, and to the Oklahoma Attorney General, W. A. Drew Edmondson. The complaint was received by the Clerk of the United States District Court on Friday, Nov. 17, then Assistant U.S. Attorney Kirkpatrick entered a motion to dismiss charges on Monday, Nov. 20. Grand jury indictment against the Moores and Mr. Gunwall were allegedly issued again on May 15, 1996, with a "SUMMONS IN A CRIMINAL CASE" (96-CR-082-C) issued July 5, 1996, under the semblance of a signature for Phil Lombardi, allegedly the issuing officer of some undisclosed rank and horsepower.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 33 of 40
This case is interesting for a number of reasons, and would not be included in this memorandum except that federal government insiders have chosen to scandalize the Moores and Mr. Gunwall via statewide Oklahoma media. One of the crucial points is that after receiving summons for Dr. and Mrs. Moore (the Government sent the Gunwall summons to the Moores and Moore papers to Gunwall), Mr. Gunwall drove from Ponca City to Tulsa and attempted to secure copies of relevant material from the office of the United States District Court clerk. But, the file was http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (35 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
unavailable, allegedly still at an old office that wasn't open that particular day. Yet, the information was made available to Oklahoma print and broadcast media, and principals from the United States federal government and the office of Oklahoma Attorney General Edmondson fueled media reporting with comments. It would be difficult to inflict much more injury on the Moores and Mr. Gunwall than federal government officials have already choreographed. The question of the moment, however, concerns charges issued against Dr. & Mrs. Moore and Mr. Gunwall: What authority lies behind them? Government charges rest on four statutes, presented here in the order in which they appear on the face of the alleged grand jury indictment: 18 U.S.C. 371: Conspiracy; 26 U.S.C. 7212(a): Interfering with Administration of Internal Revenue Laws; 18 U.S.C. 1341: Mail Fraud; and 18 U.S.C. 2: Aiding and Abetting. By consulting the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules supra, it is found that there are no implementing regulations extending general application authority to the several States and the population at large for any of these statutes. Therefore, the statutes are applicable only to agencies of the United States and to officers, agents, and employees thereof, per 44 U.S.C. 1505(a), cited above. The only charge which might be of some concern would be mail fraud, because Congress is obligated under Article I, 8 of the U.S. Constitution with providing mail services for the several States. However, manipulation of the Postal Service was one of the first congressional initiatives which, for all practical purposes, has moved the whole of United States federal government under Congress' Article IV legislative jurisdiction within the federal zone (the geographical "United States"). This was done via Act of Congress by the Thirty-Seventh Congress, Session III, Chapter 71 (1863). Sections 22 & 23 of this Act distinguish between "domestic" mail within the federal zone and "drop" mail elsewhere. Today, the United States Postal Service, a United States federal government corporation, handles "domestic" mail in the federal zone (the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, etc.), and "non-domestic" mail delivered in the several States and elsewhere. Regulatory application of 18 U.S.C. sec. 341 demonstrates the paradox for the United States federal government: even though Congress is charged under Article I of the U.S. Constitution with responsibility for maintaining mail service within the several States, alleged Article IV authority to govern the federal zone in any fashion not specifically prohibited by the U.S. Constitution confers absolutely no authority in, and with respect to, the several States which are parties to the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, where Congress has elected to incorporate the United States Postal Service under Article IV authority, statutes prescribing penalties for mail fraud, etc., are not applicable to, or enforceable in, the several States.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (36 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 34 of 40
Part V:
Summary and Conclusion
Through the 1930's, evolution of the corporate United States federal government, under Congress' alleged Article IV legislative jurisdiction in the federal zone (i.e. the geographical, self-interested United States), was referred to as "corporatism". Presently, the U.S. Supreme Court and various other courts use the term "cooperative federalism" to refer to the de facto arrangement between the United States federal government and the governments of the several States (the latter operating under the presumption that they are federal "States", rather than independent republics subject only to Congress' Article I delegated authority). This diabolical scheme, from control of production and distribution of goods and services, to the mathematically impossible social welfare system and criminal enforcement, is premised on the notion that all activity is commercial in nature. The effect has been to treat the entire nation as a seamless garment which is under Congress' Article IV exclusive legislative jurisdiction, rather than as a patchwork of fifty independent republics which are subject only to Congress' Article I delegated constitutional authority. Thankfully, in the last few years, the U.S. Supreme Court has provided footing which affords the possibility of correction. In New York v. United States supra, the high Court reiterated principles framed by the Tenth Amendment and the Separation of Powers Doctrine: so far as the several States are concerned, Congress can exercise only those powers specifically delegated by the U.S. Constitution, and officers of the several States cannot accommodate a United States (federal government) power which is not delegated without first securing a Constitutional amendment. Unrestricted application of the commerce clause has been taken to task in Lopez and other such cases which are cited in Lopez. Unfortunately, judicially correcting the problem isn't as easy as it should be. Through the years, the U.S. Supreme Court has occasionally conveyed a message by way of decisions, or more appropriately, non-decisions. The maxim has been articulated when the Court has been presented with evidences such as the failed ratifications of the Fourteenth and Sixteenth Amendments: ratification of amendments is a political, rather than a judicial, matter. If we read history properly, the nation's high Court attempted to hold the line prior to acquiescence in Julliard (1884), and again resisted socialistic New Deal legislation until yielding in Erie Railroad (1938). The choice in both cases appears to have been pragmatic, yielding constitutional principles to the political tide, further enhancing the probability and prospects of a hidden oligarchy in America.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 35 of 40
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (37 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
In light of the current pervasive circumstance, it is necessary to revisit first causes in order to address the situation. As set forth in Part I of this Memorandum, American Founders proclaimed that the "laws of Nature and Nature's God" govern nations and Men, and that all Men are endowed with certain unalienable Rights by their Creator. This foundation is acknowledged in the preambles to state and federal constitutions: the sovereign American People, by way of their constitutions, have granted only certain, specifically enumerated powers to their state and federal governments. In New York v. United States supra, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the matter of authority. In the American system, the question isn't what power governments should have, but what powers have actually been delegated. The high Court further concluded that public servants who usurp powers which are not delegated invariably do so for self-serving ends. The problem, of course, is accountability. As the development history presented in the Becraft memorandum demonstrates, the several States preceded the "United States". The original thirteen colonies secured independence from English rule, and each thereby established sovereignty as an independent nation. The confederation which they maintained following the Revolution was, at best, weak, having precious little authority over the several new States. This arrangement threatened the harmony, and even the survival, of that Confederation. These difficulties spawned the Constitutional Convention in 1787, with the first States convening under the U.S. Constitution and with the U.S. Constitution vesting the United States (federal government) with only the authority necessary to carry out its expressly delegated responsibilities. However, the People and the several States did not surrender any more power than was delegated; they retained that which they did not delegate, including sovereignty over the territories within the respective States of the Union. Thomas Jefferson, responding to the Alien and Sedition Acts, addressed this very problem, and the proper order of things in the American system of government, in the Kentucky Resolutions:
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 36 of 40
8th. Resolved, That a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, who shall have in charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the Legislatures of the several States; to assure them that this commonwealth continues in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from the moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union; that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their late federal compact, to be friendly to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the States: that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (38 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness and prosperity of these States; and that therefore this commonwealth is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact -- to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the domination, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this commonwealth, from motives of regard and respect for its co-States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified: That if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them; that the general government may place any act they thing proper on the list of crimes, and punish it themselves whether enumerated or not enumerated by the constitution as cognizable by them: that they may transfer its cognizance to the President, or any other person, who may himself be the accuser, counsel, judge and jury, whose suspicions may be the evidence, his order the sentence, his officer the executioner, and his breast the sole record of the transaction: that a very numerous and valuable description of the inhabitants of these States being, by this precedent, reduced, as outlaws, to the absolute dominion of one man, and the barrier of the Constitution thus swept away from us all, no rampart now remains against the passions and the powers of a majority in Congress to protect from a like exportation, or other more grievous punishment, the minority of the same body, the legislatures, judges, governors and counsellors of the States, nor their other peaceable inhabitants, who may venture to reclaim the constitutional rights and liberties of the States and the people, or who for other causes, good or bad, may be obnoxious to the views, or marked by the suspicions of the President, or be thought dangerous to his or their election, or other interests, public or personal ....
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (39 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 37 of 40
Jefferson's argument is as valid in 1996 as it was in 1798: Congress and the other branches of federal government are not parties to the U.S. Constitution; they are products of it. The U.S. Constitution vests Congress with certain delegated authorities under Article I, and nothing more. Within its own borders, State authority is antecedent to that of the United States and, as parties to the U.S. Constitution, the several States have both the right and responsibility to correct their agent, the United States (federal government), when ambition seeks to abuse or expand the powers which have been delegated. Of more immediate importance where the instant matter is concerned, those who exceed the law, whether in the State governments or in the United States (federal government), are accountable to the Law of the Land, and ultimately, to the People of the Land, within the several States. Operation under color of law is outlaw and criminal, and accountability must be in Law. Judges, magistrates, attorneys for the Department of Justice, and other enforcement people do not have immunity when they exceed the law as it is written. This memorandum conclusively demonstrates jurisdiction of United States District Courts within the several States. Implicitly, authority of the Department of Justice, and of the United States (federal government) enforcement agencies attached to that Department, is concurrent with that of United States District Courts, because the lawful authority of any given agency extends only so far as the legislative jurisdiction of the government it serves. All legislation is territorial in nature.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 38 of 40
VERIFICATION Under penalties of perjury, per 28 U.S.C. 1746(1), I hereby attest that, to the best of My current information, knowledge, understanding, and belief, all matters of law and fact as set out above are true and correct, materially complete, and not misleading, so help Me God.
Executed on August 13, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen ________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell _________________________________ http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (40 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, Counselor at Law, Counsel of Record
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 39 of 40
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila
Terese,
penalty of
Wallen,
perjury, under
Sui
Juris,
the laws
of
hereby the
certify,
United
under
States
of
America, without the "United States," that I am at least 18 years of age,
a Citizen
of one
of the
United States of America, and
that I personally served the following document(s): MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF CHALLENGE TO CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT [i.e. There is none.] Rules 301, 302: Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 54: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United
States Mail,
with
postage
addressed to the following:
prepaid
Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 Tucson [85701] ARIZONA STATE Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Executed on:
_____________________________
/s/ Sheila Wallen __________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (41 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
and
properly
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 40 of 40
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (42 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : closing
Closing Statement to the Jury by Sheila Terese Wallen Defendant
Ladies And Gentlemen of the Jury. Needless to say, I'm very scared and very nervous. I don't know what I should know to tell you in this case. I have been denied assistance of counsel by the Court. So I'll do the best that I can. I ask your patience and your indulgence. Please bear with me in this ordeal. Let me begin with forgotten -- fact.
a very
basic --
but an
apparent
long
When you read the Declaration of Independence it says that God created each of us, you and me, with unalienable Rights -natural Rights. The Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That Declaration, signed more than 200 years ago, gave each of us to sovereignty of a King or a Queen. Subject to no one or to no government. We The People, like you and me, then created the Constitution for each of the States. The States then created the United States Government. The delegation of power, then, comes to We the People directly from our God-given Rights. We delegated some of this power to each of the States. The States, in turn, then delegated very limited power to the federal government. This case before you today is not just about a few marijuana plants, ladies and gentlemen. The State of Arizona, which is more powerful than the federal government, has stated that one can buy and sell marijuana in Arizona if you have a license to do so. Yet, today, the federal government now says that it has more power than its creator - the State. How can the created become more powerful than its creator? Can any one of you become more powerful than God who created you? Is it now possible for you to dictate to the God who created you? I think not! This entire matter goes far beyond a few plants that are a natural substance placed here by God. This matter really goes beyond the so-called "Drug war" that was created by the government, maintained by the government, and controlled by the government. The so-called "War on drugs" is actually a "war on civil liberties and human rights". Nine million people -- nine million -- have been arrested for possession or sale of marijuana since 1965, when the government started this war. The National Drug and Crime Emergency Act (HR 4079), and the anti-drug abuse Act (1988) has thrown many of our civil rights and due process out the window. This "war" has justified all http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/closing.htm (1 of 5) [4/8/2007 2:17:10 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : closing
kinds of unconstitutional and unconscionable police activities, including illegal search, seizure, and the forfeiture of property without a trial.
Closing Statement to the Jury: Page 1 of 5
This is summary punishment, and it is forbidden Constitution for the United States of America.
by
the
What is at stake here is the very foundation upon which this nation was built -- The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for the United States of America, and the principle for which it stands: Freedom from government tyranny -- the Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Each of these people conducting this trial, -- the police who testified against me -- the United States Prosecutor -- and Judge Browning -- all took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution for the united States for America. They each must, by law, take this oath. Yet, you have heard here, in this courtroom, how each and everyone of them has violated and broken that oath. Each one of them has breached their contract with the American people. They have breached their solemn oath with each one of you. This case is not about marijuana possession. This case is about monopoly, just like that old board game we used to play as kids (and sometimes as adults too). This is government monopoly, over the practice of law, over drug smuggling, over automotive fuels, over everything they can control and get their hands on. You have heard this judge say that only he can rule on the law. Then have him explain to you the federal law which makes it a federal crime to obstruct justice and to commit perjury of oath. Then have him explain to you the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Powell in which that was forced to throw out all its prior precedents and defendants to read the law to juries and to explain understanding of that law to juries.
Ninth court allow their
You have heard this judge sustain objections to questions which I have put to my Counsel of Choice. Then have him explain to you the federal law which makes it a federal crime to deprive any Citizen of fundamental, unalienable Rights like those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. You have heard this judge say that he has already ruled on the matter of unwarranted search and seizure. Then have him read and explain the Fourth Amendment to you, as I will do right now: The right
of the
people to
be secure
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/closing.htm (2 of 5) [4/8/2007 2:17:10 PM]
in
their
persons,
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : closing
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Closing Statement to the Jury: Page 2 of 5
I say to you that you, Ladies and Gentlemen, have full and complete power and authority to make that determination yourself, and your decision will be binding, no matter what this judge says or wants you to believe. You have good reason to expect that this judge will uphold the Law in these United States of America, of which the Arizona Republic is one. Then have him read and explain the Fifth Amendment to you, which reads: No person ... shall be deprived property, without due process of law.
of
life,
liberty,
or
You have watched this Judge deny Me my fundamental Right to have the effective assistance of My Counsel, at all times and places of my choosing. Then have him read and explain to you the Sixth Amendment, which reads: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the assistance of Counsel for her defense. You have watched this judge proceed as if he has jurisdiction in this case. Then have him explain to you the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Johnson v. Zerbst in which that court held that if the assistance of Counsel is not available to a criminal defendant -- at every step in the proceedings -- then the trial court is ousted of jurisdiction to proceed, and must dismiss the case, with prejudice. And while he's at it, have him explain to you how it is that an affidavit, verified under penalty of perjury, and numerous decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court can be considered as hearsay and with no legal significance. Ask him to show you a certified copy of his decision to that effect in this case. And ask him to explain what motion of mine he denied, and why. You have a right to all of these things, because the U.S. Supreme Court, in the year 1995, ruled that juries are empowered to decide relevance of evidence, to decide materiality of evidence, and to decide the law itself. That case was U.S. v. Gaudin. Let me remind you. You heard what the one policeman said about the many years he has been on the police force. He told you that he did not know what the fourth Amendment stated!
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/closing.htm (3 of 5) [4/8/2007 2:17:10 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : closing
This man has been on the police force for 18 years. He has arrested, caused the fines, and the imprisonment of who knows how many people. Who knows how many lives and families he has destroyed. Yet, he does not know what the fourth Amendment states!!
Closing Statement to the Jury: Page 3 of 5
The police have admitted they did not have a search warrant. In spite of the fact that the Fourth Amendment demands that he has a search warrant. The Judge has ruled in this case -- as he has stated on numerous occasions -- that the police did not need a search warrant. This is a blatant violation of the Constitution. This is a breach of contract by the police and the Judge. You have heard the Judge deny me counsel of my choice in direct violation of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Sixth Amendment reads as follows: "Shall have the assistance of you have all seen and heard here in denied me assistance of Counsel of Amendment does it state that I must represent me. It reads: TO HAVE HER DEFENCE.
Counsel for his defense." As this courtroom, the Judge has my choosing. Nowhere in that have a licensed bar member to THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR
I have been denied assistance Here, again, the Court violates the and egregious manner.
of counsel in this case. Constitution, in a blatant
Additionally, the Judge has refused to allow you, the jury, to be fully informed as to your duties, your responsibilities, and your Rights. Let me read to you what some of our forefathers have said concerning your rights and duties as a jury. "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." This was stated by John Jay, our first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, in 1789. "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts," stated Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Signer of the unanimous Declaration of Independence. "The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact." Oliver Wendell Holmes. U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1902. "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided." Harlan F. Stone. 12th Chief Justice, U.S, Supreme Court, 1941. "The pages
of history
shine on
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/closing.htm (4 of 5) [4/8/2007 2:17:10 PM]
instances
of
the
jury's
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : closing
exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge . . .." U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 Fed second, pages 1113-to -1139. You -- as a jury -- armed with a little knowledge, and knowing what your rights, powers, and duties really are, can do more to re-establish "Liberty and justice for all" in this State than all the Senators and Representatives put together.
Closing Statement to the Jury: Page 4 of 5
Why? Because, even without the concurrence of any of your fellow jurors in a criminal trial, you, with your single vote of "NOT GUILTY" can nullify every rule or "law" that is not within the principles of natural, God-given, or Constitutional Law. It is precisely this power of nullification that makes trial by JURY one of the most important of our RIGHTS. It can protect and preserve all of your Rights -- and all of my Rights. You, the Jurors, each have the power, the Right, and the duty to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. If the government, the police and even the Judge chooses to violate their Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, you can still do so with your vote of not guilty in this case. Thank you.
God bless each of you.
And God bless America.
Closing Statement to the Jury: Page 5 of 5
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/closing.htm (5 of 5) [4/8/2007 2:17:10 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : notappel
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona Under Protest, Necessity, and by Special Visitation Only
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Sheila Terese, Wallen, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________)
Case No. 95-484-WDB NOTICE OF APPEAL
NOTICE OF APPEAL COMES NOW
Sheila Terese,
state and
Defendant in
"Defendant"), to in the
the above
Juris, Citizen of Arizona
entitled matter
(hereinafter
provide formal notice to all interested parties
instant case
July 17,
Wallen, Sui
1996, and
of Her
appeal of
of this
Court's
this Court's Order dated refusal
to
dismiss
with
prejudice on July 23, 1996, to the United States Court of Appeals for
the
Ninth
Circuit,
fundamental Rights,
America, as
grounds
as guaranteed
international treaties supremacy clause
on
in the
which are
of
of
Her
by the Bill of Rights and two rendered supreme
Constitution for
lawfully amended.
violations
Law
the United
by
the
States of
This Court is denied jurisdiction
to proceed solely on the strength of this Notice of Appeal.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/notappel.htm (1 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:17:11 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : notappel
Notice of Appeal:
Page 1 of 3
Executed on July 23, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state and Counselor at Law and federal witness All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Notice of Appeal:
Page 2 of 3
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila penalty of
Terese,
Sui
perjury, under
America, without of age
Wallen,
Juris,
the laws
the United
of
hereby the
certify,
United
under
States
of
States, that I am at least 18 years
and a Citizen of one of the United States of America, and
that I personally served the following document: NOTICE OF APPEAL by placing
said document
in first class U.S. Mail, with postage
prepaid and properly addressed to the following individuals:
Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 Tucson [85701] ARIZONA STATE Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/notappel.htm (2 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:17:11 PM]
[hand-delivered]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : notappel
10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Dated:
July 23, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen ________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Notice of Appeal:
#
#
Page 3 of 3
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/notappel.htm (3 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:17:11 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judgereq
HEAR YE!
YEAR YE!
HEAR YE!
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FROM ALL QUALIFIED ARTICLE III FEDERAL JUDGES
This is a general public request for proposals from all individuals who are qualified, interested, and available to preside as an Article III Judge on the bench of the District Court of the United States in Tucson, Arizona state. This is an Article III district court, pursuant to the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 312, 42 S.Ct. 343, 66 L.Ed 627 (1921). Pursuant to the holding in Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920), your proposals must confirm, under penalty of perjury, that your compensation is currently not being diminished by any federal or state income taxes, unless you have chosen knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily to contribute a portion of your compensation to the state and/or federal governments, without any threat, duress, or coercion. Pursuant to 31 U.S.C., the "Internal Revenue Service" is not an agency or bureau of the United States Department of the Treasury. See Chapter 3, Subchapter I, Organization. Voluntary contributions to the "Internal Revenue Service" shall be grounds for disqualification, because of the danger of undue outside influences as described in the case of Lord v. Kelley, 240 F.Supp. 167, 169 (1965). Plaintiff therefore reserves the Right to recuse any judge who currently has any contract, or has filed any tax returns, with the "Internal Revenue Service" or with any of its agencies, assigns, instrumentalities, or principals. If you have so chosen to contribute a portion of your compensation to the state and/or federal governments, please affirm, under penalty of perjury, that this is the case. The Plaintiff, who desires a qualified and competent Article III federal judge, reserves the fundamental Right, under Article III, Section 1, to a judge whose compensation for the office of federal judge has not been diminished during his/her Continuance in office. See Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended, Article III, Section 1. Please submit your proposals, with accompanying affidavit, to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Supreme Court of the United States, One First Street Northeast, Washington, District of Columbia. Please use first class or priority United States mail, Attention: Clerk of Court. Please do not call either the Chief Justice, or the Clerk of the Supreme Court, concerning this matter. Please submit a courtesy copy of your proposal to Judge Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 125 South Grand Avenue, Suite 200, Pasadena, California state. Please also do not call Judge Kozinski's office either concerning this matter. Please also
submit a
courtesy copy
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judgereq.htm (1 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:17:11 PM]
of your
proposal
to
Paul
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judgereq
Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Counselor at Law and federal witness, c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson [zip code exempt], ARIZONA REPUBLIC. All proposals must be on 8.5 x 11 inch white paper, and be signed in original with blue ink, and verified pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746. It would assist the Plaintiff very much if you were to forward this request for proposals to as many different email lists as possible. We are utilizing the Internet exclusively, in order to expedite the dissemination of this request. Hard copies of this request for proposals have already been mailed to Chief Justice Rehnquist, and to Judge Alex Kozinski, for their information. Thank you very much for your consideration. Questions about this request for proposals should be directed to email address: [email protected], attention: Mr. Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Counselor at Law and federal witness. See 18 U.S.C. 1513. All communication must be in writing, and will be kept strictly confidential, as much as possible. Public disclosures of candidate proposals will happen only under lawful court order(s), or with the prior written consent of the candidate.
/s/ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. August 31, 1996
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judgereq.htm (2 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:17:11 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA REPUBLIC In Propria Persona Under Protest, Necessity, and by Special Visitation Only
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Sheila Terese, Wallen, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________)
COMES NOW
Sheila Terese,
state and
Defendant in
"Defendant"), to criminal case, to proceed or over
Case No. 95-484-WDB NOTICE AND DEMAND TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION 28 U.S.C. 1359; FRCP Rules 9(b), 12(b)(1),(2), 12(h)(3)
Wallen, Sui Juris,
the above
demand an
Citizen of Arizona
entitled matter
immediate dismissal
(hereinafter
of the
instant
with prejudice, for lack of criminal jurisdiction
in the first instance, either over the subject matter
the Person
formal Notice
to all
or property of the Defendant, and to provide interested parties
of
same.
Defendant
hereby incorporates by reference all authorities cited in Exhibit "A": Federal IN SUPPORT [i.e. There
Criminal Jurisdiction, and in Her MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF CHALLENGE is
none.],
TO CRIMINAL
JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT
Rules
302:
301,
Federal
Rules
of
Evidence, as if all were set forth fully herein.
Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Criminal Jurisdiction: http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (1 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
Page 1 of 17
KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS: I, Sheila above
Terese, Wallen,
entitled
matter,
hereby
(legislative) tribunal prejudice because
and Defendant in the
that
this
territorial
instant criminal
case
with
it lacks exclusive jurisdiction over the exact
location
mentioned in
the indictment
arrested
in
where
fort,
or other
was My
the
alleged
is alleged
any
"needful building", Republic, nor
demand
dismiss the
geographical
was not
Sui Juris,
criminal
activity
to have taken place.
magazine,
arsenal,
I
dockyard,
federal enclave within the Arizona
Person or
My
private
property
situated
within any of the aforementioned federal areas (a/k/a the federal zone). A very
recent U.S.
1995, addressed of the
the issue
Congress, and
Justice Thomas,
Supreme Court decision, dated April 26,
in a
the
of exclusive legislative jurisdiction powers
of
the
concurring majority
federal opinion
government. in
U.S.
v.
Lopez, 115 S.Ct. 1624 (1995), 131 L.Ed.2d 626, very clearly says: Indeed, on this crucial point, the majority and Justice Breyer [dissenting] agree in principle: the Federal Government has nothing approaching a police power. Id. at page 64.
Justice Thomas
went on
to discuss "a regulation of police"
at page 86, wherein he stated as follows: U.S. v. DeWitt, 76 U.S. 41, 9 Wall. 41, 19 L.Ed 593 (1870) marked the first time the court struck down a federal law as exceeding the power conveyed by the commerce clause. In a 2 page opinion, the court invalidated a nationwide law prohibiting all sales of naptha, and illuminating oils. In so doing, the court remarked that the commerce clause "has always been understood as limited by its terms; and as a virtual denial of any power to interfere with the internal trade and business of the separate states." Id. at page 44.
Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Criminal Jurisdiction: http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (2 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
Page 2 of 17
The law which could
in question
was "plainly
have constitutional
a regulation of police,"
application only where Congress
had exclusive authority, such as the territories. Earlier in "Even before
the text,
Id. pp. 44-45.
Justice Thomas, Id. at page 85, said,
Gibbons, Chief
Justice Marshall,
writing for
the
Court in Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat 264, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821), noted that Congress had no general right to punish murder committed within punish felonies for places
any of the states," and that Congress could not generally.
where it
the District or robbery,
enjoyed plenary
of Columbia, or gun
However, Congress
could enact laws
powers, for instance, over
and whatever effect ordinary murders,
possession might have on interstate commerce
was irrelevant to the question of Congressional power. The
first
Federal
nationwide prohibition April 30,
Criminal
Act
against murder
1790, Chapter
9 [1
did
not
establish
and the like.
Stat. 112];
rather,
a
See Act of only
when
committed in United States territories and possessions, or on the high
seas.
With
counterfeiting, and murder, robbery, commerce,
the
single
exceptions
notwithstanding any
and gun
Congress
of
possession might
understood
that
of
it
treason
the
effects
and/or which
have
on
interstate
could
not
establish
nationwide prohibitions. Justice Thomas
summed up
his opinion dramatically with the
statement quoted in part herein: If we wish to be true to a Constitution that does not cede a police power to the Federal Government ....
(1)
"All federal
crimes are statutory."
Doble, "Venue and
Criminal Cases in the United States District Court," Virginia Law
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (3 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
Review, 287,
289 (1926).
"
...[O]n the
other hand, since all
Federal Crimes are statutory and all criminal prosecutions in the Federal territorial Federal Rules
courts
are
of Criminal
testimony," notes
based
Procedure
on
of Advisory
Acts
Rule
26,
of in
Congress," "taking
of
Committee on Rules, paragraph 2.
Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 3 of 17
(2)
Rule 54,
Federal Rules any act
Application
of Criminal
of Congress
District of
and
Exception,
paragraph
(c),
Procedure, "Act of Congress" includes
locally applicable
Columbia, in
to and
Puerto Rico,
in a
in force in the
territory or in an
insular possession. (3) the basis
There is
no presumption
in favor of jurisdiction, and
for jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown.
Hanford
v. Davis, 16 S.Ct. 1051, 163 U.S. 273, 41 L.Ed. 157 (1896). (4)
See exact
Constitution for
wording of
authority does
the United not extend
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17,
States of over every
America, which square
inch
grant of
of
the
48
contiguous Union States. (5)
In principle, the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of
the federal government is not addressed to subject matter, but to geographical location.
See U.S. v. Bevans, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat) 336
(1818). (6)
It is
axiomatic that the prosecution must always prove
territorial jurisdiction conviction therefor. The jurisdictional Accused, nor
over a
order
to
sustain
a
U.S. v. Benson, 495 F.2d 475 at 481 (1974). challenge issue
acquiesced by
positive showing
crime in
upon the
can never
the Accused, record that
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (4 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
be waived
in the
absence
by the of
a
jurisdiction was clearly
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
and unambiguously established.
Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 4 of 17
(7) by the
Without proof
of the requisite ownership or possession
United States,
Watson, 80
the crime has not been made out.
Fed. Supp. 649 (1948, E.D. Va.).
U.S. v.
Only in America can
We be forced into the status of subjects of a foreign corporation by fiat of a
legislation, and the stroke of a CEO's pen, at the point
gun, and
judicio, and
thereby be
immediately divested
declared to
be debtors
and
of standing
enemies
of
our
in Own
government. (8) is the
In criminal
prosecutions, where the federal government
moving party, it must not only establish ownership of the
property upon must also
which the
crime was
produce documentation
that the
jurisdiction over that property. Court in
the case
of Fort
allegedly committed,
but it
state has ceded to it
It was held by the U.S. Supreme
Leavenworth Railway Co. v. Iowa, 114
U.S. 525 at 531 (1885): Where lands are acquired without such consent, the possession of the United States, unless political jurisdiction be ceded to them in some other way, is simply that of an ordinary proprietor.
(9)
No jurisdiction
federal criminal
exists in the United States to enforce
laws until
acquired lands
has been
United States,
as provided
the
state
authorized
jurisdiction was
consent to accept jurisdiction over
published and
the
in 40
filed in
the
U.S.C. 255, and the fact that
government
immaterial.
behalf of
See Adams
to
take
v. United
and
exercise
States, 319
U.S. 312, 63 S.Ct. 1122, 87 L.Ed. 1421 (1943). (10) All courts
of justice
are duty-bound to take judicial
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (5 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
notice of
the territorial extent of jurisdiction, although those
acts are
not formally
pleadings.
put into
evidence, nor
in
accord
with
Jones v. U.S., 137 U.S. 202, 11 S.Ct. 80 (1890).
Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 5 of 17
(11) Where a
federal court
is without
offense, judgment
of conviction
of the court and/or the jury is
void ab
initio, on
its face.
jurisdiction of the
Bauman v. U.S., 156 F.2d 534 (5th
Cir. 1946). (12) Federal criminal must always
be proven;
jurisdiction is and
it can
never presumed;
never be
waived.
it
U.S. v.
Rogers, 23 Fed. 658 (D.C., W.D. Ark., 1885). (13) The federal courts are limited both by the Constitution and by
Acts of
Congress.
Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger,
98 S.Ct. 2396, 437 U.S. 365, 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (1978). (14) The jurisdiction
of federal
Constitution at
Article III
for legislative
courts;
courts.
Some courts
referred
to
regarded as
as
courts is
for judicial
and
in
courts;
Article
created by
Acts
"Constitutional
of
Courts,"
"Legislative Tribunals."
defined in the
IV
for
territorial
Congress
have
whereas
others
are
v. U.S.,
289
O'Donoghue
U.S. 516 (1933), 77 L.Ed 1356, 53 S.Ct. 74;
in Article I
been
Mookini v. U.S., 303
U.S. 201 at 205 (1938), 82 L.Ed 748, 58 S.Ct. 543. (15) Legislative court guarantees;
"inherently judicial"
judges deriving 641 F.2d
judges
power under
do
not
enjoy
tasks must
Article III.
Article
be performed
III by
See U.S. v. Sanders,
659 (1981), cert. den. 101 S.Ct. 3055, 452 U.S. 918, 69
L.Ed 422. The United
States District
Court creation
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (6 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
and composition
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
were accomplished
by Acts of Congress on June 25, 1948 [62 Stat.
895], and November 13, 1963 [77 Stat. 331], currently codified at 28
U.S.C.
132;
and
demonstrated herein,
the
jurisdiction
i.e. Chapter
85 of
thereof,
previously
Title 28, lists civil,
admiralty, maritime, patent, bankruptcy, etc.,
and does not once
list, mention, or describe any criminal jurisdiction.
It just is
not there, so don't bother looking for it!
Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 6 of 17
(16) Acts of Courts do
Congress creating
not vest
States District
said territorial tribunals with any criminal
jurisdiction;
these courts
conferred upon
them by
See Hubbard
the United
have only
Act of
v. Ammerman,
such jurisdiction
as is
Congress under the Constitution.
465 F.2d
1169 (5th Cir., 1972), cert.
den. 93 S.Ct. 967, 410 U.S. 910, 35 L.Ed.2d 272. (17) The United
States District
general jurisdiction, except as
and has
Court is
no other
prescribed by Congress.
not a
court
power bestowed
of
upon it
See Graves v. Snead, 541 F.2d
159 (6th Cir., 1976), cert. den. 97 S.Ct. 1106, 429 U.S. 1093, 51 L.Ed.2d 539. (18) It is for the
apparent that
the United
States District Court
District of Arizona was created and established under 28
U.S.C. 132,
and its
jurisdiction
is
defined
and
limited
by
Chapter 85 of Title 28, United States Code. (19) The courts of Title
18 U.S.C.
of appropriate
jurisdiction for violations
are designated at Section 3231, specifically
naming them as "district courts of the United States" [sic]. (20) There is "United States
a distinct
District Court"
and definite difference between a and a
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (7 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
"District
Court
of
the
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
United States".
The words "District Court of the United States"
commonly describe constitutional courts created under Article III of the been
Constitution, not the
courts
of
the legislative courts which have long the
Territories.
See
International
Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union v. Juneau Spruce Corp., 342 U.S. 237
at 241
(1952), 72
S.Ct. 235,
96 L.Ed. 275, 13 Alaska
536.
Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 7 of 17
(21) The term "District Court of the United States" commonly describes Article and not
legislative courts
Insurance Co. 242;
III courts
v. 356
or "courts of the
of the United States",
territories.
See
American
Bales of Cotton, 1 Pet. 511 (1828), 7 L.Ed
International Longshoremen's
and Warehousemen's
Union v.
Wirtz, 170 F.2d 183 (9th Cir., 1948), cert. den. 336 U.S. 919, 93 L.Ed. 1082,
69 S.Ct.
641, reh. den. 336 U.S. 971, 93 L.Ed 1121,
69 S.Ct. 936. (22) Though the judicial system set up in a territory of the United States "court of
is a
part of
the United
generally construed See Balzac
343, 66 L.Ed. 627.
States" when as not
v. Porto
federal
jurisdiction,
phrase
used in a federal statute is
referring to
Rico, 258
the
"territorial
courts."
U.S. 298 at 312 (1921), 42 S.Ct.
In Balzac, the High Court stated:
The United States District Court is not a true United States court established under Article III of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under Article IV, Section 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as amere territorial court. http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (8 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
[emphasis added]
The distinction system is
within the dual nature of the federal court
also noted
the United
in Title 18 U.S.C. 3241, which states that
States District
Court for
the Canal Zone shall have
jurisdiction "concurrently with the district courts of the United States, of
offenses
against
the
laws
of
the
United
States
committed upon the high seas."
Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 8 of 17
This distinction is the reason why federal jurisdiction over prosecutions
is
more
than
a
Constitutional requirement. aff'd 383
U.S. 169
technical
See
(1966), 86
concept;
it
is
U.S. v. Johnson, 337 F.2d 180, S.Ct. 749, 15 L.Ed.2d 681, cert.
den. 87 S.Ct. 44, 134, and 385 U.S. 846, 17 L.Ed.2d 77, 117. (23) Besides the recent Lopez decision, it is interesting to note that
at least two other courts, i.e. United States District
Courts, have come to the same or similar conclusions. v. Wilson,
Stambaughr, Skott,
Ketchum, Braun,
and Ballin, Case
No. 94-CR-140 (March 16, 1995) (U.S.D.C. Wisconsin); Kearns,
Case
No.
SA-95-CR-201
(October
6,
See U.S.A.
1995)
and U.S. v. (U.S.D.C.,
Texas). (24) Interestingly enough, Bankruptcy Court, Case No.
Middle District
5-94-00839, titled
IRS/BATF, the against the
in a bankruptcy case in the U.S.
alleged debtor
In re:
IRS/BATF after
of Pennsylvania (Chapter 13), Francis Patrick
Farrell v.
sued out a compulsory counterclaim the alleged
creditor submitted
its
proof of claim. The counterclaim showed an extent of corruption unparalleled in American
history, to which agencies of the federal government
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (9 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
will
often
resort,
specifically
by
placing
a
"T-Code"
on
someone's Individual Master File ("IMF"). In this
way,
forfeiture laws assets, and
the
IRS/BATF
to deprive
a
State
to mis-classify
trafficker."
used
Him
Admiralty Citizen
as
a
and
of
"high
property
level
This occurred on November 17,1995!
Maritime and
narcotics
Why?
See U.S.
v. Good, 114 S.Ct. 492 at 502, footnote 2 (1993).
Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 9 of 17
SUMMARY The
United
States
jurisdiction whatsoever
District
of the
50 States
of America,
Courts
to prosecute
have
no
criminal
a State Citizen within one
of the Union which comprises the United States
until and unless Congress says so.
Until and unless
the federal government can prove ownership over said geographical land mass,
particularly that parcel of land which is the private
real property of the Defendant, the United States District Courts have no States.
criminal jurisdiction Not a
District Courts,
single Act
whatsoever within
of Congress
as distinct
the
50
Union
vests the United States
from District Courts of the United
States, with anything but "civil" authority.
There is absolutely
no criminal jurisdiction vested in said territorial tribunals.
REMEDY DEMANDED Therefore, Defendant legislative
tribunal
hereby demands
establish
that this
exclusive
Article
jurisdiction
IV by
producing certified documents consisting of the following: (a)
Documentation
government) ownership
showing of each
"United
and every
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (10 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
States"
geographical
(federal location
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
mentioned in the instant indictment, wherein the alleged criminal activity took place; (b)
Documentation
provides evidence
from
Arizona
cession by
Arizona
of a
the
Legislature state
which
surrendering
jurisdiction to the "United States" (federal government) over the same geographical location as stated in (a) above; (c)
Documentation pursuant
to Title 40 U.S.C. 255, wherein
the "United States" (federal government) accepted jurisdiction to the same
geographical location
documentation showing
as
stated
in
(a)
above,
or,
concurrent jurisdiction with Arizona state
over the geographical location as stated in (a) above; (d)
Alternatively,
Defendant hereby vacate the
absent
demands that
jury's guilty
the
requisite
documentation,
this United States District Court
verdict and
dismiss the
instant case
with prejudice and in the interests of justice.
Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 10 of 17
Executed on August 13, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Counselor at Law, federal witness, and Citizen of Arizona state
Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 11 of 17
Exhibit "A":
Federal Criminal Jurisdiction
It is a well established principle of law that "all federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (11 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
the United States unless a contrary intent appears"; see Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211, 215, 14 S.Ct. 513 (1894); American Banana Company v. United Fruit Company, 213 U.S. 347, 357, 29 S.Ct. 511 (1909); United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94, 97, 98, 43 S.Ct. 39 (1922); Blackmer v. United States, 284 U.S. 421, 437, 52 S.Ct. 252 (1932); Foley Bros. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281, 285, 69 S.Ct. 575 (1949); United States v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217, 222, 70 S.Ct. 10 (1949); and United States v. First National City Bank, 321 F.2d 14, 23 (2nd Cir., 1963). And this principle of law is expressed in a number of cases from the federal appellate courts; see McKeel v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 722 F.2d 582, 589 (9th Cir., 1983) (holding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act as territorial); Meredith v. United States, 330 F.2d 9, 11 (9th Cir., 1964) (holding the Federal Torts Claims Act as territorial); United States v. Cotroni, 527 F.2d 708, 711 (2nd Cir., 1975) (holding federal wiretap laws as territorial); Stowe v. Devoy, 588 F.2d 336, 341 (2nd Cir., 1978); Cleary v. United States Lines, Inc., 728 F.2d 607, 609 (3rd Cir., 1984) (holding federal age discrimination laws as territorial); Thomas v. Brown & Root, Inc., 745 F.2d 279, 281 (4th Cir., 1984) (holding same as Cleary, supra); United States v. Mitchell, 553 F.2d 996, 1002 (5th Cir., 1977) (holding marine mammals protection act as territorial); Pfeiffer v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co., 755 F.2d 554, 557 (7th Cir., 1985) (holding age discrimination laws as territorial); Airline Stewards & Stewardesses Assn. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 267 F.2d 170, 175 (8th Cir., 1959) (holding Railway Labor Act as territorial); Zahourek v. Arthur Young and Co., 750 F.2d 827, 829 (10th Cir., 1984) (holding age discrimination laws as territorial); Commodities Futures Trading Comm. v. Nahas, 738 F.2d 487, 493 (D.C.Cir., 1984) (holding commission's subpoena power under federal law as territorial); Reyes v. Secretary of H.E.W., 476 F.2d 910, 915 (D.C.Cir., 1973) (holding administration of Social Security Act as territorial); and Schoenbaum v. Firstbrook, 268 F.Supp. 385, 392 (S.D.N.Y., 1967) (holding securities act as territorial). But, because of statutory language, certain federal drug laws operate extra-territorially; see United States v. King, 552 F.2d 833, 851 (9th Cir., 1976). The United States has territorial jurisdiction only in Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the States, and in the territories and insular possessions of the "United States". However, it has no territorial jurisdiction over non-federally owned areas inside the territorial jurisdiction of the States within the American Union. And this proposition of law is supported by literally hundreds of cases. As a general rule, the power of the United States criminally to prosecute is, for the most part, confined to offenses committed within "its jurisdiction". This is born out simply by examination of Title 18, U.S.C. Section 5 which defines the term "United States" in clear jurisdictional terms. Section 7 contains the fullest statutory definition of the "jurisdiction of the United States" [sic]. The United States District Courts have jurisdiction of offenses occurring within the "United States", pursuant to Title 18, U.S.C., section 3231.
Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 12 of 17 http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (12 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
Examples of this proposition are numerous. In Pothier v. Rodman, 291 F. 311 (1st Cir., 1923), the question involved whether a murder committed at Camp Lewis Military Reservation in the State of Washington was a federal crime. Here, the murder was committed more than a year before the U.S. acquired a deed for the property in question. Pothier was arrested and incarcerated in Rhode Island and filed a Habeas Corpus petition seeking his release on the grounds that the federal courts had no jurisdiction over an offense not committed in U.S. jurisdiction. The First Circuit agreed that there was no federal jurisdiction and ordered his release. But, on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, in Rodman v. Pothier, 264 U.S. 399, 44 S.Ct. 360 (1924), that Court reversed; although agreeing with the jurisdictional principles enunciated by the First Circuit, it held that only the federal court in Washington State could hear that issue. In United States v. Unzeuta, 35 F.2d 750 (8th Cir., 1929), the Eighth Circuit held that the U.S. had no jurisdiction over a murder committed in a railroad car at Fort Robinson, the state cession statute being construed as not including railroad rightsof-way. This decision was reversed in United States v. Unzeuta, 281 U.S. 138, 50 S.Ct. 284 (1930), the court holding that the U.S. did have jurisdiction over the railroad rights-of-way in Fort Robinson. In Bowen v. Johnson, 97 F.2d 860 (9th Cir., 1938), the question presented was whether jurisdiction over an offense prosecuted in federal court could be raised in a petition for Habeas Corpus. The denial of Bowen's petition was reversed in Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. 19, 59 S.Ct. 442 (1939), the Court concluding that such a jurisdictional challenge could be raised in a Habeas Corpus petition. But, the Court then addressed the issue, and found that the U.S. both owned the property in question and had a state legislative grant ceding jurisdiction to the United States, thus there was jurisdiction in the United States to prosecute Bowen. But, if jurisdiction is not vested in the United States pursuant to statute, there is no jurisdiction; see Adams v. United States, 319 U.S. 312, 63 S.Ct. 1122 (1943). And the lower federal courts also require the presence of federal jurisdiction in criminal prosecutions. In Kelly v. United States, 27 F. 616 (D.Me., 1885), federal jurisdiction of a manslaughter committed at Fort Popham was upheld when it was shown that the U.S. owned the property where the offense occurred and the state had ceded jurisdiction. In United States v. Andem, 158 F. 996 (D.N.J., 1908), federal jurisdiction for a forgery offense was upheld on a showing that the United States owned the property where the offense was committed and the state had ceded jurisdiction of the property to the U.S. In United States v. Penn, 48 F. 669 (E.D.Va., 1880), since the U.S. did not have jurisdiction over Arlington National Cemetery, a federal larceny prosecution was dismissed. In United States v. Lovely, 319 F.2d 673 (4th Cir., 1963), federal jurisdiction was found to exist by U.S. ownership of the property and a state cession of jurisdiction. In United States v. Watson, 80 F.Supp. 649 (E.D.Va., 1948), federal criminal charges were dismissed, the court stating as follows: Without proof of the requisite ownership or possession of the United States, the crime has not been made out. 80 http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (13 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
F.Supp., at 651.
Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 13 of 17
In Brown v. United States, 257 F. 46 (5th Cir., 1919), federal jurisdiction was upheld on the basis that the U.S. owned the post office site where a murder was committed and the state had ceded jurisdiction; see also England v. United States, 174 F.2d 466 (5th Cir., 1949); Krull v. United States, 240 F.2d 122 (5th Cir., 1957); Hudspeth v. United States, 223 F.2d 848 (5th Cir., 1955); and Gainey v. United States, 324 F.2d 731 (5th Cir., 1963). In United States v. Townsend, 474 F.2d 209 (5th Cir., 1973), a conviction for receiving stolen property was reversed when the court reviewed the record and learned that there was absolutely no evidence disclosing that the defendant had committed this offense within the jurisdiction of the United States. And in United States v. Benson, 495 F.2d 475 (5th Cir., 1974), in finding federal jurisdiction for a robbery committed at Fort Rucker, the court stated: It is axiomatic that the prosecution must always prove territorial jurisdiction over a crime in order to sustain a conviction therefor. 495 F.2d, at 481.
In two Sixth Circuit cases, United States v. Tucker, 122 F. 518 (W.D.Ky., 1903), a case involving an assault committed at a federal dam, and United States v. Blunt, 558 F.2d 1245 (6th Cir., 1977), a case involving an assault within a federal penitentiary, jurisdiction was sustained by finding that the U.S. owned the property in question and the state involved had ceded jurisdiction. In In re Kelly, 71 F. 545 (E.D.Wis., 1895), a federal assault charge was dismissed when the court held that the state cession statute in question was not adequate to convey jurisdiction of the property in question to the United States. In United States v. Johnson, 426 F.2d 1112 (7th Cir., 1970), a case involving a federal burglary prosecution, federal jurisdiction was sustained upon the showing of U.S. ownership and cession. And cases from the Eighth and Tenth Circuits likewise require the same elements to be shown to demonstrate the presence of federal jurisdiction; see United States v. Heard, 270 F.Supp. 198 (W.D.Mo., 1967); United States v. Redstone, 488 F.2d 300 (8th Cir., 1973); United States v. Goings, 504 F.2d 809 (8th Cir., 1974) (demonstrating loss of jurisdiction); Hayes v. United States, 367 F.2d 216 (10th Cir., 1966); United States v. Carter, 430 F.2d 1278 (10th Cir., 1970); Hall v. United States, 404 F.2d 1367 (10th Cir., 1969); and United States v. Cassidy, 571 F.2d 534 (10th Cir., 1978).
Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 14 of 17
Of all the circuits, the Ninth jurisdictional issues more than any of http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (14 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
Circuit has addressed the rest. In United
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
States v. Bateman, 34 F. 86 (N.D.Cal., 1888), it was determined that the United States did not have jurisdiction to prosecute for a murder committed at the Presidio because California had never ceded jurisdiction; see also United States v. Tully, 140 F. 899 (D.Mon., 1905). But later, California ceded jurisdiction for the Presidio to the United States, and it was held in United States v. Watkins, 22 F.2d 437 (N.D.Cal., 1927), that this enabled the U.S. to maintain a murder prosecution; see also United States v. Holt, 168 F. 141 (W.D. Wash., 1909), United States v. Lewis, 253 F. 469 (S.D.Cal, 1918), and United States v. Wurtzbarger, 276 F. 753 (D.Or., 1921). Because the U.S. owned, and had a state cession of jurisdiction for, Fort Douglas in Utah, it was held that the U.S. had jurisdiction for a rape prosecution in Rogers v. Squier, 157 F.2d 948 (9th Cir., 1946). But, without a cession, the U.S. has no jurisdiction; see Arizona v. Manypenny, 445 F.Supp. 1123 (D.Ariz., 1977). The above cases from the U.S. Supreme Court and federal appellate courts set forth the rule that in criminal prosecutions, the government, as the party seeking to establish the existence of federal jurisdiction, must prove U.S. ownership of the property in question and a state cession of jurisdiction. This same rule manifests itself in state cases. State courts are courts of general jurisdiction and in a state criminal prosecution, the state must only prove that the offense was committed within the state and a county thereof. If a defendant contends that only the federal government has jurisdiction over the offense, he, as proponent for the existence of federal jurisdiction, must likewise prove U.S. ownership of the property where the crime was committed and state cession of jurisdiction. Examples of the operation of this principle are numerous. In Arizona, the State has jurisdiction over federal lands in the public domain, the state not having ceded jurisdiction of that property to the U.S.; see State v. Dykes, 114 Ariz. 592, 562 P.2d 1090 (1977). In California, if it is not proved by a defendant in a state prosecution that the state has ceded jurisdiction, it is presumed the state does have jurisdiction over a criminal offense; see People v. Brown, 69 Cal. App.2d 602, 159 P.2d 686 (1945). If the cession exists, the state has no jurisdiction; see People v. Mouse, 203 Cal. 782, 265 P. 944 (1928). In Montana, the state has jurisdiction over property if it is not proved there is a state cession of jurisdiction to the U.S.; see State ex rel Parker v. District Court, 147 Mon. 151, 410 P.2d 459 (1966); the existence of a state cession of jurisdiction to the U.S. ousts the state of jurisdiction; see State v. Tully, 31 Mont. 365, 78 P. 760 (1904). The same applies in Nevada; see State v. Mack, 23 Nev. 359, 47 P. 763 (1897), and Pendleton v. State, 734 P.2d 693 (Nev., 1987); it applies in Oregon (see State v. Chin Ping, 91 Or. 593, 176 P. 188 (1918) and State v. Aguilar, 85 Or.App. 410, 736 P.2d 620 (1987)); and in Washington (see State v. Williams, 23 Wash.App. 694, 598 P.2d 731 (1979)).
Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 15 of 17
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (15 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
In People v. Hammond, 1 Ill.2d 65, 115 N.E.2d 331 (1953), a burglary of an IRS office was held to be within state jurisdiction, the court holding that the defendant was required to prove existence of federal jurisdiction by U.S. ownership of the property and state cession of jurisdiction. In two cases from Michigan, larcenies committed at U.S. Post Offices which were rented were held to be within state jurisdiction; see People v. Burke, 161 Mich. 397, 126 N.W. 446 (1910) and People v. Van Dyke, 276 Mich. 32, 267 N.W. 778 (1936); see also In re Kelly, 311 Mich. 596, 19 N.W.2d 218 (1945). In Kansas City v. Garner, 430 S.W.2d 630 (Mo.App., 1968), state jurisdiction over a theft offense occurring in a federal building was upheld, and the court stated that a defendant had to show federal jurisdiction by proving U.S. ownership of the building and a cession of jurisdiction from the state to the United States. A similar holding was made for a theft at a U.S. missile site in State v. Rindall, 146 Mon. 64, 404 P.2d 327 (1965). In Pendleton v. State, 734 P.2d 693 (Nev., 1987), the state court was held to have jurisdiction over a DUI ("driving under the influence") committed on federal lands, the defendant having failed to show U.S. ownership and state cession of jurisdiction. In People v. Gerald, 40 Misc.2d 819, 243 N.Y.S.2d 1001 (1963), the state was held to have jurisdiction of an assault at a U.S. Post Office since the defendant did not meet his burden of showing presence of federal jurisdiction; and because a defendant failed to prove title and jurisdiction in the United States for an offense committed at a customs station, state jurisdiction was upheld in People v. Fisher, 97 A.D.2d 651, 469 N.Y.S.2d 187 (A.D. 3 Dept., 1983). The proper method of showing federal jurisdiction in state court is demonstrated by the decision in People v. Williams, 136 Misc.2d 294, 518 N.Y.S.2d 751 (1987). This rule was likewise enunciated in State v. Burger, 33 Ohio App.3d 231, 515 N.E.2d 640 (1986), in a case involving a DUI offense committed on a road near a federal arsenal. In Kuerschner v. State, 493 P.2d 1402 (Okl.Cr.App., 1972), the state was held to have jurisdiction of a drug sales offense occurring at an Air Force Base, the defendant not having attempted to prove federal jurisdiction by showing title and jurisdiction of the property in question in the United States; see also Towry v. State, 540 P.2d 597 (Okl.Cr.App., 1975). Similar holdings for murders committed at U.S. Post Offices were made in State v. Chin Ping, 91 Or. 593, 176 P. 188 (1918), and in United States v. Pate, 393 F.2d 44 (7th Cir., 1968). Another Oregon case, State v. Aguilar, 85 Or.App. 410, 736 P.2d 620 (1987), demonstrates this rule. And finally, in Curry v. State, 111 Tex. Cr. 264, 12 S.W.2d 796 (1928), it was held that, in the absence of proof that the state had ceded jurisdiction of a place to the United States, the state courts had jurisdiction over an offense. Therefore, in federal criminal prosecutions, the government must prove the existence of federal jurisdiction by showing U.S. ownership of the place where the crime was committed and state cession of jurisdiction. If the government contends for the power criminally to prosecute for an offense occurring outside "its jurisdiction", it must prove an extra-territorial application of the statute in question as well as a http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (16 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
constitutional foundation supporting the same. Absent this showing, no federal prosecution can be commenced for offenses committed outside "its jurisdiction", i.e. the federal zone.
Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 16 of 17
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila
Terese,
penalty of
Wallen,
perjury, under
Sui
Juris,
the laws
of
hereby the
certify,
United
under
States
of
America, without the "United States," that I am at least 18 years of age,
a Citizen
of one
of the
United States of America, and
that I personally served the following document(s): NOTICE AND DEMAND TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: 28 U.S.C. 1359; FRCP Rules 9(b), 12(b)(1),(2), 12(h)(3) by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United
States Mail,
with
postage
addressed to the following:
Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 Tucson [85701] ARIZONA REPUBLIC Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Executed on: _____________________________
/s/ Sheila Wallen __________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (17 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
prepaid
and
properly
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 17 of 17
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (18 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : extradit
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Sheila Terese, Wallen,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) United States, ) and Does 1-99, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________)
COMES NOW
Sheila Terese,
state and
Plaintiff in
"Plaintiff"), to Extradition
No. 1,
the above
this
parties, including
AFFIDAVIT OF NON-WAIVER OF EXTRADITION: 28 U.S.C. 1746(1); Tenth Amendment; Federal Rules of Evidence, Rules 201(d), 301; 44 U.S.C. 1505(a) THIS IS NOT HEARSAY.
Wallen, Sui
present this
to
Case No. 95-484-TUC
entitled matter
Her Affidavit
honorable
but not
Juris, Citizen of Arizona
Court
limited to
and
of to
(hereinafter Non-Waiver
all
of
interested
William D. Browning, Doe
and to provide notice of same to all interested parties,
including all Does both named and as yet unnamed.
VERIFICATION I, Sheila penalty of America,
Terese, Wallen,
perjury, under without
statement is
the
Sui Juris, hereby certify, under
the laws
"United
of
the
States",
United that
the
States
of
following
true, correct, and not misleading, according to the
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/extradit.htm (1 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:13 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : extradit
best of My current information, knowledge, and belief, so help Me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1):
Affidavit of Non-Waiver of Extradition: Page 1 of 5
AFFIDAVIT OF NON-WAIVER OF EXTRADITION 1.
I, Sheila
under penalty America,
Terese, Wallen,
(outside)
government), that extradited out
the
"United
States"
(federal
I have never waived My fundamental Right to be
of any
proper domestic
and all
foreign jurisdictions,
jurisdiction which
of that
is the
Republic, including
Constitution for
the
amended (hereinafter Law of
hereby certify,
of perjury, under the laws of the United States of
without
the Laws
Sui Juris,
My Land,
United
States
My
Arizona Republic and
but not of
limited
America,
"U.S. Constitution"),
and the
into
as
to
the
lawfully
which is the supreme
Constitution of Arizona state, and all
laws enacted pursuant to those constitutions. 2.
I have studied federal laws and applicable court cases,
and I now know that waivers of fundamental Rights, like the Right of Extradition,
must be
sufficient awareness consequences. intentional,
knowingly intelligent
of the
See Brady and
acts, done
relevant circumstances
v. U.S.
voluntary,
and
with likely
Such waivers must be knowing,
in
order
to
be
construed
as
enforceable. 3. Court has
As against
this high
established for
standard which
any and
all waivers
the U.S. Supreme of
fundamental
Rights, I can honestly and confidently say that I have never ever waived my
fundamental Right,
under the
Tenth Amendment
to the
U.S. Constitution, to be extradited out of a foreign jurisdiction such as exists under the Article IV territorial jurisdiction of a
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/extradit.htm (2 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:13 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : extradit
United States District Court.
Affidavit of Non-Waiver of Extradition: Page 2 of 5
4.
It
was
in
unlawfully indicted tried and
such
by a
a
territorial
assistance of
violating a
federal law
My Counsel for
which
published in the Federal Register. After reading
(1995), I
United States trade in
case of
there
are
for allegedly no
regulations
the decision
U.S. v.
Lopez, 131
of the
U.S. 626
Congress of
the
that the
L.Ed.2d
legislative authority to prohibit domestic
the substance
possessing, with
was
See 44 U.S.C. 1505(a).
entirely convinced
has no
Arizona does
of Choice,
and studying
in the
am now
I
a biased trial jury of federal citizens,
without any
Supreme Court
that
biased grand jury of federal citizens,
convicted by
5.
court
which I
intent to
was unlawfully
distribute, even
if
prosecuted the
State
for of
possess such legislative authority, and even if the
Congress does
possess similar authority within the federal zone.
See "Conflict of Laws" in American Jurisprudence. 6.
Because of the Lopez case, I now have convincing reason
to believe
that, if Congress cannot prohibit the possession of a
loaded firearm prohibit the
on public
school grounds,
the several
possession of
then Congress
cannot
other "controlled substances" within
America".
States of the "Union" known as the "United States of Confer at
"Union" and
"United States of America" in
Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1856). 7.
With the
Andrew, Mitchell,
able assistance of my Counsel of Choice, Paul B.A., M.S.,
pleadings to
the United
which phrase
is exhibited
I
have
States District
executed
and
presented
Court "Under Protest",
prominently on the face page of every
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/extradit.htm (3 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:13 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : extradit
pleading filed page of
in said
court.
every pleading,
By using this phrase on the face
I mean
to
convey
to
all
interested
Affidavit of Non-Waiver of Extradition: Page 3 of 5
parties the
fact that
fundamental Rights, prejudice to
explicitly
including the
any of
reservation of such Rights
I have
reserved
all
of
my
Right of Extradition, without
my fundamental Rights, and that my explicit
all My
Rights has thus prevented the loss of any
by application
of the
legal concepts
of waiver or
estoppel. NOTICE OF DEADLINE This
Affidavit
presumptions of
is
specifically
controlling laws
intended
to
establish
and facts in the instant case.
Should other interested parties fail to rebut this Affidavit in a timely manner, the statements of fact and law as contained herein will become
the truth
rebuttals must Court of on the
of the
be filed
in the
instant case
for all
means of
All
official record of the District
the United States in the instant case, Plaintiff by
time.
first class
and also served
United
States
Mail
directed to: Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, August 30, 1996.
Beyond that
deadline, the doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence will prevail, pursuant to the authorities in U.S.v. Tweel, quoting U.S. v. Prudden, and Carmine v. Bowen.
Further Affiant Sayeth Naught.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/extradit.htm (4 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:13 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : extradit
Executed on August 20, 1996 /s/ Sheila Wallen Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state
Affidavit of Non-Waiver of Extradition: Page 4 of 5
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila
Terese,
penalty of
Wallen,
perjury, under
Sui
Juris,
the laws
of
hereby the
certify,
United
under
States
of
America, without the "United States," that I am at least 18 years of age,
a Citizen
of one
of the
United States of America, and
that I personally served the following document(s): AFFIDAVIT OF NON-WAIVER OF EXTRADITION: 28 U.S.C. 1746(1); Tenth Amendment; Federal Rules of Evidence, Rules 201(d), 301; 44 U.S.C. 1505(a) THIS IS NOT HEARSAY. by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United
States Mail,
with
postage
addressed to the following:
Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE William D. Browning, Doe No. 1 44 East Broadway Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/extradit.htm (5 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:13 PM]
prepaid
and
properly
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : extradit
Executed on: _____________________________ /s/ Sheila Wallen __________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Affidavit of Non-Waiver of Extradition: Page 5 of 5
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/extradit.htm (6 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:13 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : removal
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Sheila Terese, Wallen,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) United States, ) and Does 1-99, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ________________________________)
COMES NOW
Sheila Terese,
state and
Plaintiff in
"Plaintiff"), to
Case No. 95-484-WDB NOTICE OF REMOVAL AND PETITION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: 18 U.S.C. 1964(a), 28 U.S.C. 292(b),1331, 1332, 1333(1),1359, 1367(a),1441(b),(c), 1451(2),1631; FRCP Rules 9(h),11,38 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Wallen, Sui the above
petition this
Juris, Citizen of Arizona
entitled matter
honorable Court
(hereinafter
for an Order to
the United States to show cause why its alleged agents should not be charged
with criminal trespass, piracy, and other crimes upon
Her Person
and Her
provide Notices
private property, under color of law, and to
to all
interested parties
of same,
and of Her
Removal of criminal case number 95-484-WDB (hereinafter "Criminal Case")
from
Arizona, to
the
United
the District
States Court of
District
Court,
the United
District of Arizona.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/removal.htm (1 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:14 PM]
District
of
States, Judicial
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : removal
Notice of Removal and Petition for Order to Show Cause: Page 1 of 5
JURISDICTION This District
Court
of
the
United
States
has
original
jurisdiction of this action, pursuant to authorities cited in the above caption,
to wit:
1333(1), 1359,
1367(a), 1441(b)
Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 1964(a), 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1332,
the definition
States District
and
Court from
at 28
(c),
U.S.C.
