Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris
Citizen of Minnesota state
and federal witness
c/o general delivery
Battle Lake [zip code exempt]
MINNESOTA STATE
In Propria Persona
Under Protest and
by Special Visitation
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic], ) Case No. 97-2099-MNST
)
Plaintiff [sic]/ ) USDC Minneapolis #CR-4-96-65
Appellees, )
v. )
)
EVERETT C. GILBERTSON [sic], )
)
Defendant [sic]/ )
Appellant. )
________________________________)
)
Everett C. Gilbertson, ) DCUS Minneapolis #4-96-65
)
Plaintiff/Appellant, )
)
v. ) APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
)
United States, ) (first impression)
James M. Rosenbaum, )
and Does 2-99, ) ON APPEAL FROM CONVICTION
) AND JUDGMENT IN THE USDC
Respondents. )
________________________________)
Prepared
on Behalf of Appellant
by
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Counselor at Law, federal witness
and Counsel to Appellant
Appellant’s Opening Brief: Cover Page
Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris
Citizen of Minnesota state
and federal witness
c/o general delivery
Battle Lake [zip code exempt]
MINNESOTA STATE
In Propria Persona
Under Protest and
by Special Visitation
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic], ) Case No. 97-2099-MNST
)
Plaintiff [sic]/ ) USDC Minneapolis #CR-4-96-65
Appellees, )
v. )
)
EVERETT C. GILBERTSON [sic], )
)
Defendant [sic]/ )
Appellant. )
________________________________)
)
Everett C. Gilbertson, ) DCUS Minneapolis #4-96-65
)
Plaintiff/Appellant, ) APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF:
)
v. ) (first impression)
)
United States, ) ON APPEAL FROM CONVICTION
James M. Rosenbaum, ) AND JUDGMENT IN THE USDC
and Does 2-99, )
)
Respondents. )
________________________________)
COMES NOW Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris, Citizen of Minnesota
state, federal witness, expressly not a citizen of the United
States (hereinafter "federal citizen"), and Appellant in the
above entitled matter (hereinafter "Appellant") to submit this,