1451(2),
which the
1451(2),
and the
1631.
criminal action
United is being
removed is a "State" court as defined therein, because said court is a
legislative tribunal domiciled in the District of Columbia.
Balzac v.
Porto Rico, 42 S.Ct. 343, 258 U.S. 298 at 312, 66 L.Ed
627 (1921);
and
compare 18
U.S.C. 1964(a) ("district court of
the United States") and 1964(c) ("United States district court"). In contrast, Article III
the District
court with authority to hear questions arising under
the Constitution, including
Court of the United States is an
but
Laws, not
Amendment, Sixth
and
Treaties
limited
to
the
of
Amendment, Eighth
the
First
United
States,
Amendment,
Amendment, Ninth
Fourth
Amendment,
Tenth Amendment, Thirteenth Amendment, the International Covenant on Civil
and Political
Human Rights.
Rights, and the Universal Declaration of
See Supremacy Clause.
INCORPORATION OF PRIOR PLEADINGS Plaintiff hereby heretofore filed
or
incorporates by
specifically including
otherwise but
not
reference
lodged limited
in
the to
CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING
pleadings
filed
"JOELYN D.
by
"JANET
pleadings
Criminal
Her
DEFENDANT DOCUMENTING previously
all
Case,
AFFIDAVIT
OF
ARREST, and all
NAPOLITANO"
[sic]
and
MARLOWE, Arizona State Bar No. 009206" [sic], who are
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/removal.htm (2 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:14 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : removal
alleged agents of the United States who have claimed authority to represent the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in the Criminal Case.
Notice of Removal and Petition for Order to Show Cause: Page 2 of 5
REASONS FOR GRANTING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Alleged agents of the United States have invaded Plaintiff's private property, or seize
without a warrant having been issued to search
said property.
Said
agents also
arrested Plaintiff,
without a warrant having been issued for Her arrest. seizure, and color of
arrest were
law, proceeding
the Supplemental
all perpetrated
by said
The search, agents under
as in rem actions subject to Rule C of
Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims
(hereinafter "Supplemental Rules"). Said agents
violated that portion of the Supplemental Rules
which requires
a verified complaint before Plaintiff's goods and
chattels could
be attached,
judgment by
default shall
and which
also
requires
that
no
be entered except upon proof that the
garnishee has been given notice of the action. Rule C. Actions in Rem:
Specifically:
Special Provisions
(2) Complaint. In actions in rem the complaint shall be verified on oath or solemn affirmation. It shall describe with reasonable particularity the property that is the subject of the action and state that it is within the district or will be during the pendency of the action. In actions for the enforcement of forfeiture for violation of any statute of the United States the complaint shall state the place of seizure and whether it was on land or on navigable waters, and shall contain such allegations as may be required by the statute pursuant to which the action is brought. (3) Judicial Authorization and Process. ... In actions by the United States for forfeitures for federal statutory violations, the clerk, upon filing of the complaint, shall forthwith issue a summons and warrant for the arrest of the vessel or other property without requiring certification of exigent circumstances.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/removal.htm (3 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:14 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : removal
Plaintiff submits
that these
Supplemental Rules, and others not
yet mentioned herein, were violated when Her private property was invaded by
a band
proceeding under
of
alleged
color of
agents
law and
of
the
United
without any
States,
warrants having
been issued by either a judge or a clerk in the instant case.
Notice of Removal and Petition for Order to Show Cause: Page 3 of 5
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS DUE TO FRAUD Plaintiff hereby to amend
explicitly reserves
this Petition,
prove that
She has
extent of
should future events and/or discoveries
failed adequately
the damage(s)
the Defendants,
Her fundamental Right
which She
both named
to
comprehend
the
full
has suffered at the hands of
and unnamed, now and at all times in
the future. REMEDY REQUESTED Wherefore, Plaintiff to Order why the
the office
hereby petitions
this honorable Court
of the United States Attorney to show cause
alleged agents of the United States in the instant case,
both named
and unnamed
charged with
in the
criminal trespass,
Criminal
Case,
grand theft,
should unlawful
not
be
arrest,
unlawful detainer, perjury, piracy, fraud, extortion, deprivation of fundamental Rights, and conspiracy to commit all of the above, all under
color of federal law, and in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2,
241, 242, 872, 1001, 1621, 1622, and 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1986.
Executed on August 13, 1996
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Sheila Wallen Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/removal.htm (4 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:14 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : removal
Citizen of Arizona state
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, Counselor at Law, Counsel of Record
Notice of Removal and Petition for Order to Show Cause: Page 4 of 5
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila
Terese,
penalty of
Wallen,
perjury, under
Sui
Juris,
the laws
of
hereby the
certify,
United
under
States
of
America, without the "United States," that I am at least 18 years of age,
a Citizen
of one
of the
United States of America, and
that I personally served the following document(s): NOTICE OF REMOVAL AND PETITION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: 18 U.S.C. 1964(a), 28 U.S.C. 292(b), 1331, 1332, 1333(1), 1359, 1367(a), 1441(b),(c), 1451(2), FRCP Rules 9(h), 11, 38 by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United
States Mail,
with
postage
addressed to the following:
Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE William D. Browning 44 East Broadway Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/removal.htm (5 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:14 PM]
prepaid
and
properly
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : removal
Executed on: _____________________________
/s/ Sheila Wallen __________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Notice of Removal and Petition for Order to Show Cause: Page 5 of 5
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/removal.htm (6 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:14 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : removal2
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Sheila Terese, Wallen,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) United States, ) and Does 1-99, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) ________________________________)
COMES NOW
Sheila Terese,
state and
Plaintiff in
"Plaintiff"), to
Case No. 95-484-TUC NOTICE OF REMOVAL AND OF PETITION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: 18 U.S.C. 1964(a), 28 U.S.C. 292(b), 1331, 1332, 1333(1), 1359, 1367(a), 1441(b), (c), 1451(2), 1631; FRCP Rules 9(h), 11, 38 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Wallen, Sui the above
petition this
Juris, Citizen of Arizona
entitled matter
honorable Court
(hereinafter
for an Order to
the United States to show cause why its alleged agents should not be charged
with criminal trespass, piracy, and other crimes upon
Her Person
and Her
provide Notices
private property, under color of law, and to
to all
interested parties
of same
and of
Her
Removal of criminal case number 95-484-TUC (hereinafter "Criminal Case")
from
Arizona, to
the
United
the District
States Court of
District
Court,
the United
District of Arizona.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/removal2.htm (1 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:14 PM]
District
of
States, Judicial
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : removal2
Notice of Removal & Petition for Order to Show Cause: Page 1 of 5
JURISDICTION This District
Court
of
the
United
States
has
original
jurisdiction of this action, pursuant to authorities cited in the above caption,
to wit:
1333(1), 1359,
1367(a), 1441(b)
Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 1964(a), 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1332,
the definition
States District
and
Court from
at 28
(c),
U.S.C.
1451(2),
which the
1451(2),
and the
1631.
criminal action
United is being
removed is a "State" court as defined therein, because said court is a
legislative tribunal domiciled in the District of Columbia.
Balzac v.
Porto Rico, 42 S.Ct. 343, 258 U.S. 298 at 312, 66 L.Ed
627 (1921);
and
compare 18
U.S.C. 1964(a) ("district court of
the United States") and 1964(c) ("United States district court"). In contrast, Article III
the District
court with authority to hear questions arising under
the Constitution, including
Court of the United States is an
but
Laws, not
Amendment, Sixth
and
Treaties
limited
to
the
of
Amendment, Eighth
the
First
United
States,
Amendment,
Amendment, Ninth
Fourth
Amendment,
Tenth Amendment, Thirteenth Amendment, the International Covenant on Civil
and Political
Human Rights.
Rights, and the Universal Declaration of
See Supremacy Clause.
INCORPORATION OF PRIOR PLEADINGS Plaintiff hereby heretofore filed
or
incorporates by
specifically including
otherwise but
not
reference
lodged limited
in
the to
CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING
pleadings
filed
"JOELYN D.
by
"JANET
pleadings
Criminal
Her
DEFENDANT DOCUMENTING previously
all
Case,
AFFIDAVIT
OF
ARREST, and all
NAPOLITANO"
[sic]
and
MARLOWE, Arizona State Bar No. 009206" [sic], who are
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/removal2.htm (2 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:14 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : removal2
alleged agents of the United States who have claimed authority to represent the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in the Criminal Case.
Notice of Removal & Petition for Order to Show Cause: Page 2 of 5
REASONS FOR GRANTING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Alleged agents of the United States have invaded Plaintiff's private property, or seize
without a warrant having been issued to search
said property.
Said
agents also
arrested Plaintiff,
without a warrant having been issued for Her arrest. seizure, and color of
arrest were
law, proceeding
the Supplemental
all perpetrated
by said
The search, agents under
as in rem actions subject to Rule C of
Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims
(hereinafter "Supplemental Rules"). Said agents
violated that portion of the Supplemental Rules
which requires
a verified complaint before Plaintiff's goods and
chattels could
be attached,
judgment by
default shall
and which
also
requires
that
no
be entered except upon proof that the
garnishee has been given notice of the action. Rule C. Actions in Rem:
Specifically:
Special Provisions ...
(2) Complaint. In actions in rem the complaint shall be verified on oath or solemn affirmation. It shall describe with reasonable particularity the property that is the subject of the action and state that it is within the district or will be during the pendency of the action. In actions for the enforcement of forfeiture for violation of any statute of the United States the complaint shall state the place of seizure and whether it was on land or on navigable waters, and shall contain such allegations as may be required by the statute pursuant to which the action is brought. (3) Judicial Authorization and Process. ... In actions by the United States for forfeitures for federal statutory violations, the clerk, upon filing of the complaint, shall forthwith issue a summons and warrant for the arrest of the vessel or other property without requiring certification of exigent circumstances.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/removal2.htm (3 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:14 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : removal2
Plaintiff submits
that these
Supplemental Rules, and others not
yet mentioned herein, were violated when Her private property was invaded by
a band
proceeding under
of
alleged
color of
agents
law and
of
the
United
without any
States,
warrants having
been issued by either a judge or a clerk in the instant case.
Notice of Removal & Petition for Order to Show Cause: Page 3 of 5
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS DUE TO FRAUD Plaintiff hereby to amend
explicitly reserves
this Petition,
prove that
She has
extent of
should future events and/or discoveries
failed adequately
the damage(s)
the Defendants,
Her fundamental Right
which She
both named
to
comprehend
the
full
has suffered at the hands of
and unnamed, now and at all times in
the future. REMEDY REQUESTED Wherefore, Plaintiff to Order why the
the office
hereby petitions
this honorable Court
of the United States Attorney to show cause
alleged agents of the United States in the instant case,
both named
and unnamed
charged with
in the
criminal trespass,
Criminal
Case,
grand theft,
should unlawful
not
be
arrest,
unlawful detainer, perjury, piracy, fraud, extortion, deprivation of fundamental Rights, and conspiracy to commit all of the above, all under
color of federal law, and in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2,
241, 242, 872, 1001, 1621, 1622, and 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1986.
Executed on August 20, 1996
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Sheila Wallen Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/removal2.htm (4 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:14 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : removal2
Citizen of Arizona state
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, Counselor at Law, Counsel of Record
Notice of Removal & Petition for Order to Show Cause: Page 4 of 5
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila
Terese,
penalty of
Wallen,
perjury, under
Sui
Juris,
the laws
of
hereby the
certify,
United
under
States
of
America, without the "United States", that I am at least 18 years of age,
a Citizen
of one
of the
United States of America, and
that I personally served the following document(s): NOTICE OF REMOVAL AND OF PETITION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: 18 U.S.C. 1964(a), 28 U.S.C. 292(b), 1331, 1332, 1333(1), 1359, 1367(a), 1441(b), (c), 1451(2), FRCP Rules 9(h), 11, 38 by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United
States Mail,
with
postage
addressed to the following:
Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE William D. Browning, Doe No. 1 44 East Broadway Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/removal2.htm (5 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:14 PM]
prepaid
and
properly
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : removal2
Executed on: _____________________________ /s/ Sheila Wallen __________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Notice of Removal & Petition for Order to Show Cause: Page 5 of 5
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/removal2.htm (6 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:14 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadjudge
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Sheila Terese, Wallen,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) United States, ) and Does 1-99, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________)
Case No. 95-484-TUC NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT OF A JUDGE OF THE COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE TO PRESIDE OVER THIS DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: 28 U.S.C. 293, 296, 297, 461(b)
Greetings to You: Judge Alex Kozinski Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 125 South Grand Avenue, Suite 200 Pasadena [zip code exempt] CALIFORNIA STATE
Formal NOTICE
AND DEMAND
You, Judge
Kozinski, by
Citizen of
Arizona state,
States ("federal
are hereby
Me, Sheila
respectfully made
Terese, Wallen,
of
Sui Juris,
expressly not a citizen of the United
citizen"), and
Plaintiff in the above entitled
matter (hereinafter "Plaintiff"), to present to the Chief Justice of the Justice
United States designate
qualified judge
a certificate and
assign
of necessity that the Chief
temporarily
a
competent
and
from the Court of International Trade to perform
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadjudge.htm (1 of 8) [4/8/2007 2:17:15 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadjudge
judicial duties States.
in this
See 28
honorable District
U.S.C. 293,
296, 297,
Court of the United
461(b);
also Evans v.
Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920) (never overturned).
Notice & Demand for Temporary Assignment of Article III Judge: Page 1 of 7
The authority apparent to
is particularly
Plaintiff, because
Counsel of
Record has
States District either an time.
in Evans
Article I
In this
is
Her, that all sitting United
America are
appointed
to
serve
in
or in an Article IV capacity at the present
capacity, said
immunity which
It
of exhaustive research which Her
shared with
Judges in
poignant.
Judges do not enjoy the explicit
is found in Article III, Section 1 ("3:1") of the
Constitution for
the
United
States
of
America,
as
lawfully
amended (hereinafter "U.S. Constitution"), to wit: The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. [U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 1] [emphasis added]
Plaintiff submits Judges do
of the
major reasons
why said
not enjoy the explicit immunity at 3:1 is the doctrine
of territorial Cracking the on the
that one
heterogeneity.
Confer
in
The
Federal
Zone:
Code of Internal Revenue, Fourth Edition, available
Internet via the Alta Vista search engine;
see also U.S.
v. Lopez, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995): Each of these [schools] now has an invisible federal zone [sic] extending 1,000 feet beyond the (often irregular) boundaries of the school property. [emphasis added]
Here, the U.S. Supreme Court utilized this term as a common noun, without any
citations or footnotes.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadjudge.htm (2 of 8) [4/8/2007 2:17:15 PM]
The doctrine of territorial
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadjudge
heterogeneity,
as
such,
Conclusions of
The Federal
is
summarized
Zone:
as
follows
in
the
Cracking the Code of Internal
Revenue, to wit:
Notice & Demand for Temporary Assignment of Article III Judge: Page 2 of 7
In exercising its exclusive authority over the federal zone, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations that exist inside the 50 States. For this reason, the areas that are inside and outside the federal zone are heterogeneous with respect to each other. This difference results in a principle of territorial heterogeneity: the areas within the federal zone are subject to one set of rules; the areas without (or outside) the federal zone are subject to a different set of rules. The Constitution rules outside the zone and inside the 50 States. The Congress rules inside the zone and outside the 50 States. The 50 States are, therefore, in one general class, because all constitutional restraints upon Congress are in force throughout the 50 States, without prejudice to any one State. The areas within the federal zone are in a different general class, because these same constitutional restraints simply do not limit Congress inside that zone. [The Federal Zone, electronic Fifth Edition, Conclusions]
In the
pivotal case
(1901), which
of Downes
is discussed
v. Bidwell,
at several
182
places in
U.S.
244
the book
The
Federal Zone supra, the U.S. Supreme Court established a doctrine whereby the not extend
Constitution of
and under
beyond the it.
the "United
limits of
States", as such, does
the States which are united by
This doctrine of territorial heterogeneity is now
commonly identified as the "Downes Doctrine." This doctrine has been reinforced by subsequent decisions of the U.S.
Supreme Court, notably, the case of Hooven & Allison v.
Evatt, 324
U.S. 652
the guarantees only as United
of the
Congress has States
(1945), in
which the high Court ruled that
Constitution extend made those
District
Courts
guarantees
to the
are
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadjudge.htm (3 of 8) [4/8/2007 2:17:15 PM]
federal zone
applicable.
currently
established
The by
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadjudge
Congress
as
territorial
constitutional authority
(federal
zone)
emanating from
courts,
Article IV,
with
Section 3,
Clause 2, to wit: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needed Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; .... [U.S. Constitution, Art. 4, Sec. 3, Cl. 2, emphasis added]
Notice & Demand for Temporary Assignment of Article III Judge: Page 3 of 7
Plaintiff wishes United States, Court of
to litigate
and against
case
thru 99,
in an
Does 1
Her civil
competent jurisdiction.
invoke the several
the
Article III
particular, She wishes to
judicial power of the United States of America, among
reasons,
in
withholding the lawful and and to
In
against
order
to
enjoin
agency records
the
Defendant(s)
from
which Plaintiff has requested in
proper requests under the Freedom of Information Act,
order the
production of
withheld from Plaintiff.
any agency
records
improperly
See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B), to wit:
On complaint, the district court of the United States ... has jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant. [5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B)] [emphasis added]
For the previous
convenience of
Federal
NOTICE Rules
reference as
AND of
Judge Kozinski, DEMAND
Evidence
if set
FOR
Plaintiff attaches
MANDATORY
201(d),
and
forth fully herein.
JUDICIAL
incorporates
Her
NOTICE: it
by
Said NOTICE AND DEMAND
summarizes some of the outstanding FOIA requests in this case. In order
for this
Plaintiff's fundamental do so,
this honorable
case
to
proceed
Right under
forward,
and
it
is
the Fifth Amendment that it
Court must be seated with a competent and
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadjudge.htm (4 of 8) [4/8/2007 2:17:15 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadjudge
qualified Judge
who is
controls whatsoever.
not subject This
to
any
means, among
outside
executive
other things,
that an
Article III judge must be designated and temporarily appointed to preside over
the instant case, who is not a "taxpayer" and whose
integrity and
independence from
all other
governments and
all
other government branches are unassailable and beyond question.
Notice & Demand for Temporary Assignment of Article III Judge: Page 4 of 7
Plaintiff hereby objects strenuously to the existence of any contract, either in fact,
verbal or
between any
Judge and
written, either expressed or implied
currently seated
the "Internal
controlling interests,
United
Revenue Service" on grounds
States
[sic]
of conflicts
or
District any
other
of interest.
A
completed "IRS" Form 1040 is an expressed, written contract. Plaintiff
is
independent and
assigns, or
the
fundamental
unbiased judiciary.
The existence other branch
guaranteed
See
right
Evans v.
Gore supra,
an
Gore supra.
of a
contract between the presiding Judge and any
of the
federal government, or any of its agencies,
instrumentalities, is
evidence
of
a
conflict
interest and proof of a dependent and biased judiciary. v. Kelley,
to
of
See Lord
240 F.Supp. 167, 169 (1965) and compare with Evans v. to measure
how far our civilization has degenerated
under the Downes Doctrine.
This honorable Court will please take
formal judicial
the holding
notice of
and the
dicta in Evans,
which case proves that American courts have an obligation to rule on matters
which properly
come before them.
Plaintiff's NOTICE
AND DEMAND, as made herein, now comes properly before You, Sir.
REMEDY REQUESTED
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadjudge.htm (5 of 8) [4/8/2007 2:17:15 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadjudge
Wherefore, Plaintiff
hereby makes
this formal
Demand upon
You, Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: (1) to
prepare and
present to
the Chief
Justice
of
the
United States
a certificate
designate and
assign temporarily a competent and qualified judge
from the
of necessity that the Chief Justice
Court of International Trade to perform judicial duties
in this honorable District Court of the United States; (2) to file said certificate in the official Court record of the instant case; (3) to
and
serve said
certificate on
all interested
parties.
See PROOF OF SERVICE infra.
Notice & Demand for Temporary Assignment of Article III Judge: Page 5 of 7
NOTICE OF DEADLINE Plaintiff hereby demands that the above requested remedy be granted no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 11, 1996. Time is of the essence.
Thank you very much for your consideration. That is all for now.
Executed on August 28, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, Counselor at Law and Counsel of Record
Notice & Demand for Temporary Assignment of Article III Judge: Page 6 of 7 http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadjudge.htm (6 of 8) [4/8/2007 2:17:15 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadjudge
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila
Terese,
penalty of
Wallen,
perjury, under
Sui
Juris,
the laws
of
hereby the
certify,
United
under
States
of
America, without the "United States," that I am at least 18 years of age,
a Citizen
of one
of the
United States of America, and
that I personally served the following document(s): NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT OF A JUDGE OF THE COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE TO PRESIDE OVER THIS DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: 28 U.S.C. 293, 296, 297, 461(b) by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United
States Mail,
with
postage
prepaid
and
properly
addressed to the following:
Office of the U.S. Attorney 110 South Church, Suite 8310 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE
Chief Judge 9th Circuit Court of Appeals P.O. Box 193939 San Francisco, California
William D. Browning, Doe No. 1 44 East Broadway Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE
JOELYN D. MARLOWE [sic] 110 South Church, Suite 8310 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE
Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Chief Justice United States Supreme Court 1 First Street, N.E. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Judge Alex Kozinski 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 125 South Grand Ave., Ste. 200 Pasadena [zip code exempt] CALIFORNIA STATE
Executed on August 28, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen __________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadjudge.htm (7 of 8) [4/8/2007 2:17:15 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadjudge
Notice & Demand for Temporary Assignment of Article III Judge: Page 7 of 7
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadjudge.htm (8 of 8) [4/8/2007 2:17:15 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : feeobj
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona Under Protest, Necessity, and by Special Visitation Only
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Sheila Terese, Wallen, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________)
COMES NOW
Sheila Terese,
state and
Defendant in
Case No. 95-484-WDB NOTICE OF FORMAL OBJECTION TO TRANSCRIPT FEE IMPOSED
Wallen, Sui the above
Juris, Citizen of Arizona
entitled matter
(hereinafter
"Defendant"), formally to object to the $460 fee imposed upon the Defendant to
obtain a
merely because
transcript of
She was
have Court-appointed transcript. there would
evidentiary
hearing,
proceding In Propria Persona and did not
Counsel at
Defendant was have been
Defendant been
the
the
told by
no charge
represented by
time
She
the Court
for said
requested
transcriber that
transcript, had
Court-appointed
said
Counsel.
the This
practice is blatantly discriminatory against litigants proceeding In Propria
Persona and
direct violation in
the
year
without Bar
of the 1819
licensed representation, in
when
original Thirteenth Amendment, ratified Virginia
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/feeobj.htm (1 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:17:15 PM]
voted
to
amend
the
U.S.
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : feeobj
Notice of Formal Objection to Transcript Fee Imposed: Page 1 of 3
Constitution with Haynes v.
same.
FOR THE
Kerner, 404
See also Full Faith and Credit Clause; U.S. 519;
Defendant's NOTICE AND DEMAND
RIGHT TO ENJOY THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL OF CHOICE;
Defendant's MEMORANDUM
OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES
DEFENDANT'S
CHALLENGE
TO
JURISDICTION
FUNDAMENTAL
GUARANTEE
FOR
EFFECTIVE
already filed for Her
in the instant case.
objections to
exercising Her Counsel.
question, for
FOR
IN SUPPORT OF VIOLATING
ASSISTANCE
OF
THE
COUNSEL,
Defendant is being penalized
ineffective assistance of Counsel and for
fundamental
If She
and
had been
Right
to
effective
unable to
whatever reason,
assistance
obtain the
She would
not
of
transcript in
have
been
able
adequately to prepare an effective defense in the instant case.
Executed on July 22, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state and Counselor at Law and federal witness All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Notice of Formal Objection to Transcript Fee Imposed: Page 2 of 3
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila penalty of
Terese,
Wallen,
perjury, under
Sui
Juris,
the laws
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/feeobj.htm (2 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:17:15 PM]
of
hereby the
certify,
United
under
States
of
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : feeobj
America, without of age
the United
States, that I am at least 18 years
and a Citizen of one of the United States of America, and
that I personally served the following document: NOTICE OF FORMAL OBJECTION TO TRANSCRIPT FEE IMPOSED by placing
said document
in first class U.S. Mail, with postage
prepaid and properly addressed to the following individuals:
Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 Tucson [85701] ARIZONA STATE
[hand-delivered]
Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Dated:
July 22, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen ________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Notice of Formal Objection to Transcript Fee Imposed: Page 3 of 3
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/feeobj.htm (3 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:17:15 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : notintnt
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Sheila Terese, Wallen,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) United States, ) William D. Browning, ) and Does 2-99, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________)
COMES NOW
Sheila Terese,
state and
Plaintiff in
Case No. 95-484-TUC NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT AGAINST WILLIAM D. BROWNING 28 U.S.C. 372(c); Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 201(d)
Wallen, Sui the above
Juris, Citizen of Arizona
entitled matter
(hereinafter
"Plaintiff"), to provide formal Notice to all interested parties, and respectfully Rule 201(d)
to request
of the
formal judicial Notice, pursuant to
Federal Rules of Evidence, of Her intent, as
expressed herein, to file a Complaint of Judicial Misconduct with the Clerk,
United States
Court of Appeals, c/o P.O. Box 193939,
San Francisco, California Republic, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 372(c), for gross case of
judicial misconduct UNITED STATES
[sic], Case
by Mr. William D. Browning in the
OF AMERICA
Number 95-484-TUC,
[sic] v. SHEILA TERESE WALLEN
United
District of Arizona, Tucson.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/notintnt.htm (1 of 4) [4/8/2007 2:17:16 PM]
States
District
Court,
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : notintnt
Notice of Intent to File Complaint of Judicial Misconduct: Page 1 of 3
Pursuant to
28 U.S.C.
Misconduct shall
be filed
States Court
of Appeals
the District
Court of
Arizona (Tucson), Court, District
372(c), said with:
Complaint of
(1) the
Clerk of
Judicial the United
for the Ninth Circuit, (2) the Clerk of the United
(3) the of Arizona
States, Judicial
Clerk of
the United
(Tucson),
and
(4)
District of
States District all
interested
parties, on or after Monday, September 2, 1996, in order to allow the deadline to expire on Plaintiff's FINAL NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR PROOF OF
POWER, STANDING,
(hereinafter "FINAL p.m. on
AND JURISDICTION
NOTICE AND DEMAND").
Friday, August
30, 1996.
IN THE
PARTICULARS
Said deadline was 5:00
See attached courtesy copy of
Plaintiff's FINAL NOTICE AND DEMAND.
Executed on August 29, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen ________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell ________________________________ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, Counselor at Law, and Counsel of Record
Notice of Intent to File Complaint of Judicial Misconduct: Page 2 of 3
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila
Terese,
penalty of
Wallen,
perjury, under
Sui
Juris,
the laws
of
hereby the
certify,
United
under
States
of
America, without the "United States," that I am at least 18 years of age,
a Citizen
of one
of the
United States of America, and
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/notintnt.htm (2 of 4) [4/8/2007 2:17:16 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : notintnt
that I personally served the following document(s): NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT AGAINST WILLIAM D. BROWNING: 28 U.S.C. 372(c); Federal Rules of Evidence 201(d) by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United
States Mail,
with
postage
prepaid
and
properly
addressed to the following:
Office of the U.S. Attorney 110 South Church, Suite 8310 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE
Chief Judge 9th Circuit Court of Appeals P.O. Box 193939 San Francisco, California
William D. Browning, Doe No. 1 44 East Broadway Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE
JOELYN D. MARLOWE [sic] 110 South Church, Suite 8310 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE
Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Chief Justice United States Supreme Court 1 First Street, N.E. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Judge Alex Kozinski 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 125 South Grand Ave., Ste. 200 Pasadena [zip code exempt] CALIFORNIA STATE
Executed on August 29, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen __________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Notice of Intent to File Complaint of Judicial Misconduct: Page 3 of 3
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/notintnt.htm (3 of 4) [4/8/2007 2:17:16 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : notintnt
U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/notintnt.htm (4 of 4) [4/8/2007 2:17:16 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jdcompla
COMPLAINT FORM JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT AND DISABILITY
MAIL THIS FORM TO THE CLERK, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, P.O. BOX 193939, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94119-3939/tdc. MARK THE ENVELOPE "JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT" OR "JUDICIAL DISABILITY COMPLAINT". DO NOT PUT THE NAME OF THE JUDGE OR MAGISTRATE ON THE ENVELOPE.
SEE RULE 2(e) FOR THE NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED FOR FILING.
1.
2.
3.
Complainant's name: Paul Andrew, Mitchell Address:
c/o 2509 North Campbell Avenue, #1776 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE
Daytime telephone:
[redacted] (leave message on voice mail)
Judge or magistrate complained about: Name:
William D. Browning United States District Judge
Court:
United States District Court Tucson, Arizona state
Does this complaint concern the behavior of the magistrate in a particular lawsuit or lawsuits? ( X ) Yes
(
judge or
) No
If "yes" give the following information about each lawsuit (use the reverse side if there is more than one): Court:
United States District Court
Docket Number:
95-484-TUC
Are (were) you a party or lawyer in the lawsuit? (
) Party
If party, give the your Counsel:
( X ) Counsel name, address,
(
) Neither and telephone number of
n/a
Judicial Complaint Against William D. Browning: Page 1 of 6 http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jdcompla.htm (1 of 12) [4/8/2007 2:17:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jdcompla
Docket numbers of any appeals to the Ninth Circuit: Notice of appeal was filed before trial, but Mr. Browning refused to stay the trial, and ruled that Notice of Appeal could not be processed until after sentencing. Defendant Sheila Wallen objected timely.
4.
Have you filed any lawsuits against the judge or magistrate? (
) Yes
( X ) No
(Client has, however.)
If yes, give the following information about each lawsuit (use the reverse side if there is more than one): Court:
District Court of the United States Judicial District of Arizona
Present status of suit: My client, Sheila Terese Wallen, served Formal Notice and Demand upon Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, to prepare and present to the Chief Justice of the United States a certificate of necessity that the Chief Justice designate and assign temporarily a competent and qualified judge from the Court of International Trade to perform judicial duties in the District Court of the United States, pursuant to authorities in 28 U.S.C. 293, 296, 297, 461(b), and Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920). Her action cannot proceed without a competent and qualified judge to sit on the District Court of the United States. Name, address, and telephone number of your Counsel: n/a Court to which any appeal has been taken: (see above) Docket number of appeal: none Present status of appeal: none
5.
On separate sheets of paper, no larger than the paper this form is printed on, describe the conduct or the evidence of disability that is the subject of this complaint. See rule 2(b) and 2(d). Do not use more than 5 pages (5 sides). Most complaints do not require that much. see attached
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jdcompla.htm (2 of 12) [4/8/2007 2:17:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jdcompla
Judicial Complaint Against William D. Browning: Page 2 of 6
6.
You should either: (1)
check the first box below and sign this form in the presence of a notary public; or
(2)
check the second box and sign the form. You do not need a notary public if you check the second box.
( )
I swear (affirm) that --
(X)
I declare under penalty of perjury -I have read rules 1 and 2 of the Rules of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct or Disability, and the statement made in this complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell ________________________________________________ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, and Counselor at Law All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice Executed on:
September 16, 1996
email:
[email protected]
website:
http://supremelaw.com
copies:
Judge Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit U.S. Marshals, Tucson, Arizona Federal Bureau of Investigation, Tucson, Arizona Attorney General, State of Arizona Governor Fife Symington, State of Arizona Sheila Terese Wallen, Arivaca, Arizona state
Judicial Complaint Against William D. Browning: Page 3 of 6
Attachment to Complaint of Judicial Misconduct 1.
Mr. Browning agreed -- before trial, on record, and before a gallery of witnesses -- to guarantee all of Sheila Wallen's fundamental Rights during said trial. He then refused to allow Her to enjoy the assistance of Her Counsel of Choice, by ordering Mr. Paul Andrew Mitchell to the back seat of the
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jdcompla.htm (3 of 12) [4/8/2007 2:17:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jdcompla
gallery, where Mr. Mitchell was forced to stay during the entire course of the trial and was prevented by U.S. Marshals from communicating with Miss Wallen. Mr. Mitchell was allowed to speak with Miss Wallen only during recess periods. Mr. Browning had been previously briefed, in detail, as to the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court in Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 468 (1938), which held that a criminal defendant is entitled to the assistance of Counsel at every step in the proceedings, and if the trial court fails to ensure that this assistance is available at every step in the proceedings, then the trial court ousts itself of jurisdiction. Mr. Browning did not care about this Supreme Court precedent; Mr. Browning does not believe that U.S. Supreme Court decisions have any legal significance. Denial of effective assistance of Counsel is a criminal deprivation of a fundamental Right under color of law, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 242, and perjury of oath, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1621. In My opinion, this matter is serious enough to be brought to the attention of a qualified federal grand jury, one whose members are chosen randomly from a pool that includes State Citizens too, not just federal citizens. 2.
When presented with an Affidavit of Circumstances Surrounding the Arrest of Sheila Wallen, and also with a comprehensive Motion to Stay Proceedings pending final resolution of Sheila Wallen's challenge to the constitutionality of the Jury Selection and Service Act, complete with a very detailed Sworn Statement of facts supporting said Motion, Mr. Browning received these pleadings at approximately 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday afternoon, July 17, 1996; Mr. Browning then ruled on these pleadings, wrote his Order on the same day, placed his Order in U.S. Mail, and it was delivered to Sheila Wallen's post office 70 miles away in Arivaca, Arizona, by 11:00 a.m. the following morning, Thursday, July 18, 1996. It was impossible for Mr. Browning to have read all of these pleadings in such an extremely short period of time. Furthermore, Mr. Browning's Order ruled that Wallen's Affidavit was hearsay, and that there was nothing in the Stay Motion and accompanying Sworn Statement of any legal significance, despite the fact that the latter pleadings contained numerous authorities and rulings by the United States Supreme Court. For example, see U.S. v. Mason, 412 U.S. 391, 399-400 (1973), to wit: nobody should be punished unnecessarily for relying upon the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Refusing to file a proper and correctly executed Affidavit violates Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 201(d), Mandatory Judicial Notice, and constitutes obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1506. Miss Wallen's Affidavit contained proof that the alleged officers of the United States proceeded criminally to trespass upon Wallen's private property without a valid warrant to search and seize said property, and to arrest Her without a valid warrant for Her arrest. This Affidavit also contained material evidence which proves the lack of jurisdiction of the United States District Court over which Mr. Browning presided, since a warrant was absolutely necessary to execute the search, seizure & arrest in the first instance; without said warrants, Browning's
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jdcompla.htm (4 of 12) [4/8/2007 2:17:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jdcompla
court was denied jurisdiction over the subject matter. See Rule C of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims. This Affidavit also contains evidence of threats, duress, extortion, and coercion by said alleged agents of the United States, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. 872 (extortion), making Mr. Browning an accessory to all of these crimes after the fact, in violation 18 U.S.C. 3. This matter should be brought before a competent and qualified federal grand jury.
Judicial Complaint Against William D. Browning: Page 4 of 6
3.
As of 5:00 p.m. on Friday, August 30, 1996, Mr. Browning had failed to answer Wallen's Final Notice and Demand for Proof of Power, Standing, and Jurisdiction in the Particulars. His failure to do so is competent evidence that neither he, nor the court over which he was presiding, had any criminal jurisdiction whatsoever to proceed over the case before him. Specifically, Miss Wallen demanded: (1) proof that the alleged U.S. Attorneys who were prosecuting Her had powers of attorney to represent the Plaintiff "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"; (2) proof of the statutory, regulatory, and constitutional authority which grants legal standing to the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" to bring a criminal action before a "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT"; and (3) proof of the statutory, regulatory, and constitutional authority which grants jurisdiction to a "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT" as opposed to a "DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES" to hear a criminal case against a Union State Citizen when the alleged crime was committed inside the state zone and outside the federal zone. It is a principle of law that, once challenged, the one asserting jurisdiction must prove that jurisdiction exists as a matter of law. The proponent of a rule carries the burden of proving its application in the instant case. See 5 U.S.C. 556(d). For judicial support of this principle, see in particular the following cases: Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533; Griffin v. Matthews, 310 F.Supp. 341, 423 F.2d 272; McNutt vs. G.M., 56 S.Ct. 789, 80 L.Ed 1135; Basso vs. U.P.L., 495 F.2d 906; Thomson vs Gaskiel, 62 S.Ct. 673, 83 L.Ed 111; Albrecht vs. U.S., 273 U.S. 1; Louisville R.R. v. Motley, 211 U.S. 149, 29 S.Ct. 42. Proceeding without jurisdiction, particularly after a formal notice and demand for proof of jurisdiction have been completely ignored, is a criminal denial of due process of law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and 18 U.S.C. 242. This matter should be brought before a competent and qualified federal grand jury.
Judicial Complaint Against William D. Browning: Page 5 of 6
4.
Mr. Browning also "DENIED" two pleadings by Miss Wallen filed in the form of a Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice, pursuant to Rule 201(d) of the Federal
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jdcompla.htm (5 of 12) [4/8/2007 2:17:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jdcompla
Rules of Evidence. A federal judge has absolutely no discretion in the matter of mandatory judicial notice. The rule itself is very clear on this point: "when MANDATORY." Refusing to file material evidence, and proper and correctly executed demands for mandatory judicial notice of said evidence, violates Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 201(d), Mandatory Judicial Notice, and constitutes obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1506. Miss Wallen was forced to refuse Mr. Browning's DENIAL Order for fraud. The proper method for excluding said evidence is for the opposing party to move the court to strike the evidence; this was not done by the opposing party, or by any of their officers, agents, or employees. Claiming to have "DENIED" Miss Wallen's Notices and Demands for Mandatory Judicial Notice, absent a proper Motion to Strike by the opposing party, is proof that Mr. Browning engaged in the practice of law, a high misdemeanor in violation of 28 U.S.C. 454. This matter should be brought before a competent and qualified federal grand jury. 5.
Criminal conduct by a United States District Judge, while presiding over any case, whether it be civil or criminal, is conduct which is prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the federal courts. "No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution." Harlan dissenting in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), emphasis added. A competent and qualified federal grand jury should be given the opportunity to investigate probable criminal conduct by William D. Browning in this case, and in others of which I am aware.
Judicial Complaint Against William D. Browning: Page 6 of 6
c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE July 25, 1996 Mr. William D. Browning 44 East Broadway Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE Re:
U.S.A. v. Wallen, Case No. 95-484-WDB
CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE AND DEMAND
Dear Mr. Browning: I am Citizen of Arizona state, a Counselor at Law, and a part-time student of comparative economic history. I recently http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jdcompla.htm (6 of 12) [4/8/2007 2:17:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jdcompla
had a lawful contract obligation to attend a court trial over which you presided. That obligation arose from a contract for consideration paid in lawful money, i.e. silver dollars. During that trial, the question of your authority was raised, and you answered that your authority was the Constitution and laws of the United States. It is My understanding that the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended, contains a provision which prevents federal officers from impairing the obligation of contracts. This provision is in the Constitution as published in federal depository libraries, and in the official law books upon which district courts rely for conclusive evidence of the Law. This Constitution clearly forbids titles of nobility. See Article I, Section 10, Clause 1. It is My contention, based on diligent research, that any license is construed by American courts to be a title of nobility, which is forbidden by this provision. However, no penalties were mentioned by this provision and it is for this reason, I believe, that no penalties currently attach to the exercise of licenses issued by the state and federal governments. It was the lack of penalties which motivated Congress to cure this oversight with a proposal to amend the Constitution with penalties for exercising titles of nobility. My research has also uncovered a constitutional amendment, ratified by the Union states in the year 1819, which penalizes the exercise of titles of nobility with a forfeiture of citizenship and with a disqualification from ever serving in any public office in America (see attached). This Amendment is the main reason why I am not now a licensed bar member, and have no intention of ever becoming a licensed bar member, because I do not want to forfeit My Arizona state Citizenship, and I would like to serve in public office some day.
Constructive Notice and Demand: Page 1 of 4
This Amendment supersedes any state "practice of law" statutes, pursuant to the Supremacy Clause, to the extent that those statutes require the exercise of any titles of nobility. Moreover, with or without this Amendment, it is My opinion that membership in a bar association would require that I violate not only My personal code of conduct, but also numerous provisions in the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended, including but not limited to the Sixth and Tenth Amendments, and other laws of the United States, including but not limited to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Such membership prevents me from diligently protecting the fundamental Rights of My clients. My first loyalty is to My Creator, to Myself, My Family, the Citizenship of My state, and then to My clients and their fundamental Right to maintain that very same loyalty. Bar membership reverses these priorities and flatly violates this loyalty, because it requires loyalty to the court, to the bar, to public policy contrary to the Constitution, http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jdcompla.htm (7 of 12) [4/8/2007 2:17:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jdcompla
and lastly to My clients, in that order. violate the doctrine of separation of importantly, My clients' fundamental Rights.
These powers
priorities and, more
Accordingly, I have the following important questions for you, sir: Was the original Thirteenth Amendment a provision in the Constitution which you took an oath to support, or was it not? Under rules of equity, I assert My fundamental Right to know what provisions are in the Constitution which you took an oath to support. This is matter of your contract with Me. If you have ever exercised a title of nobility in America, e.g. esquire, lawyer, attorney, Honor, then the original Thirteenth Amendment is a constitutional authority which has disqualified you from ever serving in the office of federal judge, is it not? Judges occupy public offices, do they not? I am asking this question specifically because of your decisions to bar me from assisting My client, Sheila Terese Wallen, at all times during Her recent criminal trial on charges of illegal marijuana possession with intent to distribute same. In fact, you ordered me to the back row of the gallery, with U.S. Marshals standing between Me and My client, preventing any communication with My client. If you have, in fact, taken an oath to support the Constitution, and the administrative record does appear to support this fact, does that Constitution not also contain a provision which bars you from impairing the obligation of contracts? See Contracts Clause. I had a lawful contract with Sheila Terese Wallen, and you impaired that contract. My contract with Sheila was predicated upon My belief that your oath of office placed you in a valid contract with Me. By what specific lawful authority do you claim any Right to impair the obligations of My contract with Sheila Terese Wallen? If you are upholding the U.S. Constitution, then My contract with Her is valid and enforceable, under rules of equity, and you are forbidden from doing anything to impair that contract.
Constructive Notice and Demand: Page 2 of 4
I will look forward to your timely response to this letter. If I do not hear from you in writing within ten (10) working days from the date of this letter, I will proceed on the basis of the conclusive presumption that the original Thirteenth Amendment was not in the Constitution which you took an oath to support. I will stipulate that your oath predates the publication of recent research proving that the original Thirteenth Amendment has been well hidden from public knowledge (i.e. fraud). Nevertheless, the original Thirteenth Amendment was lawfully ratified, pursuant to Article V. This ratification has been proven conclusively. Therefore, you
are now
in
the
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jdcompla.htm (8 of 12) [4/8/2007 2:17:17 PM]
wrong
contract
with
the
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jdcompla
American People, because the Constitution which you took an oath to support does not contain the original Thirteenth Amendment, as evidenced by the Constitution as it was published in federal depository libraries, and as it was published in the official law books upon which district courts relied for conclusive evidence of the Law, on the day you took your original oath of office. Furthermore, you are disqualified from serving as a federal judge for these and other reasons, because you have exercised one or more titles of nobility or honor (e.g. "Honor", "Esquire") since ratification of that Amendment. The original Thirteenth Amendment does not contain any provisions for curing such a disability or regaining your Citizenship. Your only defense now is that you, too, were victimized by fraudulent concealment of this Amendment, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001. Whether or not the original Thirteenth Amendment was a provision in the Constitution which you took an oath to support, the Contracts Clause has been in the organic U.S. Constitution since its original ratification. You, sir, simply cannot impair the Right of Contract, pursuant to an explicit prohibition which is in that Constitution. One last point: when exactly did the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court become "hearsay," without any legal significance? You ruled as such on July 17, 1996, in Sheila's case. I really would like to know, for reasons which should be obvious to anyone who claims to be a federal judge with expertise in federal law. Are these decisions which you heard Supreme Court Justices say? Does that make them "hearsay", in your opinion? If not, then what does? Before I take any remedial action on this point, I must have your explanation for what now appears to be gross judicial misconduct on your part. If you wish to rebut the presumptions which I have presented to you in this letter, then please do so. I would welcome them, sincerely. For the record, I am presenting these facts and laws to you, pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1986. Thank you very much for your careful consideration, and I will look forward to your timely response to this CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE AND DEMAND, before 10 days transpire.
Constructive Notice and Demand: Page 3 of 4
Respectfully yours, /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state and federal witness All Rights Reserved without Prejudice email:
[email protected]
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jdcompla.htm (9 of 12) [4/8/2007 2:17:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jdcompla
website:
http://supremelaw.com
copies:
Clerk of Court Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Judge Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit Joelyn Marlowe, Esquire U.S. Marshal's office Federal Bureau of Investigation
Constructive Notice and Demand: Page 4 of 4
MEMO TO:
Cathy A. Catterson Clerk of Court Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals P.O. Box 193939 San Francisco, California state
FROM:
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Counselor at Law
DATE:
March 14, 1997
SUBJECT:
Complaint of Judicial Misconduct No. #96-80337 against William D. Browning, USDC, Tucson
Please incorporate this letter, My attached letter to USDC Judge William D. Browning dated July 25, 1996, and My Notice of Intent to File a Criminal Complaint dated September 20, 1996, into the docket file which has been assigned judicial misconduct complaint number #96-80337 against Judge Browning. Because I have heard absolutely nothing from the Ninth Circuit, or from any other government personnel in this matter, I respectfully request some action on this complaint, which is now six months old. As I have already written in a previous letter to you, inquiring about the unexplained delay(s) in processing My judicial complaint against John M. Roll, the Chief Judge is required to give such complaints his expeditious attention. I do not think you could find anyone in America to preside on a jury who would conclude that one-half year is expeditious. Do you?
Sincerely yours, /s/ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Counselor at Law and federal witness c/o 2509 N. Campbell Avenue, #1776 Tucson, Arizona state email:
[email protected]
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jdcompla.htm (10 of 12) [4/8/2007 2:17:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jdcompla
website:
http://supremelaw.com
copy:
Procter Hug, Chief Judge
p.s. Please have someone tell Judge Browning to stop picking his nose during court proceedings.
#
#
#
c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE September 20, 1996
NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST WILLIAM D. BROWNING
Clerk of Court United States District Court 55 East Broadway Tucson, Arizona state Subject:
Criminal Complaint against Mr. William D. Browning
Dear Clerk: This is My formal Notice of Intent to File a Criminal Complaint against Mr. William D. Browning, currently employed by the United States federal government, for criminal misconduct described in the attached Judicial Complaint form which has already been transmitted to the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (see attached). Please notify Notice of Intent.
the
appropriate
person(s)
of
NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS.
this
NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS IS NOTICE TO AGENTS. Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely yours, /s/ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness and Counselor at Law All Rights Reserved without Prejudice http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jdcompla.htm (11 of 12) [4/8/2007 2:17:17 PM]
formal
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jdcompla
email:
[email protected]
website:
http://supremelaw.com
copies:
Governor Fife Symington, Tucson, Arizona Attorney General, State of Arizona, Tucson Attorney General, United States, Washington, D.C. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Tucson, Arizona Judicial Conduct Commission, State of Arizona, Phoenix Clerk, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, San Francisco Clerk, U.S. Supreme Court, Washington, D.C. Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. President, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jdcompla.htm (12 of 12) [4/8/2007 2:17:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : index
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases
Index by Case Names Table of Contents 1. MITCHELL v. AOL TIME WARNER, INC. et al., District Court of the United States, Sacramento 2. MITCHELL v. AOL TIME WARNER, INC. et al., Superior Court of California, San Diego 3. STATE OF ARIZONA v. PAUL ANDREW MITCHELL 4. U.S.A. v. PETER BELLUCCI 5. BENSON v. BENTSEN [draft] 6. PEOPLE OF THE CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC v. REP. BARBARA BOXER 7. U.S.A. v. MARY ELIZABETH BRODERICK et al. 8. In Re CHARGE OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT by JUDGE WILLIAM D. BROWNING 9. In Re BANKRUPTCY OF DR. AND MRS. EUGENE A. BURNS 10. GEORGE W. BUSH v. PALM BEACH CANVASSING BOARD 11. CHRIS CASE v. PIER HOUSE JOINT VENTURE 12. STATE OF ARIZONA v. DAREN JAMES DEAN 13. DIXIANNE HAWKS v. COUNTY OF BUTTE et al. 14. U.S.A. v. DANA DUDLEY et al. 15. U.S.A. v. EVERETT C. GILBERTSON 16. PEOPLE v. UNITED STATES et al., Billings, Montana 17. PEOPLE v. UNITED STATES et al., Fort Davis, Texas 18. PEOPLE v. UNITED STATES et al. (intervention briefs) 19. U.S.A. v. LEROY M. SCHWEITZER (Butte, Montana) 20. SELECTED WORKS OF JOHN E. TRUMANE 21. STATE OF ALABAMA v. WILLIAM MICHAEL KEMP
http://supremelaw.org/cc/index.htm (1 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:17:18 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : index
22. KARL FRANK KLEINPASTE v. UNITED STATES et al. 23. U.S.A. v. VANCE E. KNUDSON 24. U.S.A. v. BARRIE and SUSANNE KONICOV 25. U.S.A. v. RUSSELL DEAN LANDERS 26. U.S.A. v. WILLIAM NEAL LANTER 27. U.S.A. v. FLOYD RAYMOND LOOKER 28. In Re PAUL ANDREW MITCHELL FOIA REQUEST 29. In Re GRAND JURY SUBPOENA SERVED ON NEW LIFE HEALTH CENTER COMPANY 30. In Re BANKRUPTCY OF NEW LIFE HEALTH CENTER COMPANY 31. MITCHELL v. NEIL AND EVELYN NORDBROCK 32. In Re GRAND JURY SUBPOENA SERVED ON IRWIN HEIL PAUGH 33. U.S.A. v. CHARLES R. PIXLEY 34. PEOPLE v. PIMA COUNTY CONSOLIDATED JUSTICE COURT 35. In Re CHARGE OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT BY JUDGE JOHN M. ROLL 36. In Re CHARGE OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT BY JUDGE WILLIAM B. SHUBB 37. In Re CHARGE OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT BY MAGISTRATE DALE A. DROZD 38. SWAN BUSINESS ORGANIZATION v. LEON ULAN et al. 39. In Re BANKRUPTCY OF FIFE SYMINGTON III 40. STATE OF ARIZONA v. CHARLES LEVIS TAYLOR 41. U.S.A. v. LEROY M. SCHWEITZER (Billings, Montana) 42. U.S.A. v. NORMAN LEON VROMAN 43. U.S.A. v. SHEILA TERESE WALLEN 44. ARIZONA v. JANET MARY WALLEN 45. MITCHELL v. CITY OF SAN MARCOS et al. 46. DIME SAVINGS BANK, FSB v. ANNETTE K. HAND et al. 47. U.S.A. v. ROBERT McKENDRICK et al. 48. PEOPLE v. TUCSON 49. U.S.A. v. JEROME T. SCHIEFEN
http://supremelaw.org/cc/index.htm (2 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:17:18 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : index
50. U.S.A. v. WILLIAM R. BARNES 51. U.S.A. v. DONALD E. WISHART 52. DONALD E. WISHART, WHISTLEBLOWER v. PAUL CAMANCHO & BRIAN WATSON 53. STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. CHARLES TIMOTHY SOWERS 54. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. VAZRIK MAKARIAN 55. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RAMONA HOLCOMBE a/k/a Mona Holcombe 56. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION 57. MEREDITH et al. v. ERATH et al. (Ninth Circuit Appeal #01-56873) 58. MEREDITH et al. v. ERATH et al. (Ninth Circuit Cross-Appeal #02-55021) 59. USA v. MEREDITH et al. (USDC #02-00372 DDP) 60. PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel. BYBEE et al. v. ERATH et al. (DCUS #SA CV 02-0382 GLT(ANx)) 61. CITY OF DES MOINES, IOWA v. ROY REHA
[Home] [Contact Us] [Library] [School] [Forum] [Subscribe] [Donate]
Common Law Copyright 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 A.D.: Supreme Law Firm email: Contact Us Last Update: December 7, 2005 A.D.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/index.htm (3 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:17:18 PM]
Supreme Law Firm
Supreme Law Firm All Rights Reserved without Prejudice Make a Donation Supreme Law Email List Support Policy
The Supreme Law Firm holds informative seminars nationwide, and maintains the Supreme Law Library. Please honor our copyrights and our trademark rights, expressly reserved above. To order printed hard copies of our classic book "The Federal Zone," click here. To order signed and embossed copies of our very popular "31 Questions and Answers about the IRS," click here.
Contact Us
We no longer provide pro bono answers to questions that arise from this website. Please read our support policy before sending email questions.
Supreme Law Library
See the Supreme Law Forum for latest Update Highlights.
Supreme Law School Supreme Law Forum
This website will provide important updates and information about our distance-learning seminars and the SupremeLaw discussion list and message archive. We also provide a vital depository in our Supreme Law Library. Be sure to bookmark and return often as we grow into a vital and essential Internet resource. Founder Paul Andrew Mitchell, an advanced systems development consultant for 35 years, has spent the past sixteen years since 1990 A.D. doing a detailed investigation of the United States Constitution, federal statute laws, and the important court cases. Writing under several pen names, Mitchell's work has reached all the way into the U.S. Supreme Court, which adopted "the federal zone" as a household word in their sweeping 1995 decision in U.S. v. Lopez. His massive book entitled "The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue" was first published in 1992, and became an instant underground success for its lucid language and indisputable legal authority. The Appendices are available, for free, right here. Mitchell has litigated important cases in State and federal courts, including the case of People v. Boxer, which established that the so-called Sixteenth Amendment was a massive fraud upon the American People. U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer fell totally silent in the face of Mitchell's pleadings in that case. He has also worked as Vice President for Legal Affairs and Counsel to an Arizona Trust, in a major confrontation with the federal government over tax administration policy, and as Counsel to a trespass and piracy victim whose legal strategy has attracted nationwide attention on the Internet. Mitchell is also the Private Attorney General in the case of People v. United States et al., filed in the Article III District Court of the United States ("DCUS") in Billings, Montana state.
http://supremelaw.org/index.htm (1 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:17:19 PM]
Supreme Law Firm
Mitchell's work blazed a courageous new trail, on first impression, in Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, Missouri. This masterpiece, in 50 pages, has now withstood the test of time and remains unchallenged, and without any known errors. Mitchell most recently re-focused his research on Title 28 -- the laws which govern the entire federal court system. His Press Release is an excellent introduction to this topic. In his copyright and trademark infringement case against AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., Mitchell has forged a comprehensive foundation and nationwide strategy for lawfully restoring the Article III District Courts of the United States. His findings are fully documented in his OPENING BRIEF, delivered to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on March 27, 2002 A.D. and his REPLY briefs. His PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI in that case was delivered to the Supreme Court of the United States on June 6, 2003 A.D. See also the companion PETITION FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS in that case. Judging from the many compliments and positive comments we have received from numerous Internet users, we have every reason to expect that the Supreme Law Library will easily become an essential resource in your list of favorite digital libraries. [Home] [Contact Us] [Library] [School ] [Forum ] [Subscribe] [Donate] Common Law Copyright: 1996-2007 A.D. Supreme Law Firm email: Contact Us Last Update: January 20, 2007 A.D.
Supreme Law Firm c/o Forwarding Agent 501 W. Broadway #A-332 San Diego 92101 CALIFORNIA, USA
http://supremelaw.org/index.htm (2 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:17:19 PM]
Supreme Law Library
Welcome to the Supreme Law Library The Supreme Law Firm provides you with crucial information. Some of the features are long, so be patient when viewing them. Please allow the browser to load the document completely.
Table of Contents Latest Additions (links in progress): ● Published Authors ●
Court Cases
●
Court Decisions
●
Letters of Correspondence
●
Press Releases and Coverage
●
Reference Works
●
General Resources
●
E-mail Archive (SLS)
●
The Federal Zone: Authentic 11th Edition
●
The Federal Zone: Appendices
●
Internet Server Activity Logs
Court Cases (initial library versions): ● State of Alabama v. William Michael Kemp ●
U.S.A. v. Looker
●
Hawks v. County of Butte
●
U.S.A. v. Wallen
●
People v. United States
●
U.S.A. v. Knudson
●
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Served on New Life Health Center Company
●
U.S.A. v. Gilbertson
http://supremelaw.org/library/index.htm (1 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:17:19 PM]
Supreme Law Library
Articles and Interviews: ● "A Cogent Summary of Federal Jurisdictions" by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (October 3, 1998) ● "The Cooper File" by William Cooper (September 1995) ●
"Esquires" by John E. Trumane (December 1995)
●
"Income Taxes and Government Fraud" An Interview with John E. Trumane, by Susan B. Anthony (April 12, 1992) "Karma and the Federal Courts" by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (November 2, 1996)
●
●
"The Kick-Back Racket: Performance Management and Recognition System" by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (October 4, 1996) "Return To Constitutional Money" by Dr. Edwin J. Vieira, Jr. (August 30, 1991)
●
"The Two United States and the Law" by Howard Freeman
●
"The Lawless Rehnquist" by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (January 28, 1997)
●
Press Releases: ● "Anthrax Vaccine Warning" by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (December 19, 1997)
●
"Congresswoman Suspected of Income Tax Evasion" by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (August 28, 1996) "Juries in Check Around the Nation" by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (July 27, 1998)
●
"State Citizens Cannot Vote" by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (November 2, 1996)
●
[Home]
[Contact Us]
[Library]
[School ]
[Forum]
[Subscribe ] [Donate ]
Common Law Copyright 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 A.D.: Supreme Law Firm email: Contact Us Last Update: December 6, 2005 A.D.
http://supremelaw.org/library/index.htm (2 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:17:19 PM]
Supreme Law School
Supreme Law School ●
Supreme Law School Registration
●
Habeas Project for Political Prisoners
●
E-mail Archives
●
Free Archive Software (QBASIC) [Home] [Contact Us] [Library] [School ] [Forum] [Subscribe] [Donate] Common Law Copyright 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 A.D.: Supreme Law Firm email: Contact Us Last Update: December 6, 2005 A.D.
http://supremelaw.org/lawschool/index.htm [4/8/2007 2:17:20 PM]
Supreme Law Forum : Notice to Users
Supreme Law Forum
Notice to Users The Supreme Law Forum is presently available in READ ONLY mode, during a period of extended database updates and routine maintenance. In addition to all previous documents, a large number of new documents have been added to the Library, for your reading and study enjoyment. We expressly reserve our Right to remove all offensive messages from the Supreme Law Forum, as time and energy permit. A huge amount of new materials have been added to this website, for the benefit of the entire nation, pro bono! Please tell everyone you know. It's all free! It's all about freedom.
Update Highlights: ● Required Credentials for United States Judges ●
10 Major U.S. Universities Fall Silent (July 16, 2003 A.D.) Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., U.S. Supreme Court docket #03-5070
●
Ninth Circuit "Robes" under Formal Investigation (July 1, 2003 A.D.) (see probable cause and authorities in re: Presidential Commissions)
●
Lloyd D. George under Formal Investigation (June 18, 2003 A.D.) ("Robe" censoring Irwin Schiff's book "The Federal Mafia")
●
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT, (May 26, 2003 A.D.) Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., U.S. Supreme Court docket #03-5070 (.doc)
●
Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al. (March 12, 2003 A.D.) Civil RICO action, Superior Court of California, San Diego County, docket #GIC807057
●
MEMO TO JUDGE ALEX KOZINSKI, (Jan. 12, 2003 A.D.) Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., Ninth Circuit appeal #02-15269 (.doc)
●
MEMO TO DISTRICT COURT CLERK, (Dec. 30, 2002 A.D.) Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., Ninth Circuit appeal #02-15269 (.doc)
●
MEMO TO CHIEF JUDGE MARY M. SCHROEDER, (Dec. 27, 2002 A.D.)
http://supremelaw.org/wwwboard/index.htm (1 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:21 PM]
Supreme Law Forum : Notice to Users
Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., Ninth Circuit 372(c) #02-89005 (.doc) ●
COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT AGAINST JUDGE WILLIAM B. SHUBB (Dec. 23, 2002 A.D.)
●
COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT AGAINST MAGISTRATE DALE A. DROZD (Jan. 11, 2002 A.D.)
●
REFUSAL OF ORDER AND MEMORANDUM FOR FRAUD AND OTHER CAUSES, BY AFFIDAVIT, Judicial Council for the Ninth Circuit, 28 U.S.C. 372(c) #02-89005 (Dec. 23, 2002 A.D.) (.doc)
●
MEMO TO CHIEF JUDGE MARY M. SCHROEDER, (Dec. 23, 2002 A.D.) Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., Ninth Circuit appeal #02-15269 (.doc)
●
DEMAND FOR IMMEDIATE RECUSAL OF ALFRED T. GOODWIN, (Dec. 20, 2002 A.D.) Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., Ninth Circuit appeal #02-15269 (.doc)
●
DEMAND FOR IMMEDIATE RECUSAL OF PROCTER HUG, (Dec. 19, 2002 A.D.) Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., Ninth Circuit appeal #02-15269 (.doc)
●
MOTION FOR INTERVENTION OF RIGHT AND APPLICATION FOR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF QUO WARRANTO, Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., Ninth Circuit appeal #02-15269 (Dec. 19, 2002 A.D.) (.doc)
●
PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENTS, Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., Ninth Circuit appeal #02-15269 (Dec. 17, 2002 A.D.) (.doc)
●
MEMORANDUM NOT FOR PUBLICATION, Ninth Circuit (Dec. 13, 2002) Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., Ninth Circuit appeal #02-15269
●
Occurrences of the DCUS in Title 28, U.S.C. (highlighed in bold)
●
Occurrences of the USDC in Title 28, U.S.C. (highlighed in bold)
●
Brafman v. United States, 384 F.2d 863 (5th Cir. 1967) (23C assessment requires signature of assessment officer)
●
U.S. v. O'Dell, 160 F.2d 304 (6th Cir. 1947) (levy of bank account requires warrant of distraint)
●
1866 Civil Rights Act (origin of federal citizenship)
●
Withholding Exemption Certificate by Affidavit ("withholding exemption certificate" occurs 17 times in IRC 3402(n))
●
Supreme Law School : Message Archive: 121 mailboxes each with 100 messages
●
Detailed Letter to Jon Mummolo, Washington Square News, Nov. 9, 2002 A.D. (.doc)
http://supremelaw.org/wwwboard/index.htm (2 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:21 PM]
Supreme Law Forum : Notice to Users
●
U.S. Treasury Secretary Fails to Answer SUBPOENA for Tax Liability Statutes (See 31 U.S.C. 301. Title 31 has been enacted into positive law.) (.doc)
●
The Ghost of Social Security ("a huge tax-funded Ponzi scheme") The Wall Street Journal, July 12, 2000 A.D., Lead Editorial, Page A26
●
31Q&A Referral Program (Get the word out, get your money back, and more!)
●
Internet Server Activity Logs (Gaps resulted from witness retaliation.)
●
Summary of Damages Quantum Meruit, Mitchell v. Broderick et al. (pending).
●
Racketeering (RICO) Predicate Acts (see 18 U.S.C. 1961(1))
●
Letter to President and Mrs. Jimmy Carter (September 28, 2002 A.D.)
●
Letter to California Governor Gray Davis (August 28, 2002 A.D.)
●
Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States (Vols. I and II) (Committee convened under Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Jr.)
●
Portable version of "31 Questions and Answers about the IRS," (all hyperlinks are absolute, to facilitate file portability) (.doc)
●
Easy directions for subscribing to the SupremeLaw discussion list and message archive at Yahoo! Groups
●
Application for ORDER Dissolving the Internal Revenue Service as filed in People ex rel. Bybee et al. v. Andrew Erath et al., DCUS Santa Ana, California
●
Motions for Preliminary Injunction against IRS and to Freeze IRS Assets as filed in Ninth Circuit appeals #01-56873 and #02-55021
●
Tables of Contents for all pleadings and related documents as filed in Ninth Circuit appeals #01-56873 and #02-55021
●
Pleadings on behalf of Lynne Meredith and associates as filed in U.S.A. v. Lynne Meredith et al., USDC Los Angeles, California
●
Pleadings on behalf of Teresa Giordano, dba Quality Paralegal Services: see Tables of Contents for #SA CV 02-0382 GLT(ANx) and #CR 02-00372 DDP
●
Autographed copies of "The Federal Zone" are now available.
●
Table of Contents: Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.
●
America and the International Covenant: A Research Proposal to Amnesty International
http://supremelaw.org/wwwboard/index.htm (3 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:21 PM]
Supreme Law Forum : Notice to Users
June 18, 2001 A.D. ●
Legislative Proposal to Congressman George Radanovich, June 5, 2001 A.D.
●
The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue, authentic 11th edition (please do not traffic in any stolen or modified derivatives)
●
AntiCounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act of 1996 (.pdf) (criminal copyright infringement is now a RICO predicate act)
●
People's Application for Intervention of Right, George W. Bush v. Palm Beach Canvassing Board (November 2000 A.D. general election)
●
People's Application for Intervention of Right, U.S.A. v. Konicov (federal income taxes)
●
Supreme Law Seminar Outline, with links to Supreme Law Library
●
Initial COMPLAINT: Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.
●
First SUPPLEMENT: Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.
●
Second SUPPLEMENT: Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.
●
Third SUPPLEMENT: Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.
●
Supreme Law Library: Development Cost (1990-2002 A.D.)
●
Recent additions from Charles Adams, Norman Dodd, and Roscoe Pound.
●
A.L.E.R.T. on Voluntary Nature of Social Security
●
IRS Strategic Plan 1984 (PDF format)
●
31 Questions about the IRS: Can you answer them all correctly?
●
31 Answers about the IRS: Certified by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (now fully linked: please report link errors to the Webmaster) (.doc)
●
Bank Levy Procedure for challenging IRS levies on bank accounts.
●
IRS Intelligence Activities: Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, Senate Resolution 21, Vol. 3, Oct. 2, 1975.
●
Free appendices from "The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue," electronic Ninth Edition; hypertext links are in progress.
●
Archive of 12,000+ e-mail messages broadcasted to the Supreme Law School and other Internet users, indexed by alphabetical subject and date. See Index 1, Index 2, Index 3 and Index 4.
●
Active links are being added to many documents.
http://supremelaw.org/wwwboard/index.htm (4 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:21 PM]
Supreme Law Forum : Notice to Users
A good entry point is the Press Releases, e.g. the jury verdict in Mitchell v. Nordbrock. ●
OPENING BRIEF in U.S.A. v. Gilbertson is fully linked to the United States Code at Cornell's Internet website and to all internal topic headings.
●
Winning brief by John E. Trumane in opposition to an Order to Show Cause to appear at an IRS audit hearing. This case was quietly dismissed by a federal judge.
●
People v. Boxer (16th amendment fraud) makes its debut on the Internet here. These pleadings are rare and hard to find.
●
The transcript of a lecture by Lt. Col. James "Bo" Gritz at St. Mary's Cathedral in San Francisco, June 1, 1990. Learn about the "Golden Triangle" and why children are addicts.
●
Criminal complaint against Mr. Procter Hug, Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in connection with In Re Grand Jury Subpoena and the well documented downfall of the IRS [sic].
●
Evidence of criminal interstate racketeering in the U.S. Department of Justice, downtown Los Angeles.
●
Paul Andrew Mitchell's Texas State lawsuit against organized government abuses of the SSN. (Some exhibit URL's will be added later.)
●
Paul Andrew Mitchell's Arizona state cross-complaints against 45 criminal co-conspirators.
●
Collected works of Dan Meador, arranged in four sets: file set one, file set two, file set three, file set four.
●
and much, much more!
We appreciate your courteous participation in this Forum, and we will do our best to maintain a high level of database integrity at all times. All constructive comments are always encouraged and reviewed by our experienced leaders in constitutional litigation and computer systems development. Most of all, we give our sincerest thanks to the Most High -Creator of this universe, our home, to His living Son -- the King of Kings and to the Holy Spirit -- who inspires and supports this project. As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal in our hearts and in our souls.
http://supremelaw.org/wwwboard/index.htm (5 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:21 PM]
Supreme Law Forum : Notice to Users
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, everyone! Amen. Sincerely yours, /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Counselor at Law, Federal Witness, Private Attorney General, and Supreme Law Webmaster
[Home] [Contact Us] [Library] [School] [Forum] [Subscribe] [Donate]
Common Law Copyright 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 A.D.: Supreme Law Firm email: Contact Us Last Update: December 6, 2005 A.D.
http://supremelaw.org/wwwboard/index.htm (6 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:21 PM]
SupremeLaw Email Group : Subscription Directions
SupremeLaw Subscriptions
User Directions
Welcome! To subscribe to the SupremeLaw discussion list and message archive, send subscription fees and your email address to the mailing location at the bottom of our home page:
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
The SupremeLaw subscription fees are:
$120.00 if subscription is paid in January $110.00 if subscription is paid in February $100.00 if subscription is paid in March $90.00 if subscription is paid in April $80.00 if subscription is paid in May $70.00 if subscription is paid in June $60.00 if subscription is paid in July $50.00 if subscription is paid in August $40.00 if subscription is paid in September $30.00 if subscription is paid in October $20.00 if subscription is paid in November $10.00 if subscription is paid in December
You may prepay in U.S. cash or blank money order to:
http://supremelaw.org/egroups/subscribe.htm (1 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:17:22 PM]
SupremeLaw Email Group : Subscription Directions
Forwarding Agent 501 W. Broadway, #A-332 San Diego 92101
CALIFORNIA, USA After we confirm your prepayment, we will add your email address to the “pending” list at Topica.
You should receive a confirmation message from Topica.
Just reply to that confirmation message, to activate your subscription.
The Donation Worksheet itemizes the costs we incur to maintain the Supreme Law Library and email group.
If you do not wish to join the SupremeLaw Group, please ignore this invitation.
Regards,
Moderator, SupremeLaw
Thank you! [Home] [Contact Us] [Library] [School] [Forum] [Subscribe] [Donate] Common Law Copyright 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 A.D.: Supreme Law Firm
email: Contact Us
http://supremelaw.org/egroups/subscribe.htm (2 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:17:22 PM]
SupremeLaw Email Group : Subscription Directions
Last Update: April 9, 2006 A.D.
http://supremelaw.org/egroups/subscribe.htm (3 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:17:22 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Donation Worksheet
Supreme Law Library:
Donation Worksheet
Please apportion your generous donations among the following expense categories:
1. Internet service provider fees
_________
2. domain name registration fees
3. local ISP connection fees
4. office lease/rental fees
_________
_________
_________
5. office utility fees (electricity, gas)
_________
6. office telephone expenses
_________
7. office stationery and misc. supplies
_________
8. computer hardware maintenance/upgrades
9. computer software acquisition/upgrades
_________
10. copy center/document reproduction costs
11. postage and shipping expenses
12. book purchases/library acquisition costs
13. library legal/historical research
14. periodical/magazine subscriptions
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
http://supremelaw.org/egroups/donate.htm (1 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:17:22 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Donation Worksheet
15. pro bono legal assistance to indigents
_________
16. donations to public interest litigation
_________
17. donations to support prison ministry
_________
18. development of distance-learning curricula
19. conference attendance and related travel
_________
_________
20. political action to dismantle IRS
_________
21. personnel salaries and benefits
_________
22. other (please specify):
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________ _________
Total Amount Enclosed: =========
Please mail your donations, in cash or blank Money Orders, to:
Forwarding Agent 501 W. Broadway #A-332 San Diego 92101 CALIFORNIA, USA
Thank you very much for supporting the Supreme Law Library,
http://supremelaw.org/egroups/donate.htm (2 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:17:22 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Donation Worksheet
a public domain project of the Supreme Law Firm.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General and Webmaster, Supreme Law Library:
http://www.supremelaw.org
It’s Free! It’s all about Freedom.
http://supremelaw.org/egroups/donate.htm (3 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:17:22 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases
U.S.A. v. Wallen [Note: Small numbers indicate number of bytes in ASCII portion of files (sans HTML)]
Table of Contents
1.
13592
AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT DOCUMENTING CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING ARREST
2.
11892
MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE FOR INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
3.
3686
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST FOR CREDENTIALS OF JOELYN D. MARLOWE
4.
3737
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST FOR VARIOUS IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS
5.
3356
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST FOR VARIOUS IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS
6.
3275
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST FOR CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF USDC
7.
3603
8.
2311
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL
9.
2318
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL
10.
4388
NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE
11.
8644
NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE
12.
5356
13.
61490
14.
16431
15.
105465
16.
9487
NOTICE OF REFUSAL FOR CAUSE
17.
5081
FINAL NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR PROOF OF POWER, STANDING, AND JURISDICTION
18.
120533
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST FOR STANDING OF USA TO SUE AS PLAINTIFFS
NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR THE RIGHT TO ENJOY THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL OF CHOICE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION FOR VIOLATING THE SIXTH AMENDMENT MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH GRAND JURY SELECTION POLICY AND CHALLENGE TO CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTE VERIFIED STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF CHALLENGE TO GRAND JURY SELECTION POLICY AND ITS FEDERAL STATUTE
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF CHALLENGE TO CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF COURT
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/ (1 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:12:54 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : index
19.
11911
20.
3144
NOTICE OF APPEAL
21.
4379
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FROM ALL QUALIFIED ARTICLE III FEDERAL JUDGES
22.
39707
23.
8736
AFFIDAVIT OF NON-WAIVER OF EXTRADITION
24.
9343
NOTICE OF REMOVAL AND PETITION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
25.
9228
NOTICE OF REMOVAL AND PETITION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
26.
13668
27.
4246
28.
5220
29.
28594
CLOSING STATEMENT TO THE JURY
NOTICE AND DEMAND TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGE OF THE COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE TO PRESIDE OVER THE DCUS NOTICE OF FORMAL OBJECTION TO TRANSCRIPT FEE IMPOSED
NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT AGAINST WILLIAM D. BROWNING COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
Return to Table of Contents for Supreme Law Library: Court Cases [Home] [Write Us] [Library] [School] [Forum] [Subscribe] [Donate]
Common Law Copyright 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 A.D.: Supreme Law Firm email: [email protected] Last Update: August 5, 2002 A.D.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/ (2 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:12:54 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : affidav
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona Under Protest, Necessity, and by Special Visitation Only
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Sheila Terese, Wallen, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________)
COMES NOW
Sheila Terese,
state and
Defendant in
Case No. 95-484-WDB AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT DOCUMENTING CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING ARREST: 28 U.S.C. 1746(1)
Wallen, Sui the above
Juris, Citizen of Arizona
entitled matter
(hereinafter
"Defendant"), being duly sworn upon oath, to depose and to affirm as follows: 1.
My entire
two gates; posted all
"No
any angle
20-acre property
is fenced and secured with
Trespassing" signs (3 on front gates alone) are
around my
property;
these can be clearly seen from
or position upon approaching my property (see attached
pictures, incorporated herein as EXHIBIT "A"). 2. a.m. in
On or
about September
the morning,
Wedgeford Road
in the
I was
29, 1995, at approximately 8:30
in bed
town of
in my
house at
the end of
Arivaca, Arizona state.
time, my front gate was closed and bolted shut.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/affidav.htm (1 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:02 PM]
At that
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : affidav
Affidavit of Defendant Documenting Arrest Circumstances: Page 1 of 8
3.
I was
Hello!
startled awake
Is there
to hear people shouting, "Hello!
anybody home?"
These same people were banging
their hands on the side of my house while they were shouting. 4.
I opened
"Who's there?" for a
the window
to my
bedroom
and
asked
them,
They responded by saying, "We need to talk to you
minute."
They then instructed me to come out of the house
by saying, "Come out here?" 5.
At that point, I got out of bed, put on my bathrobe and
went out wanted.
the front
door to the screened porch, to see what they
I could see that there were three (3) armed men in plain
clothes with
heavy builds.
The
guns were
strapped onto their
waists, and I could see their clearly exposed handles. 6.
They flashed
themselves as
what appeared to be badges and introduced
agents
of
the
Drug
Enforcement
("DEA") by saying, "My name is Dave Lowe. then introduced had called
me to Alan and Terry.
them to
Administration
I'm with the DEA."
He
They told me that someone
tell them that I had marijuana growing on my
property. 7.
I then asked them, "Do you have a warrant?"
8.
Dave Lowe
or we
then said, "You can either tell us about it,
can wait for a warrant."
stand here, comes, along apart."
and you
contemplating my presence of
will stand
with a
I paused
Then Terry Evans added, "We will there until
it
[the
warrant]
swarm of people and we will tear this place for
a
long
situation.
these unexpected,
time I
was
before very
saying frightened
armed visitors.
heart beating in my throat.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/affidav.htm (2 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:02 PM]
anything, by
the
I could feel my
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : affidav
9.
They violated my home and
my Person without a warrant,
in spite of my "No Trespass" signs.
Affidavit of Defendant Documenting Arrest Circumstances: Page 2 of 8
10.
Dave Lowe then said, "If you will cooperate and show us
where it is, everything will be OK." 11.
I asked
them, "Are you going to arrest me?"
Dave Lowe
answered, "If it's just a few plants, we'll just take 'em and go. We probably get some
won't even
clothes on."
have to arrest you."
without shoes
I
filled with
or socks,
was naked at that
I said, "I need to
under my
moment.
I
bath was
robe,
and
intimidated,
fear, both because of strange men with guns, as well
as federal agents, if they were, in fact, federal agents. 12.
I asked
"Why don't
you just
coming outside It seemed
them if they could wait outside and they said, show us?"
They
immediately, at
like they
that second,
wanted to
asked to come inside to wait.
seemed insistent about my
come into
without any delay.
the house.
They also
I told then, "It will just take me
a second to get dressed." 13.
Then they asked me, several times, if I had any guns on
the premises.
I responded by saying, "No, I don't allow guns on
my property."
At
so I
that moment, my back was turned towards them,
could not see what their response was.
But they were still
wearing their guns when I came back out of the house. 14.
I went back into the house to get my shoes, where I put
on some shorts and a T-shirt, and I carried my shoes out onto the porch, where
I put
hurry, otherwise
them on.
I felt
I
felt very pressured by them to
sure that
while I was dressing.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/affidav.htm (3 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:02 PM]
they might
invade my
house
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : affidav
Affidavit of Defendant Documenting Arrest Circumstances: Page 3 of 8
15.
We walked
outside, where
Officer Dave Lowe read me my
rights by saying, "You have the right to remain silent. you say
or do can and will be held against you."
I understood my rights. arrest me." him that
He
He asked me if
I said, "I thought you said you wouldn't
said, "You are not under arrest."
I understood
statement, after
my
rights.
I
was
I never told
confused
he just finished reading me my rights.
asked me if there were any more plants on the property. "You'd better
tell me
property anyway,
Anything
now, because
we are
by
this
He then He said,
going to search the
and it will be a lot easier for you if you just
tell me." 16. my head,
At this
point, I
felt the threat of jail hanging over
and that there was nothing I could do to stop them from
searching. 17.
Then my brother David walked up, and the agents started
to interrogate
him, asking
him who he was and what was he doing
there? 18.
I assured
the agents
that he
was not involved in any
19.
Terry and Alan stood there talking with David.
20.
He then
way.
asked me
if he
could use
my phone.
I said,
"You can use my phone if I am allowed to make a cup of coffee." 21.
While he
was talking on the telephone, I stood nearby,
brewing a cup of coffee. 22.
When
proceeded to searching the
he
finished
search other rest of
his
telephone
parts of my house.
conversation,
he
After he finished
my house, he went back outside and joined
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/affidav.htm (4 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:02 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : affidav
his companions. hours.
They
During this
were out there a long time, about two (2) period of
time, I
waited with
my brother
David inside the screened porch.
Affidavit of Defendant Documenting Arrest Circumstances: Page 4 of 8
23.
While we
deputies arrived.
were waiting They
on the porch, two (2) Sheriff's
told us not to go anywhere;
not even let us go to the bathroom. 24.
they would
When we did, they watched.
During this time, a helicopter arrived and landed on my
property.
The pilot
my porch.
and Dave Lowe, the DEA agent, then entered
Together, we went into my house, into the dining room,
and they said, "We need to get this right." 25.
Dave Lowe
several questions.
turned on
SEARCH" and
recorder and
asked
me
Then he showed me a form entitled "CONSENT TO
handed it
since you
his tape
to me, saying, "This is just a formality,
told us everything anyway."
The form said that I have
not been threatened nor forced in any way. 26.
When I read that phrase, I said, "I certainly have been
threatened. You stand
You said that you were going to tear my house apart. there with guns.
threatened!" it was
The helicopter
a promise."
myself, so
I am practically naked.
I have been
pilot said, "That wasn't a threat;
I couldn't sign the paper and still respect
I initialed
the CONSENT
TO SEARCH form, out of fear
and intimidation,
because I
still didn't want to go to jail and
they acted
they might
still just go away if I signed it.
as if
Throughout the entire day, I was lead to believe that, if I would cooperate, then I wouldn't be arrested. 27. time, two
Then they (2) female
told me
that I
was going to jail.
By that
DEA agents had arrived, and one watched me
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/affidav.htm (5 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:02 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : affidav
while I
took a shower and changed into other clothes.
They then
put handcuffs on me and put me in the front seat of their van.
Affidavit of Defendant Documenting Arrest Circumstances: Page 5 of 8
28.
During our
Los Angeles, parrots.
trip to Tucson, I told them about my job in
where I
One of
worked for
the female
a publisher of magazines about
agents mentioned
that she
owns a
parrot and we talked for quite some time about Amazon behavior told them that I
that I
had been in L.A. for about ten (10) years, and
had worked
time during
I
in publishing
for most
of that time.
At no
this trip to Tucson did I ever admit, in any way, to
having violated any law. 29.
First they
took me to a jail on Valencia Avenue, where
they took my finger prints.
Then they moved me to Wilmot prison,
where I was subjected to a strip search. a needle, was a
Then they poked me with
and the man who poked me with a needle told me that it
Tuberculosis test.
He did draw some of my blood with the
needle. 30. arrest, I
Approximately two came to
female agents
and one-half
discover a
stated that,
(2.5) months
after my
police report in which one of the
. "En
route to
Tucson, WALLEN told
TF/A Wright that she made anywhere from 70 to 80 thousand dollars a year in California selling marijuana. how long
she had
been selling
TF/A Wright asked WALLEN
marijuana.
WALLEN
said
'ten
year.'" 31.
This statement, as found in the Police Report dated 09-
29-95, is utterly false, because I never made any such statement, either in the truck, while the agents were searching my property, nor after I was taken from the truck to be finger-printed.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/affidav.htm (6 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:02 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : affidav
33.
I was
released from
jail when
my brother
and father
posted a surety bond to guarantee my appearance in court.
Affidavit of Defendant Documenting Arrest Circumstances: Page 6 of 8
34.
Therefore, I
firmly believe, based on all of the above
statements of fact, that the DEA agents involved in my arrest are guilty of
trespass without
a valid
search or
arrest
warrant,
kidnapping, conspiracy to kidnap, assault for prodding and poking my Person
in unspeakable places, all of which violate the Fourth
and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended. Further Affiant Sayeth Naught.
I hereby of the
certify, under
that the
United States
penalty of perjury, under the laws
of America,
above statements
without the
of mine
"United States",
are true and correct, to the
best of my current information, knowledge, and belief, so help Me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
Dated:
______________________
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Sheila Wallen ________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state
________________________________
Dated: ________________________
________________________________ First Witness to Signature
(printed name)
________________________________
Dated: ________________________
________________________________
(printed name)
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/affidav.htm (7 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:02 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : affidav
Second Witness to Signature
Affidavit of Defendant Documenting Arrest Circumstances: Page 7 of 8
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila
Terese,
penalty of
Wallen,
perjury, under
Sui
Juris,
the laws
of
hereby the
certify,
United
under
States
of
America, without the "United States," that I am at least 18 years of age,
a Citizen
of one
of the
United States of America, and
that I personally served the following document(s): AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT DOCUMENTING CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING ARREST: 28 U.S.C. 1746(1) by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United
States Mail,
with
postage
addressed to the following:
Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 Tucson [85701] ARIZONA STATE Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Executed on: _____________________________
/s/ Sheila Wallen __________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/affidav.htm (8 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:02 PM]
prepaid
and
properly
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : affidav
Affidavit of Defendant Documenting Arrest Circumstances: Page 8 of 8
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/affidav.htm (9 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:02 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : dismiss
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona Under Protest, Necessity, and by Special Visitation Only
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Sheila Terese, Wallen, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________)
COMES NOW
Sheila Terese,
state and
Defendant in
Case No. 95-484-WDB MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE FOR INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
Wallen, Sui the above
Juris, Citizen of Arizona
entitled matter
(hereinafter
"Defendant"), to move this honorable Court to dismiss the instant action with Counsel, i.e.
prejudice on
grounds of
the licensed
ineffective assistance
of
bar member appointed by the Court to
represent the Defendant (hereinafter the "Bar Member"). Defendant hereby incorporates by reference to two previously filed briefs
entitled:
(1) NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR RIGHT TO ENJOY
THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL OF CHOICE and AND
AUTHORITIES
IN
SUPPORT
OF
(2) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
DEFENDANT'S
CHALLENGE
TO
JURISDICTION FOR VIOLATING THE FUNDAMENTAL GUARANTEE OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: Sixth Amendment, as if they were set forth fully herein.
See Haynes v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/dismiss.htm (1 of 7) [4/8/2007 2:13:03 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : dismiss
Motion to Dismiss for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Page 1 of 7
This Court fact that
will please
the Bar
during a
made it
very clear
at every
available to
that
a criminal
proceeding, even
of Counsel
is available
to a
all criminal proceedings.
assistance
defendant at
if only
468 (1938), has
obligation of this Court to
point of
effective
Supreme Court
U.S. 458,
is the
effective assistance
event
The U.S.
Zerbst, 304
that it
criminal defendant the
conference.
Johnson v.
ensure that
judicial notice of the
Member failed to appear on Defendant's behalf
scheduled status
authority in
In
take formal
of
Counsel
is
not
every point of a criminal
for a moment, then the Court is ousted
of jurisdiction to proceed. Sixth Amendment
is not
jurisdiction to
proceed."
Quoting, "If this requirement of the
complied with,
the court
no longer has
Johnson v. Zerbst supra.
See Exhibit
"A" attached hereto (Status Conference). Furthermore, during whether or lawful in
not the the
obtained. he
government
Magistrate for
the
to why
to
agent)
a lawful
issue
a
warrant because attached
determine
Prosecutor no search
questioned
an
warrant had been
petitioned warrant,
search
and
a
United
warrant
said
States
Magistrate
because,
in
the
there was not probable cause to issue said
there was insufficient evidence to support same. Exhibit
Evidentiary Hearing). did proceed,
had
search
lawful
Magistrate's opinion,
See
to
seizure in the instant case were
instance,
agent as
hearing
The alleged government agent responded by saying that
(the
refused
search and
first
alleged government
the evidentiary
"B,"
attached
hereto
(Transcript
of
Nevertheless, the alleged government agent
with several
accomplices, to
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/dismiss.htm (2 of 7) [4/8/2007 2:13:03 PM]
conduct an
unlawful
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : dismiss
search and
seizure,
without
obtained by
any of
Defendant's
AFFIDAVIT
any
lawful
these alleged
warrant
having
government agents.
DOCUMENTING
See also
CIRCUMSTANCES
ARREST: 28 U.S.C. 1746(1), already lodged,
been
SURROUNDING
but not filed, in the
instant case, pursuant to this Court's Order dated July 17, 1996. Defendant hereby
formally objects to said Order, for the reasons
stated herein.
Motion to Dismiss for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Page 2 of 7
The Bar violation
Member failed
of
Amendment in
a
diligently to
fundamental
Right
the Constitution
pursue
guaranteed
this by
the
the Universal (federal
on Civil
Declaration of
government)
obligations, both remedies for
a
Under the
and Political Rights, and under
Human Rights,
is
Fourth
for the United States of America,
as lawfully amended (hereinafter "U.S. Constitution"). International Covenant
blatant
the
signatory
United
under
States
affirmative
legal and moral, to provide effective judicial
violations of
fundamental Rights,
violations were
committed by
capacities, and
also to
judicial remedies.
persons acting
develop the
These
even when those
in their
official
possibilities of effective
treaties are
supreme Law pursuant to
the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution. The Bar legally bound
Member is an officer of this Court and, as such, is
branches of
by these
two
the federal
federal judiciary.
and present
because
they
government, specifically
See 42 U.S.C. 1986.
Defendant's fundamental seizure constitutes
treaties,
bind
all
including the
His failure to assert
Immunity against unreasonable search and
ineffective assistance of Counsel, and clear
violation of
said treaties.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/dismiss.htm (3 of 7) [4/8/2007 2:13:03 PM]
Couple
this with the
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : dismiss
fact that neither the Bar Member nor the Defendant was present at the status
conference in
bereft of
question, leaving
any representation
was denied
jurisdiction to
or Counsel
Defendant
entirely
whatsoever.
The Court
proceed with that status conference,
and yet it did so anyway.
Motion to Dismiss for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Page 3 of 7
In the
event that
this
Court
should
NOTICE AND
DEMAND FOR
THE RIGHT
COUNSEL OF
CHOICE and
accompanying documents,
places all
interested parties
appeal this
case immediately
Appeals for
the Ninth
ENJOY
THE
Defendant's
ASSISTANCE
OF
Defendant hereby
on formal notice of Her intent to to
the
Circuit, on
Amendment violations, judgments issued
TO
refuse
United
on grounds
grounds of
States
of
arbitrary
Court
of
Fourth and Sixth and
capricious
by this Court in the instant case, specifically
the Order dated July 17, 1996, in which the presiding Judge ruled that there
was nothing
support an
attack on
of any
legal significance
the constitutional
which
would
infirmity of 28 U.S.C.
1865(b)(1), and on other grounds not mentioned herein but already raised in the formal Court record. Moreover, said subject to
On the
contrary, it
is a basic
commercial law that an affidavit is the highest form of
and
must
be
Furthermore, said
supported by
a
to the
separate
decisions
Evidently, this
answered
Order fails
Defendant's challenge
standing
that an Affidavit is hearsay not
cross-examination.
maxim of truth
Order held
of
by
affidavit,
the test of reductio ad absurdum. federal jury selection statute was
affidavit the
point-for-point.
United
which
contained
States
Supreme
numerous, Court.
Court has ruled that the decisions cited therein
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/dismiss.htm (4 of 7) [4/8/2007 2:13:03 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : dismiss
are also
hearsay, and
have no
absurd result,
which
places
situation (lex
non cogit
legal significance. the
Defendant
in
an
impossibilia), because
U.S. Supreme
Court has
relying upon
their decisions.
This is an impossible
that very same
ruled that no one should be punished for See U.S. v. Mason, 412 U.S. 391,
399-400 (1973).
Motion to Dismiss for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Page 4 of 7
If the
doctrine of stare decisis has any meaning at all, it
requires that
People in
upon decisions
of the
their everyday
penalized for
U.S. Supreme
such reliance.
affairs be able to rely
Court and not be needlessly
See U.S. v. Mason supra.
It will
be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of
the supreme
Law of
constitutional jurisprudence.
the Land
Court than of the
to exert
"No
finds lodgment
higher duty
in our
rests upon this
its full authority to prevent all violation
principles of the U.S. Constitution."
Downes v. Bidwell,
182 U.S. 244 (1901), Harlan dissenting. Finally, Defendant benefit of
cannot
Her discovery
proceed
to
trial
efforts, including
without
the
but not limited to
several Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") requests already made but not
received, and without the benefit of final review of Her
challenge to which She
the federal
raised with
jury selection
the federal
statutes.
grand jury
The problem
that issued
the
indictment against Her also exists with the federal procedure for selecting petit
(trial) jury candidates.
class discrimination
in
discrimination constitutes
all
of the
Defendant.
jury
Specifically, there is
selection
processes,
which
a violation of the fundamental Rights
Moreover, said
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/dismiss.htm (5 of 7) [4/8/2007 2:13:03 PM]
grand jury
was not lawfully
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : dismiss
convened, and it was denied facts which now show that the alleged government agents proceeded without any lawful warrants to search and seize Defendant's private property.
Motion to Dismiss for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Page 5 of 7
RELIEF SOUGHT Wherefore, Defendant immediate dismissal
moves
this
with prejudice,
honorable
Court
for
an
on grounds of violating the
Fourth, Sixth, and Tenth Amendments in the U.S. Constitution.
In
the alternative,
on
formal notice of Appeals
Defendant
all
interested
parties
of Her immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court
on grounds
contrary to
places
the Bill
of violations of Rights
of Her fundamental Rights,
and two
international treaties
which are all supreme Law pursuant to the Supremacy Clause.
Executed on July 22, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state and Counselor at Law and federal witness All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Motion to Dismiss for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Page 6 of 7
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila penalty of
Terese,
Wallen,
perjury, under
Sui
Juris,
the laws
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/dismiss.htm (6 of 7) [4/8/2007 2:13:03 PM]
of
hereby the
certify,
United
under
States
of
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : dismiss
America, without of age
the United
States, that I am at least 18 years
and a Citizen of one of the United States of America, and
that I personally served the following document: MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE FOR INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL by placing
said document
in first class U.S. Mail, with postage
prepaid and properly addressed to the following individuals:
Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 Tucson [85701] ARIZONA STATE
[hand-delivered]
Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Dated:
July 22, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen ________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Motion to Dismiss for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Page 7 of 7
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/dismiss.htm (7 of 7) [4/8/2007 2:13:03 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : marlfoia
Certified U.S. Mail Serial Number #Z-736-061-376 Return Receipt Requested
c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE July 26, 1996
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST
Disclosure Officer Office of the Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Subject:
Credentials of Joelyn D. Marlowe "Assistant United States Attorney" Tucson, Arizona state
Dear Disclosure Officer: This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., and regulations thereunder. This is My firm promise to pay fees and costs for locating, duplicating, and mailing to Me certified copies of the records requested below. If some of this request is exempt from release, please furnish Me with those portions reasonably segregable. I am requiring certified copies of the documents requested, in lieu of personal inspection of same. Admissible documents requested: 1.
Certified copy of the solemn oath of office of Joelyn D. Marlowe, as required by Article VI, Clause 3, of the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended.
2.
Certified copy of her fidelity bond or surety bond.
3.
Certified copy of her formal delegation of authority, beginning with the President, through the Attorney General, linking all officials in the chain of command between her and them.
4.
Certified copy of her State of Arizona.
The requested they:
records are
license to
not exempt
from
practice law in the
disclosure
because
(A)
could not reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings;
(B)
would not
deprive a
person of a right to a fair trial
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/marlfoia.htm (1 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:13:04 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : marlfoia
or an impartial adjudication; (C)
could not reasonably be expected to constitute unwarranted invasion of personal property;
(D)
could not reasonably be expected identity of a confidential source;
(E)
would not disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, and would not disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions;
(F)
could not reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.
to
disclose
an
the
[see Exemption 7 in FOIA]
If you are not the correct person to whom this Freedom of Information Act Request should be directed, kindly forward it to the correct person. Time is of the essence. If you have any questions about your rights and obligations under 5 U.S.C. 552, may we recommend that you contact the office of the Attorney General in Washington, D.C., for immediate assistance. Thank you very much for your consideration, and for your timely obedience to the controlling laws in this matter, specifically the Freedom of Information Act and the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice email:
[email protected]
website:
http://supremelaw.com
copy:
Joelyn D. Marlowe Office of United States Attorney Tucson, Arizona state
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/marlfoia.htm (2 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:13:04 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : marlfoia
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/marlfoia.htm (3 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:13:04 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : foia01
c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE July 26, 1996
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST
Disclosure Officer Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building One Columbus Circle, N.E. Washington, D.C. Dear Disclosure Officer: This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., and regulations thereunder. This is My firm promise to pay fees and costs for locating, duplicating, and mailing to Me certified copies of the records requested below. If some of this request is exempt from release, please furnish Me with those portions reasonably segregable. I am requiring certified copies of the documents requested, in lieu of personal inspection of same. Documents requested: 1.
Implementing regulations, as published in the Federal Register pursuant to the Federal Register Act, for the following United States Codes: (a)
18 U.S.C. 3231
(b)
26 U.S.C. 7402
(c)
21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1)
(d)
28 U.S.C. 1861 et seq. (Jury Selection and Service Act)
(e)
4 U.S.C. 104 et seq. (The Buck Act)
The requested they:
records are
not exempt
from
disclosure
because
(A)
could not reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings;
(B)
would not deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
(C)
could not reasonably be expected to constitute unwarranted invasion of personal property;
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/foia01.htm (1 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:13:05 PM]
an
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : foia01
(D)
could not reasonably be expected identity of a confidential source;
to
disclose
the
(E)
would not disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, and would not disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions;
(F)
could not reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual. [see Exemption 7 in FOIA]
Moreover, the blanket FOIA exemption for the federal judiciary is unconstitutional, under the original Thirteenth Amendment, because said amendment bars federal officers and employees from exercising privileges which are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. See U.S. v. Lopez, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995). Under the common law, and under commercial law, we are all equal before the law. This maxim is fundamental. If you are not the correct person to whom this Freedom of Information Act Request should be directed, kindly forward it to the correct person. Time is of the essence. If you have any questions about your rights and obligations under 5 U.S.C. 552, may we recommend that you contact the office of the Attorney General in Washington, D.C., for immediate assistance. Thank you very much for your consideration, and for your timely obedience to the controlling laws in this matter, specifically the Freedom of Information Act and the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, and Counselor at Law All Rights Reserved without Prejudice email:
[email protected]
website:
http://supremelaw.com
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/foia01.htm (2 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:13:05 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : foia01
U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/foia01.htm (3 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:13:05 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : foia02
c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE July 26, 1996
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST
Disclosure Officer Office of the Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington, D.C. Dear Disclosure Officer: This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., and regulations thereunder. This is My firm promise to pay fees and costs for locating, duplicating, and mailing to Me certified copies of the records requested below. If some of this request is exempt from release, please furnish Me with those portions reasonably segregable. I am requiring certified copies of the documents requested, in lieu of personal inspection of same. Documents requested: 1.
Implementing regulations, as published in the Federal Register pursuant to the Federal Register Act, for the following United States Codes: (a)
18 U.S.C. 3231
(b)
26 U.S.C. 7402
(c)
21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1)
(d)
28 U.S.C. 1861 et seq. (Jury Selection and Service Act)
(e)
4 U.S.C. 104 et seq. (The Buck Act)
The requested they:
records are
not exempt
from
disclosure
because
(A)
could not reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings;
(B)
would not deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
(C)
could not reasonably be expected to constitute unwarranted invasion of personal property;
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/foia02.htm (1 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:13:06 PM]
an
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : foia02
(D)
could not reasonably be expected identity of a confidential source;
to
disclose
the
(E)
would not disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, and would not disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions;
(F)
could not reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual. [see Exemption 7 in FOIA]
Under the common law, and under commercial law, we are all equal before the law. This maxim is fundamental. If you are not the correct person to whom this Freedom of Information Act Request should be directed, kindly forward it to the correct person. Time is of the essence. If you have any questions about your rights and obligations under 5 U.S.C. 552, may we recommend that you contact the office of the Attorney General in Washington, D.C., for immediate assistance. Thank you very much for your consideration, and for your timely obedience to the controlling laws in this matter, specifically the Freedom of Information Act and the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, amd Counselor at Law All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/foia02.htm (2 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:13:06 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : renofoi2
Certified U.S. Mail Serial Number #P-332-390-904 Return Receipt Requested
c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE August 6, 1996
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST
Disclosure Officer Office of the Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Subject:
Criminal Jurisdiction of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS
Dear Disclosure Officer: This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., and regulations thereunder. This is My firm promise to pay fees and costs for locating, duplicating, and mailing to Me certified copies of the records requested below. If some of this request is exempt from release, please furnish Me with those portions reasonably segregable. I am requiring certified copies of the documents requested, in lieu of personal inspection of same. Admissible documents requested: 1.
Certified copies of all Acts of Congress, with implementing regulations (if any), granting criminal jurisdiction to United States District Courts, as distinct from district courts of the United States.
The requested they:
records are
not exempt
from
disclosure
because
(A)
could not reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings;
(B)
would not deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
(C)
could not reasonably be expected to constitute unwarranted invasion of personal property;
(D)
could not reasonably be expected identity of a confidential source;
(E)
would not disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, and would not disclose guidelines for law enforcement
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/renofoi2.htm (1 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:13:07 PM]
to
disclose
an
the
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : renofoi2
investigations or prosecutions; (F)
could not reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual. [see Exemption 7 in FOIA]
If you are not the correct person to whom this Freedom of Information Act Request should be directed, kindly forward it to the correct person. Time is of the essence. If you have any questions about your rights and obligations under 5 U.S.C. 552, may we recommend that you contact the office of the Attorney General in Washington, D.C., for immediate assistance. Thank you very much for your consideration, and for your timely obedience to the controlling laws in this matter, specifically the Freedom of Information Act and the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice email:
[email protected]
website:
http://supremelaw.com
copy:
Joelyn D. Marlowe Office of United States Attorney Tucson, Arizona state
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/renofoi2.htm (2 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:13:07 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : renofaoi
Certified U.S. Mail Serial Number #Z-736-061-377 Return Receipt Requested
c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE July 26, 1996
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST
Disclosure Officer Office of the Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Subject:
standing of "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" to sue as Plaintiff in district courts
Dear Disclosure Officer: This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., and regulations thereunder. This is My firm promise to pay fees and costs for locating, duplicating, and mailing to Me certified copies of the records requested below. If some of this request is exempt from release, please furnish Me with those portions reasonably segregable. I am requiring certified copies of the documents requested, in lieu of personal inspection of same. Admissible documents requested: 1.
Certified copies of all Acts of Congress, with implementing regulations (if any), granting standing to the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" [sic] to bring civil and/or criminal actions as Plaintiff before district courts of the United States and/or United States District Courts, as distinct from the Plaintiff "UNITED STATES" [sic]. See Hooven & Allison v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945); cf. "Union" in Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (1856).
The requested they:
records are
not exempt
from
disclosure
because
(A)
could not reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings;
(B)
would not deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
(C)
could not reasonably be expected to constitute unwarranted invasion of personal property;
(D)
could
not
reasonably
be
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/renofoia.htm (1 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:13:07 PM]
expected
to
disclose
an
the
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : renofaoi
identity of a confidential source; (E)
would not disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, and would not disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions;
(F)
could not reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual. [see Exemption 7 in FOIA]
If you are not the correct person to whom this Freedom of Information Act Request should be directed, kindly forward it to the correct person. Time is of the essence. If you have any questions about your rights and obligations under 5 U.S.C. 552, may we recommend that you contact the office of the Attorney General in Washington, D.C., for immediate assistance. Thank you very much for your consideration, and for your timely obedience to the controlling laws in this matter, specifically the Freedom of Information Act and the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice email:
[email protected]
website:
http://supremelaw.com
copy:
Joelyn D. Marlowe Office of United States Attorney Tucson, Arizona state
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/renofoia.htm (2 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:13:07 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : foiapp01
c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson, Arizona state zip code exempt August 19, 1996
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL
Disclosure Officer Office of the Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Dear Disclosure Officer: This is an appeal under the Freedom of Information Act. On July 26 and again on August 6, 1996, I requested documents under the Freedom of Information Act (see attached). To date, the requested documents have not been produced. I hereby appeal your failure to produce the requested documents. The documents that were withheld must be disclosed under the FOIA because the original Thirteenth Amendment prevents government officials from exercising privileges of a nobility class, such as being exempt from the principles of open government and freedom of information. Evidence of the original Thirteenth Amendment has been filed with the Foreperson of the Grand Jury and with the Clerk of the United States District Court in Tucson, Arizona state (a Republic). See Colorado Records Custodian. Disclosure of the documents which I requested is in the public interest because the information, and the procedure for obtaining the information, are likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations and activities of government and are not primarily in My commercial interest. Moreover, the information requested will help to improve public confidence in the integrity of the United States (federal government), or to confirm that there are persons attempting to exercise executive and judicial branch powers in America without any authority or jurisdiction whatsoever. See U.S. v. Lopez. Thank you for your careful consideration of this appeal.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/foiapp01.htm (1 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:13:08 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : foiapp01
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice copy:
Judge Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/foiapp01.htm (2 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:13:08 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : foiapp02
c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson, Arizona state zip code exempt August 19, 1996
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL
Disclosure Officer Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building One Columbus Circle, N.E. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Dear Disclosure Officer: This is an appeal under the Freedom of Information Act. On July 26, 1996, I requested Information Act (see attached). have not been produced.
documents under the Freedom of To date, the requested documents
I hereby appeal your failure to produce the requested documents. The documents that were withheld must be disclosed under the FOIA because the original Thirteenth Amendment prevents government officials from exercising privileges of a nobility class, such as being exempt from the principles of open government and freedom of information. Evidence of the original Thirteenth Amendment has been filed with the Foreperson of the Grand Jury and with the Clerk of the United States District Court in Tucson, Arizona state (a Republic). See Colorado Records Custodian. Disclosure of the documents which I requested is in the public interest because the information, and the procedure for obtaining the information, are likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations and activities of government and are not primarily in My commercial interest. Moreover, the information requested will help to improve public confidence in the integrity of the United States (federal government), or to confirm that there are persons attempting to exercise executive and judicial branch powers in America without any authority or jurisdiction whatsoever. See U.S. v. Lopez. Thank you for your careful consideration of this appeal.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/foiapp02.htm (1 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:13:09 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : foiapp02
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice copy:
Judge Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/foiapp02.htm (2 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:13:09 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judnoti2
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona Under Protest, Necessity, and by Special Visitation Only
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Sheila Terese, Wallen, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________)
Case No. 95-484-WDB NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE: Federal Rules of Evidence 201(d)
NOTICE AND DEMAND COMES NOW
Sheila Terese,
state and
Defendant in
"Defendant"), to
Wallen, Sui the above
Juris, Citizen of Arizona
entitled matter
(hereinafter
provide formal Notice to all interested parties
of Her Demand, made hereby pursuant to Rule 201(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, for mandatory judicial notice of the following attached documents: (1)
AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT AND OF PROBABLE CAUSE [cites omitted] submitted by Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Counselor at Law, in Case No. GJ-95-1-6: In re: Grand Jury Subpoena Served on New Life Health Center Company with PROOF OF SERVICE;
(2)
FINAL NOTICE AND DEMAND from Paul Andrew, Mitchell, Counselor at Law, to the District Court Executive and Clerk of Court, dated June 24, 1996, and attached to AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT AND OF PROBABLE CAUSE supra;
(3)
Two letters
from Bonnie
L. Gay,
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judnoti2.htm (1 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:13:10 PM]
Attorney in
Charge,
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judnoti2
U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Unit, both dated July 8, 1996, concerning FOIA requests and appeals for credentials of ROBERT L. MISKELL and JANET NAPOLITANO.
Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice: Page 1 of 3
The above-mentioned documents are incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein.
VERIFICATION The Undersigned under the
laws of
the United
"United States", correct, to
hereby certify,
that the
the best
under penalty
States of
America,
of perjury, without
the
above statements of fact are true and
of Our knowledge, materially complete, and
not misleading, so help Us God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
Executed on August 13, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen ________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell ________________________________________ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, and Counselor at Law
Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice: Page 2 of 3
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila
Terese,
penalty of
Wallen,
perjury, under
Sui
Juris,
the laws
of
hereby the
certify,
United
under
States
of
America, without the "United States," that I am at least 18 years of age,
a Citizen
of one
of the
United States of America, and
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judnoti2.htm (2 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:13:10 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judnoti2
that I personally served the following document(s): NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE: Federal Rules of Evidence 201(d) by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United
States Mail,
with
postage
prepaid
and
addressed to the following:
Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 Tucson [85701] ARIZONA STATE Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Executed on: August 13, 1996 /s/ Sheila Wallen __________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice: Page 3 of 3
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judnoti2.htm (3 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:13:10 PM]
properly
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judnotic
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona Under Protest, Necessity, and by Special Visitation Only
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Sheila Terese, Wallen, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________)
Case No. 95-484-WDB NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE: Federal Rules of Evidence 201(d)
NOTICE AND DEMAND COMES NOW
Sheila Terese,
state and
Defendant in
"Defendant"), to
Wallen, Sui the above
Juris, Citizen of Arizona
entitled matter
(hereinafter
provide formal Notice to all interested parties
of her Demand, made hereby pursuant to Rule 201(d) of the Federal Rules of Freedom of
Evidence, for mandatory judicial notice of the four (4)
26, 1996,
Information Act ("FOIA") requests, all mailed on July on Her
behalf by
Her Counsel
of
Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., to wit: (a)
TO:
Disclosure Officer Office of the Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judnotic.htm (1 of 5) [4/8/2007 2:13:12 PM]
choice,
Mr.
Paul
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judnotic
Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice: Page 1 of 5
(a)
FOR: 1.
(b)
TO:
(b)
FOR: 1.
(c)
TO:
(c)
FOR: 1.
Certified copy of the solemn oath of office of Joelyn D. Marlowe, as required by Article VI, Clause 3, of the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended.
2.
Certified copy of her fidelity bond or surety bond.
3.
Certified copy of her formal delegation of authority, beginning with the President, through the Attorney General, linking all officials in the chain of command between her and them.
4.
Certified copy of her license to practice law in the State of Arizona.
(d)
TO:
Certified copies of all Acts of Congress, with implementing regulations (if any), granting standing to the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" [sic] to bring civil and/or criminal actions as Plaintiff before district courts of the United States and/or United States District Courts, as distinct from the Plaintiff "UNITED STATES" [sic]. See Hooven & Allison v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945); cf. "Union" in Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (1856).
Disclosure Officer Office of the Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Certified copies of all Acts of Congress, with implementing regulations (if any), granting criminal jurisdiction to United States District Courts, as distinct from district courts of the United States.
Disclosure Officer Office of the Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Disclosure Officer Office of the Attorney General
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judnotic.htm (2 of 5) [4/8/2007 2:13:12 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judnotic
Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington, D.C.
Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice: Page 2 of 5
(d)
FOR: 1.
Implementing regulations, as published in the Federal Register pursuant to the Federal Register Act, for the following United States Codes: (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)
18 U.S.C. 3231 26 U.S.C. 7402 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) 28 U.S.C. 1861 et seq. (Jury Selection and Service Act) 4 U.S.C. 104 et seq. (The Buck Act)
(e)
TO:
Disclosure Officer Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building One Columbus Circle, N.E. Washington, D.C.
(e)
FOR: 1.
Implementing regulations, as published in the Federal Register pursuant to the Federal Register Act, for the following United States Codes: (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)
18 U.S.C. 3231 26 U.S.C. 7402 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) 28 U.S.C. 1861 et seq. (Jury Selection and Service Act) 4 U.S.C. 104 et seq. (The Buck Act)
Defendant also CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE
attaches a
judge in
that the
case, dated
United States
Defendant wishes
Her
Counsel's
written
AND DEMAND to William D. Browning, presiding
the instant
first class
copy of
mail on
July 25,
1996, and
the same day.
sent via
See attached.
to place all interesed parties on formal notice
deadline for
response from William D. Browning to said
NOTICE AND DEMAND was August 8, 1996 (25+14-31 = 8). Copies of
the above-mentioned
FOIA requests,
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judnotic.htm (3 of 5) [4/8/2007 2:13:12 PM]
and
of
the
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judnotic
letter from
Defendant's Counsel
attached and herein.
incorporated by
See attached.
grace, the
to
William
reference as
D.
Browning,
if set
forth
are fully
Allowing for weekends and an extra day of
deadlines for
responses to
said FOIA
requests will
fall on Monday, August 12, 1996.
Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice: Page 3 of 5
VERIFICATION The Undersigned under the
laws of
the United
"United States", correct, to
hereby certify,
that the
the best
under penalty
States of
America,
of perjury, without
the
above statements of fact are true and
of Our knowledge, materially complete, and
not misleading, so help Us God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
Executed on August 13, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen ________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell ________________________________________ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, and Counselor at Law
Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice: Page 4 of 5
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila
Terese,
penalty of
Wallen,
perjury, under
Sui
Juris,
the laws
of
hereby the
certify,
United
under
States
of
America, without the "United States," that I am at least 18 years of age,
a Citizen
of one
of the
United States of America, and
that I personally served the following document(s): http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judnotic.htm (4 of 5) [4/8/2007 2:13:12 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judnotic
NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE: Federal Rules of Evidence 201(d) by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United
States Mail,
with
postage
prepaid
and
addressed to the following:
Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 Tucson [85701] ARIZONA STATE Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Executed on: August 13, 1996 /s/ Sheila Wallen __________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice: Page 5 of 5
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judnotic.htm (5 of 5) [4/8/2007 2:13:12 PM]
properly
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counnad
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona Under Protest, Necessity, and by Special Visitation Only
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Sheila Terese, Wallen, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________)
COMES NOW
Sheila Terese,
state and
Defendant in
"Defendant"), to
Case No. 95-484-WDB NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR THE RIGHT TO ENJOY THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL OF CHOICE: Sixth Amendment
Wallen, Sui the above
demand this
Juris, Citizen of Arizona
entitled matter
honorable Court
(hereinafter
to recognize
Her
fundamental Right to enjoy the assistance of either Counsel(s) or Co-Counsel(s) of the State
Her choice
Bar of
who are
Arizona and
who are
not necessarily members of not necessarily licensed
attorneys, for the following reasons:
Notice and Demand to Enjoy the Assistance of Counsel: Page 1 of 4
1.
The Constitutional guarantee of right to "assistance of
counsel" is not qualified. 2.
The Constitution
established by
the People
of the State of Arizona, ordained and for Their
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counnad.htm (1 of 4) [4/8/2007 2:13:13 PM]
protection, shall
not
be
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counnad
superseded or
amended by
any
act
of
the
Legislature
or
by
anything in the Constitution or laws of any State. 3.
Defendant has
the fundamental
assistance of
Counsel of
the Defendant
while proceeding
Hill, (1969) denied 406
the effective
Her choice, to stand by, and to advise
70 C.2d 678, U.S.
Right to
In Propria
Persona.
People v.
971;
76 Cal.Rptr. 225, 452 P.2d 329, cert. People v.
Zamora, (1944) 66 Cal.App.2d
166, 152 P.2d 180. 4.
Within the
the assistance
unambiguous language
of Counsel
of the
Constitution,
does not restrict it to any state bar
associations. 5.
Defendant refuses
to waive
any fundamental
Rights or
Immunities in order to assert another Right or Immunity. 6.
The Right
to Counsel
has been deeply embedded in true
American tradition since the foundation of this Republic, and has been most
recently set
forth by the United States Supreme Court
in Faretta v. State of California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). The U.S. requirement of
Supreme Court the Sixth
has ruled
"If
not complied
with,
Amendment is
as follows:
court no longer has jurisdiction to proceed."
this the
Johnson v. Zerbst,
304 U.S. 458, 468 (1938). In addition,
if this Court fails to notify the Defendant of
its fundamental "Rights Sua Sponte" or those declared or demanded by the
Defendant, then
the Court
of its
own
volition
denies
itself jurisdiction.
Notice and Demand to Enjoy the Assistance of Counsel: Page 2 of 4
RELIEF REQUESTED Therefore, the
Defendant moves
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counnad.htm (2 of 4) [4/8/2007 2:13:13 PM]
the
Court
to
grant
this
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counnad
demand for whichever
the right the
of assistance
Defendant fair
Defendant
wishes
proceedings and
to
of Counsel have,
to
justice, which
or
Co-Counsel,
insure
to
the
Rights are
more
fully set forth in the attached brief in support of the absolute, unalienable Right to unfettered Counsel.
Executed on July 22, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, Counselor at Law and federal witness All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Notice and Demand to Enjoy the Assistance of Counsel: Page 3 of 4
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila penalty of
Terese,
Sui
perjury, under
America, without of age
Wallen,
Juris,
the laws
the United
of
hereby the
certify,
United
under
States
of
States, that I am at least 18 years
and a Citizen of one of the United States of America, and
that I personally served the following document: NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR THE RIGHT TO ENJOY THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL OF CHOICE: Sixth Amendment by placing
said document
in first class U.S. Mail, with postage
prepaid and properly addressed to the following individuals:
Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counnad.htm (3 of 4) [4/8/2007 2:13:13 PM]
[hand-delivered]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counnad
Tucson [85701] ARIZONA STATE Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Dated:
July 22, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen ________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Notice and Demand to Enjoy the Assistance of Counsel: Page 4 of 4
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counnad.htm (4 of 4) [4/8/2007 2:13:13 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona Under Protest, Necessity, and by Special Visitation Only
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Sheila Terese, Wallen, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________)
Case No. 95-484-WDB MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION FOR VIOLATING THE FUNDAMENTAL GUARANTEE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: Sixth Amendment
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Defendant asks the Court to take Judicial Notice of the fact that many of
the men
who contributed
to the writing or ratifying of
the Constitution
were attorneys,
such as
Justice of
the U.S.
Supreme Court,
John Jay, first Chief
and John
Marshall, a later
Chief Justice.
John Adams, James Wilson, John Blaire, and Oliver
Ellsworth were
among the
approving the
many fine
language used
in the
attorneys who
assisted
in
Constitution for the United
States of America (hereinafter "U.S. Constitution"). Are we
to believe
these "attorneys"
that the
with no
word "COUNSEL" was selected by
thought whatsoever
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (1 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
to its Common Law
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
meaning at that time?
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 1 of 32
In discussing
a defendant's
Right
to
Counsel,
the
U.S.
Supreme Court has held: ... [H]is right to be heard through his own counsel is UNQUALIFIED. Chandler v. Fretag, 348 U.S. 3 [emphasis added]
In consulting
Noah
Webster's
1828
dictionary,
the
word
"unqualified" is defined as: Not modified, limited, or restricted by conditions or exceptions; .... (Noah Webster's First Edition of an American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828, republished in facsimile edition by Foundation for American Christian Education, San Francisco, California, second edition, 1980)
It is undeniable that the explicit use of the word "Counsel" in the Sixth Amendment was intended to mean someone other than an attorney, as District Court
well as an attorney. when it
This view is upheld by a U.S.
recognized an accountant as Counsel, and
reprimanded an IRS employee: Yet while he was informing the prospective defendant of Right to Counsel, he was simultaneously requesting that Defendant's Counsel leave the interrogation. In effect, investigator informed Tarlowski that he might have attorney present, but not his accountant.
Ruling in
favor of
Tarlowski's motion
to suppress,
the
his the the his
Court
said: For a government official to mouth in a ritualistic way part of the warning about the right to counsel, while excluding the person relied upon as counsel is, in effect, to reverse the meaning of the words used. U.S. v. Tarlowski, 305 F.Supp. 112 (1969)
Defendant also asks the Court to take Judicial Notice of the use of the word "Counsel" in the 17th century: http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (2 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
... and in all courts persons of all persuaisions [sic] may freely appear in their own way, and according to their own manner and there plead their own causes themselves, or if unable, by their friends .... Fundamental Constitution for the Province of East Jersey (1683) [emphasis added].
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 2 of 32
To have
a "friend" act as Counsel was a Common Law Right and was
recognized as
such in the Bill of Rights when the term "Counsel"
was used instead of the term "attorney." The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely, except by reference to common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the convention who submitted it to the ratification of conventions of the thirteen states, were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law and thought and spoke in its vocabulary ... when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact , they expressed them in terms of common law, confident that they could by shortly and easily understood. Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 108 (1925) [emphasis added]
No limit the Right
or qualification
to "assistance
Defendant submits the Common
Law
Defendant, if mandatory in but most
"Counsel" was used in recognition of
to
he so
have
chose.
a proper
U.S.
one's
"friends"
Reference to
interpretation of
particularly in
preponderance of
of Counsel" in the Sixth Amendment and
the word Right
was ever intended to be put upon
the
Supreme
Bill
of
Court
the
speak Common
for Law
a is
the U.S. Constitution, Rights.
cases
which
There uphold
is
a the
position of Defendant on interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. ... as men whose intentions require no concealment, generally employ the words which most directly and aptly express the ideas they intend to convey: the enlightened patriots who framed our constitution and the people who adopted it must be understood to have employed the words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824).
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (3 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
And, ... In the construction of the constitution, we must look to the history of the times, and examine the state of things existing when it was framed and adopted. 12 Wheat 354; 6 Wheat 416; 4 Peters 431-2; to ascertain the old law, the mischief and the remedy. State of Rhode Island v. The State of Massachusetts, 37 U.S. 657 (1938)
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 3 of 32
And also,
in speaking
further of
Constitutional provisions, we
find: We agree, it is not to be frittered away by doubtful construction, but like every clause in every constitution it must have reasonable interpretation, and be held to express the intention of the framers. Woodson v. Murdock, 89 U.S. 351, 369 (1874)
And further, The necessities which gave birth to the Constitution, the controversies which precede its formation and the conflicts of opinion which were settled by its adoption, may properly be taken into view for the purposes of tracing to its source, any particular provision of the Constitution, in order thereby, to be enabled to correctly interpret its meaning. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 558
History shows conclusively that it was a Common Law Right to be represented in court by a "friend" rather than an attorney, if one chose.
Defendant
Amendment did
claims that right herein, which the Sixth
indeed secure, and is not subject to "revision" by
the American Bar Association. Undoubtedly what went before the adoption of the Constitution may be resorted to for the purpose of throwing light on its provisions. Marshall v. Gordon, 243 U.S. 521, 533 (1971)
Each word chosen.
has a
this land,
The word but, on
particular meaning
and
was
deliberately
"Counsel" was not idly set down as the law of the contrary,
was selected with great skill
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (4 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
and meaning. To disregard such a deliberate choice of words and their natural meaning, would be a departure from the first principle of Constitutional interpretation. "In expounding the Constitution of the United States," said Chief Justice Taney in Holmes v. Jennison, 14 540, 570, 571, "every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that, no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added." The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the Constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation and its force and effect to have been fully understood. Wright v. U.S., 302 U.S. 583 (1938) [emphasis added]
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 4 of 32
Little did
the Framers
of Our Constitution, who labored so
long and hard to fashion it, realize that the day might come when it would
be ridiculed
clerks, and
by law
consigned to
professors, snickered
at by
law
the wastebasket by attorneys, the bar,
and the Judiciary. To narrowly
interpret
"licensed attorneys"
is an
the
word
"Counsel"
infringement
of
to
mean
Defendant's
only Sixth
Amendment right to Counsel, which even the U.S. Supreme Court has held is "unqualified." The words ambiguous, and understood by
of the
See Chandler supra. Amendment
were obviously The People,
are
simple,
written by
as the
clear,
and
not
Our Forefathers to be
following citation undeniably
indicates: The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for interpolation or addition. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat 304; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat 1; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat 419; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet. 10; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U.S. 139; Lake County v. http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (5 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
Rollins, 130 U.S. 662; Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1; Edwards v. Cuba R. Co., 268 U.S. 628; The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655 (justice) Story on the Constitution, 5th ed., sec. 451; Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 2nd ed., P. 61, 70.
And further, It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect .... Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 174 (1803)
In passing, Marshall, who
it might
be
noted
that
Chief
Justice
John
principally was responsible for the holding in the
above cited Marbury case, and who seems to be looked upon by most attorneys and justices,
judges
is
as
reported
the to
greatest have
of
had
Our
two
Supreme
weeks
Court
law
school
preparation, at which time half his study was philosophy.
Also:
The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now. South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905).
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 5 of 32
Defendant
is
deeply
perturbed
at
the
erosion
of
his
fundamental Right to Counsel by the very legal profession itself. The restriction the result
of attorneys
upon laws
who sat
which involved,
which were, on the
of the Courts to professional attorneys only, is
and are,
benches
Sovereign will
of
in Our
for them,
legislatures and voted
a conflict of interest and
upheld by their brother attorneys, who sit Our
of The
Courts,
ruling
People, which
in
it is
violation
of
the
their sworn duty to
obey. Any State law which prohibits laymen from speaking on behalf of another,
when sought
Sixth Amendment.
Any
for that purpose, is a violation of the implementation of
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (6 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
such State
laws
also
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
violates Defendant's
rights to freedom of speech, wherein he may
speak through whom he chooses; he may
associate with
wherein he
whom he
is denied
consequence, he
to freedom of association wherein pleases;
Counsel of
to due process of law,
his choice
and therefore as a
impartial jury
is denied a fair trial, and he is also denied an by being
unable to speak, as he knows he should,
through Counsel of trust to the jury. To be
denied a layman to assist him with advice, and to act
as a spokesman at Defendant's request, is to subject Defendant to unequal treatment Defendant has
under the
less Rights
law.
As an
and worse
unconvicted
treatment than
Citizen, inmates in
state and
federal prisons, who are permitted "jailhouse" lawyers
-- laymen
who practice
law on
behalf of their fellow prisoners
with the approval of many Courts.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 6 of 32
As an
unconvicted Citizen, Defendant is denied the right to
contract when willing to
he is
forbidden the
speak for
Defendant's right occurs because bar association
him at
to contract,
(a monopoly
of
the
of
request.
it
attorneys, who
controlled legislature) protection
his
assistance
is
are, in they have
have purported
"public";
one
is
denial
of
The
who
respectfully
submitted,
this State, members of a promoted to make
through
whereas,
their
they
a "law" for the have
actually
instigated a self-serving franchise, in great part at the expense of the
public and,
in Defendant's
view, to
the
detriment
of
Constitutional government. Again, Defendant jury when
a so-called
is denied
a "fair trial" and an impartial
"law" prohibits him from contracting with
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (7 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
someone of
his choosing
hostile government, of the
for Defendant's legal defense against a
bent on punishing Defendant for the exercise
very fundamental
Rights which
the government
should be
upholding rather than attacking. The denied
aforementioned when
the
attorneys may
word
rights
are
"Counsel"
infringed,
is
abridged,
qualified
to
mean
speak for the defense in a Court of Law.
and only
This was
not the case in Tarlowski, where the "Counsel" referred to by the Court was an accountant. It appears words of
to Defendant that a careful consideration of the
the Sixth
Counsel of
Amendment, securing his fundamental Right to
CHOICE must
idly selected
be undertaken here.
Since no words were
by the Forefathers, let us emphasize them here and
now so that there can be no misunderstanding as to their meaning, for
Defendant
believes
constitutionally correct.
his
stand
in
this
matter
is
The vital words here are:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused SHALL ENJOY the RIGHT ... to have the ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL for his defence.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 7 of 32
Defendant requests the Court's indulgence and patience for a brief analysis
of the words capitalized above because, where his
Life, Liberty, or Property are involved, it is not a matter which he takes lightly. For the when
the
source of the common meaning of common words in use
U.S.
Webster's First Language, Foundation
1828, for
Constitution
was
written,
we
refer
to
Noah
Edition of an American Dictionary of the English republished American
in
Christian
facsimile Education,
edition
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (8 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
San
by
the
Francisco,
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
California, Second Edition, 1980. ALL: a. Every one ... the whole quantity, extent, duration, amount, quality, or degree; ... This word signifies the whole or entire thing ....
It is
obvious on its face that the word "all" allows for no
exceptions and
is all-inclusive, and it is also obvious that the
Sixth Amendment, therefore, allows for no criminal trial where it does not apply. SHALL: v.i. In the present tense, shall ... forms the future tense; ... informs another that a fact is to take place .... In the second and third persons, shall implies a promise, command or determination. "You shall receive ...."
The word
"shall," in legal contemplation, is mandatory;
word "of
command ... must be given a compulsory meaning."
clearly so
stated on
it is a It is
page 1233 of Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth
Edition, 1979. ENJOY: v.t ... To feel or perceive with pleasure; to take pleasure or satisfaction in the possession or experience of .... We enjoy a free constitution and inestimable privileges.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 8 of 32
Defendant confidence
has
in
the
Mitchell, Dean, He is
informed legal
of
that
he
Haldeman,
has
little
Erlichman,
necessity, not
out of
desire.
a few attorneys whom he trusts, but their
multi-thousand dollar
whom the
profession
out of
aware of
Defendant.
Court
Nixon and Agnew, and not to mention many others.
defending himself
Defendant is
the
fees are
out of
the
question
for
this
He does not trust just any attorney out of a grab-bag government is
defendant be
willing to
satisfied with
U.S. Constitution.
The
furnish;
neither would this
such an "attorney's" concept of the
average attorney,
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (9 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
full
of
law-school
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
brainwashing, thinks judges say
it is,
that the
U.S.
Constitution
is
what
the
rather than what the Constitution itself says
it is. If Defendant cannot "enjoy" the "assistance of Counsel" from the
Bar
(i.e.
undeniable Right
the
legal
establishment),
of Counsel
which he
then
can enjoy.
he
has
the
To deny this
Right is to deny his Rights under the Sixth Amendment to Counsel. It is
the use
gives a
of the
word "ENJOY," as well as "COUNSEL," which
Defendant the
licensed or
Right
unlicensed, as
to
Fathers, and
of which
the
Counsel
was provided
for
of by
his the
choice, Founding
the Ninth Amendment clearly prohibits any
denial or disparagement: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 9 of 32
What honest denial of
attorney or
Counsel of
judge can
fail to see that in the
choice to a Defendant in court, that he is
not "denying" or "disparaging" both enumerated and non-enumerated rights? And what
honest attorney
or judge
can fail to see that in
enforcing a so-called statute denying a layman the opportunity to speak in lawyer or
defense of
a friend at the friend's request, that said
judge is rendering infidelity to his oath of office to
support the Constitution which states, in Article VI, Clause 2? This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [emphasis added]
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (10 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
Attorneys are required to
called "officers take oaths
of
the
to support
the attorneys
attempt to
defendants in
court to
the attorneys
are involved
court,"
and
they
the U.S. Constitution.
prevent the
are When
exercise of the Rights of
speak through lay friends of confidence, in denying
that which they swear to
uphold -- to their eternal discredit and dishonor. The fact time, and
that the attorneys have been successful for a long
that colleagues
does not make it right; it certainly American
exercise your to jail,"
enhance the
who
exorbitant legal
robes have
upheld them,
it does not make it constitutional;
does not
People
in judicial
are
tired
Rights of
of
being
the
and
grass-roots
subjected
to
the
fees of a closed-shop union which says, "If you
fundamental Rights,
we will see to it that you go
and now, "You have to go our route because the loss of
your fundamental Rights is a settled matter." How could the legal
any decent
person uphold such a system?
How can
and the judicial profession escape tarnished "images?"
Is the denial of fundamental Rights to the Defendant "frivolous?" Is it
not better
restless People
to restore
by attorneys,
rise up? and for
fundamental Rights
than to have a
Must we have "government of attorneys,
attorneys?"
Especially, after Watergate,
the People are not going to stand for it.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 10 of 32
It is
important to
"enjoy" follows command of right to
the word
the sovereign
note
that
the
"shall," and power that
Counsel is mandatory.
Sixth it would
Amendment
the ability
word
therefore be a to enjoy
the
The words "shall ... enjoy" make
this very clear.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (11 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
The judgment as to what Counsel the Defendant can "enjoy" is left entirely in his hands, and nowhere in the Sixth Amendment is this prerogative given to the Courts;
it remains the fundamental
"Right" of the Defendant. RIGHT: n. Conformity to the will of God, or to His law, the perfect standard of truth and justice ... Just claim; immunity; privilege. All men have the right to the secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty, and property. We deem the right of trial by jury invaluable, particularly in the case of crimes.
The "right" law,
nature,
to "enjoy" and
disparaged by
Counsel is
tradition,
any private
sympathizers employed
and
claimed by Defendant by
may
not
association, its
in government.
It
be
infringed
members, or is a
or
by its
right which the
People retained for themselves and it is to be protected by their Judiciary.
It is
protect the
vested interests
the rights
of The
right to
function of
the
a Defendant
Courts are
People's
Courts
to
of any private monopoly as against
Sovereign People.
speak for
Otherwise, the are, in
not a
in
Non-attorneys have as much Our
run only
Courts
as
attorneys.
for "special interests" and
fact, protecting a monopoly, in violation of the Sherman
Anti-Trust Act. commerce and
Such
to restrain
monopoly practices, substantially lower. they would
a monopoly
have to
business which
acts to
competition and
the cost
of justice
restrain trade;
interstate
without
such
to The People would be
Attorneys could still ply their trade, but be competent
they would
and
acquire from
deserve those
more who
fully
the
voluntarily
trusted them. ASSISTANCE: on. Help; aid; furtherance; succor; a contribution of support in bodily strength or other means.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 11 of 32
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (12 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
The common understanding of the word "assistance" is that it comes from
one who
assistance is
acts in
given to
"assists" him.
a President
helper.
by
a
Vice
For example, President
one who
The common
The above mentioned dictionary defines an serves in
a subordinate
position,
the original
reestablishing.
decision is
Common Law
and may
Courts or
a
right which
this motion
is
It is an aimed
at
Defendant may also promote assistant Counsel to
co-Counsel wherein such a
as
practice today of the Defendant "assisting"
the defense attorney is one to which Defendant objects. erosion of
who
We find a definition of "assistant" which follows
the word "assistance." assistant as
a secondary capacity.
the Bar
they share theirs, not
in the
not be
defense and maintain that
the Court's.
denied or
Association.
It
is theirs by
infringed by
It is
also their
either
the
fundamental
Right. COUNSEL: n. Advice; opinion or instruction ... Those who give counsel in law; any counselor or advocate, or any number of counselors, barristers, or sergeants; as the plaintiff's counsel, or the defendant's counsel. COUNSELOR: Gan. Any person who gives advice; .... One who is consulted by a client in a law case; one who gives advice in relation to a question of law; one whose profession is to give advice in law and manage causes for clients.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 12 of 32
If the a licensed
men who framed the Bill of Rights meant by "COUNSEL" attorney, they
Surely, the
Court cannot
would have refuse to
said "licensed attorney". recognize
this.
In
the
interest of fairness, let the Court grant the Defendant's motion. Neither the President of the United States nor the Governors who head
the executive branches of government are required to be
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (13 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
attorneys in judges are
order to not required
statute, to
to
by the
be attorneys.
Legislators who have
administer and enforce the laws. U.S. Constitution,
Congressmen,
be
pass legislation,
"attorneys."
"attorneys." Does it
represent himself
Magistrates
not seem
in Court
or by valid
Senators,
statutes, and do
Federal
and
other
"laws" do
not
have
to
not be
strange that a Defendant cannot
without being an "attorney?"
Are we
playing games with the meaning of "represent"? Why
then,
the
representative in
Defendant
Court be
Defendant's representative enforcer, the do not
need?
asks,
a licensed
must
have a
the
attorney?
Defendant's Why must the
title which the lawmaker, the
federal law adjudicator, and the Defendant himself Speak, Oh Learned Ones!
And please speak without
attempting to turn white into "black," and black into "white," as the graduates of law schools seem so gifted at doing. speak without
being in
contempt of
the
And please
Constitution
for
the
United States, as lawfully amended.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 13 of 32
I THE WILL OF THE SOVEREIGN POWER The U.S. Constitution is the will of The People, clearly set down for
their agents, elected and appointed, to follow.
No law
supersedes the U.S. Constitution and only those in "pursuance" of it may
stand.
Even treaties must be made "in Pursuance" of the
U.S. Constitution. We the People ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Preamble to the U.S. Constitution (1789)
In establishing this government, the People said that: http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (14 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
This Constitution, and the Laws ... thereof ... shall be the supreme Law Article VI, Cl. 2, U.S. Constitution.
made in Pursuance of the Land ....
And they also commanded that: ... [A]ll ... judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; .... Article VI, Clause 3, U.S. Constitution
It is People, to
clearly the close the
will of the bar associations, not of the Courts to all but licensed attorneys.
Use
of the word "Counsel" rather than "attorneys" denotes the will of the Sovereign Power, which cannot be lawfully overridden. In the United States, Sovereignty resides in the people, who act through the organs established by the Constitution. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 471; Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 Dall. 54, 93; McCullock v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 404, 405; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370; ... Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the people to override their will as thus declared. Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935)
In the Sixth Amendment, the People declared their will as to the rights right of
of the Accused in all criminal prosecutions the Defendant
was purposely to include
couched in
to "enjoy"
those friends
and the
the "assistance of Counsel"
the Common Law term, "Counsel," so as upon whom
Defendants may
depend for
advice and protection. In a
speech by Judge Learned Hand at the Mayflower Hotel in
Washington, D.C.,
on May 11, 1929, entitled, "Is There a Common
Will?" in speaking of judges, he said: He is not to substitute even his juster will for theirs; otherwise it would not be the "common will" which prevails, and to that extent, the people would not govern.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 14 of 32
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (15 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
Defendant has
the right
to be
foolish as well as wise, and his
liberty is his to do with as he pleases. of choice
in this
the defense,
To deny him his freedom
matter of Counsel is unduly to interfere with
and constitutes a denial of the will of The People,
from whom the Courts' authority is derived, and a substitution in lieu thereof is being used -- that of the "will of attorneys." Bills of rights are, in their origin, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Hamilton, Federalist Papers, No. 84.
The right
to have
a "friend" plead one's case, or to assist one
in Court, is a Common Law right secured by the Sixth Amendment. History is clear that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted to secure certain common law rights of the people against invasion by the Federal Government. Bell v. Hood, 71 F. Supp., 813, 816 (1947) U.S.D.C., So. Dist. Calif.
Our Founding
Fathers spoke
and wrote
in the
vernacular of the
Common Law, and "Counsel" was the word they chose. conclusive contention.
on
this
point,
Interpretation
and of
the the
record word
The facts are supports
"Counsel"
to
this mean
"attorney only" is a departure from the safeguards of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was provided as a barrier, to protect the individual against arbitrary exactions of ... legislatures, (and) courts ... it is the primary distinction between democratic and totalitarian way. Re Stoller, Supreme Court of Florida, en banc, 36 So.2d 443, 445 (1948).
A more
recent confirmation
of fundamental Rights of the Accused
says: Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1968) Even though
the Miranda
decision
referred
to
the
Fifth
Amendment right in toto, the above stated principle is of general
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (16 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
application, wherein the word "rights" is not qualified.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 15 of 32
II DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION In Tarlowski
supra, the Court said, in suppressing evidence
at the request of Tarlowski's motion: When a federal official's interference with the right of free association takes the form of limiting the ability of a criminal suspect to consult with and be accompanied by a person upon whom he relies for advice and protection, he gravely transgresses. For these reasons, the Motion to suppress must be granted.
It was
in this
case that Tarlowski was denied the Counsel of an
accountant, not of a lawyer. Defendant has associate with
a right
whom he
under the
pleases
preparation and
presentation, so
with
and
decorum,
procedure which
do not
U.S. Constitution. Amendment Right
without
First Amendment freely to
in
his
defense
long as
contempt
and
such is
for
in
its
respectful,
orderly
rules
of
deprive one of Rights guaranteed by the
To deny this Right is also to deny his Fifth
to Due
Process of
Law, which
is
actually
a
guarantee of fundamental fairness.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 16 of 32
III DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES The First Amendment states, in pertinent part: Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (17 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
Defendant asks, for redress
"How can I maintain my maximum Right to petition
of grievances, if that person whom I choose to speak
for me is not permitted to do so?" If Congress abide a of a
passes a
statute of
statute requiring
a federal court to
the State in which it sits, and said statute
state purports
to make
it a
crime for
a Defendant to be
represented by a non-attorney, then Congress has effectively done not only
what the U.S. Constitution does not authorize it to do,
but it has done what is also expressly forbidden. If such
is the
frustrates the
case, then
Right of
The
Congress has made a "law" which
People,
and
the
Defendant,
"to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Of what Grievances
use if
is
the
the
government?
This
Right
Defendant
to is
Petition
for
of
handicapped
by
handicap arises
personally
Redress
because the Defendant needs
assistance in his petitioning, and yet the he is limited by a bar association, or
a state,
"friend" cannot
be permitted to speak for the Petitioner because
said "friend" schools.
has not been brainwashed in certain "approved" law
In is
in such law schools that the deprivation of the
fundamental Rights, language
in
or a court which says that a competent
the
although set U.S.
forth in plain and unambiguous
Constitution
itself,
is
not
"settled
doctrine." The "licensed attorneys" and "attorney-judges" say that "The Constitution is
what the Supreme Court says it is."
Congress passes
a law
layman's wife
saying that
any bureaucrat
What if the can rape any
and the Supreme Court says, "Yes, that's perfectly
in harmony with the Constitution?"
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (18 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 17 of 32
Then, are we The People to stand for it? authority?
Now, what
should The
Congress and
such a
brave enough
to challenge
Who gave them said
People do
Supreme Court?
who
have
such
a
Are the lower court judges
it, or are they "bound" to follow the
higher Court judges? And where who now
is the
steps forward
member of the bar, the licensed attorney, and announces his license
that the go to?
Supreme Court is
mistaken?
Where does
Now, who is going to
permit him
to appear in Court if he doesn't buckle down and stop
rocking the establishment? Obviously, an significant.
extreme example
Laymen would
has been
used;
but it
is
not have to stand for such nonsense.
Licensed attorneys ... who knows? That
laymen
should
be
subjected
to
a
"drifting"
and
"unstable" Constitution -- which happens to be what some justices "think it a jury
is" at the moment -- can be very frustrating, and that
cannot hear
damnable floating
a "Counsel"
impartial
for Redress
preserve the jury,
Grievances to not beholden perverted the
let
a
of Grievances."
semblance
the
the jury to
not beholden
to such a
doctrine, are indeed a denial of "the Right to
Petition (effectively) justice, to
who is
of
Defendant
and
fair
petition
through "Counsel
corrupt
a
To preserve
trial for
and
an
Redress
of
of his choice," who is
degenerate
system
which
has
very Law by which it pretends to rule and which it
pretends to protect and uphold.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 18 of 32
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (19 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
Defendant believes choice, or
that true religion guarantees freedom of
freedom to
choose, to
elect, and
to select, taking
responsibility for the consequences of said choices. Defendant further
believes that
he has
the right
to help
others and, in turn, to be helped by those willing voluntarily to answer his means in
call for
assistance.
its own
the Courtroom laws and
where a
In this case, he particularly hostile government is violating
trampling upon
the Rights
of
the
Sovereign
People, which its officers are sworn to protect. When all
the mighty
arrayed against out
the
a lone
force of an all powerful government is individual who
government's
entitled, most
of
inequities,
all,
to
the
has the courage to point
said
individual
protection
of
should
his
be
religious
convictions and rights. Under the right to rights
First Amendment,
believe, as of
long as the same does not trample upon the
others,
government.
the right of conscience and the
is
the
number
one
right
protected
by
In pertinent part, the First Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ....
Defendant's religious oppression
and
conviction, again,
freedom
legislation slapped
on a
from
same.
soul-stifling
special
interest
freedom-loving individual on behalf of
self-serving perpetrators profession, at
calls for freedom from
of special
the expense
advantages
to
the
legal
of the long-suffering victims of the
Let the legal profession compete like men with the Counsel
Defendant chooses for his defense, and for the proper exercise of his religious
Rights, chief
among which
is the
freedom of any
choice which does not trample upon the Rights of others.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (20 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 19 of 32
IV DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION Defendant's right
to equal
protection of the laws is guaranteed
through the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment: The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment guarantees to each citizen the equal protection of the laws and prohibits a denial thereof by any Federal official. Bolling v. Sharpe, 327 U.S. 497
Defendant asks
the Court
to take
Judicial Notice of an article
from Newsweek, September 2, 1974, which tells how a layman, James Yager, handled the legal problems of 3,500 clients (see paragraph 1).
The same
paragraph also
appearance," which
took place
speaks of
"His most recent court
in Atlanta.
It
describes
how
"Yager paced the courtroom floor," as he addressed the jury.
Mr.
Yager is engaging in the practice of law, which is his Right as a Layman, or desire.
laymen, to
than to
To deny
assist him
this motion
in his
is to
a Free and Natural Person.
defense, if
they
so
give prisoners more Rights Such inequity before the law
is intolerable. Said article mentions various others who have adopted law as an avocation inmate now
and goes
on to mention a Mr. Green, another former
on parole,
and says that:
"Green is a familiar face
in the Boston courtrooms, where he maintains his legal activities by submitting interesting to and James
amicus briefs know if
X, are
for other
felons."
It
would
be
Mr. Green and Yeager, like Mr. Jefferson
also black
men, and if therefore, fundamental
Rights are only available to black men. In both United Mine Workers v. Illinois Bar Association, 389 U.S. 217,
and NAACP
v.
Button,
371
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (21 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
U.S.
415,
and
also
in
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
Brotherhood of 1 (1964),
Railhood Trainmen v. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S.
it was
held
that
a
State
may
not
pass
statutes
prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law or to interfere with the Right to freedom of speech, secured by the First Amendment.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 20 of 32
Defendant is
entitled to
equal protection
of the laws and
that includes his right to speak through whom he pleases, when he pleases.
The only
reasonable condition
is that the decorum of
the Court and the rules not in conflict with individual Rights be maintained;
otherwise there
inalienable and legal Right. has every
intention of
can be
no valid
denial
of
this
Defendant is agreeable to this, and
obeying the proper rules and maintaining
the decorum of the Court. Defendant herein
To do otherwise is unthinkable.
also believes
that it
is
vital
to
his
defense to
seek whatever assistance he can trust, and that if he
decides to
be assisted by either licensed or unlicensed Counsel,
he has
every Right
combination of
to do
both may
so.
If the Defendant believes that a
be to
his advantage,
to deny him this
Right would constitute an unreasonable and arbitrary interference with his defense, by denying him his fundamental Rights freely to associate with
whom he
chooses;
to freedom
freedom to Petition for Redress of Grievances;
of
speech;
to
and his religious
Right of conscience and freedom of choice, without which religion is worth but little. Defendant also other Defendants
asks the
in criminal
Court to take Judicial Notice that cases are
allowed to
plan
their
defenses without interference by the Courts, and Defendant herein claims that same Right. http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (22 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 21 of 32
Surely, we special grants same
cannot have
of privilege
privileges
are
special laws
to them
denied
for attorneys
and
as a class when these very
all
other
citizens.
The
Constitutional prohibitions against Titles of Nobility in Article I, Section 9, clause 7, and in the original Thirteenth Amendment, are
violated
when
privileges, i.e. the Courts.
"attorney"
"Nobility."
Presently,
Courts whom
becomes We must
a
Title
of
special
all have equal access to
the Courts
only those attorneys have access to the approve and, as a result, all "approved"
attorneys are considered Officers of the Court. Where does defended by Court to
the defendant
an Officer
force the
the defense the very
of the
attorney among
he does
Court?
not wish
to be
To use the power of the
defense to retain an Officer of the Court at
table offends
core.
go when
the sensibilities of the Defendant to
Defendant may
wish voluntarily
to
select
an
his Counsels, but this Defendant believes that he
should not
be forced
freedom of
choice in the matter of whether he has no Counsel and
represents himself,
to do
or uses
so.
Defendant is
licensed legal
simply
seeking
Counsel (attorney),
mixed Counsel (attorneys and laymen) or lay Counsel only. The "stealthy Counsel who monopoly
of
is not
encroachment" upon
the
licensed by legal
Defendant's
the Bar
is
establishment,
the
both
Right
to
a
result
of
a
in
and
out
of
government, State and Federal, to "protect" their "price fixing"; to maintain few in
artificially high legal fees;
law schools
protect attorneys
maintained largely from competition
at public
from
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (23 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
to educate the chosen
those
expense; who
know
to that
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
attorneys have People at
obstructed the
the mercy
of a
U.S. Constitution
swarm
of
and
bureaucrats
left
with
the
endless
attorney-promoted regulations and laws which make "crimes" out of the exercise wherein the
of natural
attorney-controlled
Sovereign Citizen arms
of
and Constitutionally
his
and force
attorney
government
protected Rights,
him into
can
prosecute
the
the waiting, outstretched
"brotherhood,"
who
will
"advise"
and
"defend" him for a considerable fee.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 22 of 32
Little wonder when it and
is full
that People
Deans."
of licensed Little
contemplating what
are fed
up with
the profession
"Haldemans, Erlichmans, Mitchells,
wonder
many
attorneys have
People done
to
almost this
vomit once
when
mighty,
powerful, and independent Republic. Legal fees the same
come too
average Citizen
high for
many average Citizens.
cannot turn
Yet,
to laymen who may be well
versed in the necessary legal area, and this restricts the Courts to attorneys
and those
afford attorneys unjust a
must suffer
system of
some persons
who can
afford them.
along as
Laymen who cannot
best they can.
justice as one could conjure up.
may qualify
for a
Public Defender.
It is as Of course,
That is like
being alone in a pit of cobras, and someone comes along and wants to throw
in another
needed is cobra.
a mongoose
cobra.
Under those circumstances, what is
(read "Counsel
of Choice"),
not
another
Perhaps the STAR CHAMBERS weren't so bad after all.
V DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (24 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
Defendant has also to
not only
speak through
First Amendment evident as which are
whom he pleases.
Right to
a part
the Right to speak for himself, but
freedom of
speech.
It is also self-
of the Natural Rights Doctrine.
called inherent
Declaration of
This is inherent in the
and inalienable
Independence,
They are
natural or
rights.
Defendant
which
God-given, points
"attorney-given" rights,
out
are outlined
antedates
rather that
all
than he
Those Rights in the
government.
government-given,
does
not
claim
any
but demands that his God-given, Natural
Rights not be infringed upon.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 23 of 32
This
fundamental
referred to
Right
previously, but
of
separately to
freedom
Defendant
of
speech
wishes
to
has
set
been
it
out
emphasize it to the Court, and herein refers again
to United
Mine Workers
v. Button
supra, and
v. Illinois Bar Association supra, NAACP the Brotherhood
of Railroad
Trainmen
v.
Virginia State Bar supra, in support of said Right. It is
indicative that
the words
in
the
First
Amendment
embrace freedom "of" speech, and not just freedom "to" speak, and while Defendant does not wish to prolong this Brief by a detailed discussion of wishes to
the difference
bring
to
the
between the
Court's
two terms,
attention
that
he simply
there
is
a
difference, and that its application is obvious.
VI DENIAL OF FREEDOM OF COUNSEL RESULTS IN A CONFLICT OF INTEREST Defendant's request non-attorney Counsel
for the Court to recognize his Right to
in lieu
of, or
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (25 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
in addition
to,
attorney
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
Counsel, would trial on
mean that
a motion
the Court
would have
regarding Defendant's
to rule
Right to
during
non-attorney
assistance, including that of assistant spokesman. If presiding Judge of this Honorable Court has, in the past, ever been
a member
member of
a Bar
connected
with
difficult
to
of any
Bar Association or is, at present, a
Association, or has close friends or associates a
Bar
see
Association,
how
the
Court
then
Defendant
finds
it
could
possibly
render
an
unprejudiced and impartial ruling on Defendant's motion regarding his Right to non-attorney Counsel.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 24 of 32
It appears variance with
to Defendant that the Court would find itself at his own
standards, mainly the Cannons of Judicial
Ethics, No. 29, which states: A judge should abstain from performing or taking part in any judicial act in which his personal interests are involved. If he has a personal litigation in the court of which he is judge, he need not resign his judgeship on that account, but he should, of course, refrain from any judicial act in such controversy.
It
is
apparent
Defendant's motion part of least in
to
the
Defendant
herein would
most reasonable
call for
persons, that
that
the
denial
the thinking,
of
on the
the denial was based, at
part, on a conflict of interest and upon a "hardship of
the case," meaning upon the unfortunate Bar Associations. Granting the being a
motion,
conflict of
would occur
however,
interest, but
despite personal
could not be interpreted as rather, granting
the motion
interest and in favor of fairness,
of due process, and the justice to which the Sovereign Citizen of this Republic is entitled under the Sixth Amendment.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (26 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 25 of 32
VII FEDERAL COURT'S ENFORCEMENT OF PRACTICE-OF-LAW STATE STATUTE ABRIDGES FIRST, NINTH, AND TENTH AMENDMENTS The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states: The powers not delegated to the United States by Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The power
to abrogate
delegated to
mentioned herein has not been
the United States nor to any State through the U.S.
Constitution.
Such a power is an undelegated colorable "office."
Nothing
in
authorizes a
the
U.S.
Constitution
delegation of
frustrate the
foregoing
religion, of of due
the Rights
the are
power to
Rights,
of
this
the state
i.e.
freedom
Union
state
to
thwart
and
of
speech,
of
assembly, of petitioning for redress of grievances,
process, of the Right to contract, and of equal treatment
under the law. Therefore, assuming remains with
the People,
as heretofore power for
the foregoing is true, then the "power" who are the Sovereigns in this country
pointed out.
his choice
Constitution
or
Therefore, the Defendant retains the
of a spokesman in Court, "any Thing in the
Laws
of
any
State
to
notwithstanding."
See Article VI, Clause 2.
state's
or
statutes
invalidate the
any
arbitrary
rule
Said
pretended
Contrary
Regardless of this it
cannot
Rights protected
by the
Defendant's fundamental
U.S. Constitution.
the
right
making,
to
"regulate"
the
"practice of law" must fall, or recede, when placed alongside the Defendant's fundamental jury, with
due
process,
Right to freedom
a fair of
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (27 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
trial by
speech,
and
an impartial freedom
of
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
contract, as heretofore demonstrated. It is
impossible to
delegator does right to
another
not himself possess.
compel the
therefore,
delegate to
this
to a
is
which
the
Defendant does not have the
inadequate representation
Defendant
tyrannical power
that
powerless
to
of another delegate
and,
such
a
legislature, whether or not controlled by
attorneys or any Bar association.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 26 of 32
To summarize this
State
the foregoing,
and
Courts
to a
non-attorney spokesman
not given
to the
from
Amendment prohibits
its
fundamental Right power is
the Tenth
restricting
State by
Defendant's
in court.
Such
either the U.S. or by the
State Constitutions.
Therefore, in civil cases, the Legislature
has usurped,
prodding of attorneys, the so-called Right
at the
to institute a statute prohibiting a Defendant, in a prosecution against him
by his
spokesman of no valid
government, from
trust and confidence.
reason, statute,
fundamental Right
relying upon
In criminal cases, there is
or Court
to Counsel,
a preferred
ruling that
and the
can alter the
Courts, in denying said
spokesman, are arbitrarily usurping Defendant's Right. The Ninth They are
Amendment
not to
The mention
reserves
all
non-enumerated
Rights.
be denied or disparaged, though not enumerated.
and enumeration
Supreme authority
of the
of the
Right to
Counsel under the
Sixth Amendment cannot be construed to
deny or disparage the Right to that Counsel being a non-attorney, or a
non-member of
any Bar
Association licensed
to only
plea
bargain and lose. It would
appear
that
any
decent
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (28 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
person
would
have
no
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
difficulty agreeing
with the
above, and
that any
other ruling
would indeed be "frivolous" and without constitutional authority. Again, imposing restrictions on Defendant's Counsel violates and circumvents Defendant's Fifth Amendment Rights.
In addition,
it imposes
Defendant by
cruel and
forcing him
to seek
unusual punishment legal assistance,
upon the
when and if he needs it,
from those whom he either does not trust or cannot afford.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 27 of 32
VIII DENIAL OF NON-ATTORNEY COUNSEL VIOLATES CIVIL RIGHTS Denial of choice is
Defendant's desire
law, in
also a
for
a
non-attorney
of
his
deprivation of his Civil Rights under color of
by 42
violation of Defendant's fundamental Rights as protected U.S.C. 1983,
1985, and
1986.
See Owens
v. The City of
Independence. CONCLUSION Any denial of Counsel is an attempt to accomplish that which is specifically recognized
prohibited by
therein
counsel," and
says
the Sixth
nothing
that fundamental
about
Right is
Amendment. only
The Right
"court-approved
in no way qualified or
limited. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Miller v. Milwaukee, 272 U.S. 713, 715, reach a
that if
a statute
is part
of an
unlawful scheme to
prohibited result, then "... the statute must fail ...."
This was again upheld in McCallen v. Massachusetts, 279 U.S. 620, 630.
Legislators, whether Federal or State, may not restrict the
Courts only to attorneys in order to deny effective assistance of
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (29 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
Counsel to or
any Defendant
assisted
by
"attorney."
a
who evinces a desire to be represented
"friend,"
What cannot
in
be done
preference by the
to
a
licensed
front door
cannot be
lawfully done by way of the back door. Legislators who do
those
who
execute
Presidents, etc. need not
pass laws
playground
for
violation of choice, due
the
Even
law,
i.e.
the Justices
be licensed
defending their
do not have to be attorneys, nor
attorneys.
Sheriffs,
of the
Governors,
U.S. Supreme Court
To exclude
the
People
from
"friends" in the Courts turns said Courts into a the
legal
establishment,
the Defendant's process of
and
fundamental Right
is to
a
blatant
Counsel
of
law, and equal protection under the law.
Justice Brandeis said: Discrimination is the act of treating differently two persons or things under like circumstances. National Life Insurance Co. v. United States, 277 U.S. 508, 630.
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 28 of 32
As far with the rampant.
back as
unjust and The
Court
1886, the
U.S. Supreme Court was concerned
illegal discriminations frowned
upon
law
which were running
administered
with
an
"unequal hand": ... [S]o as practically to make unjust and illegal discrimination between persons in similar circumstances material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution. Yick Wo v. Hopkins supra.
Therefore, the
Courts cannot
be the
exclusive territory
of
a
legal "elite corps," but must be open to all the Sovereign People alike --
on an
equal basis,
providing due
process of
Law and
equal protection under that Law. The Ninth
and Tenth
Amendments also prohibit the denial of
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (30 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
Counsel of
choice.
delegated such of the
Nowhere has
and if
Tenth Amendments,
the Court will closely examine the it will
find
Counsel of
choice, such
as Defendant
secured in
the penumbra
of these
Ninth Amendment, 41 L.W.
his predecessors
restrictive powers to the United States or to any
Union states,
Ninth and
Defendant or
that
herein
the
claims,
Shapiro
is
to also
Amendments, particularly
which is protected in the states.
4213 (1973);
Right
the
Roe v. Wade,
v. U.S., 641, 394 US 618 (1966);
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1964).
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 29 of 32
Speaking of
controlling constitutional
law, as
opposed to
mere statute law, Chief Justice Marshall said: Those then, who controvert this principle, that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution and see only the law.
And the Court concluded that: This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 176
The United States Supreme Court also pointed out in this decision that, in
declaring what
should be
the supreme Law of the Land,
the U.S. Constitution itself was first mentioned and "... not the laws of the United States generally ...." The attorneys Congress have abolish, Our the United
who sit
no right
in Our State legislatures and in Our
to pass
fundamental Rights
laws which
States of
unconstitutional laws
infringe
upon,
or
under the U.S. Constitution for
America, as which purport
lawfully to do
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (31 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
amended, so must
and
such
be declared
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
null and
void and
not binding
upon the Courts.
See Miranda v.
Arizona supra, at 491.
VERIFICATION The Undersigned under the
laws of
the United
"United States," correct, to
hereby certify,
that the
the best
under penalty
States of
America,
of perjury, without
the
of My
above statements of fact are true and current information, knowledge, and
belief, so help Me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 30 of 32
Executed on July 22, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state and Counselor at Law and federal witness All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 31 of 32
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila penalty of
Terese,
Sui
perjury, under
America, without of age
Wallen,
Juris,
the United
the laws
of
hereby the
certify,
United
under
States
of
States, that I am at least 18 years
and a Citizen of one of the United States of America, and
that I personally served the following document: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (32 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : counpa1
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION FOR VIOLATING THE FUNDAMENTAL GUARANTEE OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: Sixth Amendment by placing
said document
in first class U.S. Mail, with postage
prepaid and properly addressed to the following individuals:
Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 Tucson [85701] ARIZONA STATE
[hand-delivered]
Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Dated:
July 22, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen ________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris, Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Points and Authorities on Assistance of Counsel: Page 32 of 32
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/counpa1.htm (33 of 33) [4/8/2007 2:13:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jurychal
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona Under Protest, Necessity, and by Special Visitation Only
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Sheila Terese, Wallen, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) ________________________________)
COMES NOW
Sheila Terese,
state and
Defendant in
Case No. 95-484-WDB NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH GRAND JURY SELECTION POLICY, AND NOTICE OF CHALLENGE AND CHALLENGE TO CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTE 28 U.S.C. 297, 517, 518, 1861, 1865, and 1867(d),(e), F.R.Cr.P. Rule 6(b)(2)
Wallen, Sui Juris, Citizen of Arizona the above
entitled matter (hereinafter
"Defendant"), to Petition this honorable Court for a stay of the instant proceedings, 1867(d), pending
pursuant to
proper review
the provisions
of 28
U.S.C.
of the Defendant's challenge to
the constitutionality of 28 U.S.C. 1865, to wit:
1865.
Qualifications for jury service
(a)
The chief judge of the district court, or such other district court judge as the plan may provide ... shall determine solely on the basis of information provided on the juror qualification form and other competent evidence whether a person is unqualified for, or exempt, or to be excused from jury service. ...
(b)
In making such determination the chief judge of the district court, or such other district court judge as
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jurychal.htm (1 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:18 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jurychal
the plan may provide, shall deem any person qualified to serve on grand and petit juries in the district court unless he -(1)
is not a citizen of the United States eighteen years old who has resided for a period of one year within the judicial district; .... [28 U.S.C. 1865, emphasis added]
Motion to Stay Proceedings: Page 1 of 8
In stark that all
contrast, it
citizens shall
is the
have the
policy of the United States opportunity to be considered
for service on grand juries in the district courts of the United States.
To be
constitutional, and
legislative intent, used in
28 U.S.C.
Citizens of
the term 1861, must
the freely
to be
consistent with its
"all citizens", be
construed
as that
associated compact
to
term is
include
states who
also
are not
also citizens of the United States (a/k/a "federal citizens"): 1861.
Declaration of policy
It is the policy of the United States that all litigants in Federal courts entitled to trial by jury shall have the right to grand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross section of the community in the district or division wherein the court convenes. It is further the policy of the United States that all citizens shall have the opportunity to be considered for service on grand and petit juries in the district courts of the United States, and shall have an obligation to serve as jurors when summoned for that purpose. [28 U.S.C. 1861, emphasis added]
Defendant hereby of Her
sworn
provides notice to all interested parties
(verified)
statement
of
law
and
facts
which
constitute a substantial failure to comply with the Constitution for
the
United
(hereinafter "U.S. Title 28,
States
of
America,
Constitution"), and
United States
Code, Section
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jurychal.htm (2 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:18 PM]
as
lawfully
with the 1861:
amended
provisions of Declaration
of
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jurychal
Policy.
See 28
U.S.C. 1867(d)
Jury consisted
of members
United States,
not necessarily
and (e).
all of
The indicting Grand
whom were
of
the
Citizens of Arizona state.
See
Dyett v. Turner and State v. Phillips infra;
citizens
Right of Election;
voter registration affidavits.
Motion to Stay Proceedings: Page 2 of 8
of introduction
to the crucial matters of fact and
which
are
at
law
By way
discussed
(verified) statement, as if
set forth
in
Defendant's
sworn
which is hereby incorporated by reference
fully herein,
respectfully requested
length
to take
this honorable formal judicial
Court is hereby notice of
the
additional standing authorities on this question: We have in our political system a Government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own .... Slaughter-House Cases [United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)] [emphasis added]
A person who is a citizen of the United States** is necessarily a citizen of the particular state in which he resides. But a person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen of the United States. To hold otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty, -- the right to declare who are its citizens. [State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380] [6 S. 602 (1889), emphasis added]
There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state. One class of citizenship may exist in a person, without the other, as in the case of a resident of the District of Columbia; but both classes usually exist in the same person. [Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155] [48 S. 788, 791 (1909), emphasis added]
There are
over 100,000 elementary and secondary schools in
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jurychal.htm (3 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:18 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jurychal
the United States. ... Each of these now has an invisible federal zone extending 1,000 feet beyond the (often irregular) boundaries of the school property. [U.S. v. Lopez, 115 S.Ct. 1624 (1995)]
Motion to Stay Proceedings: Page 3 of 8
As a
Party to
the
instant
case,
the
Defendant
hereby
challenges the indicting Grand Jury on the ground that such jury was not
selected in
because Citizens
conformity with
of Arizona
section 1861 of Title 28,
state who are not also citizens of
the United States (a/k/a federal citizens) are disqualified from serving by
virtue of
U.S.C. 1867(e);
their chosen
Right
Citizenship status.
of Election;
15
Statutes
Chapter 249
(Section 1), enacted July 27, 1868;
sanguinis.
Specifically,
the
offensive
at
See 28 Large,
jus soli;
statute
forces
jus the
following unconstitutional result upon Citizens of Arizona state who choose
not also
to be citizens of the United States (a/k/a
federal citizens): citizen of United States Yes Yes No No
Citizen of Arizona state
Qualified to serve
Yes No No Yes
Yes Yes No No
**
This result ("**") violates the Tenth Amendment by disqualifying Citizens of
Arizona state
from serving on federal grand juries
when they are not also federal citizens, thus denying to accused Citizens of
Arizona state
a grand
jury of
Their Peers when a
grand jury consists only of federal citizens. An intentional solely because
discrimination against
of their
class, by
a class of persons,
officers in
charge of
the
selection and summoning of grand jurors in a criminal case, is a http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jurychal.htm (4 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:18 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jurychal
violation of v. Texas,
the fundamental Rights of an accused.
339 U.S. 282;
v. Louisiana, the fact
Atkins v. Texas, 325 U.S. 398;
306 U.S. 354.
that the
the necessary
prescribed by statute.
Pierre
Such a violation is not excused by
persons actually
otherwise possess
See Cassell
selected for
jury service
qualifications for
jurors
as
See State v. Jones, 365 P.2d 460.
Motion to Stay Proceedings: Page 4 of 8
Discrimination prohibited by
the
in U.S.
systematic noninclusion classes of
the
selection
of
Constitution, because of
citizenship in
grand
means
class.
America.
a
an
jury,
as
intentional,
There are
E.g. Gardina
two (2)
supra.
The
statute 28 U.S.C. 1865(b)(1) specifically excludes those classes of Citizens who are not mentioned. alterius.
Expressio unius est exclusio
The following statute dramatically demonstrates that
Congress appreciates the difference between the two classes, and knows how
to discriminate between "white citizens" (read "state
Citizens") and citizens).
"citizens of
the United
States" (a/k/a federal
U.S. Statutes
The Act of Congress called the Civil Rights Act, 14 at Large,
p. 27, which was the forerunner of the
so-called 14th Amendment, amply shows the intent of Congress, as follows: ... [A]ll persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color ... shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States ... to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens. [emphasis added]
Once a
prima facie
case for
the existence
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jurychal.htm (5 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:18 PM]
of purposeful
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jurychal
discrimination is made out, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove
otherwise.
Reliance on matter is
See Whitus
the so-called
v.
Georgia,
385
U.S.
545.
moot, because
Fourteenth Amendment to resolve this the
Fourteenth
Amendment
was
never
lawfully ratified, and because the authorities cited supra allow for the possibility that a Person can be a state Citizen without also being
a federal
Amendment was
citizen, whether
lawfully ratified.
P.2d 936, 941 (1975); 266, 270
(1968);
Review 22;
See
or not
the
State v.
Phillips, 540
Dyett v. Turner, 20 Utah 2d 403, 439 P.2d
Full Faith and Credit Clause;
11
Fourteenth
South
Carolina
Law
Quarterly
28 Tulane Law 484;
House
Congressional Record, June 13, 1967, p. 15641 et seq.
Motion to Stay Proceedings: Page 5 of 8
As such, there is no constitutional provision which makes a federal citizen resides, nor
also a citizen of the Union state in which s/he
is there any constitutional provision which states
that the validity of the public debt shall not be questioned. The judicial which
is
rich
Defendant's sworn when those of the
history of in
nuance
detail,
a term
found that
of municipal
is municipal
as
demonstrated
in
For example, at a time
in the federal zone, the Supreme Court
Philippine Islands
Court, it
and
(verified) statement.
Islands were
speaking, is
American citizenship is a subject
law which
"citizenship,"
law and,
strictly
according to
regulates the
that
conditions on
which citizenship is acquired: Citizenship, says Moore on International Law, strictly speaking, is a term of municipal law and denotes the possession within the particular state of full civil and political rights subject to special disqualifications, such as minority, sex, etc. The conditions on which citizenship are [sic] acquired are regulated by municipal law. There http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jurychal.htm (6 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:18 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jurychal
is no such thing as international citizenship nor international law (aside from that which might be contained in treaties) by which citizenship is acquired. [Roa v. Collector of Customs] [23 Philippine 315, 332 (1912)]
Indeed, international (1) public
law is
divided roughly
into two groups:
international law and (2) private international law.
Citizenship is as municipal
a term law) in
of private international law (also known which the
terms
"state",
"nation"
and
"country" are all synonymous:
Motion to Stay Proceedings: Page 6 of 8
Private international law assumes a more important aspect in the United States than elsewhere, for the reason that the several states, although united under the same sovereign authority and governed by the same laws for all national purposes embraced by the Federal Constitution, are otherwise, at least so far as private international law is concerned, in the same relation as foreign countries. The great majority of questions of private international law are therefore subject to the same rules when they arise between two states of the Union as when they arise between two foreign countries, and in the ensuing pages the words "state," "nation," and "country" are used synonymously and interchangeably, there being no intention to distinguish between the several states of the Union and foreign countries by the use of varying terminology. [16 Am Jur 2d, Conflict of Laws, Sec. 2] [emphasis added]
Congress does
refer to the Union states as "countries."
See 28
U.S.C. 297. RELIEF SOUGHT Wherefore, Defendant indefinite stay
of the proceedings in the instant case, pending
proper review
of the
are
in
alleged
petitions this honorable Court for an
Defendant's sworn
this
substantial issues Motion
and
of law and fact which
which
are
contained
in
(verified) statement which is attached hereto
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jurychal.htm (7 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:18 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jurychal
and incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein.
Executed on: _________________________
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Sheila Wallen Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Motion to Stay Proceedings: Page 7 of 8
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila
Terese, Wallen,
penalty of
perjury, under
Sui
America, without years of
Juris,
the laws
the "United
hereby
of the
certify,
States," that
United I am
under
States
of
at least
18
age, a Citizen of one of the United States of America,
and that I personally served the following document(s): NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH GRAND JURY SELECTION POLICY, AND NOTICE OF CHALLENGE AND CHALLENGE TO CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTE: 28 U.S.C. 297, 517, 518, 1861, 1865, and 1867(d) by placing first
class
one true United
and correct States
copy of
Mail,
with
properly addressed to the following:
Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 Tucson [85701] ARIZONA STATE Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jurychal.htm (8 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:18 PM]
said document(s) postage
prepaid
in and
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jurychal
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Executed on: _____________________________
/s/ Sheila Wallen __________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Motion to Stay Proceedings: Page 8 of 8
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jurychal.htm (9 of 9) [4/8/2007 2:13:18 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona Under Protest, Necessity, and by Special Visitation Only
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic], ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Sheila Terese, Wallen, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________)
COMES NOW
Sheila Terese,
state and
Defendant in
"Defendant"), to Challenge Statute.
to
VERIFIED STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF CHALLENGE TO GRAND JURY SELECTION POLICY AND ITS FEDERAL STATUTE: 28 U.S.C. 1746(1), 1861, 1865
Wallen, Sui Juris, Citizen of Arizona the above
record Her
Grand
Case No. 95-484-WDB
Jury
entitled matter (hereinafter
Verified Statement Selection
Policy
and
in Support its
Meaning
"We are no longer subjects of a government." of
American
Citizenship"
by
the
of
Federal See "The
Commissioner
of
Immigration and Naturalization infra and EXHIBIT "A" attached.
VERIFICATION The Undersigned under the
laws of
"United States," correct, to
hereby verifies, under penalty of perjury, the United
that
the best
the
States of
following
America, without
Statement
is
true
the and
of My current information, knowledge, and
belief, so help Me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1): http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (1 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 1 of 36
Chapter 11: Sovereignty The issue of sovereignty as it relates to jurisdiction is a major key to understanding our system of government under the Constitution. In the most common sense of the word, "sovereignty" is autonomy, freedom from external control. The sovereignty of any government usually extends up to, but not beyond, the borders of its jurisdiction. This jurisdiction defines a specific territorial boundary which separates the "external" from the "internal", the "within" from the "without". It may also define a specific function, or set of functions, which a government may lawfully perform within a particular territorial boundary. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, defines sovereignty to mean: ... [T]he international independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign dictation.
On a similar theme, Black's defines "sovereign states" to be those which are not under the control of any foreign power: No foreign power or law can have control except by convention. This power of independent action in external and internal relations constitutes complete sovereignty.
It is a well established principle of law that the 50 States are "foreign" with respect to each other, just as the federal zone is "foreign" with respect to each of them (In re Merriam's Estate, 36 NE 505 (1894)). The status of being foreign is the same as "belonging to" or being "attached to" another state or another jurisdiction. The proper legal distinction between the terms "foreign" and "domestic" is best seen in Black's definitions of foreign and domestic corporations, as follows: Foreign corporation. A corporation doing business in one state though chartered or incorporated in another state is a foreign corporation as to the first state, and, as such, is required to consent to certain conditions and restrictions in order to do business in such first state. Domestic corporation. When a corporation is organized and chartered in a particular state, it is considered a domestic corporation of that state.
The federal zone is an area over which Congress exercises exclusive legislative jurisdiction. It is the area over which the federal government exercises its sovereignty. Despite its http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (2 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
obvious importance, the subject of federal jurisdiction had been almost entirely ignored outside the courts until the year 1954. In that year, a detailed study of federal jurisdiction was undertaken. The occasion for the study arose from a school playground, of all places. The children of federal employees residing on the grounds of a Veterans' Administration hospital were not allowed to attend public schools in the town where the hospital was located. An administrative decision against the children was affirmed by local courts, and finally affirmed by the State supreme court. The residents of the area on which the hospital was located were not "residents" of the State, since "exclusive legislative jurisdiction" over this area had been ceded by the State to the federal government.
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 2 of 36
A committee was assembled by Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Jr. Their detailed study was reported in a publication entitled Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States, April 1956 (Volume I) and June 1957 (Volume II). The committee's report demonstrates, beyond any doubt, that the sovereign States and their laws are outside the legislative and territorial jurisdiction of the United States** federal government. They are totally outside the federal zone. A plethora of evidence is found in the myriad of cited court cases (700+) which prove that the United States** cannot exercise exclusive legislative jurisdiction outside territories or places purchased from, or ceded by, the 50 States of the Union. Attorney General Brownell described the committee's report as an "exhaustive and analytical exposition of the law in this hitherto little explored field". In his letter of transmittal to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Brownell summarized the two volumes as follows: Together, the two parts of this Committee's report and the full implementation of its recommendations will provide a basis for reversing in many areas the swing of "the pendulum of power * * * from our states to the central government" to which you referred in your address to the Conference of State Governors on June 25, 1957. [Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States] [Letter of Transmittal, page V, emphasis added]
Once a State is admitted into the Union, its sovereign jurisdiction is firmly established over a predefined territory. The federal government is thereby prevented from acquiring legislative jurisdiction, by means of unilateral action, over any area within the exterior boundaries of this predefined territory. State assent is necessary to transfer jurisdiction to Congress: The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State. Article 1, Section 8, http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (3 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
Clause 17, of the Constitution, provides that legislative jurisdiction may be transferred pursuant to its terms only with the consent of the legislature of the State in which is located the area subject to the jurisdictional transfer. [Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States] [Volume II, page 46, emphasis added]
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 3 of 36
Under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, States of the Union have enacted statutes consenting to the federal acquisition of any land, or of specific tracts of land, within those States. Secondly, the federal government has also made "reservations" of jurisdiction over certain areas in connection with the admission of a State into the Union. A third means for transfer of legislative jurisdiction has also come into considerable use over time, namely, a general or special statute whereby a State makes a cession of specific functional jurisdiction to the federal government. Nevertheless, the Committee report explained that "... the characteristics of a legislative jurisdiction status are the same no matter by which of the three means the Federal Government acquired such status" [Volume II, page 3]. There is simply no federal legislative jurisdiction without consent by a State, cession by a State, or reservation by the federal government: It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction (1) pursuant to clause 17 by a Federal acquisition of land with State consent, or (2) by cession from the State to the Federal Government, or unless the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction upon the admission of the State, the Federal Government possesses no legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State, such jurisdiction being for exercise entirely by the State .... [Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States] [Volume II, page 45, emphasis added]
The areas which the 50 States have properly ceded to the federal government are called federal "enclaves": By this means some thousands of areas have become Federal islands, sometimes called "enclaves," in many respects foreign to the States in which they are situated. In general, not State but Federal law is applicable in an area under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the United States**, for enforcement not by State but Federal authorities, and in many instances not in State but in Federal courts. [Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States] [Volume II, page 4, emphasis added]
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (4 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
These federal enclaves are considered foreign with respect to the States which surround them, just as the 50 States are considered foreign with respect to each other and to the federal zone: "...[T]he several states of the Union are to be considered as in this respect foreign to each other ...." Hanley v. Donoghue, 116 U.S. 1 (1885). Once a State surrenders its sovereignty over a specific area of land, it is powerless over that land; it is without authority; it cannot recapture any of its transferred jurisdiction by unilateral action, just as the federal government cannot acquire jurisdiction over State area by its unilateral action. The State has transferred its sovereign authority to a foreign power:
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 4 of 36
Once a State has, by one jurisdiction to the United powerless to control many jurisdiction, it is without of the problems, and having United States**, it cannot transferred jurisdiction.
means or another, transferred States**, it is, of course, of the consequences; without the authority to deal with many transferred jurisdiction to the unilaterally capture any of the
[Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States] [Volume II, page 7, emphasis added]
Once sovereignty has been relinquished, a State no longer has the authority to enforce criminal laws in areas under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States**. Privately owned property in such areas is beyond the taxing authority of the State. Residents of such areas are not "residents" of the State, and hence are not subject to the obligations of residents of the State, and are not entitled to any of the benefits and privileges conferred by the State upon its residents. Residents of federal enclaves usually cannot vote, serve on juries, or run for office. They do not, as matter of right, have access to State schools, hospitals, mental institutions, or similar establishments. The acquisition of exclusive jurisdiction by the Federal Government renders unavailable to the residents of the affected areas the benefits of the laws and judicial and administrative processes of the State relating to adoption, the probate of wills and administration of estates, divorce, and many other matters. Police, fire-fighting, notaries, coroners, and similar services performed by, or under, the authority of a State may result in legal sanction within a federal enclave. The "old" State laws which apply are only those which are consistent with the laws of the "new" sovereign authority, using the following principle from international law: The vacuum which would exist because of the absence of State law or Federal legislation with respect to civil matters in areas under Federal exclusive legislative http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (5 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
jurisdiction has been partially filled by the courts, through extension to these areas of a rule of international law that[,] when one sovereign takes over territory of another[,] the laws of the original sovereign in effect at the time of the taking[,] which are not inconsistent with the laws or policies of the second[,] continue in effect, as laws of the succeeding sovereign, until changed by that sovereign. [Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States] [Volume II, page 6, commas added for clarity] [emphasis added]
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 5 of 36
It is clear, then, that only one "state" can be sovereign at any given moment in time, whether that "state" be one of the 50 Union States, or the federal government of the United States**. Before ceding a tract of land to Congress, a State of the Union exercises its sovereign authority over any land within its borders: Save only as they are subject to the prohibitions of the Constitution, or as their action in some measure conflicts with the powers delegated to the national government or with congressional legislation enacted in the exercise of those powers, the governments of the states are sovereign within their territorial limits and have exclusive jurisdiction over persons and property located therein. [72 American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 4] [emphasis added]
After a State has ceded a tract of land to Congress, the situation is completely different. The United States**, as the "succeeding sovereign", then exercises its sovereign authority over that land. In this sense, sovereignty is indivisible, even though the Committee's report documented numerous situations in which jurisdiction was actually shared between the federal government and one of the 50 States. Even in this situation, however, sovereignty rests either in the State, or in the federal government, but never both. Sovereignty is the authority to which there is politically no superior. Outside the federal zone, the States of the Union remain sovereign, and their laws are completely outside the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the federal government of the United States**. This understanding of the separate sovereignties possessed by each of the State and federal governments was not only valid during the Eisenhower administration; it has been endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court as recently as 1985. In that year, the high Court examined the "dual sovereignty doctrine" when it ruled that successive prosecutions by two States for the same conduct were not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The "crucial determination" turned on whether http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (6 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
State and federal powers derive from separate and independent sources. The Supreme Court explained that the doctrine of dual sovereignty has been uniformly upheld by the courts: It has been uniformly held that the States are separate sovereigns with respect to the Federal Government because each State's power to prosecute derives from its inherent sovereignty, preserved to it by the Tenth Amendment, and not from the Federal Government. Given the distinct sources of their powers to try a defendant, the States are no less sovereign with respect to each other than they are with respect to the Federal Government. [Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82, 89-90 (1985)]
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 6 of 36
Now, if a State of the Union is sovereign, is it correct to say that the State exercises an authority to which there is absolutely no superior? No, this is not a correct statement. There is no other organized body which is superior to the organized body which retains sovereignty. The sovereignty of governments is an authority to which there is no organized superior, but there is absolutely a superior body, and that superior body is the People of the United States*** of America: The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the "sovereign people," and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. [Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1856)] [emphasis added]
The source of all sovereignty in a constitutional Republic like the 50 States, united by and under the Constitution for the United States of America, is the People themselves. Remember, the States, and the federal government acting inside those States, are both bound by the terms of a contract known as the U.S. Constitution. That Constitution is a contract of delegated powers which ultimately originate in the sovereignty of the Creator, who endowed creation, individual People like you and me, with sovereignty in that Creator's image and likeness. Nothing stands between us and the Creator. I think it is fair to say that the Supreme Court of the United States was never more eloquent when it described the source of sovereignty as follows: Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (7 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is indeed, quite true, that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision; and in many cases of mere administration the responsibility is purely political, no appeal except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgement, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth "may be a government of laws and not of men." For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself. [Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)] [emphasis added]
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 7 of 36
More recently, the Supreme Court reiterated the fundamental importance of US the People as the source of sovereignty, and the subordinate status which Congress occupies in relation to the sovereignty of the People. The following language is terse and right on point: In the United States***, sovereignty resides in the people who act through the organs established by the Constitution. [cites omitted] The Congress as the instrumentality of sovereignty is endowed with certain powers to be exerted on behalf of the people in the manner and with the effect the Constitution ordains. The Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the people to override their will as thus declared. [Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935)] [emphasis added]
No discussion of sovereignty would be complete, therefore, without considering the sovereignty that resides in US, the People. The Supreme Court has often identified the People as the source of sovereignty in our republican form of government. Indeed, the federal Constitution guarantees to every State in the Union a "Republican Form" of government, in so many words: Section 4.
The
United States
shall guarantee
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (8 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
to
every
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; .... [United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 4] [emphasis added]
What exactly is a "Republican Form" of government? It is one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the People and exercised by the People. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, makes this very clear in its various definitions of "government": Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627.
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 8 of 36
The Supreme Court has clearly distinguished between the operation of governments in Europe, and government in these United States*** of America, as follows: In Europe, the executive is almost synonymous with the sovereign power of a State; and generally includes legislative and judicial authority. ... Such is the condition of power in that quarter of the world, where it is too commonly acquired by force or fraud, or both, and seldom by compact. In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people. [Glass v. The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)] [emphasis added]
The federal Constitution makes a careful distinction between natural born Citizens and citizens of the United States** (compare 2:1:5 with Section 1 of the so-called 14th Amendment). One is an unconditional Sovereign by natural birth, who is endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights; the other has been granted the revocable privileges of U.S.** citizenship, endowed by the Congress of the United States**. One is a Citizen, the other is a subject. One is a Sovereign, the other is a subordinate. One is a Citizen of our constitutional Republic; the other is a citizen of a legislative democracy (the federal zone). Notice the superior/subordinate relationship between these two statuses. I am forever indebted to M. J. "Red" Beckman, co-author of The Law That Never Was with Bill Benson, for clearly illustrating the important difference between the two. Red Beckman has delivered many eloquent lectures based on the profound simplicity of the http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (9 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
following table: Chain of command and authority in a: Majority Rule Democracy
Constitutional Republic
X Majority Government Public Servants Case & Statute Law Corporations individual
Creator Individual Constitution Government Public Servants Statute Law Corporations
In this illustration, a democracy ruled by the majority places the individual at the bottom, and an unknown elite, Mr. "X" at the top. The majority (or mob) elects a government to hire public "servants" who write laws primarily for the benefit of corporations. These corporations are either owned or controlled by Mr. X, a clique of the ultra-wealthy who seek to restore a two-class "feudal" society. They exercise their vast economic power so as to turn all of America into a "feudal zone". The rights of individuals occupy the lowest priority in this chain of command. Those rights often vanish over time, because democracies eventually self-destruct. The enforcement of laws within this scheme is the job of administrative tribunals, who specialize in holding individuals to the letter of all rules and regulations of the corporate state, no matter how arbitrary and with little if any regard for fundamental human rights:
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 9 of 36
A democracy that recognizes only manmade laws perforce obliterates the concept of Liberty as a divine right. [A Ticket to Liberty, November 1990 edition, page 146] [emphasis added]
In the constitutional Republic, however, the rights of individuals are supreme. Individuals delegate their sovereignty to a written contract, called a constitution, which empowers government to hire public servants to write laws primarily for the benefit of individuals. The corporations occupy the lowest priority in this chain of command, since their primary objectives are to maximize the enjoyment of individual rights, and to facilitate the fulfillment of individual responsibilities. The enforcement of laws within this scheme is the responsibility of sovereign individuals, who exercise their power in three arenas: the voting booth, the trial jury, and the grand jury. Without a jury verdict of "guilty", for example, no law can be enforced and no penalty exacted. The behavior of public servants is tightly restrained by contractual http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (10 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
terms, as found in the written Constitution. Statutes and case law are created primarily to limit and define the scope and extent of public servant power. Sovereign individuals are subject only to a Common Law, whose primary purposes are to protect and defend individual rights, and to prevent anyone, whether public official or private person, from violating the rights of other individuals. Within this scheme, Sovereigns are never subject to their own creations, and the constitutional contract is such a creation. To quote the Supreme Court, "No fiction can make a natural born subject." Milvaine v. Coxe's Lessee, 8 U.S. 598 (1808). That is to say, no fiction, be it a corporation, a statute law, or an administrative regulation, can mutate a natural born Sovereign into someone who is subject to his own creations. Author and scholar Lori Jacques has put it succinctly as follows: As each state is sovereign and not a territory of the United States**, the meaning is clear that state citizens are not subject to the legislative jurisdiction of the United States**. Furthermore, there is not the slightest intimation in the Constitution which created the "United States" as a political entity that the "United States" is sovereign over its creators. [A Ticket to Liberty, November 1990 edition, page 32] [emphasis added]
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 10 of 36
Accordingly, if you choose to investigate the matter, you will find a very large body of legal literature which cites another fiction, the so-called 14th Amendment, from which the federal government presumes to derive general authority to treat everyone in America as subjects and not as Sovereigns: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States**, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States** and of the State wherein they reside. [United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment [sic]] [emphasis added]
A careful reading of this amendment reveals an important subtlety which is lost on many people who read it for the first time. The citizens it defines are second class citizens because the "c" is lower-case, even in the case of the State citizens it defines. Note how the amendment defines "citizens of the United States**" and "citizens of the State wherein they reside"! It is just uncanny how the wording of this amendment closely parallels the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) which promulgates Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). Can it be that this amendment had something to do with subjugation, by way of taxes and other means? Yes, it most certainly did. Section 1 of the http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (11 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
IRC is the section which imposes income taxes. The corresponding section of the CFR defines who is a "citizen" as follows: Every person born or naturalized in the United States** and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. [26 CFR 1.1-1(c), emphasis added]
Notice the use of the term "its jurisdiction". This leaves no doubt that the "United States**" is a singular entity in this context. In other words, it is the federal zone. Do we dare to speculate why the so-called 14th Amendment was written instead with the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? Is this another case of deliberate ambiguity? You be the judge. Not only did this so-called "amendment" fail to specify which meaning of the term "United States" was being used; like the 16th Amendment, it also failed to be ratified, this time by 15 of the 37 States which existed in 1868. The House Congressional Record for June 13, 1967, contains all the documentation you need to prove that the so-called 14th Amendment was never ratified into law (see page 15641 et seq.). For example, it itemizes all States which voted against the proposed amendment, and the precise dates when their Legislatures did so. "I cannot believe that any court, in full possession of its faculties, could honestly hold that the amendment was properly approved and adopted." State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d. 936, 941 (1975). The Utah Supreme Court has detailed the shocking and sordid history of the 14th Amendment's "adoption" in the case of Dyett v. Turner, 20 Utah 2d 403, 439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968).
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 11 of 36
A great deal of written material on the 14th Amendment has been assembled into computer files by Richard McDonald, whose mailing address is 585-D Box Canyon Road, Canoga Park, California Republic (not "CA"). He requests that ZIP codes not be used on his incoming mail (use "ZIP code exempt (DMM 122.32)" instead). Richard McDonald has done a mountain of legal research and writing on the origins and effects of the so-called 14th Amendment. He documents how key court decisions like the Slaughter House Cases, among many others, all found that there is a clear distinction between a Citizen of a State and a citizen of the United States** . A State Citizen is a Sovereign, whereas a citizen of the United States** is a subject of Congress. The exercise of federal citizenship is a statutory privilege which can be taxed with excises. The exercise of State Citizenship is a Common Law Right which simply cannot be taxed because governments cannot tax the exercise of a right, ever. The case of U.S. v. Cruikshank is famous, not only for confirming this distinction between State Citizens and U.S.** http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (12 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
citizens, but also for establishing a key precedent in the area of due process. This precedent underlies the "void for vagueness" doctrine which can and should be applied to nullify the IRC. On the issue of citizenship, the Cruikshank court ruled as follows: We have in our political system a government of the United States** and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States** and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other. SlaughterHouse Cases [United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)] [emphasis added]
The leading authorities for this pivotal distinction are, indeed, a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions known as the Slaughter House Cases, which examined the so-called 14th Amendment in depth. An exemplary paragraph from these cases is the following: It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States** and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual. [Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 16 Wall. 36] [21 L.Ed. 394 (1873), emphasis added]
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 12 of 36
A similar authority is found in the case of K. Tashiro v. Jordan, decided by the Supreme Court of the State of California almost fifty years later. Notice, in particular, how the California Supreme Court again cites the Slaughter House Cases: That there is a citizenship of the United States** and a citizenship of a state, and the privileges and immunities of one are not the same as the other is well established by the decisions of the courts of this country. The leading cases upon the subjects are those decided by the Supreme Court of the United States and reported in 16 Wall. 36, 21 L. Ed. 394, and known as the Slaughter House Cases. [K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 256 P. 545, 549 (1927)] [affirmed 278 U.S. 123 (1928)] [emphasis added]
The Slaughter
House Cases are quite important to the issue
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (13 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
of citizenship, but the pivotal case on the subject is the famous Dred Scott decision, decided in 1856, prior to the Civil War. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote one of the longest decisions in the entire history of American jurisprudence. In arriving at their understanding of the precise meaning of Citizenship, as understood by the Framers of the Constitution, the high Court left no stone unturned in their search for relevant law: We have the language of the Declaration of Independence and of the Articles of Confederation, in addition to the plain words of the Constitution itself: we have the legislation of the different States, before, about the time, and since the Constitution was adopted; we have the legislation of Congress, from the time of its adoption to a recent period; and we have the constant and uniform action of the Executive Department, all concurring together, and leading to the same result. And if anything in relation to the construction of the Constitution can be regarded as settled, it is that which we now give to the word "citizen" and the word "people." [Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1856)] [emphasis added]
In the fundamental law, the notion of a "citizen of the United States" simply did not exist before the 14th Amendment; at best, this notion is a fiction within a fiction. In discussing the power of the States to naturalize, the California State Supreme Court put it rather bluntly when it ruled that there was no such thing as a "citizen of the United States": A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective States. [Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)] [emphasis added]
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 13 of 36
This decision has never been overturned! What is the proper construction and common understanding of the term "Citizen of the United States" as used in the original Constitution, before the so-called 14th Amendment? This is an important question, because this status is still a qualification http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (14 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
for the offices of Senator, Representative and President. No Person can be a Representative unless he has been a Citizen of the United States for seven years (1:2:2); no Person can be a Senator unless he has been a Citizen of the United States for nine years (1:3:3); no Person can be President unless he is a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States (2:1:5). If these requirements had been literally obeyed, there could have been no elections for Representatives to Congress for at least seven years after the adoption of the Constitution, and no one would have been eligible as a Senator for nine years after its adoption. Author John S. Wise, in a rare book now available on Richard McDonald's electronic bulletin board system (BBS), explains away the problem very simply as follows: The language employed by the convention was less careful than that which had been used by Congress in July of the same year, in framing the ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory. Congress had made the qualification rest upon citizenship of "one of the United States***," and this is doubtless the intent of the convention which framed the Constitution, for it cannot have meant anything else. [Studies in Constitutional Law: [A Treatise on American Citizenship] [by John S. Wise, Edward Thompson Co. (1906)] [emphasis added]
This quote from the Northwest Ordinance is faithful to the letter and to the spirit of that law. In describing the eligibility for "representatives" to serve in the general assembly for the Northwest Territory, the critical passage from that Ordinance reads as follows: ... Provided, That no person be eligible or qualified to act as a representative, unless he shall have been a citizen of one of the United States*** three years, and be a resident in the district, or unless he shall have resided in the district three years; .... [Northwest Ordinance, Section 9, July 13, 1787] [The Confederate Congress, emphasis added]
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 14 of 36
Without citing the case as such, the words of author John S. Wise sound a close, if not identical parallel to the argument for the Respondent filed in the case of People v. De La Guerra, decided by the California Supreme Court in 1870. The following long passage elaborates the true meaning of the Constitutional qualifications for President and Representative: As it was the adoption of the Constitution by the Conventions of nine States that established and created the United States***, it is obvious there could not then have http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (15 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
existed any person who had been seven years a citizen of the United States***, or who possessed the Presidential qualifications of being thirty-five years of age, a natural born citizen, and fourteen years a resident of the United States***. The United States*** in these provisions, means the States united. To be twenty-five years of age, and for seven years to have been a citizen of one of the States which ratifies the Constitution, is the qualification of a representative. To be a natural born citizen of one of the States which shall ratify the Constitution, or to be a citizen of one of said States at the time of such ratification, and to have attained the age of thirty-five years, and to have been fourteen years a resident within one of the said States, are the Presidential qualifications, according to the true meaning of the Constitution. [People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870)] [emphasis added]
Indeed, this was the same exact understanding that was reached by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision. There, the high Court clearly reinforced the sovereign status of Citizens of the several States. The sovereigns are the Union State Citizens, i.e. the Citizens of the States United: It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else. And the personal rights and privileges guarantied [sic] to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several state communities, or who should afterwards, by birthright or otherwise, become members, according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded. [Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 404 (1856)] [emphasis added]
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 15 of 36
Thus, the phrase "Citizen of the United States" as found in the original Constitution is synonymous with the phrase "Citizen of one of the United States***", i.e., a Union State Citizen. This simple explanation will help to cut through the mountain of propaganda and deception which have been foisted on all Americans by government bureaucrats and their high-paid lawyers. With this understanding firmly in place, it is very revealing to discover that many reprints of the Constitution now utilize a lower-case "c" in the sections which describe the qualifications for the offices of Senator, Representative and President. This is definitely wrong, and it is probably deliberate, so as to http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (16 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
confuse everyone into equating Citizens of the United States with citizens of the United States, courtesy of the so-called 14th Amendment. There is a very big difference between the two statuses, not the least of which is the big difference in their respective liabilities for the income tax. Moreover, it is quite clear that one may be a State Citizen without also being a "citizen of the United States", whether or not the 14th Amendment was properly ratified! According to the Louisiana Supreme Court, the highest exercise of a State's sovereignty is the right to declare who are its own Citizens: A person who is a citizen of the United States** is necessarily a citizen of the particular state in which he resides. But a person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen of the United States**. To hold otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty, -- the right to declare who are its citizens. [State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380] [6 S. 602 (1889), emphasis added]
In a book to which this writer has returned time and time again, author Alan Stang faithfully recites some of the other relevant court authorities, all of which ultimately trace back to the Slaughter House Cases and the Dred Scott decision: Indeed, just as one may be a "citizen of the United States" and not a citizen of a State; so one apparently may be a citizen of a State but not of the United States. On July 21, 1966, the Court of Appeal of Maryland ruled in Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections, 221 A.2d 431; a headnote in which tells us: "Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state ...." At page 434, Judge Oppenheimer cites a Wisconsin ruling in which the court said this: "Under our complex system of government, there may be a citizen of a state, who is not a citizen of the United States in the full sense of the term ...." [Tax Scam, 1988 edition, pages 138-139] [emphasis added]
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 16 of 36
Conversely, there may be a citizen of the United States** who is not a Citizen of any of the 50 States. In People v. De La Guerra quoted above, the published decision of the California Supreme Court clearly maintained this crucial distinction between the two classes of citizenship, and did so only two years after the alleged ratification of the so-called 14th Amendment:
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (17 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
I have no doubt that those born in the Territories, or in the District of Columbia, are so far citizens as to entitle them to the protection guaranteed to citizens of the United States** in the Constitution, and to the shield of nationality abroad; but it is evident that they have not the political rights which are vested in citizens of the States. They are not constituents of any community in which is vested any sovereign power of government. Their position partakes more of the character of subjects than of citizens. They are subject to the laws of the United States**, but have no voice in its management. If they are allowed to make laws, the validity of these laws is derived from the sanction of a Government in which they are not represented. Mere citizenship they may have, but the political rights of citizens they cannot enjoy until they are organized into a State, and admitted into the Union. [People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 342 (1870] [emphasis added]
Using language that was much more succinct, author Luella Gettys, Ph.D. and "Sometime Carnegie Fellow in International Law" at the University of Chicago, explained it quite nicely this way: ... [A]s long as the territories are not admitted statehood no state citizenship therein could exist.
to
[The Law of Citizenship in the United States] [Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1934, p. 7]
This clear distinction between the Union States and the territories is endorsed officially by the U.S. Supreme Court. Using language very similar to that of the California Supreme Court in the De La Guerra case, the high Court explained the distinction this way in the year 1885, seventeen years after the adoption of the so-called 14th amendment: The people of the United States***, as sovereign owners of the national territories, have supreme power over them and their inhabitants. ... The personal and civil rights of the inhabitants of the territories are secured to them, as to other citizens, by the principles of constitutional liberty, which restrain all the agencies of government, state and national; their political rights are franchises which they hold as privileges in the legislative discretion of the congress of the United States**. This doctrine was fully and forcibly declared by the chief justice, delivering the opinion of the court in National Bank v. County of Yankton, 101 U.S. 129. [Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 (1885)] [italics in original, emphasis added]
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 17 of 36 http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (18 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
The political rights of the federal zone's citizens are "franchises" which they hold as "privileges" at the discretion of the Congress of the United States**. Indeed, the doctrine declared earlier in the National Bank case leaves no doubt that Congress is the municipal authority for the territories: All territory within the jurisdiction of the United States* not included in any State must, necessarily, be governed by or under the authority of Congress. The Territories are but political subdivisions of the outlying dominion of the United States**. They bear much the same relation to the General Government that counties do to the States, and Congress may legislate for them as States do for their respective municipal organizations. The organic law of a Territory takes the place of a constitution, as the fundamental law of the local government. It is obligatory on and binds the territorial authorities; but Congress is supreme and, for the purposes of this department of its governmental authority, has all the powers of the People of the United States***, except such as have been expressly or by implication reserved in the prohibitions of the Constitution. [First National Bank v. Yankton, 101 U.S. 129 (1880)] [emphasis added]
This knowledge can be extremely valuable. In one of the brilliant text files on his electronic bulletin board system (BBS), Richard McDonald utilized his voluminous research into the so-called 14th Amendment and related constitutional law when he made the following pleading in opposition to a traffic citation, of all things, in Los Angeles county municipal court: 17. The Accused Common-Law Citizen [Defendant] hereby places all parties and the court on NOTICE, that he is not a "citizen of the United States**" under the so-called 14th Amendment, a juristic person or a franchised person who can be compelled to perform to the regulatory Vehicle Codes which are civil in nature, and challenges the In Personam jurisdiction of the Court with this contrary conclusion of law. This Court is now mandated to seat on the law side of its capacity to hear evidence of the status of the Accused Citizen. [see MEMOLAW.ZIP on Richard McDonald's electronic BBS] [see also FMEMOLAW.ZIP and Appendix Y, emphasis added]
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 18 of 36
You might be wondering why someone would go to so much trouble to oppose a traffic citation. Why not just pay the fine and get on with your life? The answer lies, once again, in the fundamental and supreme Law of our Land, the Constitution for http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (19 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
the United States of America. Sovereign State Citizens have learned to assert their fundamental rights, because rights belong to the belligerent claimant in person. The Constitution is the last bastion of the Common Law in our country. Were it not for the Constitution, the Common Law would have been history a long time ago. The interpretation of the Constitution is directly influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law: There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history. [United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 891, 893 (1898)] [emphasis added]
Under the Common Law, we are endowed by our Creator with the right to travel. "Driving", on the other hand, is defined in State Vehicle Codes to mean the act of chauffeuring passengers for hire. "Passengers" are those who pay a "driver" to be chauffeured. Guests, on the other hand, are those who accompany travelers without paying for the transportation. Driving, under this definition, is a privilege for which a State can require a license. Similarly, if you are a citizen of the United States**, you are subject to its jurisdiction, and a State government can prove that you are obligated thereby to obey all administrative statutes and regulations to the letter of the law. These regulations include, of course, the requirement that all subjects apply and pay for licenses to use the State and federal highways, even though the highways belong to the People. The land on which they were built, and the materials and labor expended in their construction, were all paid for with taxes obtained from the People. Provided that you are not engaged in any "privileged" or regulated activity, you are free to travel anywhere you wish within the 50 States. Those States are real parties to the Constitution and are therefore bound by all its terms. Another one of your Common Law rights is the right to own property free and clear of any liens. ("Unalienable" rights are rights against which no lien can be established precisely because they are un-lien-able.) You enjoy the right to own your vehicle outright, without any lawful requirement that you "register" it with the State Department of Motor Vehicles. The State governments violated your fundamental rights when they concealed the legal "interest" which they obtained in your vehicle, by making it appear as if you were required to register the vehicle when you purchased it, as a condition of purchase. This is fraud. If you don't believe me, then try to obtain the manufacturer's statement of origin (MSO) the next time you buy a new car or truck. The implications and ramifications of driving around without a license, and/or without registration, are far beyond the scope of this book. Suffice it to say that effective methods have already been developed to deal with law enforcement officers and courts, if and when you are pulled over and cited http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (20 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
for traveling without a license or tags. Richard McDonald is second to none when it comes to preparing a successful defense to the civil charges that might result. A Sovereign is someone who enjoys fundamental, Common Law rights, and owning property free and clear is one of those fundamental rights.
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 19 of 36
If you have a DOS-compatible personal computer and a 2400baud modem, Richard McDonald can provide you with instructions for accessing his electronic bulletin board system (BBS). There is a mountain of information, and some of his computer files were rather large when he began his BBS. Users were complaining of long transmission times to "download" text files over phone lines from his BBS to their own personal computers. So, McDonald used a fancy text "compression" program on all the text files available on his BBS. As a consequence, BBS users must first download a DOS program which "decompresses" the compressed files. Once this program is running on your personal computer, you are then free to download all other text files and to decompress them at your end. For example, the compressed file "14AMREC.ZIP" contains the documentation which proves that the so-called 14th Amendment was never ratified. If you have any problems or questions, Richard McDonald is a very patient and generous man. And please tell him where you read about him and his computer bulletin board (voice: 818-703-5037, BBS: 818-8889882). As you peruse through McDonald's numerous court briefs and other documents, you will encounter many gems to be remembered and shared with your family, friends and associates. His work has confirmed an attribute of sovereignty that is of paramount importance. Sovereignty is never diminished in delegation. Thus, as sovereign individuals, we do not diminish our sovereignty in any way by delegating our powers to State governments, to perform services which are difficult, if not impossible for us to perform as individuals. Similarly, States do not diminish their sovereignty by delegating powers to the federal government, via the Constitution. As McDonald puts it, powers delegated do not equate to powers surrendered: 17. Under the Constitutions, "... we the People" did not surrender our individual sovereignty to either the State or Federal Government. Powers "delegated" do not equate to powers surrendered. This is a Republic, not a democracy, and the majority cannot impose its will upon the minority because the "LAW" is already set forth. Any individual can do anything he or she wishes to do so long as it does not damage, injure, or impair the same Right of another individual. This is where the concept of a corpus delicti comes from to prove a "crime" or a civil damage. [see MEMOLAW.ZIP on Richard McDonald's electronic BBS] [see also FMEMOLAW.ZIP and Appendix Y, emphasis added]
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (21 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 20 of 36
Indeed, to be a Citizen of the United States*** of America is to be one of the Sovereign People, "a constituent member of the sovereignty, synonymous with the people" [see 19 How. 404]. According to the 1870 edition of Bouvier's Law Dictionary, the People are the fountain of sovereignty. It is extremely revealing that there is no definition of "United States" as such in this dictionary. However, there is an important discussion of the "United States of America", where the delegation of sovereignty clearly originates in the People and nowhere else: The great men who formed it did not undertake to solve a question that in its own nature is insoluble. Between equals it made neither superior, but trusted to the mutual forbearance of both parties. A larger confidence was placed in an enlightened public opinion as the final umpire. The people parcelled out the rights of sovereignty between the states and the United States**, and they have a natural right to determine what was given to one party and what to the other. ... It is a maxim consecrated in public law as well as common sense and the necessity of the case, that a sovereign is answerable for his acts only to his God and to his own conscience. [Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 14th Edition, 1870] [defining "United States of America"] [emphasis added]
We don't need to reach far back into another century to find proof that the People are sovereign. In a Department of Justice manual revised in the 1990 (Document No. M-230), the meaning of American Citizenship was described with these eloquent and moving words by the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization: "You are no longer a subject of a government!"
The Meaning of American Citizenship Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization Today you have become a citizen of the United States of America. You are no longer an Englishman, a Frenchman, an Italian, a Pole. Neither are you a hyphenated-American -- a Polish-American, an Italian-American. You are no longer a subject of a government. Henceforth, you are an integral part of this Government -- a free man -- a Citizen of the United States of America. This citizenship, which has been solemnly conferred on you, is a thing of the spirit -- not of the flesh. When you took the oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, you claimed for yourself the God-given unalienable rights which that sacred document sets forth as the natural right of all men. You have
made sacrifices
to reach this desired goal.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (22 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
We, your fellow citizens, realize this, and the warmth of our welcome to you is increased proportionately. However, we would tincture it with friendly caution. As you have learned during these years of preparation, this great honor carries with it the duty to work for and make secure this longed-for and eagerly-sought status. Government under our Constitution makes American citizenship the highest privilege and at the same time the greatest responsibility of any citizenship in the world. The important rights that are now yours and the duties and responsibilities attendant thereon are set forth elsewhere in this manual. It is hoped that they will serve as a constant reminder that only by continuing to study and learn about your new country, its ideals, achievements, and goals, and by everlastingly working at your citizenship can you enjoy its fruits and assure their preservation for generations to follow. May you find in this Nation the fulfillment of your dreams of peace and security, and may America, in turn, never find you wanting in your new and proud role of Citizen of the United States. [Basic Guide to Naturalization and Citizenship] [Immigration and Naturalization Service] [U.S. Department of Justice] [page 265, emphasis added]
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 21 of 36
Executed on ___________________________
/s/ Sheila Wallen _______________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 22 of 36
EXHIBIT "A": "The Day Our Country Was Stolen:" "How the 14th Amendment" [sic] "Enslaved Us All" "Without a Shot Fired"
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 23 of 36 http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (23 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
The Day Our Country Was Stolen: How the 14th Amendment [sic] Enslaved Us All Without a Shot Fired by L. C. Lyon
Most Americans would agree that we, as a people, are treated by our public servants -- the judges, politicians, law enforcement and bureaucrats who are paid their salaries by our taxes -- as if we were in complete bondage to them. When we joke about being slaves to the Government, we don't realize that we are exactly correct, joke or not. In fact, all those 99% of Americans who call themselves "U.S. citizens" are actually subjects of the corporate United States Government -- not the sovereign states of the Union. The moment you uttered your first cry on American soil, you became the chattel property of the corporation known as the United States of America which, because of the federal debt, handed title (Birth Certificate) to your body and soul to the Federal Reserve Bank, to be held in the archives of the Department of Health and Human Services. As incredible as this sounds, it is sadly true. The next question is: How did I automatically become subject to a government, when I'm supposedly a free American? How did this all come about, that I should be made to register myself, my family, and all that I own; be made to obey oppressive laws; and forfeit almost half of my earnings upon threat of jail? Only those who are "subject" to a government can be made to do these things. Free American Inhabitants are subject to no one but God, and all the laws and responsibilities which that Divine allegiance entails.
Which "United States" Do You Live In? The answer to the above questions goes back to the American Civil War. The war that was supposedly fought to free the slaves from bondage actually did just the opposite -- for all Americans then and in the future. By enacting the 14th Amendment (which technically is an Article, not a true amendment, but that's a topic for another discussion), a whole nation of newly freed slaves and free-born white American Inhabitants became "citizens of the United States", i.e. of a federal government corporation, at the stroke of a pen and without a shot being fired. Because we Americans are a different breed and demand the right to personal freedom, those who had planned decades ago to enslave us (even if it took generations to do so) knew that, as long as we were armed and willing to fight to maintain our freedom, the only way to accomplish this enslavement was by deception. http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (24 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 24 of 36
To proceed further, we must understand that there are two "United States". There is the "united States" (note the small "u" in "united") which describes the ideological and geographical position of the sovereign states of America. An individual was the voluntary inhabitant of the state in which he resided. If he did not like the laws or practices of that state, he could simply move to another state. Each state was sovereign to itself, and could not be forced to accept the laws and practices of any other state. The "United States of America", however, is the name of the corporate entity (note the capital "U" in "United") that exists to carry out the functions delegated to it by the States for the protection of the Union. This corporate entity's jurisdiction is supposed to be (according to the Constitution) confined to the District of Columbia, the federal territories and the federal enclaves. Enclaves are areas within a State's boundaries which are ceded to the Federal Government by the State Legislature. Anyone can come under the direct jurisdiction of the corporate United States in three ways: (1) by living in one of its territories (Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, etc.), (2) by living in the District of Columbia, or (3) simply by choice. Back when America still had vast territories not-yetbecome states and several thousands of people lived in these territories, these people had no rights protected by state sovereignty. They lived under federal jurisdiction, which was the reason why people living in territories were so anxious to achieve statehood. The President could order federal troops into any territory and enact any edicts he wanted. Once a territory became a state, it had sovereignty and, from that point on, the state's rights prevailed. So, if you don't live in a territory or enclave, and you don't live in the District of Columbia, then the only way you could have fallen under the jurisdiction of the United States Government is by choice. But neither I, nor anyone I know, voluntarily or knowingly surrendered their personal sovereignty to the Government, which means that it (our sovereignty) was taken from us by deception. This deception, which took place in the year 1868, is what this article will explain -- how our ancestors were tricked and coerced into giving up their rights (and ours!) to the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 25 of 36
Civil War Sets the Stage for Takeover http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (25 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
The Constitution for the United States of America specifies in the opening paragraph that the Constitution was written for the newly formed corporation, not for us, the People living in America. Our rights come from God and are inalienable. They do not come from a piece of paper. And, because the Federal Government exists only on paper -- a man-created entity -- it can also be dismantled anytime We the People decide it has become a threat to our inalienable God-given rights of sovereignty. The Constitution is the contract between those who administer the Government's affairs and the People of the united States. In essence, it states that the People will give the Government certain powers necessary to administer the defense of the States, and control the commerce into the States from foreign countries. In exchange, the State governments (not the individual people -- direct taxation by the Federal Government is unconstitutional) would provide the Federal Government the money it needs to operate. The Federal Government had limited powers; in fact, the Bill of Rights was hotly debated at the time of its passage because there were several people who wisely cautioned that the Bill of Rights would eventually be construed as rights endowed by the Constitution, not protected by it (which is exactly what has happened). How often do you hear patriots mistakenly vow to defend "their Constitutional rights"? This thinking reflects the decades of public school brainwashing to which we have all been subjected. We need to correct each other and understand that our rights are God-given, not constitutional. So, how does the Civil War enter into this present-day power struggle between the Federal Government and Us the People? Slavery was not the true underlying reason for the war. It was an emotional, social issue that was used as an excuse to incite people to go to war, people who did not realize that foreign agencies were responsible for that conflict. International bankers, seeing the slavery issue as an opportunity not only to divide the country, but make millions of dollars as well, fanned the flames of debate until, under cover of the most bloody war in the history of the world, they were to accomplish that very objective -- the complete takeover of America. They almost succeeded years sooner, except for the intervention of one man -- President Abraham Lincoln.
"Honest Abe" Knew the Truth President Lincoln was against slavery, but he understood that it was wrong to force the southern States to give up slavery -- to force Federal jurisdiction over the issue of States' Rights. Four of the southern States were already considering the abolition of slavery, but they couldn't just abandon it overnight. It would take time. After all, their whole economy was built upon slavery; a sudden disruption would bankrupt the South. Lincoln understood this. But, it wasn't until Lincoln got into office that he began to see the whole picture. He learned that the war was begun by the International http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (26 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
Bankers as a means of dividing the country in two, forcing both sides to borrow heavily from the Bankers to pay war debts. Then, when failing to repay those loans, the divided America would be forced into bankruptcy. The Rothschilds and other bankers could then simply foreclose on the corporations known as the United States of America and the Confederate States of America. President Lincoln knew he had to keep the nation together at all costs -- including war.
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 26 of 36
Saved by the National Banks Near the end of the war, the South was on its knees and the U.S. Government was nearly bankrupt. Seeing their opportunity, the Bankers offered to loan the U.S. Government enough to see it through. Lincoln said no. He would find another way. What he did then was to ask Congress for permission to print paper money. Even though he knew it was unconstitutional (only gold and silver are lawful U.S. money), it was the only way he knew to buy provisions for the Army -- but only if the U.S. banks would accept it. They did. When Lincoln gave his word that the Government would redeem those notes for gold and silver at a later time, they believed him and honored the notes. By doing this, the planned takeover by the Bankers was averted -- at that time.
The Bankers' Revenge -- Assassination Because he had given his word to the nation's bankers; because he had promised the South that, upon surrender, the Government would help them rebuild; and because he had promised the Southerners there would be no recriminations or punishments if they again swore loyalty to the Union, Lincoln knew he had to get re-elected, though he was tired, tormented by migraine headaches, and worried about his suffering family life. He had to make sure those promises were kept. Lincoln's complete thwarting of the International Bankers' plans doomed him to assassination at their hands. Papers found in Booth's locker show communications with an agent hired by the Rothschild family. Weeks before he was killed, Lincoln knew he would die in office. His spies were reporting plots to kill him; it was only a matter of who got to him first. So, he met regularly with his Vice President, Andrew Johnson, and educated him as quickly as he could so that he could follow through on Lincoln's promises. Johnson listened carefully and understood what was expected of him, and why. Then, after Lincoln's murder, he did exactly as he was supposed to do. In school, when we were taught this part of American history, we were told that Andrew Johnson was uneducated and http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (27 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
ignorant, and fumbled continuously in office, which was supposedly why he was impeached. Johnson was of humble origin, but he was an honest, self-educated man who stood firmly for what he saw clearly were the best interests of his country. This is what got him impeached.
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 27 of 36
Impeachment! At this time, the only men in Congress were those representing the northern States. After Fort Sumter, all the southern States had seceded. After Lincoln's death, Congress began passing laws to punish the South, in contradiction to Lincoln's promise. Johnson began vetoing them, sometimes three and four times, until Congress began passing them over his veto. One particular bill that he vetoed, the Civil Rights Bill, was intended to make all former slaves automatic citizens of the Federal Government, and under its direct jurisdiction (and protection). This seemed like a compassionate and generous gesture to the newly freed slaves but, as Johnson pointed out, it would have serious consequences for the Negroes. In his veto message in March of 1866, Johnson pointed out the pitfalls of this bill: He [the Negro] must, of necessity, from his previous unfortunate condition of servitude, be less informed as to the nature and character of our institutions than he who, coming from abroad, has to some extent at least, familiarized himself with the principles of a government to which he voluntarily entrusts "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". The 1st Section of the bill also contains an enumeration of the rights to be enjoyed by these classes so made citizens "in every state and territory in the United States". These rights are "to make and enforce contracts; to sue, be parties, and give evidence; to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property"; and to have "full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens". So too, they are made subject to the same punishment, pains and penalties, in common with white citizens .... [emphasis added]
Johnson could clearly see that to immediately place a string of governmental "rights and benefits" upon a totally naive and uneducated people as the Negroes, would also make them easy prey for every carpetbagger who would trick them into contracts, in which they would have no knowledge of the legal ramifications. This bill would, in effect, make the former slaves as slaves again to different masters: unscrupulous businessmen, attorneys and judges. http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (28 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 28 of 36
Johnson saw that this bill was also a means of foisting unconstitutional jurisdiction of the Federal Government in every state: Thus a perfect equality of the white and colored races is attempted to be fixed by federal law in every state of the Union over the vast field of state jurisdiction covered by these enumerated rights. If Congress can declare by law who shall hold lands, who shall testify, who shall have capacity to make a contract in a state, then Congress can by law also declare who, without regard to color or race, shall have the right to sit as a juror or as a judge, to hold any office, and finally, to vote "in every state and territory of the United States". The legislation thus proposed invades the judicial power of the state. It says to every state court or judge: if you decide that this act is unconstitutional; if you refuse, under the prohibition of a state law, to allow a Negro to testify; if you hold that over such a subject matter the state law is paramount ... your error of judgment, however conscientious, shall abject you to fine and imprisonment. The Legislative Department of the government of the United States thus takes from the Judicial Department of the states the sacred and exclusive duty of judicial decision and converts the state judge into a mere ministerial officer, bound to decide according to the will of Congress. [emphasis added]
Johnson then continued with an additional warning as to the virtually unlimited power given to appointed agents: The Section of the bill provides that officers and agents of the Freedman's Bureau shall be empowered to make arrests and also that other officers may be specially commissioned for that purpose by the President of the United States. It also authorizes circuit courts of the United States and the superior courts of the territories to appoint, without limitation, commissioners, who are to be charged with the performance of quasi-judicial duties. These numerous agents are made to constitute a sort of police, in addition to the military, and are authorized to summon a posse comitatus, and even to call to their aid such portion of the land and naval forces of the United States or of the militia ....
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (29 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
This extraordinary power is to be conferred upon agents irresponsible to the government and to the people, to whose number the discretion of the commissioners is the only limit and in whose hands such authority might be made a terrible engine of wrong, oppression and fraud. The 7th Section provides that a fee ... shall be paid to each commissioner in every case brought before him, and a fee ... to his deputy or deputies for each person he or they may arrest and take before any such commissioner .... All those fees are to be "paid out of the Treasury of the United States" whether there is a conviction or not; but in the case of conviction they are to be recoverable from the defendant. It seems to me that under the influence of such temptations, bad men might convert any law, however beneficent, into an instrument of persecution and fraud. To me, the details of the bill seem fraught with evil. It is another step, or rather stride, toward centralization and the concentration of all legislative powers in the national government. [emphasis added]
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 29 of 36
It is plain to see here that President Johnson saw far into the future as to the potential for legal and political abuse of such arbitrary powers -- powers that had never before been placed into the hands of a bureaucracy that had not been subjected to referendum by the people or constitutional question by any federal court. This bill (which was passed over Johnson's veto) did, in fact, set the precedent for hundreds of federal, state and local bureaucracies that have since choked the lifeblood of millions of Americans. Also, this bill blatantly usurped all States Rights and opened a very wide door for the further usurpation of these rights, using other social agendas. The reason Andrew Johnson was impeached was because he fought so hard against this bill and the subsequent 14th Amendment. His enemies purposely did not mention to the press (nor to the public) the legal and political ramifications of this bill which Johnson had so succinctly pointed out; but instead they broadcasted the notion that he was reneging on Lincoln's promises to "heal the wounds" of the nation by fighting full rights for the Negro -- thus making it an emotional social issue. In fact, Johnson was keeping Lincoln's promises by trying to protect the rights of the newly freed slaves, as well as the rights of those states which knew their own former slaves better than anyone, and knew the Negroes were not yet ready for the responsibilities of citizenship. As Johnson had predicted, http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (30 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
after passage of the bill, so many of the Negroes had indeed been robbed of goods and property by white charlatans and/or thrown into jails for breaking commercial laws they did not understand that, when the Negroes did come to full awareness of the massive duplicity perpetrated by these scoundrels, a racial hatred and mistrust of all whites became a nationwide phenomenon that has never been erased to this day.
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 30 of 36
The Final Axe Falls After the bill was passed over Johnson's veto, and there was no general hue and cry from the public, Congress then proceeded with the next step -- the 14th Amendment. In order to understand the ramifications of this heinous act of Congress, it must be analyzed section-by-section: ARTICLE XIV. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [emphasis added]
In the very first line, the amendment states that all persons born (all babies from this point on) or naturalized (the newly freed slaves who were then just inhabitants of America) are now citizens of the United States (the Federal Government) and of the State (the State Government) where they lived. From the Declaration of Independence on, all people in America who lived here were Americans, residing in a particular geographical state, and free to move from state to state, or even to another country. The Federal Government, according to the Constitution, is a corporate fiction that does the bidding of the body of collective states called Congress. At this time, the state governments had similar limited jurisdiction over their inhabitants, as did the federal government. The state government's primary function was to act as a collective voice of all its inhabitants to convey their wishes to Congress. Congress controlled the federal government. The rule of Common Law, which was the law of the land at that time, was carried out exclusively by the County Sheriff -the Common Law concept of Posse Comitatus. Neither the State nor the Federal Government had any jurisdiction in the County, where Home Rule was the law. Only by permission or invitation by the Sheriff could either of the other two governments step foot in his County. The Civil Rights Bill, in one bold act, forced Federal Government jurisdiction into the sanctity of http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (31 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
State rule. But Posse Comitatus still reigned in each state, and the conspirators found the way to usurp jurisdiction here through the 14th Amendment.
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 31 of 36
Citizens, Subjects
=
Slaves
In order for any government to grab power and maintain it, it must have "subjects" or "citizens". According to Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. (Herriot v. City of Seattle, 81 Wash.2d. 48, 500 P.2d. 101, 109)" So, by declaration of the 14th Amendment, all persons born from that point forward, and all naturalized people, had just become citizens (i.e. subjects) of the United States Government, obviously without their knowledge (babies) or understanding (the Negroes). The Federal Government had just reached past the jurisdictional boundaries of the state and county lines and claimed all its babies and all Negroes. In Section 2, it then states that only males 21 years of age who are citizens of the United States may be allowed to vote in Federal and State elections. That means that only those men who willingly claimed U.S. citizenship on voter's registration cards (though they didn't realize the implications) were also brought in as subjects of the Federal Government. (The Federal Government's power and control are growing fast!) However, it stipulated that those who had participated in rebellion (the South) were excluded.
The Back Door At this point, any intelligent person can figure out that the Conspirators who were using this Amendment to claim all Americans as its citizens -- by deception -- were obviously performing an illegal and unconstitutional act. The conspirators in Congress (and every Congressman knew what was being perpetrated, and either promoted it or simply pretended not to notice) established a "loophole" for themselves and to cover themselves in case people began to catch on. This loophole was 15 Statutes at Large, Chapter 249 (Section 1), enacted July 27, 1868, one day before the 14th Amendment was declared "ratified". You will not see this statute published anywhere except in very old books. The Conspirators do not want their "citizens" to know it exists, and it has never been repealed. The text follows: CHAP. CCXLIX. -- An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (32 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed: Therefore, Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 32 of 36
On the surface, this seems to guarantee that "foreigners" who live in the borders of America cannot be forced to claim citizenship. But, what this also says is that anyone who wishes to expatriate (i.e. renounce their U.S. citizenship) may do so, by inherent right, and no one can deny him this right. The Conspirators knew that, the "letter of the law" having been satisfied with this exemption from compelled performance (having U.S. citizenship thrust upon us), they could then hide the exemption from general view, start promoting the "benefits" of U.S. citizenship in the media (and later, in public schools) and begin setting up all of us for manipulation to obey millions of codes, statutes, and laws; exacting fines for breaking these laws; and extracting license fees and taxes upon penalty of seizure or jail. Free American Inhabitants are not subject to the Federal Government by virtue of their not claiming U.S. citizenship. Those of us who have renounced our U.S. citizenship and declared our status as American Inhabitants, using 15 Statutes at Large as the legal foundation for this Declaration of Status, are the only ones living in the united States of America. The rest of America (U.S. citizens -- about 99%) are living in a 4th dimension, i.e. in a fictitious corporation called the United States of America. As far as America is concerned (except that 1%), there's nobody home!
Slavery by Election We can see that, in the 14th Amendment, those Southerners who had participated in the Civil War were excluded from this "benefit" (U.S. Citizenship) on purpose -- to punish them so http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (33 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
severely with sanctions, punishing fines and terrorism from the newly formed Freeman's Bureau, that a few years later, the Southerners would be grateful for any consideration the Federal Government would extend to them. When the opportunity was ripe, such a consideration was enacted -- the 15th Amendment. It reads (in part): Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
By this gracious gesture, Congress extended full forgiveness to the South, and restored their right to vote (at that time, considered to be the most sacred right of an American). At the next national election after the enactment of this amendment, there was the largest turnout of voters this nation had ever seen. The South wanted desperately to be restored to the Union and heal their wounds. When they heard that, in order to vote, they had to swear allegiance to the United States of America and thus become a "citizen of the United States" (as required by the 14th Amendment), they did so willingly and without a clue as to what they had just done to themselves and to their posterity. With the stroke of a pen, the 14th Amendment, and the subsequent 15th Amendment, had just enslaved an entire nation without a shot being fired.
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 33 of 36
The "Forgotten" Clause Obviously, this treacherous act by Congress was enough to have all of them hanged as traitors; but, there was one more act of treachery that has been overlooked by most people. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment reads: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. [emphasis added]
At that time, a hue and cry was raised concerning Lincoln's promises to "forgive" the South's debts as part of Reconstruction, with good reason. But mainly overlooked was the first part of Section 4, which says that the debts incurred by http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (34 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
the U.S. government were not to be questioned, that the enforcers whom the Government hired to quell insurrection (today, the CIA, FBI, BATF, DEA, U.S. Marshals, etc.) would be paid by the Government. And where was the Government's money to come from? Answer: Its newly acquired subjects -- U.S. citizens. The States had just signed into constitutional amendment the permission for the Federal Government to hire thugs and thieves to control us, to pay them with our own money, and that no question could be brought to court about the constitutionality of these actions. This is why any effort to bring a suit against the Government about the Federal debt will never be entertained by the Supreme Court!
A Dangerous Game In Europe, Africa and other places in the world, a despot simply took over a country by waging war. Here in America, however, as long as Americans were armed and prepared for hostile armed takeover, the Conspirators knew that a different technique -- a grand deception by manipulation of the laws, the courts, the schools, the media -- must be employed to obtain the same results. They waged war on us long ago, but we've been too naive to see it. There are many who are waking up now, but they don't see the whole picture. They think that if they reverse a certain portion of Government abuse, we can take our country back. Tax protestors (as IRS calls them) have perfectly correct reasons to point out that they are not required to file -- but they forget they are still U.S. citizens (i.e. subjects). Home schoolers fight bravely for their right to protect their children against Government control -- but they forget they are still U.S. citizens. Legal eagles have found many statutory "loopholes" to win a few battles in court -- but they forget they are still U.S. citizens.
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 34 of 36
Playing the "patriot game" without fully understanding the constitutional hold the Federal, State and local governments have over them is playing a dangerous game. They may win a few skirmishes in their battles with Government (the Government allows these "wins" to encourage us to continue wasting our energies in useless effort), but they will never win the war, and will only bring the wrath of Government down upon the head of yet another one of its subjects. For now, at least, the Government is respecting the status of American Inhabitants. We (your publisher L. C. Lyon and writer George Sibley) have not had any legal hassles from any Government entity, because we are no longer U.S. citizens. We are the same as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and all the other patriots were in their time -- free American Inhabitants. Any U.S. citizen can give up this enslaving status at any time, but it must be done properly. If everyone
in America
were to
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (35 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
take back their rights as
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
free Americans again, through the revocation process, Government would have no more subjects, and no more power!
the
IT'S TIME TO TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK!
[Minor grammatical and spelling edits were done to this essay by John E. Trumane. These edits were done without permission of the author, because Mr. Trumane did not have the author's mailing address at the time the edits were done.]
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 35 of 36
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila
Terese, Wallen,
penalty of
perjury, under
Sui
America, without years of
Juris,
the laws
the "United
hereby
of the
certify,
States," that
United I am
under
States
of
at least
18
age, a Citizen of one of the United States of America,
and that I personally served the following document(s): VERIFIED STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF CHALLENGE TO GRAND JURY SELECTION POLICY AND ITS FEDERAL STATUTE: 28 U.S.C. 1746(1), 1861, 1865 by placing first
class
one true United
and correct States
copy of
Mail,
with
properly addressed to the following:
Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 Tucson [85701] ARIZONA STATE Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (36 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
said document(s) postage
prepaid
in and
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : swornaff
Executed on: _____________________________
/s/ Sheila Wallen __________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Verified Statement Challenging Grand Jury Selection Policy: Page 36 of 36
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/swornaff.htm (37 of 37) [4/8/2007 2:13:27 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : refusal
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Sheila Terese, Wallen,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) United States, ) and Does 1-99, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________)
COMES NOW
Sheila Terese,
state and
Plaintiff in
"Plaintiff"), to
Case No. 95-484-TUC NOTICE OF REFUSAL FOR CAUSE: FRCP Rules 9(a); 9(b); 12(b)(1),(2),(4),(5)
Wallen, Sui the above
Juris, Citizen of Arizona
entitled matter
(hereinafter
provide formal Notice to all interested parties
that She has refused William D. Browning's ORDER dated August 15, 1996, for the following causes (refused copy attached). Her previous
NOTICE OF
SHOW CAUSE
[cites
"NOTICE OF
REMOVAL") was
COURT OF
PETITION FOR
JURY
DEMANDED
THE UNITED
omitted]
REMOVAL AND TRIAL
filed with
STATES", not
ORDER TO
(hereinafter
the Clerk of the "DISTRICT
with the
"CLERK U S DISTRICT
COURT", as shown by the Clerk's file stamp dated "AUG 13 1996" on said NOTICE erred by
OF REMOVAL
(see copy attached).
stamping Plaintiff's
The Clerk of Court
NOTICE OF REMOVAL in this manner.
See FRCP Rule 9(b). http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/refusal.htm (1 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:13:28 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : refusal
Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 1 of 6
Furthermore, Mr. now proceeding
in
("DCUS"), nor
Rules
the
not presiding over the action
District
has Mr.
jurisdiction in Person of
Browning is
Court
of
the
Browning demonstrated
said DCUS
over the
United
that
he
States has
subject matter, or over the
the Plaintiff, in the above entitled action.
12(b)(1),(2),(4),
requisite jurisdiction
and
(5).
Accordingly,
having been
any
demonstrated as
See FRCP
without
the
a matter of
record, he has no authority to deny any of Plaintiff's pleadings, motions, or to dismiss
demands as
filed in the DCUS or in the USDC, except
the alleged criminal action for want of jurisdiction,
as required by Law. Mr. Browning,
as an Article IV judge, is a "taxpayer" whose
compensation is diminished during his continuance in office. Internal Revenue cannot preside
over any
United States Section 1,
Code, Section
7701(a).
proceeding in
("DCUS"), because
to do
See
As such, Mr. Browning a District
Court of the
so violates Article III,
of the Constitution for the United States of America,
as lawfully amended (hereinafter "U.S. Constitution"), to wit: The Judges ... shall ... receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. [Art. III, Sec. 1, U.S. Constitution, emphasis added]
The United matter
of
States has never demonstrated jurisdiction, as a
Plaintiff in
record,
to
bring
the United
any
criminal
case
against
States District Court ("USDC").
contrary, Plaintiff's
NOTICE AND
DEMAND TO
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
(hereinafter "NOTICE
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/refusal.htm (2 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:13:28 PM]
the
On the
DISMISS FOR LACK OF AND DEMAND") and Her
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : refusal
MEMORANDUM
OF
LAW
JURISDICTION OF i.e. the
IN
SUPPORT
THIS COURT
USDC, plainly
different from to prosecute within the
OF
CHALLENGE
TO
(hereinafter "MEMORANDUM
prove that
the USDC,
as
CRIMINAL OF
LAW"),
distinct
and
the DCUS, has no criminal jurisdiction whatsoever Plaintiff, unless
federal zone.
See
the alleged cites in
crime was committed
Plaintiff's NOTICE AND
DEMAND and MEMORANDUM OF LAW.
Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 2 of 6
Mr. Browning NOTICE's
AND
also claims
DEMAND's
FOR
to have "denied" two (2) separate MANDATORY
JUDICIAL
NOTICE,
filed
pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 201(d), to wit: (d) When mandatory. A court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information. [Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 201(d)] [emphasis added]
Said Rule
leaves no
matter of
the evidence
terms "when
room for
submitted thereby.
mandatory" and
is indicative
of their
authority whatsoever
any judicial
discretion
in
the
The language of the
"a court shall take judicial notice"
imperative meaning.
to "deny"
Mr. Browning has no
mandatory judicial
notice
when
invoked pursuant to Rule 201(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Furthermore, as
a matter
of evidence, Plaintiff enjoys the
fundamental Right to incorporate by reference all prior pleadings filed or
lodged in
those pleadings Plaintiff argues
the USDC,
were set
forth fully
that, for
evidentiary material
no matter
who filed
them, as if
in Her NOTICE OF REMOVAL.
Mr. Browning
to deny this essential
in the above entitled action is to obstruct
justice, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1506 , to wit: 1506.
Theft or alteration of record or process;
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/refusal.htm (3 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:13:28 PM]
false bail
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : refusal
Whoever feloniously steals, takes away, alters, falsifies, or otherwise avoids any record, writ, process, or other proceeding, in any court of the United States, whereby any judgment is reversed, made void, or does not take effect; ... Shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. [18 U.S.C. 1506]
Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 3 of 6
Moreover, the to bring
alleged United States Attorneys who attempted
failed
a criminal to
action against
demonstrate
on
Plaintiff in
record
any
power
the USDC have
of
attorney
to
represent the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic] in said action; UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA
have not
been shown on record to have
any standing to bring a criminal action before the USDC; USDC has
the
and the
not been shown to have any criminal jurisdiction over a
crime alleged
to have
been committed inside the state zone (the
Arizona Republic) and outside the federal zone. Lastly, Mr.
Browning's ORDER
was
improperly
served
upon
Plaintiff via United States Mail, because it was addressed to: Sheila Terese Wallen [sic] PO Box 335 [sic] Arivaca, AZ 85601 [sic] Plaintiff has previously notified all interested parties that She will refuse
all mail
unless
location as
shown on
the face page of this pleading.
hereby reiterates
Her intent
it
to
is
directed
refuse
all
to
the
mailing
U.S.
Plaintiff Mail
which
exhibits "AZ" or unqualified zip codes and which fails to exhibit her proper receive (but
mailing location as shown supra, and of Her intent to not necessarily
accept) all
U.S.
directed to Her proper mailing location. Notice to agents is notice to principals.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/refusal.htm (4 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:13:28 PM]
which
is
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : refusal
Notice to principals is notice to agents.
Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 4 of 6
SUMMARY Wherefore, Plaintiff refuses Mr. William D. Browning's ORDER dated August 15, 1996, for all the reasons stated above.
Executed on August 20,1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness Counselor at Law, and Counsel of Record
Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 5 of 6
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila
Terese,
penalty of
Wallen,
perjury, under
Sui
Juris,
the laws
of
hereby the
certify,
United
under
States
of
America, without the "United States," that I am at least 18 years of age,
a Citizen
of one
of the
United States of America, and
that I personally served the following document(s): NOTICE OF REFUSAL FOR CAUSE: FRCP Rules 9(a); 9(b); 12(b)(1),(2),(4),(5) by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United
States Mail,
with
postage
addressed to the following:
Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 Tucson [zip code exempt] http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/refusal.htm (5 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:13:28 PM]
prepaid
and
properly
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : refusal
ARIZONA STATE William D. Browning, Doe No. 1 44 East Broadway Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Executed on August 20, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen __________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 6 of 6
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/refusal.htm (6 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:13:28 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : finalnad
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Sheila Terese, Wallen,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) United States, ) and Does 1-99, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________)
COMES NOW
Sheila Terese,
state and
Plaintiff in
"Plaintiff"), to
Case No. 95-484-TUC FINAL NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR PROOF OF POWER, STANDING, AND JURISDICTION IN THE PARTICULARS
Wallen, Sui the above
make this
Juris, Citizen of Arizona
entitled matter
(hereinafter
formal Demand upon Defendant "United
States", and upon Defendant "William D. Browning" (Doe No. 1), to enter into
the official Court record of the above entitled case,
certified documentary
evidence of
the following, and to provide
formal Notice to all interested parties of same: 1.
Lawful Powers of Attorney for "JANET NAPOLITANO" and "JOELYN D. MARLOWE" to represent the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" in a criminal action before a "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT".
2.
Statutory, regulatory, and constitutional authority which grants legal standing to the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" to bring a criminal action before a "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT".
3.
Statutory,
regulatory,
and
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/finalnad.htm (1 of 4) [4/8/2007 2:13:29 PM]
constitutional
authority
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : finalnad
which grants jurisdiction to a "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT", as opposed to a "DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES", to hear a criminal case against a Union State Citizen when the alleged crime was committed inside the state zone and outside the federal zone.
Final Notice & Demand for Proof of Power/Standing/Jurisdiction: Page 1 of 3
NOTICE OF DEADLINE Formal notice the Plaintiff
in the
named certified official Court Plaintiff by
is hereby
given to all interest parties that
above entitled case will require the above
evidentiary documents
to be
entered
into
the
record of the instant case, and to be served upon transmitting said
documents to Her via first class
United States Mail directed to the following mailing location: Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE no later
than 5:00
p.m. on Friday, August 30, 1996.
Failure to
do either (filing and service) will constitute an open admission, for all
the world
to see,
that the
requested proofs of power,
standing, and/or jurisdiction do not exist in the first instance.
Executed on August 20, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, Counselor at Law and Counsel of Record
Final Notice & Demand for Proof of Power/Standing/Jurisdiction: Page 2 of 3
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/finalnad.htm (2 of 4) [4/8/2007 2:13:29 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : finalnad
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila
Terese,
penalty of
Wallen,
perjury, under
Sui
Juris,
the laws
of
hereby the
certify,
United
under
States
of
America, without the "United States," that I am at least 18 years of age,
a Citizen
of one
of the
United States of America, and
that I personally served the following document(s): FINAL NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR PROOF OF POWER, STANDING, AND JURISDICTION IN THE PARTICULARS by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United
States Mail,
with
postage
prepaid
and
properly
addressed to the following:
Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE William D. Browning, Doe No. 1 44 East Broadway Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Executed on: _____________________________ /s/ Sheila Wallen __________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Final Notice & Demand for Proof of Power/Standing/Jurisdiction: Page 3 of 3 http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/finalnad.htm (3 of 4) [4/8/2007 2:13:29 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : finalnad
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/finalnad.htm (4 of 4) [4/8/2007 2:13:29 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona Under Protest, Necessity, and by Special Visitation Only
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Sheila Terese, Wallen, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) ) ________________________________)
COMES NOW
Sheila Terese,
state and
Defendant in
Case No. 95-484-WDB MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF CHALLENGE TO CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT [i.e. There is none.] Rules 301, 302: Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 54: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
Wallen, Sui the above
Juris, Citizen of Arizona
entitled matter
(hereinafter
"Defendant"), to present this Her Memorandum of Law in Support of Her Challenge to the Jurisdiction of this Court, i.e. there is no jurisdiction in a United States District Court [sic], as distinct from a
District Court
criminal prosecution
of the
States
Code,
for alleged
Section
detailed Memorandum Authority within
United States
on the
the several
bring a
violations of Title 21, United
841(a)(1).
of Law
[sic], to
Defendant subject of
States of
"the several States"), to wit:
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (1 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
now
presents
a
Federal Judicial
the Union
(hereinafter
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 1 of 40
Federal Judicial Authority within the Several States This memorandum will be construed to comply with provisions necessary to establish presumed fact (Rules 301 and 302, Federal Rules of Evidence, and attending State rules), should interested parties fail to rebut any given allegation of fact, or matter of law, addressed herein. This position will be construed as adequate to meet all requirements of judicial notice, thus preserving fundamental Law. Matters addressed herein, if not rebutted, will be construed to have general application. This memorandum addresses jurisdiction of United States District Courts and related agencies of the United States (federal government).
Part I:
Foundation of Law, Jurisdiction, Principles & History
In the American system of Government, the Separation of Powers Doctrine works in two ways: First, it assures separation between the three branches of government, the branches being legislative, executive, and judicial. Second, the Doctrine effects vertical separation between the operations of the state and federal governments, or put another way, operations of the government of the United States and the governments of the several States which are parties to the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended (hereinafter "U.S. Constitution"). In this system, as asserted by American Founders in the Declaration of Independence, all Men (and Women) are created equal, and are equally endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable or inherent Rights, those listed in the Declaration of Independence being the Rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or in the less poetic phrasing of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: life, liberty and property. This list, of course, is not exhaustive, as articulated in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and all, individually and collectively, are accountable in the framework of "the laws of Nature and Nature's God." The phrase, in modern terms, is better understood as physical and moral law. Man cannot author or amend the laws of Nature and Nature's God, but is directly accountable in the framework of cause and effect, or where moral law is concerned, cause and consequence. By establishing these principles prior to addressing the reasons for, and the power and operation of, government, American Founders preserved the essence of English and American-lineage Common Law which evolved and was proven by cultural experience over many hundreds of years. The Magna Charta, drafted and signed by King John in 1215, is commonly recognized as the point of demarcation so far as a formal proclamation of common rights is concerned. The foundation was basically biblical, with the understanding that People are individually created and are, therefore, individually accountable to God. Even when governments encroache on the special relationship between Man and God, Man is still accountable, individually and collectively, and http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (2 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
s/he invariably suffers the consequences of tyranny.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 2 of 40
The Founders went on to say that governments are established among Men for the sole purpose of securing inherent Rights, and governments so established may rule only by the consent of the Governed. In July 1776, the notion of specifically delegated authority conveyed by constitutions was well understood, because the English considered the Magna Charta and subsequent similar documents to be elements of their unwritten constitution. On the other hand, American colonies had continuing experience with written constitutions for civil government which began in 1636 (Massachusetts). Lowell H. Becraft, Jr., an attorney from Huntsville, Alabama, addresses historical events leading to the American Revolution, in his privately distributed memorandum on federal jurisdiction, as follows: The original thirteen colonies of America were each separately established by charters from the English Crown. Outside of the common bond of each being a dependency and colony of the mother country, England, the colonies were not otherwise united. Each had its own governor, legislative assembly and courts, and each was governed separately and independently by the English Parliament. The political connections of the separate colonies to the English Crown and Parliament descended to an unhappy state of affairs as the direct result of Parliamentary acts adopted in the late 1760's and early 1770's. Due to the real and perceived dangers caused by these various acts, the First Continental Congress was convened by representatives of the several colonies in October, 1774, the purpose of which was to submit a petition of grievances to the British Parliament and Crown. By the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress, dated October 14, 1774, the colonial representatives labeled these Parliamentary acts of which they complained as "impolitic, unjust, and cruel, as well as unconstitutional, and most dangerous and destructive of American rights," and the purpose of which were designs, schemes and plans "which demonstrate a system formed to enslave America." Revolution was assuredly in the formative stages absent conciliation between the mother country and colonies. Between October, 1775, and the middle of 1776, each of the colonies separately severed their ties and relations with England, and several adopted constitutions for the newly formed States. By July, 1776, the exercise of British authority in any and all colonies was not http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (3 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
recognized in any degree. The capstone of this actual separation of the colonies from England was the more formal Declaration of Independence.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 3 of 40
The legal effect of the Declaration of Independence was to make each new State a separate and independent sovereign over which there was no other government of superior power or jurisdiction. This was clearly shown in M'Ilvaine v. Coxe's Lessee, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 209, 212 (1808), where it was held: This opinion is predicated upon a principle which is believed to be undeniable, that the several states which composed this Union, so far at least as regarded their municipal regulations, became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign states, and that they did not derive them from concessions made by the British king. The treaty of peace contains a recognition of their independence, not a grant of it. From hence it results, that the laws of the several state governments were the laws of sovereign states, and as such were obligatory upon the people of such state, from the time they were enacted.
And a further expression of similar import is found in Harcourt v. Gaillard, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 523, 526, 527 (1827), where the Court stated: There was no territory within the United States that was claimed in any other right than that of some one of the confederated states; therefore, there could be no acquisition of territory made by the United States distinct from, or independent of some one of the states. Each declared itself sovereign and independent, according to the limits of its territory. [T]he soil and sovereignty within their acknowledged limits were as much theirs at the declaration of independence as at this hour.
Thus, unequivocally, in July, 1776, the new States possessed all sovereignty, power, and jurisdiction over all the soil and persons in their respective territorial limits. This condition of supreme sovereignty of each State over all property and persons within the borders thereof http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (4 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
continued notwithstanding the adoption of the Articles of Confederation. In Article II of that document, it was expressly stated: Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 4 of 40
As the history of the confederation government demonstrated, each State was indeed sovereign and independent to the degree that it made the central government created by the confederation fairly ineffectual. These defects of the confederation government strained the relations between and among the States and the remedy became the calling of a constitutional convention. The representatives which assembled in Philadelphia in May, 1787, to attend the Constitutional Convention met for the primary purpose of improving the commercial relations among the States, although the product of the Convention produced more than this. But, no intention was demonstrated for the States to surrender in any degree the jurisdiction so possessed by the States at that time, and indeed the Constitution as finally drafted continued the same territorial jurisdiction of the States as existed under the Articles of Confederation. The essence of this retention of state jurisdiction was embodied in Art. I, 8, Cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which reads as follows: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dockYards, and other needful Buildings; ....
The necessity for granting federal government sovereignty over land which would serve as the seat of that government became conspicuous during the Revolution, when a contingent of irate folks from the Continental Army beleaguered Congress while it was in session in Philadelphia. Members of Congress fled Philadelphia to Princeton, New Jersey, and from there to Annapolis, Maryland. Philadelphia and Pennsylvania governments were unable, or unwilling, to disperse the rebels who taunted and insulted Members of Congress. Problems persisted for the weak http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (5 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
government under the Articles of Confederation following the Revolution, and it was in this framework that the Constitutional Convention was called in 1787. The purpose for establishing a seat of government under Congress' exclusive legislative jurisdiction was addressed in Essay No. 43 of The Federalist: The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government carries its own evidence with it. It is a power exercised by every legislature of the Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy. Without it not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity, but a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government for protection in the exercise of their duty might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy. This consideration has the more weight as the gradual accumulation of public improvements at the stationary residence of the government would be both too great a public pledge to be left in the hands of a single State, and would create so many obstacles to a removal of the government, as still further to abridge its necessary independence. The extent of this federal district is sufficiently circumscribed to satisfy every jealousy of an opposite nature. And as it is to be appropriated to this use with the consent of the State ceding it; as the State will no doubt provide in the compact for the rights and the consent of the citizens inhabiting it; as the inhabitants will find sufficient inducements of interest to become willing parties to the cession; as they will have had their voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them; as a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them; and as the authority of the legislature of the State, and of the inhabitants of the ceded part of it, to concur in the cession will be derived from the whole people of the State in their adoption of the Constitution, every imaginable objection seems to be obviated. The necessity of a like authority over forts, magazines, etc., established by the general government, is not less evident. The public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, require that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular State. Nor would it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire Union may depend to be in any degree dependent on a particular member of it. All objections and scruples are here also obviated by requiring the concurrence of the States concerned in every such establishment.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 5 of 40
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (6 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
Becraft cites several early court cases which addressed the matter of State versus "United States" (federal government) jurisdiction, with each of the decisions reinforcing the principle of State sovereignty, unless or until land is ceded by a State legislature to the United States: Perhaps one of the earliest decisions on this point was United States v. Bevans, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 336 (1818), which involved a federal prosecution for a murder committed on board the Warship, Independence, anchored in the harbor of Boston, Massachusetts. The defense complained that only the state had jurisdiction to prosecute and argued that the federal Circuit Courts had no jurisdiction of this crime supposedly committed within the federal government's admiralty jurisdiction. In argument before the Supreme Court, counsel for the United States admitted as follows:
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 6 of 40
The exclusive jurisdiction which the United States have in forts and dock-yards ceded to them, is derived from the express assent of the states by whom the cessions are made. It could be derived in no other manner; because without it, the authority of the state would be supreme and exclusive therein, 3 Wheat., at 350, 351.
In holding that the State of Massachusetts jurisdiction over the crime, the Court held: What, then, is the extent of jurisdiction which a state possesses? We answer, without hesitation, the jurisdiction of a state is co-extensive with its territory; co-extensive with its legislative power, 3 Wheat., at 386, 387. The article which describes the judicial power of the United States is not intended for the cession of territory or of general jurisdiction. ... Congress has power to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over this district, and over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings. It is observable that the power of exclusive legislation (which is jurisdiction) is united with cession of territory, which is to be the free act of the states. It is difficult to compare the two sections together, without http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (7 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
had
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
feeling a conviction, not to be strengthened by any commentary on them, that, in describing the judicial power, the framers of our constitution had not in view any cession of territory; or, which is essentially the same, of general jurisdiction, 3 Wheat., at 388.
Thus in Bevans, the Court established a principle that federal jurisdiction extends only over the areas wherein it possesses the power of exclusive legislation, and this is a principle incorporated into all subsequent decisions regarding the extent of federal jurisdiction. To hold otherwise would destroy the purpose, intent and meaning of the entire U.S. Constitution. The decision in Bevans was closely followed by decisions made in two state courts and one federal court within the next two years. In Commonwealth v. Young, Brightly, N.P. 302, 309 (Pa. 1818), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was presented with the issue of whether lands owned by the United States for which Pennsylvania had never ceded jurisdiction had to be sold pursuant to state law. In deciding that the state law of Pennsylvania exclusively controlled this sale of federal land, the Court held:
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 7 of 40
The legislation and authority of congress is confined to cessions by particular states for the seat of government, and purchases made by consent of the legislature of the state, for the purpose of erecting forts. The legislative power and exclusive jurisdiction remained in the several states, of all territory within their limits, not ceded to, or purchased by, congress, with the assent of the state legislature, to prevent the collision of legislation and authority between the United States and the several states.
A year later, the Supreme Court of New York was presented with the issue of whether the State of New York had jurisdiction over a murder committed at Fort Niagara, a federal fort. In People v. Godfrey, 17 Johns. 225, 233 (N.Y. 1819), that court held that the fort was subject to the jurisdiction of the State since the lands therefor had not been ceded to the United States. The rationale of its opinion stated: To oust this state of its jurisdiction to support and maintain its laws, and to punish crimes, it must be shown that an offense committed within the acknowledged limits of the state, is clearly and exclusively cognizable by http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (8 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
the laws and courts of the United States. In the case already cited, Chief Justice Marshall observed, that to bring the offense within the jurisdiction of the courts of the union, it must have been committed out of the jurisdiction of any state; it is not (he says,) the offense committed, but the place in which it is committed, which must be out of the jurisdiction of the state.
The case supra.
relied upon
by this court was U.S. v. Bevans
At about the same time that the New York Supreme Court rendered its opinion in Godfrey, a similar fact situation was before a federal court, the only difference being that the murder committed in the case occurred on land which had been ceded to the United States. In United States v. Cornell, 25 Fed.Cas. 646, 648 No. 14,867 (C.C.D.R.I., 1819), the court held that the case fell within federal jurisdiction, describing such jurisdiction as follows:
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 8 of 40
But although the United States may well purchase and hold lands for public purposes, within the territorial limits of a state, this does not of itself oust the jurisdiction or sovereignty of such State over the lands so purchased. It remains until the State has relinquished its authority over the land either expressly or by necessary implication. When therefore a purchase of land for any of these purposes is made by the national government, and the State Legislature has given its consent to the purchase, the land so purchased by the very terms of the constitution ipso facto falls within the exclusive legislation of Congress, and the State jurisdiction is completely ousted.
Through the first half of the 19th century, State and United States territorial jurisdiction was reasonably clear-cut, as accounts above evidence. But, during the Civil War and afterwards, entrenched powers concluded that Congress, on behalf of the United States, has a unique role in and through the territorial United States in those lands, whether ceded by legislatures of the several States, or acquired, by war or otherwise, by the United States. This alleged authority is at Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) of the U.S. Constitution: The Congress
shall have
Power to
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (9 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
dispose of and make
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
all needful Territory and States ....
Rules and Regulations respecting the other Property belonging to the United
During the Reconstruction period immediately following the Civil War, an Imperial Congress postured to make an end run around the U.S. Constitution. One of the first important measures was promulgation in their proposal for a Fourteenth Amendment. This amendment, secured at bayonet point, created a colorable citizenship known as a "citizen of the United States". To that point, People generally thought of themselves as United States citizens just as they do today; and the body of the U.S. Constitution even makes rhetorical use of the term "Citizen of the United States", but People were Citizens of their respective Union States, and this term could have referred to no other status, since there was no such thing as "federal citizenship" when the U.S. Constitution was written. The distinction between separate classes of citizens is best demonstrated by comparing court decisions, the first in 1855, the second in 1875: A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective States. (Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855))
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 9 of 40
We have in our political system a Government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other. (United States v. Cruikshank, 95 U.S. 542 (1875))
Where the State Citizen, identified in the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution and in 1:2:2, 1:3:3, 3:2:1, and 4:2:1, is a Sovereign or Principal, the Fourteenth Amendment citizen of the United States belongs to a subject, or subordinate class, as demonstrated by Section 1 of that "amendment": Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (10 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The citizen of the United States (a/k/a "federal citizen") was distinct from the State Citizen, or there wouldn't have been any need to restate due process rights already articulated in the Fifth Amendment. In the framework of what has already been covered, it is clear that Citizens of the States (a/k/a State Citizens) were not then, and are not now, "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States within the several States. This matter was addressed by Thomas Jefferson by way of "The Kentucky Resolutions" in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798. The second of nine resolutions addressed the matter of United States authority to punish crimes: 2. Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes whatsoever.
Where Jefferson articulated the limited, direct authority which the United States could exercise over State Citizens, the Fourteenth Amendment citizen of the United States appears to be subject to United States authority wherever s/he might be, whether in the geographical United States (a/k/a "the federal zone"), or in any of the several States which are parties to the U.S. Constitution (a/k/a "the state zone"). More to the point, however, the subject class of citizens of the United States would be viewed on a par with corporations, associations, and other artificial entities created, franchised, and/or sanctioned by government, and United States authority would reach into the States under the auspices not of inherent or unalienable Rights -- Rights which American Founders proclaimed to be the direct endowments from God, but under the notion of civil rights -rights granted by government to its subject classes.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 10 of 40
From this point forward, the American dialogue concerning Law was to change, departing the biblical base of Common Law where God is Sovereign and Man is endowed directly by His Creator, to embrace a secular view of man whereby the individual is little more than a chattel property, and exists solely for the convenience and exploitation of entrenched powers (read "Oligarchy"). This change is easily demonstrated in the Roe v. Wade decision which threw the door open to abortion on demand. Even though medical science long ago demonstrated that life http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (11 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
begins at conception, the U.S. Supreme Court did not consider either the existence or sanctity of life in the landmark decision. The unborn baby, conveniently referred to as a "fetus," does not qualify as a "person" in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment definition promulgated by Congress, so, since the unborn lacks legal standing, the law is indifferent to his existence; whether or not life has intrinsic value or unborn babies have God-given rights wasn't and isn't even considered. The so-called Fourteenth Amendment effected a subtle perversion of first causes. Where State Citizens, being Sovereign, have God-given rights which are merely secured by the state and federal constitutions, the subject citizen of the United States falls under Congress' Article IV legislative jurisdiction; the list of his constitutionally assured rights is itemized in the Fourteenth Amendment. Beyond that, he is dependent on Congress for grants of privilege; rather than God, government is the federal citizen's prime mover. The next important move was incorporation of the District of Columbia as a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the geographical, or self-interested, United States (federal government). Original incorporation was in 1871, with several re-organizations during that decade and since. Thereafter, the corporate federal government became increasingly important, particularly through late-century westward development, as the United States (federal government) managed settlement territory simultaneously with post-Civil War reconstruction -- the days of Carpet Bagger plunder. Then, in 1884, the Supreme Court gave way to powerful influences in the Julliard case when it reversed Justice Fields from four years earlier by concluding that Congress could print paper money because the U.S. Constitution does not expressly prohibit United States paper money. Considering provisions of Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 5 (1:8:5), and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 (1:10:1), of the U.S. Constitution, which stipulate that Congress will mint coin and regulate value, and the several States cannot make anything but gold and silver coin a tender for payment of debt, the Julliard decision was conspicuously contrary to constitutional intent, but as Naval Academy founder George Bancroft pointed out in a detailed rebuttal to the decision (A Plea for the Constitution of the United States: Wounded in the House of Its Guardians), Julliard was based on Congress' legislative jurisdiction under Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, in the geographical United States. Thus, manifestation of Congress' dual role -- exercise only of delegated power under Article I within the several States, and exercise of any power not specifically prohibited by the U.S. Constitution within the geographical United States (the federal zone) under Article IV. So far as lawful implication, the People and the governments of the several States had the Right to reject United States paper money, as several court decisions confirm; but, as a practical matter, the nation was largely changed over to paper money, rather than gold and silver coin, by the time the Federal Reserve Act established the Federal Reserve System in 1913. By 1933, the Federal Reserve Note, not to be confused with the current Federal Reserve Bank Note, was backed 60% by obligations of the United States, and by 40% gold.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (12 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 11 of 40
Congress also engaged in massive land-grabs both within the Continental United States and abroad. Takeover of the Hawaiian Islands, going to war with Spain to take the Philippines, Puerto Rico, etc., and nearly all States admitted to the Union after the Civil War were blackmailed into land concessions. Oklahoma, admitted in 1907, adopted the following provision at Article I, Section 3 of the state constitution: The people inhabiting the State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title in or to any unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof.
Even though the U.S. Constitution grants authority for the United States (federal government) to establish nothing more than forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings within the several States, from the time of the Civil War, well into this century, including mineral-rich Alaska, Congress indulged its greed for land; whereas the intent of American Founders, via the U.S. Constitution, the "Ordinance of 1887: The Northwest Territorial Government", and other such instruments, was clearly to keep the federal beast locked soundly within its box which was, for the most part, limited to the ten miles square (100 square miles) authorized for the seat of the federal government. Toward the end of the 19th century, some of the retained federal lands within the several States were declared to be national parks. Development of federally owned resources accelerated in the 1930's via public works programs, such as building dams for flood control and electrical generation, and a multitude of other enterprises. On the enforcement and judicial fronts, there was a corresponding re-organization. The Department of Justice was created by Act of Congress on June 22, 1870 (Forty-First Congress, Session II, Chapter 150, pages 162 et seq.), with the Attorney General at the head of this organization. To that point, each government agency or department pretty well took care of its own legal affairs, but the Act establishing the Justice Department consolidated authority over most enforcement and legal matters, including those of the Department of the Interior. Changing United States courts around was a somewhat longer process, but it was managed over time. The United States Circuit Courts became United States Courts of Appeal via Act of Congress on March 3, 1891, and organization of United States District Courts, with amendments since, was accomplished by Act of Congress on March 3, 1911 (Sixty-First Congress, Session III, Chapter 231, pages 1087 et seq.).
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (13 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
Page 12 of 40
Part II:
Current Federal Jurisdiction in the States
While some of the seemingly unrelated history conveyed in Part I of this memorandum might appear not to address United States judicial authority within the several States, it will fall into place when the office of "federal magistrate" is addressed. Magistrates in United States District Courts are simply federal park commissioners and nothing more. The name was changed, but the character and jurisdiction of the office did not. The territorial jurisdiction of federal magistrates, which is easily demonstrated by way of two statutes, is concurrent with jurisdiction of United States District Courts within the several States. Or at least it would appear so. The first definition, in relative part, comes from Title 18 of the United States Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, at Section 7, with particular attention to 7(3) (U.S.C., 1979 edition): 7. Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined The term "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States", as used in this title [18 U.S.C. 1 et seq.], includes: (3) Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building.
The second comes from the so-called Buck Act, at 4 U.S.C. 110 (1995 Lawyer's Cooperative CD-ROM edition): 110. Same;
definitions
As used in sections 105-109 of this title -- ... (d) The term "State" includes possession of the United States.
any
Territory
or
(e) The term "Federal area" means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State. [emphasis added]
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 13 of 40 http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (14 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
Definition of the term "State" as included in the above cite as used in both the United States Code and in the codes of the various States is essential to understanding that most statutes in the United States Code presume application in federal "States" such as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, etc., and not within the several States which are parties to the U.S. Constitution. The distinction in 18 U.S.C. 7(3) is subtle, but becomes clearer when read very carefully: special territorial jurisdiction, where the United States Code of Criminal Procedure is applicable, embraces: (1) "Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction," (2) "or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building." In the first instance, the United States (federal government) has exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction over any land acquired for any purpose; whereas, in the second instance, the United States (federal government) has jurisdiction only over lands which are acquired for a constitutional purpose, as specified in Article I, after the land has been ceded to the United States by the State Legislature. In the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and other United States (federal government) possessions classified as "States" in federal municipal law, Congress has unrestricted and exclusive legislative jurisdiction, pursuant to Article IV, so purchase of land for United States (federal government) use automatically comes under Congress' legislative jurisdiction, with or without consent of the State Legislative body. In the second instance, legislatures of the several States must cede jurisdiction over acquired property to the United States (federal government) before any judicial authority can be exercised. The Buck Act definition of "State" is about as straightforward as any of the various definitions of "State" which refer to the federal "States": The term "State" includes any Territory or possession of the United States.
A similar definition of the term is located in Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: "State" includes District of territory and insular possession.
Columbia,
Puerto
Rico,
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 14 of 40
Jurisdiction of United States District Courts, being limited to federal "States" and to federal enclaves within the several States, is further reinforced by another Rule 54 application: http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (15 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
"Act of Congress" includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession.
The distinction between federal "States" and the several [Union] States is clarified in the jurisdiction and venue statute (territorial jurisdiction) governing conduct of United States District Courts. According to The United States Government Manual for 1995/96, at page 75, is 18 U.S.C. 3231 (1979 edition, U.S.C.): 3231. District courts The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States. Nothing in this title [18 U.S.C. 1 et seq.] shall be held to take away or impair the jurisdiction of the courts of the several States under the laws thereof.
If the distinction between the federal "States" and the several [Union] States is not made clear enough by 3231, proof of the distinction is found in the legislative history for 18 U.S.C. 3241, again using the 1979 edition of the United States Code ("U.S.C."): 3241. Jurisdiction of offenses under certain sections The United States District Court for the Canal Zone and the District Court of the Virgin Islands shall have jurisdiction of offenses under the laws of the United States, not locally inapplicable, concurrently within the territorial jurisdiction of such courts, and jurisdiction, concurrently with the district courts of the United States, of offenses against the laws of the United States committed upon the high seas.
At various times, other territorial courts were included in this statute. The district court of the Philippines was removed in 1946 when the island nation became an independent commonwealth; then "Act July 7, 1958 deleted 'District Court for the Territory of Alaska'...." In other words, up until the point at which Alaska was admitted to the Union, that Territory was considered a federal "State." Once admitted to the Union, Alaskan courts no longer qualified as courts of the United States. State courts, because of Tenth and Eleventh Amendments and the Separation of Powers Doctrine, could not legitimately exercise any federal authority. The Canal Zone district court has been removed from this statute since the 1979 U.S.C. edition was published, so the District Court of the Virgin Islands is the only remaining federal "State" court that exercises concurrent jurisdiction with United States District Courts under 18 U.S.C. 3241. http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (16 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 15 of 40
We turn now to the "special territorial" jurisdiction found at 18 U.S.C. 7(3) by way of examining the evolution of what are today known as "federal magistrate judges", formerly known as "federal magistrates", and before that, as "national park commissioners". The first selection comes from historic and amendment notes following 28 U.S.C. 631, which provides for appointment and tenure of federal magistrate judges (1995 Lawyer's Cooperative CD-ROM edition of U.S.C.): 1979. Act Oct. 10, 1979, in subsec. (a), substituted "Where the conference deems it desirable, a magistrate may be designated to serve in one or more districts adjoining the district for which he is appointed. Such a designation shall be made by the concurrence of a majority of the judges of each of the district courts involved and shall specify the duties to be performed by the magistrate in the adjoining district or districts." for "Where an area under the administration of the National Park Service, or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, or any other Federal agency, extends into two or more judicial districts and it is deemed desirable by the conference that the territorial jurisdiction of a magistrate's appointment include the entirety of such area, the appointment or reappointment shall be made by the concurrence of a majority of all judges of the district courts of the judicial districts involved, and where there is no such concurrence by the concurrence of the chief judges of such district courts."; in subsec. (b), in the introductory matter, inserted "reappointed to", in para. (1), inserted ", and has been for at least 5 years,", in cl. (A), inserted "or", in cl. (B), deleted "or" following "Islands;" deleted cl. (C) which read: "in an area under the administration of the National Park Service, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, or any other Federal agency that extends into two or more States, a member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of one of those States;"' in para. (4), substituted "; and" for a period and added para. (5), redesignated subsecs. (f)ü(j) as subsecs. (g)ü(k) respectively; and added new subsec. (f). [emphasis added]
Before examining deletions made in the 1979 amending Act, it will be useful to import the index from earlier law pertaining to national park commissioners before all the name changes, with the current Magistrate Act at 28 U.S.C. 631-639: Amendments U.S.C.):
(1995
Lawyer's
Cooperative
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (17 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
CD-ROM
edition
of
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 16 of 40
1954. Act Aug. 13, 1954, ch 728, 1(c), 68 Stat. 704, amended the analysis of this chapter by adding "and expenses" to item 633. 1968. Act Oct. 17, 1968, P. L. 90-578, Title I, 101, 82 Stat. 1108, amended the analysis of this chapter by substituting items 632 through 639 for items which read: "632 .Park procedure
commissioners;
jurisdiction
and
powers;
"633 .Fees and expenses "634 .Salaries fees
of Park
"635 .Park Commissioners;
Commissioners;
disposition of
residence
"636 .Accounts "637 .Oaths, depositions
acknowledgments,
affidavits
and
"638 .Seals "639 .Dockets and forms; 1972. Act amended the powers, and item 636.
United States Code".
Mar. 1, 1972, P.L. 92-239, 3, 86 Stat. 47, analysis of this chapter by substituting ", temporary assignment" for "and powers" in
It is also useful the last century:
to see the evolution of this Act dating to
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., 526 and 527, sections 27, 66, 80e, 100, 117e, 129, 172, 198e, 204e, 256d, 395e, 403c-5, 403h-5, 404c-5, and 408m of title 16, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Conservation, and section 863 of title 48, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Territories and Insular Possessions (May 27, 1894, ch. 72, 5, 28 Stat. 74; May 28, 1896, ch. 252, 19, 20, 29 Stat. 184; Apr. 12, 1900, ch. 191, 34, 31 Stat. 84; Mar. 2, 1901, ch. 814, 31 Stat. 956; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, 291, 36 Stat. 1167; Jan. 7, 1913, ch. 6, 37 Stat. 648; Aug. 22, 1914. Section consolidates section 526 and a portion of 527, both of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with provisions of sections 27, 66, 80e, 100, 117e, 129, 172, 198e, 204e, 256d, 395e, 403c-5, 403h-5, 404c-5 and 408m of title 16, U.S.C., 1940 ed., and provisions of section 863 of title 48, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Territories and Insular Possessions, relating to appointment of United States commissioners. For other provisions of said sections see http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (18 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
Distribution Table.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 17 of 40
Some of the provisions of section 863 of title 48, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Territories and Insular Possessions were retained in that title. The provision of sections 395e, 403c-5, 404c-5, and 408m of title 16, U.S.C., 1940 ed., for appointment of the Park Commissioner in the Hawaii National Park, Shenandoah National Park, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Mammoth Cave National Park and Isle Royale National Park upon "the recommendation of the Secretary of the Interior" was omitted as inconsistent not only with other provisions of this title but with other statutes applicable to other national parks. All such park commissioners are United States commissioners and the revision of these sections makes possible uniformity and consistency in administrative matters concerning such commissioners. (See, also, sections 604 and 634 of this title.) Words "the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts" were substituted for "Attorney General" in section 526 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., in view of the general supervision by the Director over clerks and commissioners under section 601 et seq. of this title. A provision in section 526 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., that commissioners should have the same powers and duties as are conferred and imposed by law, was omitted as superfluous. [emphasis added]
Jurisdiction provisions relating to federal magistrate judges/national park commissioners were enacted in definitive terms for the Grand Canyon National Park Commissioner: Special commissioner for Grand Canyon National Park; appointment; jurisdiction; compensation. Act Sept. 14, 1959, P. L. 86-258, 1-3, 73 Stat. 546, provided: "Sec .1. The United States District Court for the District of Arizona shall appoint a special commissioner for the Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. The commissioner shall hold office for four years, unless sooner removed by the district court, and he shall be subject to the general laws and requirements applicable to United States commissioners. "Sec .2. The jurisdiction of the commissioner in adjudicating cases brought before him shall be limited to http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (19 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
the trial, and sentencing upon conviction, of persons charged with the commission of those misdemeanors classified as petty offenses (18 U.S.C. 1) [18 U.S.C. 1] relating to the violation of Federal laws or regulations applicable within the park: Provided, That any person charged with a petty offense may elect to be tried in the district court of the United States; and the commissioner shall apprise the defendant of his right to make such election, but shall not proceed to try the case unless the defendant, after being so apprised, signs a written consent to be tried before the commissioner. The exercise of additional functions by the commissioner shall be consistent with and be carried out in accordance with the authority, laws, and regulations of general application to United States commissioners. The rules of procedure set forth in title 18, section 3402, of the United States Code [18 U.S.C. 3402], shall be followed in the handling of cases by such commissioner. The probation laws shall be applicable to persons tried by the commissioner and he shall have power to grant probation. [emphasis added]
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 18 of 40
Now we go to a few court cases to nail the matter down: Powers and duties were coextensive with limits of judicial district in which he was appointed. United States v. Harden, 10 F 802 (D.C. N.C., 1881); United States v. Stern, 177 F 479 (D.C. Pa. 1910). Purpose of Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. 631 et seq., was to provide method to relieve judges of some of their non-Article III functions. United States v. First National Bank of Rush, 576 F.2d 852 (10th Cir., 1978), 78-1 USTC 9462, 42 AFTR 2d 78-5049. Purpose of Federal Magistrates Act (28 U.S.C. 631638) is to remove from workload of United States District Courts matters which are more desirably performed by lower tier of judicial officers. United States v. Richardson, 57 FRD 196 (D.C. N.Y., 1972).
Evolution of the federal magistrate judge demonstrates that he is merely a glorified national park commissioner, who is a barlicensed attorney, and his territorial jurisdiction is concurrent with jurisdiction of the United States District Court where he serves. As previously demonstrated via analysis of 18 U.S.C. 7(3) and 4 U.S.C.110(d) & (e), there is a gray area where there might be some discretion. In the federal "States", United States District Court venue and jurisdiction may extend to national parks and other lands retained by the United States, but in the several States which are parties to the U.S. Constitution, United States judicial authority may be exercised only on federal http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (20 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
enclaves, i.e. lands ceded to the United States by legislatures of the several States, "for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building" (1979 edition, U.S.C.). There is, and was, no constitutional authority for Congress to retain land for the United States, as was the case in Oklahoma, Colorado, Nevada, Alaska, etc., in States admitted to the Union subsequent to the Civil War. Nevada appears to be leading the charge on this issue, namely, the right of the United States (federal government) to retain land in the several States other than for constitutional purposes; and it is clear, by distinctly separate authorities pertaining to federal "States" and to the several States in 18 U.S.C. 7(3) & 3231 and 4 U.S.C. 1001(d) & (e), that application of judicial authority in the United States Code of Criminal Procedure limits jurisdiction to federal enclaves which have been ceded by legislatures of the several States for constitutional purposes only.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 19 of 40
Still, this is a vague area which has yet to be thoroughly explored: Within the several States, the United States has judicial authority either: (1) on federal enclaves ceded by legislatures of the several States for constitutional purposes, or (2) on federal enclaves ceded for constitutional purposes and in national parks. In his memorandum, Becraft frames his conclusion concerning United States judicial jurisdiction by basing it on an 1885 Supreme Court decision, even though the decision was premised on facts relative to the federal reservation at Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas: The single most important case regarding the subject of federal jurisdiction appears to be Fort Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, 531, 5 S.Ct. 995 (1885), which sets forth the law on this point fully. There, the railroad company property which passed through the Fort Leavenworth federal enclave was being subjected to taxation by Kansas, and the company claimed an exemption from state taxation. In holding that the railroad company's property could be taxed, the Court carefully explained federal jurisdiction within the States: The consent of the states to the purchase of lands within them for the special purposes named, is, however, essential, under the constitution, to the transfer to the general government, with the title, of political jurisdiction and dominion. Where lands are acquired without such consent, the possession of the United States, unless political jurisdiction be ceded to them in some other way, is simply that of an ordinary proprietor. The property in that case, unless used as a means to carry out the purposes of the government, is subject to the legislative authority and control of the states equally with the property of private individuals.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (21 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
Thus, the cases decided within the 19th century clearly disclosed the extent and scope of both State and federal jurisdiction. In essence, these cases, among many others, hold that the jurisdiction of any particular State is co-extensive with its borders or territory, and all persons and property located or found therein are subject to such jurisdiction; this jurisdiction is superior. Federal jurisdiction results only from a conveyance of state jurisdiction to the federal government for lands owned or otherwise possessed by the federal government, and thus federal jurisdiction is extremely limited in nature. And there is no federal jurisdiction if there be no grant or cession of jurisdiction by the State to the federal government. Therefore, federal territorial jurisdiction exists only in Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the States, and the territories and possessions of the United States.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 20 of 40
During the Eisenhower administration, the matter of federal jurisdiction within the States was addressed at length by a specially formed Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States, with both State and United States (federal government) representatives participating in the study. Assistant Attorney General Mansfield D. Sprague chaired the committee. Part I of the report, titled "The Facts and Committee Recommendations," was submitted to Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Jr., then transmitted to President Eisenhower in April, 1956, and Part II, titled "A Text of the Law of Legislative Jurisdiction," was submitted in June, 1957. The latter report, in particular, affirms the conclusion that United States judicial authority within the several States extends only so far as the constitutional grant: The Constitution gives express recognition to but one means of Federal acquisition of legislative jurisdiction ... by State consent under Article I, section 8, clause 17. ... Justice McLean suggested that the Constitution provided the sole mode for transfer of jurisdiction, and that if this mode is not pursued, no transfer of jurisdiction can take place. [Page 41] It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction (1) pursuant to clause 17 by a Federal acquisition of land with State consent, or (2) by cession from the State to the Federal Government, or unless the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction upon the admission of the State, the Federal Government possesses no legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State, such jurisdiction being for exercise by the State, subject to non-interference by the State with Federal functions. [Id., at 45] The Federal
Government cannot, by unilateral action on
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (22 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State. [Id., at 46] On the other hand, while the Federal Government has power under various provisions of the Constitution to define, and prohibit as criminal, certain acts or omissions occurring anywhere in the United States, it has no power to punish for various other crimes, jurisdiction over which is retained by the States under our FederalState system of government, unless such crime occurs on areas as to which legislative jurisdiction has been vested in the Federal Government. [Id., at 107]
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 21 of 40
The 1957 report appears to accommodate United States (federal government) retention and/or acquisition of land, and therefore legislative and judicial jurisdiction, other than that specifically prescribed in the U.S. Constitution under Article I authority. Therefore, if the report is correct on this hairsplitting matter, congressional blackmail of States admitted to the Union after the Civil War would appear to be legitimized, and the report seems to accommodate legislative cession of land to the United States (federal government) for other than constitutional purposes ... national parks, flood control, and electrical generation dams, etc. However, the jury is still out on this matter, because recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as New York v. United States et al., 505 U.S. ___, 120 L.Ed.2d 120, 112 S.Ct. 2408 (1992), seem to condemn this conclusion under authority of the Tenth Amendment and the Separation of Powers Doctrine. The United States (federal government) cannot exercise any authority within the several States which is not specifically enumerated in Article I of the U.S. Constitution; and officers of the several States cannot accommodate any United States (federal government) exercise of power which is not specifically delegated under Article I, without first securing a constitutional amendment. Regardless of the Tenth Amendment and the Separation of Powers issues, any given Act of Congress, under United States judicial authority, applies only to the extent of the Act and attending regulations, with territorial limits prescribed at 18 U.S.C. 7(3) and 4 U.S.C. 110(d) & (e). Generally speaking, territorial bounds for United States judicial authority are applicable with respect to both civil and criminal matters, with diversity of citizenship being the only exception in civil matters. This expansion of United States judicial authority does not extend to criminal matters, except as specified by Thomas Jefferson in "The Kentucky Resolutions." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly prescribed the limits of federal criminal jurisdiction in definitive terms. The conclusive statement is this: "[Federal] legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears [in the legislation] ...." See http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (23 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211, 215 (1894), 14 S.Ct. 513; American Banana Company v. United Fruit Company, 213 U.S. 347 (1909), 357, 29 S.Ct. 511; United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94 (1922), 97, 93, 43 S.Ct. 39; Blackmer v. United States, 284 U.S. 421 (1932), 437, 52 S.Ct. 252; Foley Bros. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1949), 285, 69 S.Ct. 575; United States v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217, 222 (1949), 70 S.Ct. 10; and United States v. First National City Bank, 321 F.2d 14, 23 (2nd Cir. 1963). The matter is addressed in Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure [selected portions, 1978 edition, U.S.C.]: Rule 54. Application and Exception (a) Courts. These rules apply to all criminal proceedings in the United States District Courts .... (c) Application of terms. As used in these rules the following terms have the designated meanings. "Act of Congress" includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession. The words "demurrer," "motion to quash," "plea abatement," "plea in bar" and "special plea in bar," words to the same effect, in any act of Congress shall construed to mean the motion raising a defense objection provided in Rule 12.
in or be or
"Federal Magistrate" means a United States magistrate as defined in 28 U.S.C. 631-639, a judge of the United States or another judge or judicial officer specifically empowered by statute in force in any territory or possession, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia, to perform a function to which a particular rule relates. "Judge of the United States" includes a judge of a district court, court of appeals, or the Supreme Court. "Law" includes statutes and judicial decisions. "Magistrate" includes a United States magistrate as defined in 28 U.S.C. 631-639, a judge of the United States, another judge or judicial officer specifically empowered by statute in force in any territory or possession, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia, to perform a function to which a particular rule relates, and a state or local judicial officer, authorized by 18 U.S.C. 3041 to perform the functions prescribed in Rule 3, 4, and 5. "State" includes District of Columbia, territory and insular possession.
Puerto
Rico,
"United States magistrate" means the officer authorized by 28 U.S.C.631-639. http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (24 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 22 of 40
Application of Acts of Congress was clearly articulated in Caha v. United States supra, where the Supreme Court stated as follows: The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.
Application of terms in Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure appears to exclude jurisdiction of United States courts on national parks within the several States, as has repeatedly been demonstrated via 4 U.S.C. 110(d) & (e) and 18 U.S.C. 7(3) definitions and applications, and the definition of "State" cited above; but, regardless of this hair splitting, United States judicial authority via United States District Courts, which is concurrent with the jurisdiction of national park commissioners (now known as federal magistrate judges), does not extend to the several States in any general way, other than in territory ceded by the legislatures of the several States, whether for constitutional purposes or for national parks. Thus, the law of legislative jurisdiction is preserved in the convoluted United States Code by tracking the history and evolution of United States courts and their officers.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 23 of 40
Part III:
Character of Law & Court Effect on Jurisdiction
Judicial authority of the United States Article III of the U.S. Constitution:
is
established
Article III Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. Section 2. [1] The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; -to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (25 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
in
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
Ministers and Consuls; -- to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; -- to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; -- to Controversies between two or more States; -- between a State and Citizens of another State; -- between Citizens of different States; -- between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under the Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. [2] In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Counsels, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. [3] The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. Section 3. [1] Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or, in adhering to their Enemies, giving Aid and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. [2] The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. [copied from Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition]
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 24 of 40
The U.S. Supreme Court has classified the judicial authority which is granted under Article III into three categories: First, those cases in Common Law and equity which are cognizable within the framework of the Section 2, Clause 1 "arising under" clause; second, admiralty and maritime jurisdiction under Section 2, Clause 1; and third, cases pertaining to ambassadors, etc. Cases relating to the several States are affected by the Eleventh Amendment, ratified in 1798, but don't materially affect the instant matter. Concern in this context focuses on two types of law and the originating source. Use of the term "law" in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, as is the case for due process amendments in the Bill of Rights (first Ten Amendments, particularly the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh), contemplates the Common Law of English-American lineage. Equity, also known as chancery, http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (26 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
pertains primarily to commercial or contract law, and is voluntary on the part of participating parties. In other words, Common Law was assumed and construed to be the Law of the Land applicable both within the United States (federal zone) and within the several States. Constitutional intent was carried out by the first Congress via the Judicial act of 1789. In this Act, original cognizance over admiralty and maritime affairs was vested in courts of the United States, exclusive of the several States, with a safeguard built in, known as the "saving to suitors clause." Suitors, or parties to an action, could remove to Common Law jurisdiction where the Common Law was competent to provide a remedy. The saving to suitors clause is retained in the current United States Code. See 28 U.S.C. 1333(1). In the beginning, admiralty and maritime jurisdiction applied only to matters concerning international contracts and affairs on the high seas, with the law of nations providing a guiding light. The Supreme Court, early on, concluded that, while admiralty jurisdiction is conveyed in Article III, 2, Clause 1, it is distinct from authority pertaining to law and equity and, therefore, does not fall under authority of the "arising under" clause See American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 26 U.S. 511 (1828), 7 L.Ed 242; Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354 (1959), 3 L.Ed.2d 368, 79 S.Ct. 468, reh. den. 359 U.S. 962, 3 L.Ed.2d 769, 79 S.Ct. 795.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 25 of 40
The nature and origin of admiralty law is set out in Vol. 1 of Corpus Juris, 1914 edition, p. 1249, as follows: I. DEFINITION [1] Admiralty is that branch or department of jurisprudence which relates to and regulates maritime property, affairs, and transactions, whether civil or criminal. In a more limited sense it is the tribunal exercising jurisdiction over maritime causes and administering the Maritime law by a procedure peculiar to itself and distinct from that followed by courts either of equity or of common law.
II. ORIGIN AND GROWTH [2] A. Under the Civil Law. Admiralty courts owe their origin and procedure largely to the civil law, which prevailed in Italy and along the north coast of the Mediterranean, where naval commerce was originally most active, and where, after the fall of the Western Empire, the merchants and traders by sea brought about the establishment of a court of consuls in each of the principal maritime cities to hear causes arising out of maritime commerce and property. The judges of these http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (27 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
consular courts were chosen on Christmas of each year by the chief merchants, and they enforced and applied to controversies the customs of the sea, whose origin is long anterior to the civil law itself. These courts gradually developed and extended their jurisdiction as maritime commerce became more profitable and important, until ultimately, in most states, they were merged into, and became known as, courts of admiralty. [3] B. In England. The admiralty is a court of ancient origin, traceable back in English jurisprudence to the reign of Edward I, and exercising a jurisdiction coeval and coextensive with that of other foreign maritime courts; indeed, by some authorities it is said to have existed long before that time. But owing to the hostility which, from historic causes, gradually developed in England against the civil law, the jurisdiction of admiralty was there greatly restricted and limited, both by statute and by decisions of the common-law courts interpreting the same. A reaction in favor of the admiralty courts has now taken place, however, and by acts of parliament they have regained much of their lost jurisdiction, and have acquired jurisdiction over all claims for damages done by any ship, whether on land or water. [4] C. In the United States. It is now well settled, after much controversy, that the jurisdiction of the courts of admiralty in the United States is not limited to that of the English admiralty at the time of the Revolution, but is derived from the early usages of the statutes and the federal laws and decisions.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 26 of 40
The history related above hardly does justice to the continued English-American battle over imposition of admiralty law which, as the article suggests, is in the nature of Roman Civil Law, British feudal law, or simply Civil Law, whereby legislative and administrative bodies are ultimate authorities without any reference to an independent judicial body. This kind of rule had the effect of setting English Barons against King John I, with the results being the Magna Charta, signed in 1215, and in 1640, the Popular Rebellion which ended Star Chambers and convoluted ecclesiastical courts under Charles I. American founders were fully aware of the effects of admiralty or Civil Law -- the viceadmiralty courts of George III were largely responsible for the Revolution. Thus, the "saving to suitors" clause was incorporated in the Judicial Act of 1789. However, in the period following the Civil War, Congress found admiralty rule convenient and, as the geographical United States, under Congress' alleged Article IV legislative jurisdiction, became an increasingly powerful influence, admiralty rule was extended. First, as already noted from The United States Government Manual of 1995/96, circuit courts were changed to http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (28 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
courts of appeal by Act of March 3, 1891, then United States District Courts were reorganized and set by Act of March 3, 1911 (Sixty-First Congress, Sess. III, Chap. 231, pp. 1087, et seq. [Public No. 475]). The nature of United States District Courts is revealed in the Act at 9: "The district courts, as courts of admiralty and as courts of equity ...." In other words, the district courts of the United States, from the Act of March 3, 1911 on, if not before, have never really had a Common Law character in federal territories, and their legitimate relationship to and within the several States has at best been at arm's length and shaky, where the real party of interest is the geographical United States (federal government) under Congress' Article IV legislative jurisdiction, exclusive of Article I delegated authorities. However, within federal areas or territories, as described in the Buck Act at 4 U.S.C. 4(e), and the first part of 18 U.S.C. 7(3), the same limitation does not apply, as disclosed at 11 of Corpus Juris supra, p. 1251: [11] 7. Territorial courts. Although admiralty jurisdiction can be exercised in the states in those courts only which are established in pursuance of the third article of the constitution, the same limitation does not extend to the territories, and congress may vest admiralty jurisdiction in courts created by a territorial legislature as well as in territorial courts created by act of congress, and it has exercised this power in both instances. [In re Cooper, 143 U.S. 472, 12 Sec. 453, 36 L.Ed 232; The City of Panama, 101 U.S. 453, 25 L.Ed. 1061; American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton supra ....]
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 27 of 40
To say that United States district courts didn't have a Common Law character isn't precisely correct. In diversity suits at law or in equity, or suits covered by other provisions of the "arising under" clause, they appear to have had a "law" character. However, in 1938, via Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that there is no longer a national or general Common Law. Today, they operate exclusively under "Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States," as defined at 18 U.S.C. sec. 7(3), under admiralty/civil law rules, which are contrary to the Common Law indigenous to the several States. In fact, court decisions disclose that they have only admiralty and vice-admiralty capacities and, in effect, they either accommodate private international law or they serve as administrative law courts (see 5 U.S.C. sec, 701 et seq.). The U.S. Supreme Court is the only remaining United States court which has a true Article III judicial character and, under Rule 17.1 of the Supreme Court Rules, has original jurisdiction over actions at law. The fine line determining applicability of the Article III, 2, Clause 1 "arising under" clause is the real party of interest. So long as an agent or agency of the United States (federal http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (29 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
government) is carrying out an Article I delegated power within the several States, courts of the United States have jurisdiction by way of the "arising under" clause, whether as the complaining party or defendant. However, if an agent or agency of the United States operates under Congress' article IV legislative jurisdiction, which is exclusive to the geographical United States (read "the federal zone"), or to the United States (federal government), which is a foreign corporation with respect to the several States, the "arising under" clause does not apply because the act is perpetrated under color of law. In other words, the "Act of Congress" which is locally applicable only in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, etc., does not legitimately reach the several States or the population of State Citizens inhabiting those several States. For example, in Dan Meador's Public Notice Memorandum pertaining to the character of the "Internal Revenue Service" and proper application of the Internal Revenue Code (which to date has been published as legal notice in Oklahoma, Nebraska and Montana newspapers), He demonstrated that IRS is an agency of the Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico (Congress never created a Bureau of Internal Revenue, predecessor of IRS), and that no taxing statute in the Internal Revenue Code is applicable to the several States, save as pertains to import duties on alcohol, tobacco, and firearms in Subtitle E, and certain items in Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue code (i.e. Windfall Profits Tax on off-shore and imported petroleum). In the event that officers and agents who allege to represent United States (federal government) laws and interests prove to be operating under color of law within the several States, then United States judicial authority cannot spare them from accountability in the framework of laws and courts of the several States.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 28 of 40
Suppose a soldier stationed at Ft. Sill robbed a store or murdered someone in Lawton, Oklahoma. The fact that he is in United States military service and might have even used an Armyissued gun does not affect the law he broke, or the sovereign territorial authority which originates there, and is responsible for enforcing the law. In other words, immunity travels only so far as legislative jurisdiction and the precise limit of any given law. Under Congress' Article I delegated authority, agents and officers of the United States have certain legitimate duties which reach the several States, but under Congress' Article IV authority in the geographical, self-interested United States (federal zone), the cloak of immunity is shed at borders of the several States, except on federal enclaves which have been ceded by legislatures of the States to the United States (federal government) for constitutional purposes only. This distinction between United States "arising under" and admiralty jurisdiction is territorial in nature, particularly when admiralty jurisdiction is exercised under authority of Article IV in the geographical United States and when it represents United States (federal government) interests outside http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (30 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
of Congress' role as the Article I legislative body for national government. Even then, this authority must comply with the law of legislative jurisdiction. If this is not the case, then the limitations of the Tenth Amendment and of the Separation of Powers Doctrine are of no effect.
Part IV:
Statute Application Determined by Regulation
The Administrative Procedures Act, located at 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., and the Federal Register Act, located at 44 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., provide the means for determining what statutes in any given Act of Congress are applicable where. If a statute has general application, then the agency head responsible for carrying out whatever duties the statute prescribes is required to promulgate regulations disclosing the who, what, when, where and how, and have the regulation published in the Federal Register, if it has general application. If regulations are not published in the Federal Register, they have at best limited application. The controlling statute in the Federal Register Act is 44 U.S.C. 1505(a): 1505. Documents to be published in Federal Register. (a) Proclamations and Executive Orders; having general applicability and legal effect; required to be published by Congress.
documents documents
There shall be published in the Federal Register -(1) Presidential proclamations and Executive orders, except those not having general applicability and legal effect or effective only against Federal agencies or persons in their capacity as officers, agents, or employees thereof; (2) documents or classes of documents that the President may determine from time to time have general applicability and legal effect; and (3) documents or classes of documents that may required so to be published by Act of Congress.
be
For the purposes of this chapter [44 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.] every document or order which prescribes a penalty has general applicability and legal effect.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 29 of 40
At 44 U.S.C. 1507, the provision is made that, "The contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed ...", and at 1510, which establishes the Code of Federal Regulations, it provides at subsection (e) that, "The codified documents [in the Code of Federal Regulations] of the several agencies published in the supplemental edition of the Federal Register ... shall be http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (31 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
prima facie evidence of the text of the documents and of the fact that they are in effect on and after the date of publication." In other words, where the several States and the general population are concerned, a statute created by Act of Congress is somewhat like a hot air balloon that will not get off the ground until someone pumps hot air into it (as if it does not have enough hot air already). Regulations are to statutes as hot air is to the balloon. As stated in 1505(a)(1), if regulations for any given statute aren't published in the Federal Register, application is limited to Federal agencies or persons acting in their capacity as officers, agents, or employees of Federal agencies. Provisions of 44 U.S.C.1505(a) are restated at 1 CFR 5.2: 5.2 Documents required inspection and published.
to
be
filed
for
public
The following documents are required to be filed for public inspection with the Office of the Federal Register and published in the Federal Register: (a) Presidential proclamations and Executive orders in the numbered series, and each other document that the President submits for publication or orders to be published. (b) Each document or class of documents required to be published by act of Congress. (c) Each document legal effect.
having
general
applicability
and
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 30 of 40
Citations of authority requirements are as follows: 21.40 General requirements:
Authority citations.
Each section in a document subject to codification must include, or be covered by, a complete citation of the authority under which the section is issued, including -(a) General or specific authority delegated by statute; and (b) Executive delegations, if any, necessary the statutory authority to the issuing agency.
to link
21.41 Agency responsibility. (a) Each issuing agency is responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the citations of authority in the documents it issues. http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (32 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
(b) Each issuing agency citations of authority in reflect any changes thereto.
shall formally amend the its codified material to
The character of Federal statutory law, and the need for regulations, have been addressed time and again by the U.S. Supreme Court and Circuit Courts of Appeal. Many of the clearer statements relate to application of the Internal Revenue Code, as in California Bankers Association v. Schultz, 416 U.S. 21 (1974), 26, 94 S.Ct. 1494, 1500, 39 L.Ed.2d 812: Because it has a bearing on our treatment of some of the issues raised by the parties, we think it important to note that the Act's civil and criminal penalties attach only upon violation of regulations promulgated by the Secretary; if the Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself would impose no penalties on anyone.
In Foley Brothers v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1949), the high court said, "It is a well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears." In order for a contrary intent to be facilitated, delegations of authority and implementing regulations must be published in the Federal Register, and/or any given statute must clearly articulate application. Fortunately, there is a reasonably easy way to discern what statutes in the United States Code have general application to the several States and to the population at large. This is through the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, which begins on page 751 of the 1995 Index Volume to the Code of Federal Regulations. Its authority is located at 1 CFR 8.5(a): (a) Parallel tables of statutory authorities and rules. In the Code of Federal Regulations Index or at some other place as the Director of the Federal Register considers appropriate, numerical lists of all sections of the current edition of the United States Code (except section 301 of title 5) which are cited by issuing agencies as rule-making authority for currently effective regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations. The lists shall be arranged in the order of the titles and sections of the United States Code with parallel citations to the pertinent titles and parts of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 31 of 40
This handy finding aid lists United States Code statutes by title and section in the left-hand column, if implementing regulations have been published in the Federal Register, and applicable regulations by title and part, in the right-hand http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (33 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
column. If the statute doesn't appear, it doesn't have implementing regulations which have been published in the Federal Register, signifying that, in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 1505(a)(1) provisions, the statute is applicable only to Federal agencies, or the officers, agents, and employees of Federal agencies. If the statute number does appear and a regulation is cited, the regulation must be consulted to determine application. Where the instant matter is concerned, the table immediately resolves the matter of territorial jurisdiction for United States District Courts: there are no implementing regulations for 18 U.S.C. 7 & 3231. The absence of implementing regulations for these two statutes confirms that the special maritime and territorial authority of the United States District Court does not reach into the several States and to the population at large; the authority applies only on federal enclaves which have been ceded to the United States for constitutional purposes, and as the second paragraph of 3231 specifies, the laws and judicial authority of the several States are superior and govern within areas of the States which are not within federal enclaves that have been ceded to Congress by the legislatures of the several States. Further, there are no implementing regulations for 28 U.S.C. 631-639, the Federal Magistrate Act. That is to say, these glorified national park rangers in black robes, known as federal magistrate judges, have no authority within in the several States. Therefore, the United States District Courts have no authority within in the several States, per the following: Powers and duties were coextensive with limits of judicial district in which he was appointed. United States v. Harden, 10 F 802 (D.C. N.C., 1881); United States v. Stern, 177 F 479 (D.C. Pa., 1910).
Where matters pertaining to alleged offenses under the Internal Revenue Code are concerned, there are no implementing regulations to support 26 U.S.C. 7402, which prescribes jurisdiction for United States District Courts. This confirms proofs in Meador's Public Notice Memorandum which demonstrate that there are no implementing regulations for Internal Revenue Code statutes prescribing taxing, assessment, and collection authority, save as relates to import duties on distilled spirits, etc., itemized in Subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code, with the general authority being 27 CFR, Part 70, which is under Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ("BATF") exclusive administration.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 32 of 40
Matters relating to United States securities, etc., are commonly at issue in federal prosecutions, so it is useful to briefly examine underlying the authorities. The U.S. Constitution, at Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 1, provides, "The Congress shall have Power [1:8:5] to coin Money [and] regulate http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (34 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
the Value thereof," and at 10, Clause 1, stipulates that, "No State shall ... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts ...." Since these provisions have never been amended or repealed, underlying authorities for current United States credit and monetary systems should be examined for application: 12 U.S.C. 226. 12 U.S.C. 227. 12 U.S.C. 228.
"Federal Reserve Act" "Banking Act of 1933" "Banking Act of 1935"
NO REGULATION NO REGULATION NO REGULATION
There are no regulations applicable to the several States for the Jury Selection and Service Act, 28 U.S.C. 1861 et seq. Use of the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules is probably easiest to demonstrate by analysis of an actual case issued via the Department of Justice and/or a United States Attorney. In order to do this, we will use United States of America v. Kenney F. Moore, Colleen Moore, and Wayne Gunwall, 96 CR-082C, United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, Tulsa, under stamped impressions of Neal Kirkpatrick, Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Fred White, grand jury foreperson. The same people were charged in 95 CR-129C in the fall of 1995 by the same Assistant U.S. Attorneys, with Mr. White serving as grand jury foreperson. The case was assigned to the same judge. However, the grand jury foreperson was presented with some of the same information included in this memorandum, and subsequently the Moores and Mr. Gunwall filed criminal complaints against federal government principals, sending complaints and evidence to the United States District Court in care of the court Clerk, and to the Oklahoma Attorney General, W. A. Drew Edmondson. The complaint was received by the Clerk of the United States District Court on Friday, Nov. 17, then Assistant U.S. Attorney Kirkpatrick entered a motion to dismiss charges on Monday, Nov. 20. Grand jury indictment against the Moores and Mr. Gunwall were allegedly issued again on May 15, 1996, with a "SUMMONS IN A CRIMINAL CASE" (96-CR-082-C) issued July 5, 1996, under the semblance of a signature for Phil Lombardi, allegedly the issuing officer of some undisclosed rank and horsepower.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 33 of 40
This case is interesting for a number of reasons, and would not be included in this memorandum except that federal government insiders have chosen to scandalize the Moores and Mr. Gunwall via statewide Oklahoma media. One of the crucial points is that after receiving summons for Dr. and Mrs. Moore (the Government sent the Gunwall summons to the Moores and Moore papers to Gunwall), Mr. Gunwall drove from Ponca City to Tulsa and attempted to secure copies of relevant material from the office of the United States District Court clerk. But, the file was http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (35 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
unavailable, allegedly still at an old office that wasn't open that particular day. Yet, the information was made available to Oklahoma print and broadcast media, and principals from the United States federal government and the office of Oklahoma Attorney General Edmondson fueled media reporting with comments. It would be difficult to inflict much more injury on the Moores and Mr. Gunwall than federal government officials have already choreographed. The question of the moment, however, concerns charges issued against Dr. & Mrs. Moore and Mr. Gunwall: What authority lies behind them? Government charges rest on four statutes, presented here in the order in which they appear on the face of the alleged grand jury indictment: 18 U.S.C. 371: Conspiracy; 26 U.S.C. 7212(a): Interfering with Administration of Internal Revenue Laws; 18 U.S.C. 1341: Mail Fraud; and 18 U.S.C. 2: Aiding and Abetting. By consulting the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules supra, it is found that there are no implementing regulations extending general application authority to the several States and the population at large for any of these statutes. Therefore, the statutes are applicable only to agencies of the United States and to officers, agents, and employees thereof, per 44 U.S.C. 1505(a), cited above. The only charge which might be of some concern would be mail fraud, because Congress is obligated under Article I, 8 of the U.S. Constitution with providing mail services for the several States. However, manipulation of the Postal Service was one of the first congressional initiatives which, for all practical purposes, has moved the whole of United States federal government under Congress' Article IV legislative jurisdiction within the federal zone (the geographical "United States"). This was done via Act of Congress by the Thirty-Seventh Congress, Session III, Chapter 71 (1863). Sections 22 & 23 of this Act distinguish between "domestic" mail within the federal zone and "drop" mail elsewhere. Today, the United States Postal Service, a United States federal government corporation, handles "domestic" mail in the federal zone (the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, etc.), and "non-domestic" mail delivered in the several States and elsewhere. Regulatory application of 18 U.S.C. sec. 341 demonstrates the paradox for the United States federal government: even though Congress is charged under Article I of the U.S. Constitution with responsibility for maintaining mail service within the several States, alleged Article IV authority to govern the federal zone in any fashion not specifically prohibited by the U.S. Constitution confers absolutely no authority in, and with respect to, the several States which are parties to the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, where Congress has elected to incorporate the United States Postal Service under Article IV authority, statutes prescribing penalties for mail fraud, etc., are not applicable to, or enforceable in, the several States.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (36 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 34 of 40
Part V:
Summary and Conclusion
Through the 1930's, evolution of the corporate United States federal government, under Congress' alleged Article IV legislative jurisdiction in the federal zone (i.e. the geographical, self-interested United States), was referred to as "corporatism". Presently, the U.S. Supreme Court and various other courts use the term "cooperative federalism" to refer to the de facto arrangement between the United States federal government and the governments of the several States (the latter operating under the presumption that they are federal "States", rather than independent republics subject only to Congress' Article I delegated authority). This diabolical scheme, from control of production and distribution of goods and services, to the mathematically impossible social welfare system and criminal enforcement, is premised on the notion that all activity is commercial in nature. The effect has been to treat the entire nation as a seamless garment which is under Congress' Article IV exclusive legislative jurisdiction, rather than as a patchwork of fifty independent republics which are subject only to Congress' Article I delegated constitutional authority. Thankfully, in the last few years, the U.S. Supreme Court has provided footing which affords the possibility of correction. In New York v. United States supra, the high Court reiterated principles framed by the Tenth Amendment and the Separation of Powers Doctrine: so far as the several States are concerned, Congress can exercise only those powers specifically delegated by the U.S. Constitution, and officers of the several States cannot accommodate a United States (federal government) power which is not delegated without first securing a Constitutional amendment. Unrestricted application of the commerce clause has been taken to task in Lopez and other such cases which are cited in Lopez. Unfortunately, judicially correcting the problem isn't as easy as it should be. Through the years, the U.S. Supreme Court has occasionally conveyed a message by way of decisions, or more appropriately, non-decisions. The maxim has been articulated when the Court has been presented with evidences such as the failed ratifications of the Fourteenth and Sixteenth Amendments: ratification of amendments is a political, rather than a judicial, matter. If we read history properly, the nation's high Court attempted to hold the line prior to acquiescence in Julliard (1884), and again resisted socialistic New Deal legislation until yielding in Erie Railroad (1938). The choice in both cases appears to have been pragmatic, yielding constitutional principles to the political tide, further enhancing the probability and prospects of a hidden oligarchy in America.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 35 of 40
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (37 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
In light of the current pervasive circumstance, it is necessary to revisit first causes in order to address the situation. As set forth in Part I of this Memorandum, American Founders proclaimed that the "laws of Nature and Nature's God" govern nations and Men, and that all Men are endowed with certain unalienable Rights by their Creator. This foundation is acknowledged in the preambles to state and federal constitutions: the sovereign American People, by way of their constitutions, have granted only certain, specifically enumerated powers to their state and federal governments. In New York v. United States supra, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the matter of authority. In the American system, the question isn't what power governments should have, but what powers have actually been delegated. The high Court further concluded that public servants who usurp powers which are not delegated invariably do so for self-serving ends. The problem, of course, is accountability. As the development history presented in the Becraft memorandum demonstrates, the several States preceded the "United States". The original thirteen colonies secured independence from English rule, and each thereby established sovereignty as an independent nation. The confederation which they maintained following the Revolution was, at best, weak, having precious little authority over the several new States. This arrangement threatened the harmony, and even the survival, of that Confederation. These difficulties spawned the Constitutional Convention in 1787, with the first States convening under the U.S. Constitution and with the U.S. Constitution vesting the United States (federal government) with only the authority necessary to carry out its expressly delegated responsibilities. However, the People and the several States did not surrender any more power than was delegated; they retained that which they did not delegate, including sovereignty over the territories within the respective States of the Union. Thomas Jefferson, responding to the Alien and Sedition Acts, addressed this very problem, and the proper order of things in the American system of government, in the Kentucky Resolutions:
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 36 of 40
8th. Resolved, That a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, who shall have in charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the Legislatures of the several States; to assure them that this commonwealth continues in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from the moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union; that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their late federal compact, to be friendly to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the States: that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (38 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness and prosperity of these States; and that therefore this commonwealth is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact -- to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the domination, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this commonwealth, from motives of regard and respect for its co-States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified: That if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them; that the general government may place any act they thing proper on the list of crimes, and punish it themselves whether enumerated or not enumerated by the constitution as cognizable by them: that they may transfer its cognizance to the President, or any other person, who may himself be the accuser, counsel, judge and jury, whose suspicions may be the evidence, his order the sentence, his officer the executioner, and his breast the sole record of the transaction: that a very numerous and valuable description of the inhabitants of these States being, by this precedent, reduced, as outlaws, to the absolute dominion of one man, and the barrier of the Constitution thus swept away from us all, no rampart now remains against the passions and the powers of a majority in Congress to protect from a like exportation, or other more grievous punishment, the minority of the same body, the legislatures, judges, governors and counsellors of the States, nor their other peaceable inhabitants, who may venture to reclaim the constitutional rights and liberties of the States and the people, or who for other causes, good or bad, may be obnoxious to the views, or marked by the suspicions of the President, or be thought dangerous to his or their election, or other interests, public or personal ....
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (39 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 37 of 40
Jefferson's argument is as valid in 1996 as it was in 1798: Congress and the other branches of federal government are not parties to the U.S. Constitution; they are products of it. The U.S. Constitution vests Congress with certain delegated authorities under Article I, and nothing more. Within its own borders, State authority is antecedent to that of the United States and, as parties to the U.S. Constitution, the several States have both the right and responsibility to correct their agent, the United States (federal government), when ambition seeks to abuse or expand the powers which have been delegated. Of more immediate importance where the instant matter is concerned, those who exceed the law, whether in the State governments or in the United States (federal government), are accountable to the Law of the Land, and ultimately, to the People of the Land, within the several States. Operation under color of law is outlaw and criminal, and accountability must be in Law. Judges, magistrates, attorneys for the Department of Justice, and other enforcement people do not have immunity when they exceed the law as it is written. This memorandum conclusively demonstrates jurisdiction of United States District Courts within the several States. Implicitly, authority of the Department of Justice, and of the United States (federal government) enforcement agencies attached to that Department, is concurrent with that of United States District Courts, because the lawful authority of any given agency extends only so far as the legislative jurisdiction of the government it serves. All legislation is territorial in nature.
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 38 of 40
VERIFICATION Under penalties of perjury, per 28 U.S.C. 1746(1), I hereby attest that, to the best of My current information, knowledge, understanding, and belief, all matters of law and fact as set out above are true and correct, materially complete, and not misleading, so help Me God.
Executed on August 13, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen ________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell _________________________________ http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (40 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, Counselor at Law, Counsel of Record
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 39 of 40
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila
Terese,
penalty of
Wallen,
perjury, under
Sui
Juris,
the laws
of
hereby the
certify,
United
under
States
of
America, without the "United States," that I am at least 18 years of age,
a Citizen
of one
of the
United States of America, and
that I personally served the following document(s): MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF CHALLENGE TO CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT [i.e. There is none.] Rules 301, 302: Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 54: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United
States Mail,
with
postage
addressed to the following:
prepaid
Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 Tucson [85701] ARIZONA STATE Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Executed on:
_____________________________
/s/ Sheila Wallen __________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (41 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
and
properly
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judicary
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Memo of Law Supporting Challenge to Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 40 of 40
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judicary.htm (42 of 42) [4/8/2007 2:13:36 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : closing
Closing Statement to the Jury by Sheila Terese Wallen Defendant
Ladies And Gentlemen of the Jury. Needless to say, I'm very scared and very nervous. I don't know what I should know to tell you in this case. I have been denied assistance of counsel by the Court. So I'll do the best that I can. I ask your patience and your indulgence. Please bear with me in this ordeal. Let me begin with forgotten -- fact.
a very
basic --
but an
apparent
long
When you read the Declaration of Independence it says that God created each of us, you and me, with unalienable Rights -natural Rights. The Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That Declaration, signed more than 200 years ago, gave each of us to sovereignty of a King or a Queen. Subject to no one or to no government. We The People, like you and me, then created the Constitution for each of the States. The States then created the United States Government. The delegation of power, then, comes to We the People directly from our God-given Rights. We delegated some of this power to each of the States. The States, in turn, then delegated very limited power to the federal government. This case before you today is not just about a few marijuana plants, ladies and gentlemen. The State of Arizona, which is more powerful than the federal government, has stated that one can buy and sell marijuana in Arizona if you have a license to do so. Yet, today, the federal government now says that it has more power than its creator - the State. How can the created become more powerful than its creator? Can any one of you become more powerful than God who created you? Is it now possible for you to dictate to the God who created you? I think not! This entire matter goes far beyond a few plants that are a natural substance placed here by God. This matter really goes beyond the so-called "Drug war" that was created by the government, maintained by the government, and controlled by the government. The so-called "War on drugs" is actually a "war on civil liberties and human rights". Nine million people -- nine million -- have been arrested for possession or sale of marijuana since 1965, when the government started this war. The National Drug and Crime Emergency Act (HR 4079), and the anti-drug abuse Act (1988) has thrown many of our civil rights and due process out the window. This "war" has justified all http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/closing.htm (1 of 5) [4/8/2007 2:17:10 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : closing
kinds of unconstitutional and unconscionable police activities, including illegal search, seizure, and the forfeiture of property without a trial.
Closing Statement to the Jury: Page 1 of 5
This is summary punishment, and it is forbidden Constitution for the United States of America.
by
the
What is at stake here is the very foundation upon which this nation was built -- The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for the United States of America, and the principle for which it stands: Freedom from government tyranny -- the Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Each of these people conducting this trial, -- the police who testified against me -- the United States Prosecutor -- and Judge Browning -- all took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution for the united States for America. They each must, by law, take this oath. Yet, you have heard here, in this courtroom, how each and everyone of them has violated and broken that oath. Each one of them has breached their contract with the American people. They have breached their solemn oath with each one of you. This case is not about marijuana possession. This case is about monopoly, just like that old board game we used to play as kids (and sometimes as adults too). This is government monopoly, over the practice of law, over drug smuggling, over automotive fuels, over everything they can control and get their hands on. You have heard this judge say that only he can rule on the law. Then have him explain to you the federal law which makes it a federal crime to obstruct justice and to commit perjury of oath. Then have him explain to you the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Powell in which that was forced to throw out all its prior precedents and defendants to read the law to juries and to explain understanding of that law to juries.
Ninth court allow their
You have heard this judge sustain objections to questions which I have put to my Counsel of Choice. Then have him explain to you the federal law which makes it a federal crime to deprive any Citizen of fundamental, unalienable Rights like those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. You have heard this judge say that he has already ruled on the matter of unwarranted search and seizure. Then have him read and explain the Fourth Amendment to you, as I will do right now: The right
of the
people to
be secure
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/closing.htm (2 of 5) [4/8/2007 2:17:10 PM]
in
their
persons,
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : closing
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Closing Statement to the Jury: Page 2 of 5
I say to you that you, Ladies and Gentlemen, have full and complete power and authority to make that determination yourself, and your decision will be binding, no matter what this judge says or wants you to believe. You have good reason to expect that this judge will uphold the Law in these United States of America, of which the Arizona Republic is one. Then have him read and explain the Fifth Amendment to you, which reads: No person ... shall be deprived property, without due process of law.
of
life,
liberty,
or
You have watched this Judge deny Me my fundamental Right to have the effective assistance of My Counsel, at all times and places of my choosing. Then have him read and explain to you the Sixth Amendment, which reads: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the assistance of Counsel for her defense. You have watched this judge proceed as if he has jurisdiction in this case. Then have him explain to you the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Johnson v. Zerbst in which that court held that if the assistance of Counsel is not available to a criminal defendant -- at every step in the proceedings -- then the trial court is ousted of jurisdiction to proceed, and must dismiss the case, with prejudice. And while he's at it, have him explain to you how it is that an affidavit, verified under penalty of perjury, and numerous decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court can be considered as hearsay and with no legal significance. Ask him to show you a certified copy of his decision to that effect in this case. And ask him to explain what motion of mine he denied, and why. You have a right to all of these things, because the U.S. Supreme Court, in the year 1995, ruled that juries are empowered to decide relevance of evidence, to decide materiality of evidence, and to decide the law itself. That case was U.S. v. Gaudin. Let me remind you. You heard what the one policeman said about the many years he has been on the police force. He told you that he did not know what the fourth Amendment stated!
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/closing.htm (3 of 5) [4/8/2007 2:17:10 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : closing
This man has been on the police force for 18 years. He has arrested, caused the fines, and the imprisonment of who knows how many people. Who knows how many lives and families he has destroyed. Yet, he does not know what the fourth Amendment states!!
Closing Statement to the Jury: Page 3 of 5
The police have admitted they did not have a search warrant. In spite of the fact that the Fourth Amendment demands that he has a search warrant. The Judge has ruled in this case -- as he has stated on numerous occasions -- that the police did not need a search warrant. This is a blatant violation of the Constitution. This is a breach of contract by the police and the Judge. You have heard the Judge deny me counsel of my choice in direct violation of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Sixth Amendment reads as follows: "Shall have the assistance of you have all seen and heard here in denied me assistance of Counsel of Amendment does it state that I must represent me. It reads: TO HAVE HER DEFENCE.
Counsel for his defense." As this courtroom, the Judge has my choosing. Nowhere in that have a licensed bar member to THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR
I have been denied assistance Here, again, the Court violates the and egregious manner.
of counsel in this case. Constitution, in a blatant
Additionally, the Judge has refused to allow you, the jury, to be fully informed as to your duties, your responsibilities, and your Rights. Let me read to you what some of our forefathers have said concerning your rights and duties as a jury. "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." This was stated by John Jay, our first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, in 1789. "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts," stated Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Signer of the unanimous Declaration of Independence. "The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact." Oliver Wendell Holmes. U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1902. "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided." Harlan F. Stone. 12th Chief Justice, U.S, Supreme Court, 1941. "The pages
of history
shine on
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/closing.htm (4 of 5) [4/8/2007 2:17:10 PM]
instances
of
the
jury's
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : closing
exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge . . .." U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 Fed second, pages 1113-to -1139. You -- as a jury -- armed with a little knowledge, and knowing what your rights, powers, and duties really are, can do more to re-establish "Liberty and justice for all" in this State than all the Senators and Representatives put together.
Closing Statement to the Jury: Page 4 of 5
Why? Because, even without the concurrence of any of your fellow jurors in a criminal trial, you, with your single vote of "NOT GUILTY" can nullify every rule or "law" that is not within the principles of natural, God-given, or Constitutional Law. It is precisely this power of nullification that makes trial by JURY one of the most important of our RIGHTS. It can protect and preserve all of your Rights -- and all of my Rights. You, the Jurors, each have the power, the Right, and the duty to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. If the government, the police and even the Judge chooses to violate their Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, you can still do so with your vote of not guilty in this case. Thank you.
God bless each of you.
And God bless America.
Closing Statement to the Jury: Page 5 of 5
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/closing.htm (5 of 5) [4/8/2007 2:17:10 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : notappel
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona Under Protest, Necessity, and by Special Visitation Only
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Sheila Terese, Wallen, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________)
Case No. 95-484-WDB NOTICE OF APPEAL
NOTICE OF APPEAL COMES NOW
Sheila Terese,
state and
Defendant in
"Defendant"), to in the
the above
Juris, Citizen of Arizona
entitled matter
(hereinafter
provide formal notice to all interested parties
instant case
July 17,
Wallen, Sui
1996, and
of Her
appeal of
of this
Court's
this Court's Order dated refusal
to
dismiss
with
prejudice on July 23, 1996, to the United States Court of Appeals for
the
Ninth
Circuit,
fundamental Rights,
America, as
grounds
as guaranteed
international treaties supremacy clause
on
in the
which are
of
of
Her
by the Bill of Rights and two rendered supreme
Constitution for
lawfully amended.
violations
Law
the United
by
the
States of
This Court is denied jurisdiction
to proceed solely on the strength of this Notice of Appeal.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/notappel.htm (1 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:17:11 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : notappel
Notice of Appeal:
Page 1 of 3
Executed on July 23, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state and Counselor at Law and federal witness All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Notice of Appeal:
Page 2 of 3
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila penalty of
Terese,
Sui
perjury, under
America, without of age
Wallen,
Juris,
the laws
the United
of
hereby the
certify,
United
under
States
of
States, that I am at least 18 years
and a Citizen of one of the United States of America, and
that I personally served the following document: NOTICE OF APPEAL by placing
said document
in first class U.S. Mail, with postage
prepaid and properly addressed to the following individuals:
Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 Tucson [85701] ARIZONA STATE Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/notappel.htm (2 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:17:11 PM]
[hand-delivered]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : notappel
10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Dated:
July 23, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen ________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Notice of Appeal:
#
#
Page 3 of 3
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/notappel.htm (3 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:17:11 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judgereq
HEAR YE!
YEAR YE!
HEAR YE!
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FROM ALL QUALIFIED ARTICLE III FEDERAL JUDGES
This is a general public request for proposals from all individuals who are qualified, interested, and available to preside as an Article III Judge on the bench of the District Court of the United States in Tucson, Arizona state. This is an Article III district court, pursuant to the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 312, 42 S.Ct. 343, 66 L.Ed 627 (1921). Pursuant to the holding in Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920), your proposals must confirm, under penalty of perjury, that your compensation is currently not being diminished by any federal or state income taxes, unless you have chosen knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily to contribute a portion of your compensation to the state and/or federal governments, without any threat, duress, or coercion. Pursuant to 31 U.S.C., the "Internal Revenue Service" is not an agency or bureau of the United States Department of the Treasury. See Chapter 3, Subchapter I, Organization. Voluntary contributions to the "Internal Revenue Service" shall be grounds for disqualification, because of the danger of undue outside influences as described in the case of Lord v. Kelley, 240 F.Supp. 167, 169 (1965). Plaintiff therefore reserves the Right to recuse any judge who currently has any contract, or has filed any tax returns, with the "Internal Revenue Service" or with any of its agencies, assigns, instrumentalities, or principals. If you have so chosen to contribute a portion of your compensation to the state and/or federal governments, please affirm, under penalty of perjury, that this is the case. The Plaintiff, who desires a qualified and competent Article III federal judge, reserves the fundamental Right, under Article III, Section 1, to a judge whose compensation for the office of federal judge has not been diminished during his/her Continuance in office. See Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended, Article III, Section 1. Please submit your proposals, with accompanying affidavit, to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Supreme Court of the United States, One First Street Northeast, Washington, District of Columbia. Please use first class or priority United States mail, Attention: Clerk of Court. Please do not call either the Chief Justice, or the Clerk of the Supreme Court, concerning this matter. Please submit a courtesy copy of your proposal to Judge Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 125 South Grand Avenue, Suite 200, Pasadena, California state. Please also do not call Judge Kozinski's office either concerning this matter. Please also
submit a
courtesy copy
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judgereq.htm (1 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:17:11 PM]
of your
proposal
to
Paul
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : judgereq
Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Counselor at Law and federal witness, c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson [zip code exempt], ARIZONA REPUBLIC. All proposals must be on 8.5 x 11 inch white paper, and be signed in original with blue ink, and verified pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746. It would assist the Plaintiff very much if you were to forward this request for proposals to as many different email lists as possible. We are utilizing the Internet exclusively, in order to expedite the dissemination of this request. Hard copies of this request for proposals have already been mailed to Chief Justice Rehnquist, and to Judge Alex Kozinski, for their information. Thank you very much for your consideration. Questions about this request for proposals should be directed to email address: [email protected], attention: Mr. Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Counselor at Law and federal witness. See 18 U.S.C. 1513. All communication must be in writing, and will be kept strictly confidential, as much as possible. Public disclosures of candidate proposals will happen only under lawful court order(s), or with the prior written consent of the candidate.
/s/ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. August 31, 1996
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/judgereq.htm (2 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:17:11 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA REPUBLIC In Propria Persona Under Protest, Necessity, and by Special Visitation Only
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Sheila Terese, Wallen, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________)
COMES NOW
Sheila Terese,
state and
Defendant in
"Defendant"), to criminal case, to proceed or over
Case No. 95-484-WDB NOTICE AND DEMAND TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION 28 U.S.C. 1359; FRCP Rules 9(b), 12(b)(1),(2), 12(h)(3)
Wallen, Sui Juris,
the above
demand an
Citizen of Arizona
entitled matter
immediate dismissal
(hereinafter
of the
instant
with prejudice, for lack of criminal jurisdiction
in the first instance, either over the subject matter
the Person
formal Notice
to all
or property of the Defendant, and to provide interested parties
of
same.
Defendant
hereby incorporates by reference all authorities cited in Exhibit "A": Federal IN SUPPORT [i.e. There
Criminal Jurisdiction, and in Her MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF CHALLENGE is
none.],
TO CRIMINAL
JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT
Rules
302:
301,
Federal
Rules
of
Evidence, as if all were set forth fully herein.
Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Criminal Jurisdiction: http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (1 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
Page 1 of 17
KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS: I, Sheila above
Terese, Wallen,
entitled
matter,
hereby
(legislative) tribunal prejudice because
and Defendant in the
that
this
territorial
instant criminal
case
with
it lacks exclusive jurisdiction over the exact
location
mentioned in
the indictment
arrested
in
where
fort,
or other
was My
the
alleged
is alleged
any
"needful building", Republic, nor
demand
dismiss the
geographical
was not
Sui Juris,
criminal
activity
to have taken place.
magazine,
arsenal,
I
dockyard,
federal enclave within the Arizona
Person or
My
private
property
situated
within any of the aforementioned federal areas (a/k/a the federal zone). A very
recent U.S.
1995, addressed of the
the issue
Congress, and
Justice Thomas,
Supreme Court decision, dated April 26,
in a
the
of exclusive legislative jurisdiction powers
of
the
concurring majority
federal opinion
government. in
U.S.
v.
Lopez, 115 S.Ct. 1624 (1995), 131 L.Ed.2d 626, very clearly says: Indeed, on this crucial point, the majority and Justice Breyer [dissenting] agree in principle: the Federal Government has nothing approaching a police power. Id. at page 64.
Justice Thomas
went on
to discuss "a regulation of police"
at page 86, wherein he stated as follows: U.S. v. DeWitt, 76 U.S. 41, 9 Wall. 41, 19 L.Ed 593 (1870) marked the first time the court struck down a federal law as exceeding the power conveyed by the commerce clause. In a 2 page opinion, the court invalidated a nationwide law prohibiting all sales of naptha, and illuminating oils. In so doing, the court remarked that the commerce clause "has always been understood as limited by its terms; and as a virtual denial of any power to interfere with the internal trade and business of the separate states." Id. at page 44.
Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Criminal Jurisdiction: http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (2 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
Page 2 of 17
The law which could
in question
was "plainly
have constitutional
a regulation of police,"
application only where Congress
had exclusive authority, such as the territories. Earlier in "Even before
the text,
Id. pp. 44-45.
Justice Thomas, Id. at page 85, said,
Gibbons, Chief
Justice Marshall,
writing for
the
Court in Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat 264, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821), noted that Congress had no general right to punish murder committed within punish felonies for places
any of the states," and that Congress could not generally.
where it
the District or robbery,
enjoyed plenary
of Columbia, or gun
However, Congress
could enact laws
powers, for instance, over
and whatever effect ordinary murders,
possession might have on interstate commerce
was irrelevant to the question of Congressional power. The
first
Federal
nationwide prohibition April 30,
Criminal
Act
against murder
1790, Chapter
9 [1
did
not
establish
and the like.
Stat. 112];
rather,
a
See Act of only
when
committed in United States territories and possessions, or on the high
seas.
With
counterfeiting, and murder, robbery, commerce,
the
single
exceptions
notwithstanding any
and gun
Congress
of
possession might
understood
that
of
it
treason
the
effects
and/or which
have
on
interstate
could
not
establish
nationwide prohibitions. Justice Thomas
summed up
his opinion dramatically with the
statement quoted in part herein: If we wish to be true to a Constitution that does not cede a police power to the Federal Government ....
(1)
"All federal
crimes are statutory."
Doble, "Venue and
Criminal Cases in the United States District Court," Virginia Law
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (3 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
Review, 287,
289 (1926).
"
...[O]n the
other hand, since all
Federal Crimes are statutory and all criminal prosecutions in the Federal territorial Federal Rules
courts
are
of Criminal
testimony," notes
based
Procedure
on
of Advisory
Acts
Rule
26,
of in
Congress," "taking
of
Committee on Rules, paragraph 2.
Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 3 of 17
(2)
Rule 54,
Federal Rules any act
Application
of Criminal
of Congress
District of
and
Exception,
paragraph
(c),
Procedure, "Act of Congress" includes
locally applicable
Columbia, in
to and
Puerto Rico,
in a
in force in the
territory or in an
insular possession. (3) the basis
There is
no presumption
in favor of jurisdiction, and
for jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown.
Hanford
v. Davis, 16 S.Ct. 1051, 163 U.S. 273, 41 L.Ed. 157 (1896). (4)
See exact
Constitution for
wording of
authority does
the United not extend
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17,
States of over every
America, which square
inch
grant of
of
the
48
contiguous Union States. (5)
In principle, the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of
the federal government is not addressed to subject matter, but to geographical location.
See U.S. v. Bevans, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat) 336
(1818). (6)
It is
axiomatic that the prosecution must always prove
territorial jurisdiction conviction therefor. The jurisdictional Accused, nor
over a
order
to
sustain
a
U.S. v. Benson, 495 F.2d 475 at 481 (1974). challenge issue
acquiesced by
positive showing
crime in
upon the
can never
the Accused, record that
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (4 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
be waived
in the
absence
by the of
a
jurisdiction was clearly
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
and unambiguously established.
Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 4 of 17
(7) by the
Without proof
of the requisite ownership or possession
United States,
Watson, 80
the crime has not been made out.
Fed. Supp. 649 (1948, E.D. Va.).
U.S. v.
Only in America can
We be forced into the status of subjects of a foreign corporation by fiat of a
legislation, and the stroke of a CEO's pen, at the point
gun, and
judicio, and
thereby be
immediately divested
declared to
be debtors
and
of standing
enemies
of
our
in Own
government. (8) is the
In criminal
prosecutions, where the federal government
moving party, it must not only establish ownership of the
property upon must also
which the
crime was
produce documentation
that the
jurisdiction over that property. Court in
the case
of Fort
allegedly committed,
but it
state has ceded to it
It was held by the U.S. Supreme
Leavenworth Railway Co. v. Iowa, 114
U.S. 525 at 531 (1885): Where lands are acquired without such consent, the possession of the United States, unless political jurisdiction be ceded to them in some other way, is simply that of an ordinary proprietor.
(9)
No jurisdiction
federal criminal
exists in the United States to enforce
laws until
acquired lands
has been
United States,
as provided
the
state
authorized
jurisdiction was
consent to accept jurisdiction over
published and
the
in 40
filed in
the
U.S.C. 255, and the fact that
government
immaterial.
behalf of
See Adams
to
take
v. United
and
exercise
States, 319
U.S. 312, 63 S.Ct. 1122, 87 L.Ed. 1421 (1943). (10) All courts
of justice
are duty-bound to take judicial
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (5 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
notice of
the territorial extent of jurisdiction, although those
acts are
not formally
pleadings.
put into
evidence, nor
in
accord
with
Jones v. U.S., 137 U.S. 202, 11 S.Ct. 80 (1890).
Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 5 of 17
(11) Where a
federal court
is without
offense, judgment
of conviction
of the court and/or the jury is
void ab
initio, on
its face.
jurisdiction of the
Bauman v. U.S., 156 F.2d 534 (5th
Cir. 1946). (12) Federal criminal must always
be proven;
jurisdiction is and
it can
never presumed;
never be
waived.
it
U.S. v.
Rogers, 23 Fed. 658 (D.C., W.D. Ark., 1885). (13) The federal courts are limited both by the Constitution and by
Acts of
Congress.
Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger,
98 S.Ct. 2396, 437 U.S. 365, 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (1978). (14) The jurisdiction
of federal
Constitution at
Article III
for legislative
courts;
courts.
Some courts
referred
to
regarded as
as
courts is
for judicial
and
in
courts;
Article
created by
Acts
"Constitutional
of
Courts,"
"Legislative Tribunals."
defined in the
IV
for
territorial
Congress
have
whereas
others
are
v. U.S.,
289
O'Donoghue
U.S. 516 (1933), 77 L.Ed 1356, 53 S.Ct. 74;
in Article I
been
Mookini v. U.S., 303
U.S. 201 at 205 (1938), 82 L.Ed 748, 58 S.Ct. 543. (15) Legislative court guarantees;
"inherently judicial"
judges deriving 641 F.2d
judges
power under
do
not
enjoy
tasks must
Article III.
Article
be performed
III by
See U.S. v. Sanders,
659 (1981), cert. den. 101 S.Ct. 3055, 452 U.S. 918, 69
L.Ed 422. The United
States District
Court creation
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (6 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
and composition
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
were accomplished
by Acts of Congress on June 25, 1948 [62 Stat.
895], and November 13, 1963 [77 Stat. 331], currently codified at 28
U.S.C.
132;
and
demonstrated herein,
the
jurisdiction
i.e. Chapter
85 of
thereof,
previously
Title 28, lists civil,
admiralty, maritime, patent, bankruptcy, etc.,
and does not once
list, mention, or describe any criminal jurisdiction.
It just is
not there, so don't bother looking for it!
Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 6 of 17
(16) Acts of Courts do
Congress creating
not vest
States District
said territorial tribunals with any criminal
jurisdiction;
these courts
conferred upon
them by
See Hubbard
the United
have only
Act of
v. Ammerman,
such jurisdiction
as is
Congress under the Constitution.
465 F.2d
1169 (5th Cir., 1972), cert.
den. 93 S.Ct. 967, 410 U.S. 910, 35 L.Ed.2d 272. (17) The United
States District
general jurisdiction, except as
and has
Court is
no other
prescribed by Congress.
not a
court
power bestowed
of
upon it
See Graves v. Snead, 541 F.2d
159 (6th Cir., 1976), cert. den. 97 S.Ct. 1106, 429 U.S. 1093, 51 L.Ed.2d 539. (18) It is for the
apparent that
the United
States District Court
District of Arizona was created and established under 28
U.S.C. 132,
and its
jurisdiction
is
defined
and
limited
by
Chapter 85 of Title 28, United States Code. (19) The courts of Title
18 U.S.C.
of appropriate
jurisdiction for violations
are designated at Section 3231, specifically
naming them as "district courts of the United States" [sic]. (20) There is "United States
a distinct
District Court"
and definite difference between a and a
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (7 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
"District
Court
of
the
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
United States".
The words "District Court of the United States"
commonly describe constitutional courts created under Article III of the been
Constitution, not the
courts
of
the legislative courts which have long the
Territories.
See
International
Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union v. Juneau Spruce Corp., 342 U.S. 237
at 241
(1952), 72
S.Ct. 235,
96 L.Ed. 275, 13 Alaska
536.
Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 7 of 17
(21) The term "District Court of the United States" commonly describes Article and not
legislative courts
Insurance Co. 242;
III courts
v. 356
or "courts of the
of the United States",
territories.
See
American
Bales of Cotton, 1 Pet. 511 (1828), 7 L.Ed
International Longshoremen's
and Warehousemen's
Union v.
Wirtz, 170 F.2d 183 (9th Cir., 1948), cert. den. 336 U.S. 919, 93 L.Ed. 1082,
69 S.Ct.
641, reh. den. 336 U.S. 971, 93 L.Ed 1121,
69 S.Ct. 936. (22) Though the judicial system set up in a territory of the United States "court of
is a
part of
the United
generally construed See Balzac
343, 66 L.Ed. 627.
States" when as not
v. Porto
federal
jurisdiction,
phrase
used in a federal statute is
referring to
Rico, 258
the
"territorial
courts."
U.S. 298 at 312 (1921), 42 S.Ct.
In Balzac, the High Court stated:
The United States District Court is not a true United States court established under Article III of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under Article IV, Section 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as amere territorial court. http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (8 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
[emphasis added]
The distinction system is
within the dual nature of the federal court
also noted
the United
in Title 18 U.S.C. 3241, which states that
States District
Court for
the Canal Zone shall have
jurisdiction "concurrently with the district courts of the United States, of
offenses
against
the
laws
of
the
United
States
committed upon the high seas."
Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 8 of 17
This distinction is the reason why federal jurisdiction over prosecutions
is
more
than
a
Constitutional requirement. aff'd 383
U.S. 169
technical
See
(1966), 86
concept;
it
is
U.S. v. Johnson, 337 F.2d 180, S.Ct. 749, 15 L.Ed.2d 681, cert.
den. 87 S.Ct. 44, 134, and 385 U.S. 846, 17 L.Ed.2d 77, 117. (23) Besides the recent Lopez decision, it is interesting to note that
at least two other courts, i.e. United States District
Courts, have come to the same or similar conclusions. v. Wilson,
Stambaughr, Skott,
Ketchum, Braun,
and Ballin, Case
No. 94-CR-140 (March 16, 1995) (U.S.D.C. Wisconsin); Kearns,
Case
No.
SA-95-CR-201
(October
6,
See U.S.A.
1995)
and U.S. v. (U.S.D.C.,
Texas). (24) Interestingly enough, Bankruptcy Court, Case No.
Middle District
5-94-00839, titled
IRS/BATF, the against the
in a bankruptcy case in the U.S.
alleged debtor
In re:
IRS/BATF after
of Pennsylvania (Chapter 13), Francis Patrick
Farrell v.
sued out a compulsory counterclaim the alleged
creditor submitted
its
proof of claim. The counterclaim showed an extent of corruption unparalleled in American
history, to which agencies of the federal government
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (9 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
will
often
resort,
specifically
by
placing
a
"T-Code"
on
someone's Individual Master File ("IMF"). In this
way,
forfeiture laws assets, and
the
IRS/BATF
to deprive
a
State
to mis-classify
trafficker."
used
Him
Admiralty Citizen
as
a
and
of
"high
property
level
This occurred on November 17,1995!
Maritime and
narcotics
Why?
See U.S.
v. Good, 114 S.Ct. 492 at 502, footnote 2 (1993).
Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 9 of 17
SUMMARY The
United
States
jurisdiction whatsoever
District
of the
50 States
of America,
Courts
to prosecute
have
no
criminal
a State Citizen within one
of the Union which comprises the United States
until and unless Congress says so.
Until and unless
the federal government can prove ownership over said geographical land mass,
particularly that parcel of land which is the private
real property of the Defendant, the United States District Courts have no States.
criminal jurisdiction Not a
District Courts,
single Act
whatsoever within
of Congress
as distinct
the
50
Union
vests the United States
from District Courts of the United
States, with anything but "civil" authority.
There is absolutely
no criminal jurisdiction vested in said territorial tribunals.
REMEDY DEMANDED Therefore, Defendant legislative
tribunal
hereby demands
establish
that this
exclusive
Article
jurisdiction
IV by
producing certified documents consisting of the following: (a)
Documentation
government) ownership
showing of each
"United
and every
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (10 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
States"
geographical
(federal location
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
mentioned in the instant indictment, wherein the alleged criminal activity took place; (b)
Documentation
provides evidence
from
Arizona
cession by
Arizona
of a
the
Legislature state
which
surrendering
jurisdiction to the "United States" (federal government) over the same geographical location as stated in (a) above; (c)
Documentation pursuant
to Title 40 U.S.C. 255, wherein
the "United States" (federal government) accepted jurisdiction to the same
geographical location
documentation showing
as
stated
in
(a)
above,
or,
concurrent jurisdiction with Arizona state
over the geographical location as stated in (a) above; (d)
Alternatively,
Defendant hereby vacate the
absent
demands that
jury's guilty
the
requisite
documentation,
this United States District Court
verdict and
dismiss the
instant case
with prejudice and in the interests of justice.
Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 10 of 17
Executed on August 13, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Counselor at Law, federal witness, and Citizen of Arizona state
Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 11 of 17
Exhibit "A":
Federal Criminal Jurisdiction
It is a well established principle of law that "all federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (11 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
the United States unless a contrary intent appears"; see Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211, 215, 14 S.Ct. 513 (1894); American Banana Company v. United Fruit Company, 213 U.S. 347, 357, 29 S.Ct. 511 (1909); United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94, 97, 98, 43 S.Ct. 39 (1922); Blackmer v. United States, 284 U.S. 421, 437, 52 S.Ct. 252 (1932); Foley Bros. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281, 285, 69 S.Ct. 575 (1949); United States v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217, 222, 70 S.Ct. 10 (1949); and United States v. First National City Bank, 321 F.2d 14, 23 (2nd Cir., 1963). And this principle of law is expressed in a number of cases from the federal appellate courts; see McKeel v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 722 F.2d 582, 589 (9th Cir., 1983) (holding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act as territorial); Meredith v. United States, 330 F.2d 9, 11 (9th Cir., 1964) (holding the Federal Torts Claims Act as territorial); United States v. Cotroni, 527 F.2d 708, 711 (2nd Cir., 1975) (holding federal wiretap laws as territorial); Stowe v. Devoy, 588 F.2d 336, 341 (2nd Cir., 1978); Cleary v. United States Lines, Inc., 728 F.2d 607, 609 (3rd Cir., 1984) (holding federal age discrimination laws as territorial); Thomas v. Brown & Root, Inc., 745 F.2d 279, 281 (4th Cir., 1984) (holding same as Cleary, supra); United States v. Mitchell, 553 F.2d 996, 1002 (5th Cir., 1977) (holding marine mammals protection act as territorial); Pfeiffer v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co., 755 F.2d 554, 557 (7th Cir., 1985) (holding age discrimination laws as territorial); Airline Stewards & Stewardesses Assn. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 267 F.2d 170, 175 (8th Cir., 1959) (holding Railway Labor Act as territorial); Zahourek v. Arthur Young and Co., 750 F.2d 827, 829 (10th Cir., 1984) (holding age discrimination laws as territorial); Commodities Futures Trading Comm. v. Nahas, 738 F.2d 487, 493 (D.C.Cir., 1984) (holding commission's subpoena power under federal law as territorial); Reyes v. Secretary of H.E.W., 476 F.2d 910, 915 (D.C.Cir., 1973) (holding administration of Social Security Act as territorial); and Schoenbaum v. Firstbrook, 268 F.Supp. 385, 392 (S.D.N.Y., 1967) (holding securities act as territorial). But, because of statutory language, certain federal drug laws operate extra-territorially; see United States v. King, 552 F.2d 833, 851 (9th Cir., 1976). The United States has territorial jurisdiction only in Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the States, and in the territories and insular possessions of the "United States". However, it has no territorial jurisdiction over non-federally owned areas inside the territorial jurisdiction of the States within the American Union. And this proposition of law is supported by literally hundreds of cases. As a general rule, the power of the United States criminally to prosecute is, for the most part, confined to offenses committed within "its jurisdiction". This is born out simply by examination of Title 18, U.S.C. Section 5 which defines the term "United States" in clear jurisdictional terms. Section 7 contains the fullest statutory definition of the "jurisdiction of the United States" [sic]. The United States District Courts have jurisdiction of offenses occurring within the "United States", pursuant to Title 18, U.S.C., section 3231.
Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 12 of 17 http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (12 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
Examples of this proposition are numerous. In Pothier v. Rodman, 291 F. 311 (1st Cir., 1923), the question involved whether a murder committed at Camp Lewis Military Reservation in the State of Washington was a federal crime. Here, the murder was committed more than a year before the U.S. acquired a deed for the property in question. Pothier was arrested and incarcerated in Rhode Island and filed a Habeas Corpus petition seeking his release on the grounds that the federal courts had no jurisdiction over an offense not committed in U.S. jurisdiction. The First Circuit agreed that there was no federal jurisdiction and ordered his release. But, on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, in Rodman v. Pothier, 264 U.S. 399, 44 S.Ct. 360 (1924), that Court reversed; although agreeing with the jurisdictional principles enunciated by the First Circuit, it held that only the federal court in Washington State could hear that issue. In United States v. Unzeuta, 35 F.2d 750 (8th Cir., 1929), the Eighth Circuit held that the U.S. had no jurisdiction over a murder committed in a railroad car at Fort Robinson, the state cession statute being construed as not including railroad rightsof-way. This decision was reversed in United States v. Unzeuta, 281 U.S. 138, 50 S.Ct. 284 (1930), the court holding that the U.S. did have jurisdiction over the railroad rights-of-way in Fort Robinson. In Bowen v. Johnson, 97 F.2d 860 (9th Cir., 1938), the question presented was whether jurisdiction over an offense prosecuted in federal court could be raised in a petition for Habeas Corpus. The denial of Bowen's petition was reversed in Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. 19, 59 S.Ct. 442 (1939), the Court concluding that such a jurisdictional challenge could be raised in a Habeas Corpus petition. But, the Court then addressed the issue, and found that the U.S. both owned the property in question and had a state legislative grant ceding jurisdiction to the United States, thus there was jurisdiction in the United States to prosecute Bowen. But, if jurisdiction is not vested in the United States pursuant to statute, there is no jurisdiction; see Adams v. United States, 319 U.S. 312, 63 S.Ct. 1122 (1943). And the lower federal courts also require the presence of federal jurisdiction in criminal prosecutions. In Kelly v. United States, 27 F. 616 (D.Me., 1885), federal jurisdiction of a manslaughter committed at Fort Popham was upheld when it was shown that the U.S. owned the property where the offense occurred and the state had ceded jurisdiction. In United States v. Andem, 158 F. 996 (D.N.J., 1908), federal jurisdiction for a forgery offense was upheld on a showing that the United States owned the property where the offense was committed and the state had ceded jurisdiction of the property to the U.S. In United States v. Penn, 48 F. 669 (E.D.Va., 1880), since the U.S. did not have jurisdiction over Arlington National Cemetery, a federal larceny prosecution was dismissed. In United States v. Lovely, 319 F.2d 673 (4th Cir., 1963), federal jurisdiction was found to exist by U.S. ownership of the property and a state cession of jurisdiction. In United States v. Watson, 80 F.Supp. 649 (E.D.Va., 1948), federal criminal charges were dismissed, the court stating as follows: Without proof of the requisite ownership or possession of the United States, the crime has not been made out. 80 http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (13 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
F.Supp., at 651.
Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 13 of 17
In Brown v. United States, 257 F. 46 (5th Cir., 1919), federal jurisdiction was upheld on the basis that the U.S. owned the post office site where a murder was committed and the state had ceded jurisdiction; see also England v. United States, 174 F.2d 466 (5th Cir., 1949); Krull v. United States, 240 F.2d 122 (5th Cir., 1957); Hudspeth v. United States, 223 F.2d 848 (5th Cir., 1955); and Gainey v. United States, 324 F.2d 731 (5th Cir., 1963). In United States v. Townsend, 474 F.2d 209 (5th Cir., 1973), a conviction for receiving stolen property was reversed when the court reviewed the record and learned that there was absolutely no evidence disclosing that the defendant had committed this offense within the jurisdiction of the United States. And in United States v. Benson, 495 F.2d 475 (5th Cir., 1974), in finding federal jurisdiction for a robbery committed at Fort Rucker, the court stated: It is axiomatic that the prosecution must always prove territorial jurisdiction over a crime in order to sustain a conviction therefor. 495 F.2d, at 481.
In two Sixth Circuit cases, United States v. Tucker, 122 F. 518 (W.D.Ky., 1903), a case involving an assault committed at a federal dam, and United States v. Blunt, 558 F.2d 1245 (6th Cir., 1977), a case involving an assault within a federal penitentiary, jurisdiction was sustained by finding that the U.S. owned the property in question and the state involved had ceded jurisdiction. In In re Kelly, 71 F. 545 (E.D.Wis., 1895), a federal assault charge was dismissed when the court held that the state cession statute in question was not adequate to convey jurisdiction of the property in question to the United States. In United States v. Johnson, 426 F.2d 1112 (7th Cir., 1970), a case involving a federal burglary prosecution, federal jurisdiction was sustained upon the showing of U.S. ownership and cession. And cases from the Eighth and Tenth Circuits likewise require the same elements to be shown to demonstrate the presence of federal jurisdiction; see United States v. Heard, 270 F.Supp. 198 (W.D.Mo., 1967); United States v. Redstone, 488 F.2d 300 (8th Cir., 1973); United States v. Goings, 504 F.2d 809 (8th Cir., 1974) (demonstrating loss of jurisdiction); Hayes v. United States, 367 F.2d 216 (10th Cir., 1966); United States v. Carter, 430 F.2d 1278 (10th Cir., 1970); Hall v. United States, 404 F.2d 1367 (10th Cir., 1969); and United States v. Cassidy, 571 F.2d 534 (10th Cir., 1978).
Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 14 of 17
Of all the circuits, the Ninth jurisdictional issues more than any of http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (14 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
Circuit has addressed the rest. In United
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
States v. Bateman, 34 F. 86 (N.D.Cal., 1888), it was determined that the United States did not have jurisdiction to prosecute for a murder committed at the Presidio because California had never ceded jurisdiction; see also United States v. Tully, 140 F. 899 (D.Mon., 1905). But later, California ceded jurisdiction for the Presidio to the United States, and it was held in United States v. Watkins, 22 F.2d 437 (N.D.Cal., 1927), that this enabled the U.S. to maintain a murder prosecution; see also United States v. Holt, 168 F. 141 (W.D. Wash., 1909), United States v. Lewis, 253 F. 469 (S.D.Cal, 1918), and United States v. Wurtzbarger, 276 F. 753 (D.Or., 1921). Because the U.S. owned, and had a state cession of jurisdiction for, Fort Douglas in Utah, it was held that the U.S. had jurisdiction for a rape prosecution in Rogers v. Squier, 157 F.2d 948 (9th Cir., 1946). But, without a cession, the U.S. has no jurisdiction; see Arizona v. Manypenny, 445 F.Supp. 1123 (D.Ariz., 1977). The above cases from the U.S. Supreme Court and federal appellate courts set forth the rule that in criminal prosecutions, the government, as the party seeking to establish the existence of federal jurisdiction, must prove U.S. ownership of the property in question and a state cession of jurisdiction. This same rule manifests itself in state cases. State courts are courts of general jurisdiction and in a state criminal prosecution, the state must only prove that the offense was committed within the state and a county thereof. If a defendant contends that only the federal government has jurisdiction over the offense, he, as proponent for the existence of federal jurisdiction, must likewise prove U.S. ownership of the property where the crime was committed and state cession of jurisdiction. Examples of the operation of this principle are numerous. In Arizona, the State has jurisdiction over federal lands in the public domain, the state not having ceded jurisdiction of that property to the U.S.; see State v. Dykes, 114 Ariz. 592, 562 P.2d 1090 (1977). In California, if it is not proved by a defendant in a state prosecution that the state has ceded jurisdiction, it is presumed the state does have jurisdiction over a criminal offense; see People v. Brown, 69 Cal. App.2d 602, 159 P.2d 686 (1945). If the cession exists, the state has no jurisdiction; see People v. Mouse, 203 Cal. 782, 265 P. 944 (1928). In Montana, the state has jurisdiction over property if it is not proved there is a state cession of jurisdiction to the U.S.; see State ex rel Parker v. District Court, 147 Mon. 151, 410 P.2d 459 (1966); the existence of a state cession of jurisdiction to the U.S. ousts the state of jurisdiction; see State v. Tully, 31 Mont. 365, 78 P. 760 (1904). The same applies in Nevada; see State v. Mack, 23 Nev. 359, 47 P. 763 (1897), and Pendleton v. State, 734 P.2d 693 (Nev., 1987); it applies in Oregon (see State v. Chin Ping, 91 Or. 593, 176 P. 188 (1918) and State v. Aguilar, 85 Or.App. 410, 736 P.2d 620 (1987)); and in Washington (see State v. Williams, 23 Wash.App. 694, 598 P.2d 731 (1979)).
Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 15 of 17
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (15 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
In People v. Hammond, 1 Ill.2d 65, 115 N.E.2d 331 (1953), a burglary of an IRS office was held to be within state jurisdiction, the court holding that the defendant was required to prove existence of federal jurisdiction by U.S. ownership of the property and state cession of jurisdiction. In two cases from Michigan, larcenies committed at U.S. Post Offices which were rented were held to be within state jurisdiction; see People v. Burke, 161 Mich. 397, 126 N.W. 446 (1910) and People v. Van Dyke, 276 Mich. 32, 267 N.W. 778 (1936); see also In re Kelly, 311 Mich. 596, 19 N.W.2d 218 (1945). In Kansas City v. Garner, 430 S.W.2d 630 (Mo.App., 1968), state jurisdiction over a theft offense occurring in a federal building was upheld, and the court stated that a defendant had to show federal jurisdiction by proving U.S. ownership of the building and a cession of jurisdiction from the state to the United States. A similar holding was made for a theft at a U.S. missile site in State v. Rindall, 146 Mon. 64, 404 P.2d 327 (1965). In Pendleton v. State, 734 P.2d 693 (Nev., 1987), the state court was held to have jurisdiction over a DUI ("driving under the influence") committed on federal lands, the defendant having failed to show U.S. ownership and state cession of jurisdiction. In People v. Gerald, 40 Misc.2d 819, 243 N.Y.S.2d 1001 (1963), the state was held to have jurisdiction of an assault at a U.S. Post Office since the defendant did not meet his burden of showing presence of federal jurisdiction; and because a defendant failed to prove title and jurisdiction in the United States for an offense committed at a customs station, state jurisdiction was upheld in People v. Fisher, 97 A.D.2d 651, 469 N.Y.S.2d 187 (A.D. 3 Dept., 1983). The proper method of showing federal jurisdiction in state court is demonstrated by the decision in People v. Williams, 136 Misc.2d 294, 518 N.Y.S.2d 751 (1987). This rule was likewise enunciated in State v. Burger, 33 Ohio App.3d 231, 515 N.E.2d 640 (1986), in a case involving a DUI offense committed on a road near a federal arsenal. In Kuerschner v. State, 493 P.2d 1402 (Okl.Cr.App., 1972), the state was held to have jurisdiction of a drug sales offense occurring at an Air Force Base, the defendant not having attempted to prove federal jurisdiction by showing title and jurisdiction of the property in question in the United States; see also Towry v. State, 540 P.2d 597 (Okl.Cr.App., 1975). Similar holdings for murders committed at U.S. Post Offices were made in State v. Chin Ping, 91 Or. 593, 176 P. 188 (1918), and in United States v. Pate, 393 F.2d 44 (7th Cir., 1968). Another Oregon case, State v. Aguilar, 85 Or.App. 410, 736 P.2d 620 (1987), demonstrates this rule. And finally, in Curry v. State, 111 Tex. Cr. 264, 12 S.W.2d 796 (1928), it was held that, in the absence of proof that the state had ceded jurisdiction of a place to the United States, the state courts had jurisdiction over an offense. Therefore, in federal criminal prosecutions, the government must prove the existence of federal jurisdiction by showing U.S. ownership of the place where the crime was committed and state cession of jurisdiction. If the government contends for the power criminally to prosecute for an offense occurring outside "its jurisdiction", it must prove an extra-territorial application of the statute in question as well as a http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (16 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
constitutional foundation supporting the same. Absent this showing, no federal prosecution can be commenced for offenses committed outside "its jurisdiction", i.e. the federal zone.
Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 16 of 17
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila
Terese,
penalty of
Wallen,
perjury, under
Sui
Juris,
the laws
of
hereby the
certify,
United
under
States
of
America, without the "United States," that I am at least 18 years of age,
a Citizen
of one
of the
United States of America, and
that I personally served the following document(s): NOTICE AND DEMAND TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: 28 U.S.C. 1359; FRCP Rules 9(b), 12(b)(1),(2), 12(h)(3) by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United
States Mail,
with
postage
addressed to the following:
Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 Tucson [85701] ARIZONA REPUBLIC Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Executed on: _____________________________
/s/ Sheila Wallen __________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (17 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
prepaid
and
properly
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadismis
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Notice and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Criminal Jurisdiction: Page 17 of 17
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadismis.htm (18 of 18) [4/8/2007 2:17:12 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : extradit
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Sheila Terese, Wallen,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) United States, ) and Does 1-99, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________)
COMES NOW
Sheila Terese,
state and
Plaintiff in
"Plaintiff"), to Extradition
No. 1,
the above
this
parties, including
AFFIDAVIT OF NON-WAIVER OF EXTRADITION: 28 U.S.C. 1746(1); Tenth Amendment; Federal Rules of Evidence, Rules 201(d), 301; 44 U.S.C. 1505(a) THIS IS NOT HEARSAY.
Wallen, Sui
present this
to
Case No. 95-484-TUC
entitled matter
Her Affidavit
honorable
but not
Juris, Citizen of Arizona
Court
limited to
and
of to
(hereinafter Non-Waiver
all
of
interested
William D. Browning, Doe
and to provide notice of same to all interested parties,
including all Does both named and as yet unnamed.
VERIFICATION I, Sheila penalty of America,
Terese, Wallen,
perjury, under without
statement is
the
Sui Juris, hereby certify, under
the laws
"United
of
the
States",
United that
the
States
of
following
true, correct, and not misleading, according to the
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/extradit.htm (1 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:13 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : extradit
best of My current information, knowledge, and belief, so help Me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1):
Affidavit of Non-Waiver of Extradition: Page 1 of 5
AFFIDAVIT OF NON-WAIVER OF EXTRADITION 1.
I, Sheila
under penalty America,
Terese, Wallen,
(outside)
government), that extradited out
the
"United
States"
(federal
I have never waived My fundamental Right to be
of any
proper domestic
and all
foreign jurisdictions,
jurisdiction which
of that
is the
Republic, including
Constitution for
the
amended (hereinafter Law of
hereby certify,
of perjury, under the laws of the United States of
without
the Laws
Sui Juris,
My Land,
United
States
My
Arizona Republic and
but not of
limited
America,
"U.S. Constitution"),
and the
into
as
to
the
lawfully
which is the supreme
Constitution of Arizona state, and all
laws enacted pursuant to those constitutions. 2.
I have studied federal laws and applicable court cases,
and I now know that waivers of fundamental Rights, like the Right of Extradition,
must be
sufficient awareness consequences. intentional,
knowingly intelligent
of the
See Brady and
acts, done
relevant circumstances
v. U.S.
voluntary,
and
with likely
Such waivers must be knowing,
in
order
to
be
construed
as
enforceable. 3. Court has
As against
this high
established for
standard which
any and
all waivers
the U.S. Supreme of
fundamental
Rights, I can honestly and confidently say that I have never ever waived my
fundamental Right,
under the
Tenth Amendment
to the
U.S. Constitution, to be extradited out of a foreign jurisdiction such as exists under the Article IV territorial jurisdiction of a
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/extradit.htm (2 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:13 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : extradit
United States District Court.
Affidavit of Non-Waiver of Extradition: Page 2 of 5
4.
It
was
in
unlawfully indicted tried and
such
by a
a
territorial
assistance of
violating a
federal law
My Counsel for
which
published in the Federal Register. After reading
(1995), I
United States trade in
case of
there
are
for allegedly no
regulations
the decision
U.S. v.
Lopez, 131
of the
U.S. 626
Congress of
the
that the
L.Ed.2d
legislative authority to prohibit domestic
the substance
possessing, with
was
See 44 U.S.C. 1505(a).
entirely convinced
has no
Arizona does
of Choice,
and studying
in the
am now
I
a biased trial jury of federal citizens,
without any
Supreme Court
that
biased grand jury of federal citizens,
convicted by
5.
court
which I
intent to
was unlawfully
distribute, even
if
prosecuted the
State
for of
possess such legislative authority, and even if the
Congress does
possess similar authority within the federal zone.
See "Conflict of Laws" in American Jurisprudence. 6.
Because of the Lopez case, I now have convincing reason
to believe
that, if Congress cannot prohibit the possession of a
loaded firearm prohibit the
on public
school grounds,
the several
possession of
then Congress
cannot
other "controlled substances" within
America".
States of the "Union" known as the "United States of Confer at
"Union" and
"United States of America" in
Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1856). 7.
With the
Andrew, Mitchell,
able assistance of my Counsel of Choice, Paul B.A., M.S.,
pleadings to
the United
which phrase
is exhibited
I
have
States District
executed
and
presented
Court "Under Protest",
prominently on the face page of every
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/extradit.htm (3 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:13 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : extradit
pleading filed page of
in said
court.
every pleading,
By using this phrase on the face
I mean
to
convey
to
all
interested
Affidavit of Non-Waiver of Extradition: Page 3 of 5
parties the
fact that
fundamental Rights, prejudice to
explicitly
including the
any of
reservation of such Rights
I have
reserved
all
of
my
Right of Extradition, without
my fundamental Rights, and that my explicit
all My
Rights has thus prevented the loss of any
by application
of the
legal concepts
of waiver or
estoppel. NOTICE OF DEADLINE This
Affidavit
presumptions of
is
specifically
controlling laws
intended
to
establish
and facts in the instant case.
Should other interested parties fail to rebut this Affidavit in a timely manner, the statements of fact and law as contained herein will become
the truth
rebuttals must Court of on the
of the
be filed
in the
instant case
for all
means of
All
official record of the District
the United States in the instant case, Plaintiff by
time.
first class
and also served
United
States
directed to: Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, August 30, 1996.
Beyond that
deadline, the doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence will prevail, pursuant to the authorities in U.S.v. Tweel, quoting U.S. v. Prudden, and Carmine v. Bowen.
Further Affiant Sayeth Naught.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/extradit.htm (4 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:13 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : extradit
Executed on August 20, 1996 /s/ Sheila Wallen Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state
Affidavit of Non-Waiver of Extradition: Page 4 of 5
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila
Terese,
penalty of
Wallen,
perjury, under
Sui
Juris,
the laws
of
hereby the
certify,
United
under
States
of
America, without the "United States," that I am at least 18 years of age,
a Citizen
of one
of the
United States of America, and
that I personally served the following document(s): AFFIDAVIT OF NON-WAIVER OF EXTRADITION: 28 U.S.C. 1746(1); Tenth Amendment; Federal Rules of Evidence, Rules 201(d), 301; 44 U.S.C. 1505(a) THIS IS NOT HEARSAY. by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United
States Mail,
with
postage
addressed to the following:
Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE William D. Browning, Doe No. 1 44 East Broadway Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/extradit.htm (5 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:13 PM]
prepaid
and
properly
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : extradit
Executed on: _____________________________ /s/ Sheila Wallen __________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Affidavit of Non-Waiver of Extradition: Page 5 of 5
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/extradit.htm (6 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:13 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : removal
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Sheila Terese, Wallen,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) United States, ) and Does 1-99, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ________________________________)
COMES NOW
Sheila Terese,
state and
Plaintiff in
"Plaintiff"), to
Case No. 95-484-WDB NOTICE OF REMOVAL AND PETITION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: 18 U.S.C. 1964(a), 28 U.S.C. 292(b),1331, 1332, 1333(1),1359, 1367(a),1441(b),(c), 1451(2),1631; FRCP Rules 9(h),11,38 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Wallen, Sui the above
petition this
Juris, Citizen of Arizona
entitled matter
honorable Court
(hereinafter
for an Order to
the United States to show cause why its alleged agents should not be charged
with criminal trespass, piracy, and other crimes upon
Her Person
and Her
provide Notices
private property, under color of law, and to
to all
interested parties
of same,
and of Her
Removal of criminal case number 95-484-WDB (hereinafter "Criminal Case")
from
Arizona, to
the
United
the District
States Court of
District
Court,
the United
District of Arizona.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/removal.htm (1 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:14 PM]
District
of
States, Judicial
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : removal
Notice of Removal and Petition for Order to Show Cause: Page 1 of 5
JURISDICTION This District
Court
of
the
United
States
has
original
jurisdiction of this action, pursuant to authorities cited in the above caption,
to wit:
1333(1), 1359,
1367(a), 1441(b)
Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 1964(a), 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1332,
the definition
States District
and
Court from
at 28
(c),
U.S.C.
1451(2),
which the
1451(2),
and the
1631.
criminal action
United is being
removed is a "State" court as defined therein, because said court is a
legislative tribunal domiciled in the District of Columbia.
Balzac v.
Porto Rico, 42 S.Ct. 343, 258 U.S. 298 at 312, 66 L.Ed
627 (1921);
and
compare 18
U.S.C. 1964(a) ("district court of
the United States") and 1964(c) ("United States district court"). In contrast, Article III
the District
court with authority to hear questions arising under
the Constitution, including
Court of the United States is an
but
Laws, not
Amendment, Sixth
and
Treaties
limited
to
the
of
Amendment, Eighth
the
First
United
States,
Amendment,
Amendment, Ninth
Fourth
Amendment,
Tenth Amendment, Thirteenth Amendment, the International Covenant on Civil
and Political
Human Rights.
Rights, and the Universal Declaration of
See Supremacy Clause.
INCORPORATION OF PRIOR PLEADINGS Plaintiff hereby heretofore filed
or
incorporates by
specifically including
otherwise but
not
reference
lodged limited
in
the to
CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING
pleadings
filed
"JOELYN D.
by
"JANET
pleadings
Criminal
Her
DEFENDANT DOCUMENTING previously
all
Case,
AFFIDAVIT
OF
ARREST, and all
NAPOLITANO"
[sic]
and
MARLOWE, Arizona State Bar No. 009206" [sic], who are
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/removal.htm (2 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:14 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : removal
alleged agents of the United States who have claimed authority to represent the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in the Criminal Case.
Notice of Removal and Petition for Order to Show Cause: Page 2 of 5
REASONS FOR GRANTING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Alleged agents of the United States have invaded Plaintiff's private property, or seize
without a warrant having been issued to search
said property.
Said
agents also
arrested Plaintiff,
without a warrant having been issued for Her arrest. seizure, and color of
arrest were
law, proceeding
the Supplemental
all perpetrated
by said
The search, agents under
as in rem actions subject to Rule C of
Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims
(hereinafter "Supplemental Rules"). Said agents
violated that portion of the Supplemental Rules
which requires
a verified complaint before Plaintiff's goods and
chattels could
be attached,
judgment by
default shall
and which
also
requires
that
no
be entered except upon proof that the
garnishee has been given notice of the action. Rule C. Actions in Rem:
Specifically:
Special Provisions
(2) Complaint. In actions in rem the complaint shall be verified on oath or solemn affirmation. It shall describe with reasonable particularity the property that is the subject of the action and state that it is within the district or will be during the pendency of the action. In actions for the enforcement of forfeiture for violation of any statute of the United States the complaint shall state the place of seizure and whether it was on land or on navigable waters, and shall contain such allegations as may be required by the statute pursuant to which the action is brought. (3) Judicial Authorization and Process. ... In actions by the United States for forfeitures for federal statutory violations, the clerk, upon filing of the complaint, shall forthwith issue a summons and warrant for the arrest of the vessel or other property without requiring certification of exigent circumstances.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/removal.htm (3 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:14 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : removal
Plaintiff submits
that these
Supplemental Rules, and others not
yet mentioned herein, were violated when Her private property was invaded by
a band
proceeding under
of
alleged
color of
agents
law and
of
the
United
without any
States,
warrants having
been issued by either a judge or a clerk in the instant case.
Notice of Removal and Petition for Order to Show Cause: Page 3 of 5
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS DUE TO FRAUD Plaintiff hereby to amend
explicitly reserves
this Petition,
prove that
She has
extent of
should future events and/or discoveries
failed adequately
the damage(s)
the Defendants,
Her fundamental Right
which She
both named
to
comprehend
the
full
has suffered at the hands of
and unnamed, now and at all times in
the future. REMEDY REQUESTED Wherefore, Plaintiff to Order why the
the office
hereby petitions
this honorable Court
of the United States Attorney to show cause
alleged agents of the United States in the instant case,
both named
and unnamed
charged with
in the
criminal trespass,
Criminal
Case,
grand theft,
should unlawful
not
be
arrest,
unlawful detainer, perjury, piracy, fraud, extortion, deprivation of fundamental Rights, and conspiracy to commit all of the above, all under
color of federal law, and in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2,
241, 242, 872, 1001, 1621, 1622, and 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1986.
Executed on August 13, 1996
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Sheila Wallen Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/removal.htm (4 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:14 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : removal
Citizen of Arizona state
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, Counselor at Law, Counsel of Record
Notice of Removal and Petition for Order to Show Cause: Page 4 of 5
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila
Terese,
penalty of
Wallen,
perjury, under
Sui
Juris,
the laws
of
hereby the
certify,
United
under
States
of
America, without the "United States," that I am at least 18 years of age,
a Citizen
of one
of the
United States of America, and
that I personally served the following document(s): NOTICE OF REMOVAL AND PETITION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: 18 U.S.C. 1964(a), 28 U.S.C. 292(b), 1331, 1332, 1333(1), 1359, 1367(a), 1441(b),(c), 1451(2), FRCP Rules 9(h), 11, 38 by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United
States Mail,
with
postage
addressed to the following:
Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE William D. Browning 44 East Broadway Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/removal.htm (5 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:14 PM]
prepaid
and
properly
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : removal
Executed on: _____________________________
/s/ Sheila Wallen __________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Notice of Removal and Petition for Order to Show Cause: Page 5 of 5
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/removal.htm (6 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:14 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : removal2
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Sheila Terese, Wallen,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) United States, ) and Does 1-99, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) ________________________________)
COMES NOW
Sheila Terese,
state and
Plaintiff in
"Plaintiff"), to
Case No. 95-484-TUC NOTICE OF REMOVAL AND OF PETITION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: 18 U.S.C. 1964(a), 28 U.S.C. 292(b), 1331, 1332, 1333(1), 1359, 1367(a), 1441(b), (c), 1451(2), 1631; FRCP Rules 9(h), 11, 38 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Wallen, Sui the above
petition this
Juris, Citizen of Arizona
entitled matter
honorable Court
(hereinafter
for an Order to
the United States to show cause why its alleged agents should not be charged
with criminal trespass, piracy, and other crimes upon
Her Person
and Her
provide Notices
private property, under color of law, and to
to all
interested parties
of same
and of
Her
Removal of criminal case number 95-484-TUC (hereinafter "Criminal Case")
from
Arizona, to
the
United
the District
States Court of
District
Court,
the United
District of Arizona.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/removal2.htm (1 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:14 PM]
District
of
States, Judicial
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : removal2
Notice of Removal & Petition for Order to Show Cause: Page 1 of 5
JURISDICTION This District
Court
of
the
United
States
has
original
jurisdiction of this action, pursuant to authorities cited in the above caption,
to wit:
1333(1), 1359,
1367(a), 1441(b)
Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 1964(a), 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1332,
the definition
States District
and
Court from
at 28
(c),
U.S.C.
1451(2),
which the
1451(2),
and the
1631.
criminal action
United is being
removed is a "State" court as defined therein, because said court is a
legislative tribunal domiciled in the District of Columbia.
Balzac v.
Porto Rico, 42 S.Ct. 343, 258 U.S. 298 at 312, 66 L.Ed
627 (1921);
and
compare 18
U.S.C. 1964(a) ("district court of
the United States") and 1964(c) ("United States district court"). In contrast, Article III
the District
court with authority to hear questions arising under
the Constitution, including
Court of the United States is an
but
Laws, not
Amendment, Sixth
and
Treaties
limited
to
the
of
Amendment, Eighth
the
First
United
States,
Amendment,
Amendment, Ninth
Fourth
Amendment,
Tenth Amendment, Thirteenth Amendment, the International Covenant on Civil
and Political
Human Rights.
Rights, and the Universal Declaration of
See Supremacy Clause.
INCORPORATION OF PRIOR PLEADINGS Plaintiff hereby heretofore filed
or
incorporates by
specifically including
otherwise but
not
reference
lodged limited
in
the to
CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING
pleadings
filed
"JOELYN D.
by
"JANET
pleadings
Criminal
Her
DEFENDANT DOCUMENTING previously
all
Case,
AFFIDAVIT
OF
ARREST, and all
NAPOLITANO"
[sic]
and
MARLOWE, Arizona State Bar No. 009206" [sic], who are
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/removal2.htm (2 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:14 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : removal2
alleged agents of the United States who have claimed authority to represent the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in the Criminal Case.
Notice of Removal & Petition for Order to Show Cause: Page 2 of 5
REASONS FOR GRANTING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Alleged agents of the United States have invaded Plaintiff's private property, or seize
without a warrant having been issued to search
said property.
Said
agents also
arrested Plaintiff,
without a warrant having been issued for Her arrest. seizure, and color of
arrest were
law, proceeding
the Supplemental
all perpetrated
by said
The search, agents under
as in rem actions subject to Rule C of
Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims
(hereinafter "Supplemental Rules"). Said agents
violated that portion of the Supplemental Rules
which requires
a verified complaint before Plaintiff's goods and
chattels could
be attached,
judgment by
default shall
and which
also
requires
that
no
be entered except upon proof that the
garnishee has been given notice of the action. Rule C. Actions in Rem:
Specifically:
Special Provisions ...
(2) Complaint. In actions in rem the complaint shall be verified on oath or solemn affirmation. It shall describe with reasonable particularity the property that is the subject of the action and state that it is within the district or will be during the pendency of the action. In actions for the enforcement of forfeiture for violation of any statute of the United States the complaint shall state the place of seizure and whether it was on land or on navigable waters, and shall contain such allegations as may be required by the statute pursuant to which the action is brought. (3) Judicial Authorization and Process. ... In actions by the United States for forfeitures for federal statutory violations, the clerk, upon filing of the complaint, shall forthwith issue a summons and warrant for the arrest of the vessel or other property without requiring certification of exigent circumstances.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/removal2.htm (3 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:14 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : removal2
Plaintiff submits
that these
Supplemental Rules, and others not
yet mentioned herein, were violated when Her private property was invaded by
a band
proceeding under
of
alleged
color of
agents
law and
of
the
United
without any
States,
warrants having
been issued by either a judge or a clerk in the instant case.
Notice of Removal & Petition for Order to Show Cause: Page 3 of 5
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS DUE TO FRAUD Plaintiff hereby to amend
explicitly reserves
this Petition,
prove that
She has
extent of
should future events and/or discoveries
failed adequately
the damage(s)
the Defendants,
Her fundamental Right
which She
both named
to
comprehend
the
full
has suffered at the hands of
and unnamed, now and at all times in
the future. REMEDY REQUESTED Wherefore, Plaintiff to Order why the
the office
hereby petitions
this honorable Court
of the United States Attorney to show cause
alleged agents of the United States in the instant case,
both named
and unnamed
charged with
in the
criminal trespass,
Criminal
Case,
grand theft,
should unlawful
not
be
arrest,
unlawful detainer, perjury, piracy, fraud, extortion, deprivation of fundamental Rights, and conspiracy to commit all of the above, all under
color of federal law, and in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2,
241, 242, 872, 1001, 1621, 1622, and 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1986.
Executed on August 20, 1996
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Sheila Wallen Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/removal2.htm (4 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:14 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : removal2
Citizen of Arizona state
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, Counselor at Law, Counsel of Record
Notice of Removal & Petition for Order to Show Cause: Page 4 of 5
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila
Terese,
penalty of
Wallen,
perjury, under
Sui
Juris,
the laws
of
hereby the
certify,
United
under
States
of
America, without the "United States", that I am at least 18 years of age,
a Citizen
of one
of the
United States of America, and
that I personally served the following document(s): NOTICE OF REMOVAL AND OF PETITION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: 18 U.S.C. 1964(a), 28 U.S.C. 292(b), 1331, 1332, 1333(1), 1359, 1367(a), 1441(b), (c), 1451(2), FRCP Rules 9(h), 11, 38 by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United
States Mail,
with
postage
addressed to the following:
Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE William D. Browning, Doe No. 1 44 East Broadway Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/removal2.htm (5 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:14 PM]
prepaid
and
properly
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : removal2
Executed on: _____________________________ /s/ Sheila Wallen __________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Notice of Removal & Petition for Order to Show Cause: Page 5 of 5
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/removal2.htm (6 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:14 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadjudge
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Sheila Terese, Wallen,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) United States, ) and Does 1-99, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________)
Case No. 95-484-TUC NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT OF A JUDGE OF THE COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE TO PRESIDE OVER THIS DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: 28 U.S.C. 293, 296, 297, 461(b)
Greetings to You: Judge Alex Kozinski Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 125 South Grand Avenue, Suite 200 Pasadena [zip code exempt] CALIFORNIA STATE
Formal NOTICE
AND DEMAND
You, Judge
Kozinski, by
Citizen of
Arizona state,
States ("federal
are hereby
Me, Sheila
respectfully made
Terese, Wallen,
of
Sui Juris,
expressly not a citizen of the United
citizen"), and
Plaintiff in the above entitled
matter (hereinafter "Plaintiff"), to present to the Chief Justice of the Justice
United States designate
qualified judge
a certificate and
assign
of necessity that the Chief
temporarily
a
competent
and
from the Court of International Trade to perform
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadjudge.htm (1 of 8) [4/8/2007 2:17:15 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadjudge
judicial duties States.
in this
See 28
honorable District
U.S.C. 293,
296, 297,
Court of the United
461(b);
also Evans v.
Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920) (never overturned).
Notice & Demand for Temporary Assignment of Article III Judge: Page 1 of 7
The authority apparent to
is particularly
Plaintiff, because
Counsel of
Record has
States District either an time.
in Evans
Article I
In this
is
Her, that all sitting United
America are
appointed
to
serve
in
or in an Article IV capacity at the present
capacity, said
immunity which
It
of exhaustive research which Her
shared with
Judges in
poignant.
Judges do not enjoy the explicit
is found in Article III, Section 1 ("3:1") of the
Constitution for
the
United
States
of
America,
as
lawfully
amended (hereinafter "U.S. Constitution"), to wit: The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. [U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 1] [emphasis added]
Plaintiff submits Judges do
of the
major reasons
why said
not enjoy the explicit immunity at 3:1 is the doctrine
of territorial Cracking the on the
that one
heterogeneity.
Confer
in
The
Federal
Zone:
Code of Internal Revenue, Fourth Edition, available
Internet via the Alta Vista search engine;
see also U.S.
v. Lopez, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995): Each of these [schools] now has an invisible federal zone [sic] extending 1,000 feet beyond the (often irregular) boundaries of the school property. [emphasis added]
Here, the U.S. Supreme Court utilized this term as a common noun, without any
citations or footnotes.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadjudge.htm (2 of 8) [4/8/2007 2:17:15 PM]
The doctrine of territorial
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadjudge
heterogeneity,
as
such,
Conclusions of
The Federal
is
summarized
Zone:
as
follows
in
the
Cracking the Code of Internal
Revenue, to wit:
Notice & Demand for Temporary Assignment of Article III Judge: Page 2 of 7
In exercising its exclusive authority over the federal zone, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations that exist inside the 50 States. For this reason, the areas that are inside and outside the federal zone are heterogeneous with respect to each other. This difference results in a principle of territorial heterogeneity: the areas within the federal zone are subject to one set of rules; the areas without (or outside) the federal zone are subject to a different set of rules. The Constitution rules outside the zone and inside the 50 States. The Congress rules inside the zone and outside the 50 States. The 50 States are, therefore, in one general class, because all constitutional restraints upon Congress are in force throughout the 50 States, without prejudice to any one State. The areas within the federal zone are in a different general class, because these same constitutional restraints simply do not limit Congress inside that zone. [The Federal Zone, electronic Fifth Edition, Conclusions]
In the
pivotal case
(1901), which
of Downes
is discussed
v. Bidwell,
at several
182
places in
U.S.
244
the book
The
Federal Zone supra, the U.S. Supreme Court established a doctrine whereby the not extend
Constitution of
and under
beyond the it.
the "United
limits of
States", as such, does
the States which are united by
This doctrine of territorial heterogeneity is now
commonly identified as the "Downes Doctrine." This doctrine has been reinforced by subsequent decisions of the U.S.
Supreme Court, notably, the case of Hooven & Allison v.
Evatt, 324
U.S. 652
the guarantees only as United
of the
Congress has States
(1945), in
which the high Court ruled that
Constitution extend made those
District
Courts
guarantees
to the
are
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadjudge.htm (3 of 8) [4/8/2007 2:17:15 PM]
federal zone
applicable.
currently
established
The by
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadjudge
Congress
as
territorial
constitutional authority
(federal
zone)
emanating from
courts,
Article IV,
with
Section 3,
Clause 2, to wit: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needed Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; .... [U.S. Constitution, Art. 4, Sec. 3, Cl. 2, emphasis added]
Notice & Demand for Temporary Assignment of Article III Judge: Page 3 of 7
Plaintiff wishes United States, Court of
to litigate
and against
case
thru 99,
in an
Does 1
Her civil
competent jurisdiction.
invoke the several
the
Article III
particular, She wishes to
judicial power of the United States of America, among
reasons,
in
withholding the lawful and and to
In
against
order
to
enjoin
agency records
the
Defendant(s)
from
which Plaintiff has requested in
proper requests under the Freedom of Information Act,
order the
production of
withheld from Plaintiff.
any agency
records
improperly
See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B), to wit:
On complaint, the district court of the United States ... has jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant. [5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B)] [emphasis added]
For the previous
convenience of
Federal
NOTICE Rules
reference as
AND of
Judge Kozinski, DEMAND
Evidence
if set
FOR
Plaintiff attaches
MANDATORY
201(d),
and
forth fully herein.
JUDICIAL
incorporates
Her
NOTICE: it
by
Said NOTICE AND DEMAND
summarizes some of the outstanding FOIA requests in this case. In order
for this
Plaintiff's fundamental do so,
this honorable
case
to
proceed
Right under
forward,
and
it
is
the Fifth Amendment that it
Court must be seated with a competent and
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadjudge.htm (4 of 8) [4/8/2007 2:17:15 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadjudge
qualified Judge
who is
controls whatsoever.
not subject This
to
any
means, among
outside
executive
other things,
that an
Article III judge must be designated and temporarily appointed to preside over
the instant case, who is not a "taxpayer" and whose
integrity and
independence from
all other
governments and
all
other government branches are unassailable and beyond question.
Notice & Demand for Temporary Assignment of Article III Judge: Page 4 of 7
Plaintiff hereby objects strenuously to the existence of any contract, either in fact,
verbal or
between any
Judge and
written, either expressed or implied
currently seated
the "Internal
controlling interests,
United
Revenue Service" on grounds
States
[sic]
of conflicts
or
District any
other
of interest.
A
completed "IRS" Form 1040 is an expressed, written contract. Plaintiff
is
independent and
assigns, or
the
fundamental
unbiased judiciary.
The existence other branch
guaranteed
See
right
Evans v.
Gore supra,
an
Gore supra.
of a
contract between the presiding Judge and any
of the
federal government, or any of its agencies,
instrumentalities, is
evidence
of
a
conflict
interest and proof of a dependent and biased judiciary. v. Kelley,
to
of
See Lord
240 F.Supp. 167, 169 (1965) and compare with Evans v. to measure
how far our civilization has degenerated
under the Downes Doctrine.
This honorable Court will please take
formal judicial
the holding
notice of
and the
dicta in Evans,
which case proves that American courts have an obligation to rule on matters
which properly
come before them.
Plaintiff's NOTICE
AND DEMAND, as made herein, now comes properly before You, Sir.
REMEDY REQUESTED
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadjudge.htm (5 of 8) [4/8/2007 2:17:15 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadjudge
Wherefore, Plaintiff
hereby makes
this formal
Demand upon
You, Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: (1) to
prepare and
present to
the Chief
Justice
of
the
United States
a certificate
designate and
assign temporarily a competent and qualified judge
from the
of necessity that the Chief Justice
Court of International Trade to perform judicial duties
in this honorable District Court of the United States; (2) to file said certificate in the official Court record of the instant case; (3) to
and
serve said
certificate on
all interested
parties.
See PROOF OF SERVICE infra.
Notice & Demand for Temporary Assignment of Article III Judge: Page 5 of 7
NOTICE OF DEADLINE Plaintiff hereby demands that the above requested remedy be granted no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 11, 1996. Time is of the essence.
Thank you very much for your consideration. That is all for now.
Executed on August 28, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, Counselor at Law and Counsel of Record
Notice & Demand for Temporary Assignment of Article III Judge: Page 6 of 7 http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadjudge.htm (6 of 8) [4/8/2007 2:17:15 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadjudge
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila
Terese,
penalty of
Wallen,
perjury, under
Sui
Juris,
the laws
of
hereby the
certify,
United
under
States
of
America, without the "United States," that I am at least 18 years of age,
a Citizen
of one
of the
United States of America, and
that I personally served the following document(s): NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT OF A JUDGE OF THE COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE TO PRESIDE OVER THIS DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: 28 U.S.C. 293, 296, 297, 461(b) by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United
States Mail,
with
postage
prepaid
and
properly
addressed to the following:
Office of the U.S. Attorney 110 South Church, Suite 8310 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE
Chief Judge 9th Circuit Court of Appeals P.O. Box 193939 San Francisco, California
William D. Browning, Doe No. 1 44 East Broadway Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE
JOELYN D. MARLOWE [sic] 110 South Church, Suite 8310 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE
Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Chief Justice United States Supreme Court 1 First Street, N.E. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Judge Alex Kozinski 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 125 South Grand Ave., Ste. 200 Pasadena [zip code exempt] CALIFORNIA STATE
Executed on August 28, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen __________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadjudge.htm (7 of 8) [4/8/2007 2:17:15 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : nadjudge
Notice & Demand for Temporary Assignment of Article III Judge: Page 7 of 7
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/nadjudge.htm (8 of 8) [4/8/2007 2:17:15 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : feeobj
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona Under Protest, Necessity, and by Special Visitation Only
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Sheila Terese, Wallen, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________)
COMES NOW
Sheila Terese,
state and
Defendant in
Case No. 95-484-WDB NOTICE OF FORMAL OBJECTION TO TRANSCRIPT FEE IMPOSED
Wallen, Sui the above
Juris, Citizen of Arizona
entitled matter
(hereinafter
"Defendant"), formally to object to the $460 fee imposed upon the Defendant to
obtain a
merely because
transcript of
She was
have Court-appointed transcript. there would
evidentiary
hearing,
proceding In Propria Persona and did not
Counsel at
Defendant was have been
Defendant been
the
the
told by
no charge
represented by
time
She
the Court
for said
requested
transcriber that
transcript, had
Court-appointed
said
Counsel.
the This
practice is blatantly discriminatory against litigants proceeding In Propria
Persona and
direct violation in
the
year
without Bar
of the 1819
licensed representation, in
when
original Thirteenth Amendment, ratified Virginia
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/feeobj.htm (1 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:17:15 PM]
voted
to
amend
the
U.S.
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : feeobj
Notice of Formal Objection to Transcript Fee Imposed: Page 1 of 3
Constitution with Haynes v.
same.
FOR THE
Kerner, 404
See also Full Faith and Credit Clause; U.S. 519;
Defendant's NOTICE AND DEMAND
RIGHT TO ENJOY THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL OF CHOICE;
Defendant's MEMORANDUM
OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES
DEFENDANT'S
CHALLENGE
TO
JURISDICTION
FUNDAMENTAL
GUARANTEE
FOR
EFFECTIVE
already filed for Her
in the instant case.
objections to
exercising Her Counsel.
question, for
FOR
IN SUPPORT OF VIOLATING
ASSISTANCE
OF
THE
COUNSEL,
Defendant is being penalized
ineffective assistance of Counsel and for
fundamental
If She
and
had been
Right
to
effective
unable to
whatever reason,
assistance
obtain the
She would
not
of
transcript in
have
been
able
adequately to prepare an effective defense in the instant case.
Executed on July 22, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state and Counselor at Law and federal witness All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Notice of Formal Objection to Transcript Fee Imposed: Page 2 of 3
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila penalty of
Terese,
Wallen,
perjury, under
Sui
Juris,
the laws
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/feeobj.htm (2 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:17:15 PM]
of
hereby the
certify,
United
under
States
of
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : feeobj
America, without of age
the United
States, that I am at least 18 years
and a Citizen of one of the United States of America, and
that I personally served the following document: NOTICE OF FORMAL OBJECTION TO TRANSCRIPT FEE IMPOSED by placing
said document
in first class U.S. Mail, with postage
prepaid and properly addressed to the following individuals:
Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 Tucson [85701] ARIZONA STATE
[hand-delivered]
Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Dated:
July 22, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen ________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Notice of Formal Objection to Transcript Fee Imposed: Page 3 of 3
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/feeobj.htm (3 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:17:15 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : notintnt
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Sheila Terese, Wallen,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) United States, ) William D. Browning, ) and Does 2-99, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________)
COMES NOW
Sheila Terese,
state and
Plaintiff in
Case No. 95-484-TUC NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT AGAINST WILLIAM D. BROWNING 28 U.S.C. 372(c); Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 201(d)
Wallen, Sui the above
Juris, Citizen of Arizona
entitled matter
(hereinafter
"Plaintiff"), to provide formal Notice to all interested parties, and respectfully Rule 201(d)
to request
of the
formal judicial Notice, pursuant to
Federal Rules of Evidence, of Her intent, as
expressed herein, to file a Complaint of Judicial Misconduct with the Clerk,
United States
Court of Appeals, c/o P.O. Box 193939,
San Francisco, California Republic, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 372(c), for gross case of
judicial misconduct UNITED STATES
[sic], Case
by Mr. William D. Browning in the
OF AMERICA
Number 95-484-TUC,
[sic] v. SHEILA TERESE WALLEN
United
District of Arizona, Tucson.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/notintnt.htm (1 of 4) [4/8/2007 2:17:16 PM]
States
District
Court,
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : notintnt
Notice of Intent to File Complaint of Judicial Misconduct: Page 1 of 3
Pursuant to
28 U.S.C.
Misconduct shall
be filed
States Court
of Appeals
the District
Court of
Arizona (Tucson), Court, District
372(c), said with:
Complaint of
(1) the
Clerk of
Judicial the United
for the Ninth Circuit, (2) the Clerk of the United
(3) the of Arizona
States, Judicial
Clerk of
the United
(Tucson),
and
(4)
District of
States District all
interested
parties, on or after Monday, September 2, 1996, in order to allow the deadline to expire on Plaintiff's FINAL NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR PROOF OF
POWER, STANDING,
(hereinafter "FINAL p.m. on
AND JURISDICTION
NOTICE AND DEMAND").
Friday, August
30, 1996.
IN THE
PARTICULARS
Said deadline was 5:00
See attached courtesy copy of
Plaintiff's FINAL NOTICE AND DEMAND.
Executed on August 29, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen ________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell ________________________________ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, Counselor at Law, and Counsel of Record
Notice of Intent to File Complaint of Judicial Misconduct: Page 2 of 3
PROOF OF SERVICE I, Sheila
Terese,
penalty of
Wallen,
perjury, under
Sui
Juris,
the laws
of
hereby the
certify,
United
under
States
of
America, without the "United States," that I am at least 18 years of age,
a Citizen
of one
of the
United States of America, and
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/notintnt.htm (2 of 4) [4/8/2007 2:17:16 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : notintnt
that I personally served the following document(s): NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT AGAINST WILLIAM D. BROWNING: 28 U.S.C. 372(c); Federal Rules of Evidence 201(d) by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United
States Mail,
with
postage
prepaid
and
properly
addressed to the following:
Office of the U.S. Attorney 110 South Church, Suite 8310 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE
Chief Judge 9th Circuit Court of Appeals P.O. Box 193939 San Francisco, California
William D. Browning, Doe No. 1 44 East Broadway Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE
JOELYN D. MARLOWE [sic] 110 South Church, Suite 8310 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE
Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Chief Justice United States Supreme Court 1 First Street, N.E. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Judge Alex Kozinski 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 125 South Grand Ave., Ste. 200 Pasadena [zip code exempt] CALIFORNIA STATE
Executed on August 29, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen __________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Notice of Intent to File Complaint of Judicial Misconduct: Page 3 of 3
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/notintnt.htm (3 of 4) [4/8/2007 2:17:16 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : notintnt
U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/notintnt.htm (4 of 4) [4/8/2007 2:17:16 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jdcompla
COMPLAINT FORM JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT AND DISABILITY
MAIL THIS FORM TO THE CLERK, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, P.O. BOX 193939, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94119-3939/tdc. MARK THE ENVELOPE "JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT" OR "JUDICIAL DISABILITY COMPLAINT". DO NOT PUT THE NAME OF THE JUDGE OR MAGISTRATE ON THE ENVELOPE.
SEE RULE 2(e) FOR THE NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED FOR FILING.
1.
2.
3.
Complainant's name: Paul Andrew, Mitchell Address:
c/o 2509 North Campbell Avenue, #1776 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE
Daytime telephone:
[redacted] (leave message on voice mail)
Judge or magistrate complained about: Name:
William D. Browning United States District Judge
Court:
United States District Court Tucson, Arizona state
Does this complaint concern the behavior of the magistrate in a particular lawsuit or lawsuits? ( X ) Yes
(
judge or
) No
If "yes" give the following information about each lawsuit (use the reverse side if there is more than one): Court:
United States District Court
Docket Number:
95-484-TUC
Are (were) you a party or lawyer in the lawsuit? (
) Party
If party, give the your Counsel:
( X ) Counsel name, address,
(
) Neither and telephone number of
n/a
Judicial Complaint Against William D. Browning: Page 1 of 6 http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jdcompla.htm (1 of 12) [4/8/2007 2:17:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jdcompla
Docket numbers of any appeals to the Ninth Circuit: Notice of appeal was filed before trial, but Mr. Browning refused to stay the trial, and ruled that Notice of Appeal could not be processed until after sentencing. Defendant Sheila Wallen objected timely.
4.
Have you filed any lawsuits against the judge or magistrate? (
) Yes
( X ) No
(Client has, however.)
If yes, give the following information about each lawsuit (use the reverse side if there is more than one): Court:
District Court of the United States Judicial District of Arizona
Present status of suit: My client, Sheila Terese Wallen, served Formal Notice and Demand upon Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, to prepare and present to the Chief Justice of the United States a certificate of necessity that the Chief Justice designate and assign temporarily a competent and qualified judge from the Court of International Trade to perform judicial duties in the District Court of the United States, pursuant to authorities in 28 U.S.C. 293, 296, 297, 461(b), and Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920). Her action cannot proceed without a competent and qualified judge to sit on the District Court of the United States. Name, address, and telephone number of your Counsel: n/a Court to which any appeal has been taken: (see above) Docket number of appeal: none Present status of appeal: none
5.
On separate sheets of paper, no larger than the paper this form is printed on, describe the conduct or the evidence of disability that is the subject of this complaint. See rule 2(b) and 2(d). Do not use more than 5 pages (5 sides). Most complaints do not require that much. see attached
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jdcompla.htm (2 of 12) [4/8/2007 2:17:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jdcompla
Judicial Complaint Against William D. Browning: Page 2 of 6
6.
You should either: (1)
check the first box below and sign this form in the presence of a notary public; or
(2)
check the second box and sign the form. You do not need a notary public if you check the second box.
( )
I swear (affirm) that --
(X)
I declare under penalty of perjury -I have read rules 1 and 2 of the Rules of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct or Disability, and the statement made in this complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell ________________________________________________ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, and Counselor at Law All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice Executed on:
September 16, 1996
email:
[email protected]
website:
http://supremelaw.com
copies:
Judge Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit U.S. Marshals, Tucson, Arizona Federal Bureau of Investigation, Tucson, Arizona Attorney General, State of Arizona Governor Fife Symington, State of Arizona Sheila Terese Wallen, Arivaca, Arizona state
Judicial Complaint Against William D. Browning: Page 3 of 6
Attachment to Complaint of Judicial Misconduct 1.
Mr. Browning agreed -- before trial, on record, and before a gallery of witnesses -- to guarantee all of Sheila Wallen's fundamental Rights during said trial. He then refused to allow Her to enjoy the assistance of Her Counsel of Choice, by ordering Mr. Paul Andrew Mitchell to the back seat of the
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jdcompla.htm (3 of 12) [4/8/2007 2:17:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jdcompla
gallery, where Mr. Mitchell was forced to stay during the entire course of the trial and was prevented by U.S. Marshals from communicating with Miss Wallen. Mr. Mitchell was allowed to speak with Miss Wallen only during recess periods. Mr. Browning had been previously briefed, in detail, as to the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court in Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 468 (1938), which held that a criminal defendant is entitled to the assistance of Counsel at every step in the proceedings, and if the trial court fails to ensure that this assistance is available at every step in the proceedings, then the trial court ousts itself of jurisdiction. Mr. Browning did not care about this Supreme Court precedent; Mr. Browning does not believe that U.S. Supreme Court decisions have any legal significance. Denial of effective assistance of Counsel is a criminal deprivation of a fundamental Right under color of law, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 242, and perjury of oath, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1621. In My opinion, this matter is serious enough to be brought to the attention of a qualified federal grand jury, one whose members are chosen randomly from a pool that includes State Citizens too, not just federal citizens. 2.
When presented with an Affidavit of Circumstances Surrounding the Arrest of Sheila Wallen, and also with a comprehensive Motion to Stay Proceedings pending final resolution of Sheila Wallen's challenge to the constitutionality of the Jury Selection and Service Act, complete with a very detailed Sworn Statement of facts supporting said Motion, Mr. Browning received these pleadings at approximately 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday afternoon, July 17, 1996; Mr. Browning then ruled on these pleadings, wrote his Order on the same day, placed his Order in U.S. Mail, and it was delivered to Sheila Wallen's post office 70 miles away in Arivaca, Arizona, by 11:00 a.m. the following morning, Thursday, July 18, 1996. It was impossible for Mr. Browning to have read all of these pleadings in such an extremely short period of time. Furthermore, Mr. Browning's Order ruled that Wallen's Affidavit was hearsay, and that there was nothing in the Stay Motion and accompanying Sworn Statement of any legal significance, despite the fact that the latter pleadings contained numerous authorities and rulings by the United States Supreme Court. For example, see U.S. v. Mason, 412 U.S. 391, 399-400 (1973), to wit: nobody should be punished unnecessarily for relying upon the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Refusing to file a proper and correctly executed Affidavit violates Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 201(d), Mandatory Judicial Notice, and constitutes obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1506. Miss Wallen's Affidavit contained proof that the alleged officers of the United States proceeded criminally to trespass upon Wallen's private property without a valid warrant to search and seize said property, and to arrest Her without a valid warrant for Her arrest. This Affidavit also contained material evidence which proves the lack of jurisdiction of the United States District Court over which Mr. Browning presided, since a warrant was absolutely necessary to execute the search, seizure & arrest in the first instance; without said warrants, Browning's
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jdcompla.htm (4 of 12) [4/8/2007 2:17:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jdcompla
court was denied jurisdiction over the subject matter. See Rule C of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims. This Affidavit also contains evidence of threats, duress, extortion, and coercion by said alleged agents of the United States, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. 872 (extortion), making Mr. Browning an accessory to all of these crimes after the fact, in violation 18 U.S.C. 3. This matter should be brought before a competent and qualified federal grand jury.
Judicial Complaint Against William D. Browning: Page 4 of 6
3.
As of 5:00 p.m. on Friday, August 30, 1996, Mr. Browning had failed to answer Wallen's Final Notice and Demand for Proof of Power, Standing, and Jurisdiction in the Particulars. His failure to do so is competent evidence that neither he, nor the court over which he was presiding, had any criminal jurisdiction whatsoever to proceed over the case before him. Specifically, Miss Wallen demanded: (1) proof that the alleged U.S. Attorneys who were prosecuting Her had powers of attorney to represent the Plaintiff "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"; (2) proof of the statutory, regulatory, and constitutional authority which grants legal standing to the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" to bring a criminal action before a "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT"; and (3) proof of the statutory, regulatory, and constitutional authority which grants jurisdiction to a "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT" as opposed to a "DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES" to hear a criminal case against a Union State Citizen when the alleged crime was committed inside the state zone and outside the federal zone. It is a principle of law that, once challenged, the one asserting jurisdiction must prove that jurisdiction exists as a matter of law. The proponent of a rule carries the burden of proving its application in the instant case. See 5 U.S.C. 556(d). For judicial support of this principle, see in particular the following cases: Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533; Griffin v. Matthews, 310 F.Supp. 341, 423 F.2d 272; McNutt vs. G.M., 56 S.Ct. 789, 80 L.Ed 1135; Basso vs. U.P.L., 495 F.2d 906; Thomson vs Gaskiel, 62 S.Ct. 673, 83 L.Ed 111; Albrecht vs. U.S., 273 U.S. 1; Louisville R.R. v. Motley, 211 U.S. 149, 29 S.Ct. 42. Proceeding without jurisdiction, particularly after a formal notice and demand for proof of jurisdiction have been completely ignored, is a criminal denial of due process of law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and 18 U.S.C. 242. This matter should be brought before a competent and qualified federal grand jury.
Judicial Complaint Against William D. Browning: Page 5 of 6
4.
Mr. Browning also "DENIED" two pleadings by Miss Wallen filed in the form of a Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice, pursuant to Rule 201(d) of the Federal
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jdcompla.htm (5 of 12) [4/8/2007 2:17:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jdcompla
Rules of Evidence. A federal judge has absolutely no discretion in the matter of mandatory judicial notice. The rule itself is very clear on this point: "when MANDATORY." Refusing to file material evidence, and proper and correctly executed demands for mandatory judicial notice of said evidence, violates Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 201(d), Mandatory Judicial Notice, and constitutes obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1506. Miss Wallen was forced to refuse Mr. Browning's DENIAL Order for fraud. The proper method for excluding said evidence is for the opposing party to move the court to strike the evidence; this was not done by the opposing party, or by any of their officers, agents, or employees. Claiming to have "DENIED" Miss Wallen's Notices and Demands for Mandatory Judicial Notice, absent a proper Motion to Strike by the opposing party, is proof that Mr. Browning engaged in the practice of law, a high misdemeanor in violation of 28 U.S.C. 454. This matter should be brought before a competent and qualified federal grand jury. 5.
Criminal conduct by a United States District Judge, while presiding over any case, whether it be civil or criminal, is conduct which is prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the federal courts. "No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution." Harlan dissenting in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), emphasis added. A competent and qualified federal grand jury should be given the opportunity to investigate probable criminal conduct by William D. Browning in this case, and in others of which I am aware.
Judicial Complaint Against William D. Browning: Page 6 of 6
c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE July 25, 1996 Mr. William D. Browning 44 East Broadway Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE Re:
U.S.A. v. Wallen, Case No. 95-484-WDB
CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE AND DEMAND
Dear Mr. Browning: I am Citizen of Arizona state, a Counselor at Law, and a part-time student of comparative economic history. I recently http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jdcompla.htm (6 of 12) [4/8/2007 2:17:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jdcompla
had a lawful contract obligation to attend a court trial over which you presided. That obligation arose from a contract for consideration paid in lawful money, i.e. silver dollars. During that trial, the question of your authority was raised, and you answered that your authority was the Constitution and laws of the United States. It is My understanding that the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended, contains a provision which prevents federal officers from impairing the obligation of contracts. This provision is in the Constitution as published in federal depository libraries, and in the official law books upon which district courts rely for conclusive evidence of the Law. This Constitution clearly forbids titles of nobility. See Article I, Section 10, Clause 1. It is My contention, based on diligent research, that any license is construed by American courts to be a title of nobility, which is forbidden by this provision. However, no penalties were mentioned by this provision and it is for this reason, I believe, that no penalties currently attach to the exercise of licenses issued by the state and federal governments. It was the lack of penalties which motivated Congress to cure this oversight with a proposal to amend the Constitution with penalties for exercising titles of nobility. My research has also uncovered a constitutional amendment, ratified by the Union states in the year 1819, which penalizes the exercise of titles of nobility with a forfeiture of citizenship and with a disqualification from ever serving in any public office in America (see attached). This Amendment is the main reason why I am not now a licensed bar member, and have no intention of ever becoming a licensed bar member, because I do not want to forfeit My Arizona state Citizenship, and I would like to serve in public office some day.
Constructive Notice and Demand: Page 1 of 4
This Amendment supersedes any state "practice of law" statutes, pursuant to the Supremacy Clause, to the extent that those statutes require the exercise of any titles of nobility. Moreover, with or without this Amendment, it is My opinion that membership in a bar association would require that I violate not only My personal code of conduct, but also numerous provisions in the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended, including but not limited to the Sixth and Tenth Amendments, and other laws of the United States, including but not limited to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Such membership prevents me from diligently protecting the fundamental Rights of My clients. My first loyalty is to My Creator, to Myself, My Family, the Citizenship of My state, and then to My clients and their fundamental Right to maintain that very same loyalty. Bar membership reverses these priorities and flatly violates this loyalty, because it requires loyalty to the court, to the bar, to public policy contrary to the Constitution, http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jdcompla.htm (7 of 12) [4/8/2007 2:17:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jdcompla
and lastly to My clients, in that order. violate the doctrine of separation of importantly, My clients' fundamental Rights.
These powers
priorities and, more
Accordingly, I have the following important questions for you, sir: Was the original Thirteenth Amendment a provision in the Constitution which you took an oath to support, or was it not? Under rules of equity, I assert My fundamental Right to know what provisions are in the Constitution which you took an oath to support. This is matter of your contract with Me. If you have ever exercised a title of nobility in America, e.g. esquire, lawyer, attorney, Honor, then the original Thirteenth Amendment is a constitutional authority which has disqualified you from ever serving in the office of federal judge, is it not? Judges occupy public offices, do they not? I am asking this question specifically because of your decisions to bar me from assisting My client, Sheila Terese Wallen, at all times during Her recent criminal trial on charges of illegal marijuana possession with intent to distribute same. In fact, you ordered me to the back row of the gallery, with U.S. Marshals standing between Me and My client, preventing any communication with My client. If you have, in fact, taken an oath to support the Constitution, and the administrative record does appear to support this fact, does that Constitution not also contain a provision which bars you from impairing the obligation of contracts? See Contracts Clause. I had a lawful contract with Sheila Terese Wallen, and you impaired that contract. My contract with Sheila was predicated upon My belief that your oath of office placed you in a valid contract with Me. By what specific lawful authority do you claim any Right to impair the obligations of My contract with Sheila Terese Wallen? If you are upholding the U.S. Constitution, then My contract with Her is valid and enforceable, under rules of equity, and you are forbidden from doing anything to impair that contract.
Constructive Notice and Demand: Page 2 of 4
I will look forward to your timely response to this letter. If I do not hear from you in writing within ten (10) working days from the date of this letter, I will proceed on the basis of the conclusive presumption that the original Thirteenth Amendment was not in the Constitution which you took an oath to support. I will stipulate that your oath predates the publication of recent research proving that the original Thirteenth Amendment has been well hidden from public knowledge (i.e. fraud). Nevertheless, the original Thirteenth Amendment was lawfully ratified, pursuant to Article V. This ratification has been proven conclusively. Therefore, you
are now
in
the
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jdcompla.htm (8 of 12) [4/8/2007 2:17:17 PM]
wrong
contract
with
the
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jdcompla
American People, because the Constitution which you took an oath to support does not contain the original Thirteenth Amendment, as evidenced by the Constitution as it was published in federal depository libraries, and as it was published in the official law books upon which district courts relied for conclusive evidence of the Law, on the day you took your original oath of office. Furthermore, you are disqualified from serving as a federal judge for these and other reasons, because you have exercised one or more titles of nobility or honor (e.g. "Honor", "Esquire") since ratification of that Amendment. The original Thirteenth Amendment does not contain any provisions for curing such a disability or regaining your Citizenship. Your only defense now is that you, too, were victimized by fraudulent concealment of this Amendment, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001. Whether or not the original Thirteenth Amendment was a provision in the Constitution which you took an oath to support, the Contracts Clause has been in the organic U.S. Constitution since its original ratification. You, sir, simply cannot impair the Right of Contract, pursuant to an explicit prohibition which is in that Constitution. One last point: when exactly did the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court become "hearsay," without any legal significance? You ruled as such on July 17, 1996, in Sheila's case. I really would like to know, for reasons which should be obvious to anyone who claims to be a federal judge with expertise in federal law. Are these decisions which you heard Supreme Court Justices say? Does that make them "hearsay", in your opinion? If not, then what does? Before I take any remedial action on this point, I must have your explanation for what now appears to be gross judicial misconduct on your part. If you wish to rebut the presumptions which I have presented to you in this letter, then please do so. I would welcome them, sincerely. For the record, I am presenting these facts and laws to you, pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1986. Thank you very much for your careful consideration, and I will look forward to your timely response to this CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE AND DEMAND, before 10 days transpire.
Constructive Notice and Demand: Page 3 of 4
Respectfully yours, /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state and federal witness All Rights Reserved without Prejudice email:
[email protected]
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jdcompla.htm (9 of 12) [4/8/2007 2:17:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jdcompla
website:
http://supremelaw.com
copies:
Clerk of Court Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Judge Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit Joelyn Marlowe, Esquire U.S. Marshal's office Federal Bureau of Investigation
Constructive Notice and Demand: Page 4 of 4
MEMO TO:
Cathy A. Catterson Clerk of Court Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals P.O. Box 193939 San Francisco, California state
FROM:
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Counselor at Law
DATE:
March 14, 1997
SUBJECT:
Complaint of Judicial Misconduct No. #96-80337 against William D. Browning, USDC, Tucson
Please incorporate this letter, My attached letter to USDC Judge William D. Browning dated July 25, 1996, and My Notice of Intent to File a Criminal Complaint dated September 20, 1996, into the docket file which has been assigned judicial misconduct complaint number #96-80337 against Judge Browning. Because I have heard absolutely nothing from the Ninth Circuit, or from any other government personnel in this matter, I respectfully request some action on this complaint, which is now six months old. As I have already written in a previous letter to you, inquiring about the unexplained delay(s) in processing My judicial complaint against John M. Roll, the Chief Judge is required to give such complaints his expeditious attention. I do not think you could find anyone in America to preside on a jury who would conclude that one-half year is expeditious. Do you?
Sincerely yours, /s/ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Counselor at Law and federal witness c/o 2509 N. Campbell Avenue, #1776 Tucson, Arizona state email:
[email protected]
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jdcompla.htm (10 of 12) [4/8/2007 2:17:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jdcompla
website:
http://supremelaw.com
copy:
Procter Hug, Chief Judge
p.s. Please have someone tell Judge Browning to stop picking his nose during court proceedings.
#
#
#
c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE September 20, 1996
NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST WILLIAM D. BROWNING
Clerk of Court United States District Court 55 East Broadway Tucson, Arizona state Subject:
Criminal Complaint against Mr. William D. Browning
Dear Clerk: This is My formal Notice of Intent to File a Criminal Complaint against Mr. William D. Browning, currently employed by the United States federal government, for criminal misconduct described in the attached Judicial Complaint form which has already been transmitted to the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (see attached). Please notify Notice of Intent.
the
appropriate
person(s)
of
NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS.
this
NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS IS NOTICE TO AGENTS. Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely yours, /s/ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness and Counselor at Law All Rights Reserved without Prejudice http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jdcompla.htm (11 of 12) [4/8/2007 2:17:17 PM]
formal
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : U.S.A. v. Wallen : jdcompla
email:
[email protected]
website:
http://supremelaw.com
copies:
Governor Fife Symington, Tucson, Arizona Attorney General, State of Arizona, Tucson Attorney General, United States, Washington, D.C. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Tucson, Arizona Judicial Conduct Commission, State of Arizona, Phoenix Clerk, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, San Francisco Clerk, U.S. Supreme Court, Washington, D.C. Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. President, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
#
#
#
Return to Table of Contents for U.S.A. v. Wallen
http://supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jdcompla.htm (12 of 12) [4/8/2007 2:17:17 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : index
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases
Index by Case Names Table of Contents 1. MITCHELL v. AOL TIME WARNER, INC. et al., District Court of the United States, Sacramento 2. MITCHELL v. AOL TIME WARNER, INC. et al., Superior Court of California, San Diego 3. STATE OF ARIZONA v. PAUL ANDREW MITCHELL 4. U.S.A. v. PETER BELLUCCI 5. BENSON v. BENTSEN [draft] 6. PEOPLE OF THE CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC v. REP. BARBARA BOXER 7. U.S.A. v. MARY ELIZABETH BRODERICK et al. 8. In Re CHARGE OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT by JUDGE WILLIAM D. BROWNING 9. In Re BANKRUPTCY OF DR. AND MRS. EUGENE A. BURNS 10. GEORGE W. BUSH v. PALM BEACH CANVASSING BOARD 11. CHRIS CASE v. PIER HOUSE JOINT VENTURE 12. STATE OF ARIZONA v. DAREN JAMES DEAN 13. DIXIANNE HAWKS v. COUNTY OF BUTTE et al. 14. U.S.A. v. DANA DUDLEY et al. 15. U.S.A. v. EVERETT C. GILBERTSON 16. PEOPLE v. UNITED STATES et al., Billings, Montana 17. PEOPLE v. UNITED STATES et al., Fort Davis, Texas 18. PEOPLE v. UNITED STATES et al. (intervention briefs) 19. U.S.A. v. LEROY M. SCHWEITZER (Butte, Montana) 20. SELECTED WORKS OF JOHN E. TRUMANE 21. STATE OF ALABAMA v. WILLIAM MICHAEL KEMP
http://supremelaw.org/cc/index.htm (1 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:17:18 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : index
22. KARL FRANK KLEINPASTE v. UNITED STATES et al. 23. U.S.A. v. VANCE E. KNUDSON 24. U.S.A. v. BARRIE and SUSANNE KONICOV 25. U.S.A. v. RUSSELL DEAN LANDERS 26. U.S.A. v. WILLIAM NEAL LANTER 27. U.S.A. v. FLOYD RAYMOND LOOKER 28. In Re PAUL ANDREW MITCHELL FOIA REQUEST 29. In Re GRAND JURY SUBPOENA SERVED ON NEW LIFE HEALTH CENTER COMPANY 30. In Re BANKRUPTCY OF NEW LIFE HEALTH CENTER COMPANY 31. MITCHELL v. NEIL AND EVELYN NORDBROCK 32. In Re GRAND JURY SUBPOENA SERVED ON IRWIN HEIL PAUGH 33. U.S.A. v. CHARLES R. PIXLEY 34. PEOPLE v. PIMA COUNTY CONSOLIDATED JUSTICE COURT 35. In Re CHARGE OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT BY JUDGE JOHN M. ROLL 36. In Re CHARGE OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT BY JUDGE WILLIAM B. SHUBB 37. In Re CHARGE OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT BY MAGISTRATE DALE A. DROZD 38. SWAN BUSINESS ORGANIZATION v. LEON ULAN et al. 39. In Re BANKRUPTCY OF FIFE SYMINGTON III 40. STATE OF ARIZONA v. CHARLES LEVIS TAYLOR 41. U.S.A. v. LEROY M. SCHWEITZER (Billings, Montana) 42. U.S.A. v. NORMAN LEON VROMAN 43. U.S.A. v. SHEILA TERESE WALLEN 44. ARIZONA v. JANET MARY WALLEN 45. MITCHELL v. CITY OF SAN MARCOS et al. 46. DIME SAVINGS BANK, FSB v. ANNETTE K. HAND et al. 47. U.S.A. v. ROBERT McKENDRICK et al. 48. PEOPLE v. TUCSON 49. U.S.A. v. JEROME T. SCHIEFEN
http://supremelaw.org/cc/index.htm (2 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:17:18 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : index
50. U.S.A. v. WILLIAM R. BARNES 51. U.S.A. v. DONALD E. WISHART 52. DONALD E. WISHART, WHISTLEBLOWER v. PAUL CAMANCHO & BRIAN WATSON 53. STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. CHARLES TIMOTHY SOWERS 54. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. VAZRIK MAKARIAN 55. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RAMONA HOLCOMBE a/k/a Mona Holcombe 56. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION 57. MEREDITH et al. v. ERATH et al. (Ninth Circuit Appeal #01-56873) 58. MEREDITH et al. v. ERATH et al. (Ninth Circuit Cross-Appeal #02-55021) 59. USA v. MEREDITH et al. (USDC #02-00372 DDP) 60. PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel. BYBEE et al. v. ERATH et al. (DCUS #SA CV 02-0382 GLT(ANx)) 61. CITY OF DES MOINES, IOWA v. ROY REHA
[Home] [Contact Us] [Library] [School] [Forum] [Subscribe] [Donate]
Common Law Copyright 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 A.D.: Supreme Law Firm email: Contact Us Last Update: December 7, 2005 A.D.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/index.htm (3 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:17:18 PM]
Supreme Law Firm
Supreme Law Firm All Rights Reserved without Prejudice Make a Donation Supreme Law Email List Support Policy
The Supreme Law Firm holds informative seminars nationwide, and maintains the Supreme Law Library. Please honor our copyrights and our trademark rights, expressly reserved above. To order printed hard copies of our classic book "The Federal Zone," click here. To order signed and embossed copies of our very popular "31 Questions and Answers about the IRS," click here.
Contact Us
We no longer provide pro bono answers to questions that arise from this website. Please read our support policy before sending email questions.
Supreme Law Library
See the Supreme Law Forum for latest Update Highlights.
Supreme Law School Supreme Law Forum
This website will provide important updates and information about our distance-learning seminars and the SupremeLaw discussion list and message archive. We also provide a vital depository in our Supreme Law Library. Be sure to bookmark and return often as we grow into a vital and essential Internet resource. Founder Paul Andrew Mitchell, an advanced systems development consultant for 35 years, has spent the past sixteen years since 1990 A.D. doing a detailed investigation of the United States Constitution, federal statute laws, and the important court cases. Writing under several pen names, Mitchell's work has reached all the way into the U.S. Supreme Court, which adopted "the federal zone" as a household word in their sweeping 1995 decision in U.S. v. Lopez. His massive book entitled "The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue" was first published in 1992, and became an instant underground success for its lucid language and indisputable legal authority. The Appendices are available, for free, right here. Mitchell has litigated important cases in State and federal courts, including the case of People v. Boxer, which established that the so-called Sixteenth Amendment was a massive fraud upon the American People. U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer fell totally silent in the face of Mitchell's pleadings in that case. He has also worked as Vice President for Legal Affairs and Counsel to an Arizona Trust, in a major confrontation with the federal government over tax administration policy, and as Counsel to a trespass and piracy victim whose legal strategy has attracted nationwide attention on the Internet. Mitchell is also the Private Attorney General in the case of People v. United States et al., filed in the Article III District Court of the United States ("DCUS") in Billings, Montana state.
http://supremelaw.org/index.htm (1 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:17:19 PM]
Supreme Law Firm
Mitchell's work blazed a courageous new trail, on first impression, in Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, Missouri. This masterpiece, in 50 pages, has now withstood the test of time and remains unchallenged, and without any known errors. Mitchell most recently re-focused his research on Title 28 -- the laws which govern the entire federal court system. His Press Release is an excellent introduction to this topic. In his copyright and trademark infringement case against AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., Mitchell has forged a comprehensive foundation and nationwide strategy for lawfully restoring the Article III District Courts of the United States. His findings are fully documented in his OPENING BRIEF, delivered to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on March 27, 2002 A.D. and his REPLY briefs. His PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI in that case was delivered to the Supreme Court of the United States on June 6, 2003 A.D. See also the companion PETITION FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS in that case. Judging from the many compliments and positive comments we have received from numerous Internet users, we have every reason to expect that the Supreme Law Library will easily become an essential resource in your list of favorite digital libraries. [Home] [Contact Us] [Library] [School ] [Forum ] [Subscribe] [Donate] Common Law Copyright: 1996-2007 A.D. Supreme Law Firm email: Contact Us Last Update: January 20, 2007 A.D.
Supreme Law Firm c/o Forwarding Agent 501 W. Broadway #A-332 San Diego 92101 CALIFORNIA, USA
http://supremelaw.org/index.htm (2 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:17:19 PM]
Supreme Law Library
Welcome to the Supreme Law Library The Supreme Law Firm provides you with crucial information. Some of the features are long, so be patient when viewing them. Please allow the browser to load the document completely.
Table of Contents Latest Additions (links in progress): ● Published Authors ●
Court Cases
●
Court Decisions
●
Letters of Correspondence
●
Press Releases and Coverage
●
Reference Works
●
General Resources
●
E-mail Archive (SLS)
●
The Federal Zone: Authentic 11th Edition
●
The Federal Zone: Appendices
●
Internet Server Activity Logs
Court Cases (initial library versions): ● State of Alabama v. William Michael Kemp ●
U.S.A. v. Looker
●
Hawks v. County of Butte
●
U.S.A. v. Wallen
●
People v. United States
●
U.S.A. v. Knudson
●
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Served on New Life Health Center Company
●
U.S.A. v. Gilbertson
http://supremelaw.org/library/index.htm (1 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:17:19 PM]
Supreme Law Library
Articles and Interviews: ● "A Cogent Summary of Federal Jurisdictions" by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (October 3, 1998) ● "The Cooper File" by William Cooper (September 1995) ●
"Esquires" by John E. Trumane (December 1995)
●
"Income Taxes and Government Fraud" An Interview with John E. Trumane, by Susan B. Anthony (April 12, 1992) "Karma and the Federal Courts" by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (November 2, 1996)
●
●
"The Kick-Back Racket: Performance Management and Recognition System" by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (October 4, 1996) "Return To Constitutional Money" by Dr. Edwin J. Vieira, Jr. (August 30, 1991)
●
"The Two United States and the Law" by Howard Freeman
●
"The Lawless Rehnquist" by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (January 28, 1997)
●
Press Releases: ● "Anthrax Vaccine Warning" by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (December 19, 1997)
●
"Congresswoman Suspected of Income Tax Evasion" by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (August 28, 1996) "Juries in Check Around the Nation" by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (July 27, 1998)
●
"State Citizens Cannot Vote" by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (November 2, 1996)
●
[Home]
[Contact Us]
[Library]
[School ]
[Forum]
[Subscribe ] [Donate ]
Common Law Copyright 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 A.D.: Supreme Law Firm email: Contact Us Last Update: December 6, 2005 A.D.
http://supremelaw.org/library/index.htm (2 of 2) [4/8/2007 2:17:19 PM]
Supreme Law School
Supreme Law School ●
Supreme Law School Registration
●
Habeas Project for Political Prisoners
●
E-mail Archives
●
Free Archive Software (QBASIC) [Home] [Contact Us] [Library] [School ] [Forum] [Subscribe] [Donate] Common Law Copyright 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 A.D.: Supreme Law Firm email: Contact Us Last Update: December 6, 2005 A.D.
http://supremelaw.org/lawschool/index.htm [4/8/2007 2:17:20 PM]
Supreme Law Forum : Notice to Users
Supreme Law Forum
Notice to Users The Supreme Law Forum is presently available in READ ONLY mode, during a period of extended database updates and routine maintenance. In addition to all previous documents, a large number of new documents have been added to the Library, for your reading and study enjoyment. We expressly reserve our Right to remove all offensive messages from the Supreme Law Forum, as time and energy permit. A huge amount of new materials have been added to this website, for the benefit of the entire nation, pro bono! Please tell everyone you know. It's all free! It's all about freedom.
Update Highlights: ● Required Credentials for United States Judges ●
10 Major U.S. Universities Fall Silent (July 16, 2003 A.D.) Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., U.S. Supreme Court docket #03-5070
●
Ninth Circuit "Robes" under Formal Investigation (July 1, 2003 A.D.) (see probable cause and authorities in re: Presidential Commissions)
●
Lloyd D. George under Formal Investigation (June 18, 2003 A.D.) ("Robe" censoring Irwin Schiff's book "The Federal Mafia")
●
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT, (May 26, 2003 A.D.) Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., U.S. Supreme Court docket #03-5070 (.doc)
●
Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al. (March 12, 2003 A.D.) Civil RICO action, Superior Court of California, San Diego County, docket #GIC807057
●
MEMO TO JUDGE ALEX KOZINSKI, (Jan. 12, 2003 A.D.) Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., Ninth Circuit appeal #02-15269 (.doc)
●
MEMO TO DISTRICT COURT CLERK, (Dec. 30, 2002 A.D.) Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., Ninth Circuit appeal #02-15269 (.doc)
●
MEMO TO CHIEF JUDGE MARY M. SCHROEDER, (Dec. 27, 2002 A.D.)
http://supremelaw.org/wwwboard/index.htm (1 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:21 PM]
Supreme Law Forum : Notice to Users
Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., Ninth Circuit 372(c) #02-89005 (.doc) ●
COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT AGAINST JUDGE WILLIAM B. SHUBB (Dec. 23, 2002 A.D.)
●
COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT AGAINST MAGISTRATE DALE A. DROZD (Jan. 11, 2002 A.D.)
●
REFUSAL OF ORDER AND MEMORANDUM FOR FRAUD AND OTHER CAUSES, BY AFFIDAVIT, Judicial Council for the Ninth Circuit, 28 U.S.C. 372(c) #02-89005 (Dec. 23, 2002 A.D.) (.doc)
●
MEMO TO CHIEF JUDGE MARY M. SCHROEDER, (Dec. 23, 2002 A.D.) Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., Ninth Circuit appeal #02-15269 (.doc)
●
DEMAND FOR IMMEDIATE RECUSAL OF ALFRED T. GOODWIN, (Dec. 20, 2002 A.D.) Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., Ninth Circuit appeal #02-15269 (.doc)
●
DEMAND FOR IMMEDIATE RECUSAL OF PROCTER HUG, (Dec. 19, 2002 A.D.) Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., Ninth Circuit appeal #02-15269 (.doc)
●
MOTION FOR INTERVENTION OF RIGHT AND APPLICATION FOR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF QUO WARRANTO, Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., Ninth Circuit appeal #02-15269 (Dec. 19, 2002 A.D.) (.doc)
●
PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENTS, Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., Ninth Circuit appeal #02-15269 (Dec. 17, 2002 A.D.) (.doc)
●
MEMORANDUM NOT FOR PUBLICATION, Ninth Circuit (Dec. 13, 2002) Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., Ninth Circuit appeal #02-15269
●
Occurrences of the DCUS in Title 28, U.S.C. (highlighed in bold)
●
Occurrences of the USDC in Title 28, U.S.C. (highlighed in bold)
●
Brafman v. United States, 384 F.2d 863 (5th Cir. 1967) (23C assessment requires signature of assessment officer)
●
U.S. v. O'Dell, 160 F.2d 304 (6th Cir. 1947) (levy of bank account requires warrant of distraint)
●
1866 Civil Rights Act (origin of federal citizenship)
●
Withholding Exemption Certificate by Affidavit ("withholding exemption certificate" occurs 17 times in IRC 3402(n))
●
Supreme Law School : Message Archive: 121 mailboxes each with 100 messages
●
Detailed Letter to Jon Mummolo, Washington Square News, Nov. 9, 2002 A.D. (.doc)
http://supremelaw.org/wwwboard/index.htm (2 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:21 PM]
Supreme Law Forum : Notice to Users
●
U.S. Treasury Secretary Fails to Answer SUBPOENA for Tax Liability Statutes (See 31 U.S.C. 301. Title 31 has been enacted into positive law.) (.doc)
●
The Ghost of Social Security ("a huge tax-funded Ponzi scheme") The Wall Street Journal, July 12, 2000 A.D., Lead Editorial, Page A26
●
31Q&A Referral Program (Get the word out, get your money back, and more!)
●
Internet Server Activity Logs (Gaps resulted from witness retaliation.)
●
Summary of Damages Quantum Meruit, Mitchell v. Broderick et al. (pending).
●
Racketeering (RICO) Predicate Acts (see 18 U.S.C. 1961(1))
●
Letter to President and Mrs. Jimmy Carter (September 28, 2002 A.D.)
●
Letter to California Governor Gray Davis (August 28, 2002 A.D.)
●
Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States (Vols. I and II) (Committee convened under Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Jr.)
●
Portable version of "31 Questions and Answers about the IRS," (all hyperlinks are absolute, to facilitate file portability) (.doc)
●
Easy directions for subscribing to the SupremeLaw discussion list and message archive at Yahoo! Groups
●
Application for ORDER Dissolving the Internal Revenue Service as filed in People ex rel. Bybee et al. v. Andrew Erath et al., DCUS Santa Ana, California
●
Motions for Preliminary Injunction against IRS and to Freeze IRS Assets as filed in Ninth Circuit appeals #01-56873 and #02-55021
●
Tables of Contents for all pleadings and related documents as filed in Ninth Circuit appeals #01-56873 and #02-55021
●
Pleadings on behalf of Lynne Meredith and associates as filed in U.S.A. v. Lynne Meredith et al., USDC Los Angeles, California
●
Pleadings on behalf of Teresa Giordano, dba Quality Paralegal Services: see Tables of Contents for #SA CV 02-0382 GLT(ANx) and #CR 02-00372 DDP
●
Autographed copies of "The Federal Zone" are now available.
●
Table of Contents: Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.
●
America and the International Covenant: A Research Proposal to Amnesty International
http://supremelaw.org/wwwboard/index.htm (3 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:21 PM]
Supreme Law Forum : Notice to Users
June 18, 2001 A.D. ●
Legislative Proposal to Congressman George Radanovich, June 5, 2001 A.D.
●
The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue, authentic 11th edition (please do not traffic in any stolen or modified derivatives)
●
AntiCounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act of 1996 (.pdf) (criminal copyright infringement is now a RICO predicate act)
●
People's Application for Intervention of Right, George W. Bush v. Palm Beach Canvassing Board (November 2000 A.D. general election)
●
People's Application for Intervention of Right, U.S.A. v. Konicov (federal income taxes)
●
Supreme Law Seminar Outline, with links to Supreme Law Library
●
Initial COMPLAINT: Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.
●
First SUPPLEMENT: Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.
●
Second SUPPLEMENT: Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.
●
Third SUPPLEMENT: Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.
●
Supreme Law Library: Development Cost (1990-2002 A.D.)
●
Recent additions from Charles Adams, Norman Dodd, and Roscoe Pound.
●
A.L.E.R.T. on Voluntary Nature of Social Security
●
IRS Strategic Plan 1984 (PDF format)
●
31 Questions about the IRS: Can you answer them all correctly?
●
31 Answers about the IRS: Certified by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (now fully linked: please report link errors to the Webmaster) (.doc)
●
Bank Levy Procedure for challenging IRS levies on bank accounts.
●
IRS Intelligence Activities: Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, Senate Resolution 21, Vol. 3, Oct. 2, 1975.
●
Free appendices from "The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue," electronic Ninth Edition; hypertext links are in progress.
●
Archive of 12,000+ e-mail messages broadcasted to the Supreme Law School and other Internet users, indexed by alphabetical subject and date. See Index 1, Index 2, Index 3 and Index 4.
●
Active links are being added to many documents.
http://supremelaw.org/wwwboard/index.htm (4 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:21 PM]
Supreme Law Forum : Notice to Users
A good entry point is the Press Releases, e.g. the jury verdict in Mitchell v. Nordbrock. ●
OPENING BRIEF in U.S.A. v. Gilbertson is fully linked to the United States Code at Cornell's Internet website and to all internal topic headings.
●
Winning brief by John E. Trumane in opposition to an Order to Show Cause to appear at an IRS audit hearing. This case was quietly dismissed by a federal judge.
●
People v. Boxer (16th amendment fraud) makes its debut on the Internet here. These pleadings are rare and hard to find.
●
The transcript of a lecture by Lt. Col. James "Bo" Gritz at St. Mary's Cathedral in San Francisco, June 1, 1990. Learn about the "Golden Triangle" and why children are addicts.
●
Criminal complaint against Mr. Procter Hug, Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in connection with In Re Grand Jury Subpoena and the well documented downfall of the IRS [sic].
●
Evidence of criminal interstate racketeering in the U.S. Department of Justice, downtown Los Angeles.
●
Paul Andrew Mitchell's Texas State lawsuit against organized government abuses of the SSN. (Some exhibit URL's will be added later.)
●
Paul Andrew Mitchell's Arizona state cross-complaints against 45 criminal co-conspirators.
●
Collected works of Dan Meador, arranged in four sets: file set one, file set two, file set three, file set four.
●
and much, much more!
We appreciate your courteous participation in this Forum, and we will do our best to maintain a high level of database integrity at all times. All constructive comments are always encouraged and reviewed by our experienced leaders in constitutional litigation and computer systems development. Most of all, we give our sincerest thanks to the Most High -Creator of this universe, our home, to His living Son -- the King of Kings and to the Holy Spirit -- who inspires and supports this project. As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal in our hearts and in our souls.
http://supremelaw.org/wwwboard/index.htm (5 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:21 PM]
Supreme Law Forum : Notice to Users
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, everyone! Amen. Sincerely yours, /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Counselor at Law, Federal Witness, Private Attorney General, and Supreme Law Webmaster
[Home] [Contact Us] [Library] [School] [Forum] [Subscribe] [Donate]
Common Law Copyright 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 A.D.: Supreme Law Firm email: Contact Us Last Update: December 6, 2005 A.D.
http://supremelaw.org/wwwboard/index.htm (6 of 6) [4/8/2007 2:17:21 PM]
SupremeLaw Email Group : Subscription Directions
SupremeLaw Subscriptions
User Directions
Welcome! To subscribe to the SupremeLaw discussion list and message archive, send subscription fees and your email address to the mailing location at the bottom of our home page:
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
The SupremeLaw subscription fees are:
$120.00 if subscription is paid in January $110.00 if subscription is paid in February $100.00 if subscription is paid in March $90.00 if subscription is paid in April $80.00 if subscription is paid in May $70.00 if subscription is paid in June $60.00 if subscription is paid in July $50.00 if subscription is paid in August $40.00 if subscription is paid in September $30.00 if subscription is paid in October $20.00 if subscription is paid in November $10.00 if subscription is paid in December
You may prepay in U.S. cash or blank money order to:
http://supremelaw.org/egroups/subscribe.htm (1 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:17:22 PM]
SupremeLaw Email Group : Subscription Directions
Forwarding Agent 501 W. Broadway, #A-332 San Diego 92101
CALIFORNIA, USA After we confirm your prepayment, we will add your email address to the “pending” list at Topica.
You should receive a confirmation message from Topica.
Just reply to that confirmation message, to activate your subscription.
The Donation Worksheet itemizes the costs we incur to maintain the Supreme Law Library and email group.
If you do not wish to join the SupremeLaw Group, please ignore this invitation.
Regards,
Moderator, SupremeLaw
Thank you! [Home] [Contact Us] [Library] [School] [Forum] [Subscribe] [Donate] Common Law Copyright 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 A.D.: Supreme Law Firm
email: Contact Us
http://supremelaw.org/egroups/subscribe.htm (2 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:17:22 PM]
SupremeLaw Email Group : Subscription Directions
Last Update: April 9, 2006 A.D.
http://supremelaw.org/egroups/subscribe.htm (3 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:17:22 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Donation Worksheet
Supreme Law Library:
Donation Worksheet
Please apportion your generous donations among the following expense categories:
1. Internet service provider fees
_________
2. domain name registration fees
3. local ISP connection fees
4. office lease/rental fees
_________
_________
_________
5. office utility fees (electricity, gas)
_________
6. office telephone expenses
_________
7. office stationery and misc. supplies
_________
8. computer hardware maintenance/upgrades
9. computer software acquisition/upgrades
_________
10. copy center/document reproduction costs
11. postage and shipping expenses
12. book purchases/library acquisition costs
13. library legal/historical research
14. periodical/magazine subscriptions
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
http://supremelaw.org/egroups/donate.htm (1 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:17:22 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Donation Worksheet
15. pro bono legal assistance to indigents
_________
16. donations to public interest litigation
_________
17. donations to support prison ministry
_________
18. development of distance-learning curricula
19. conference attendance and related travel
_________
_________
20. political action to dismantle IRS
_________
21. personnel salaries and benefits
_________
22. other (please specify):
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________ _________
Total Amount Enclosed: =========
Please mail your donations, in cash or blank Money Orders, to:
Forwarding Agent 501 W. Broadway #A-332 San Diego 92101 CALIFORNIA, USA
Thank you very much for supporting the Supreme Law Library,
http://supremelaw.org/egroups/donate.htm (2 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:17:22 PM]
Supreme Law Library : Donation Worksheet
a public domain project of the Supreme Law Firm.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General and Webmaster, Supreme Law Library:
http://www.supremelaw.org
It’s Free! It’s all about Freedom.
http://supremelaw.org/egroups/donate.htm (3 of 3) [4/8/2007 2:17:22 PM]
Related Documents
Wallen Cases
November 2019 13
Cases
October 2019 54
Cases
November 2019 56
Thirdeyeofshiva John Wallen-formatted
October 2019 13
Macht Op De Wallen
May 2020 9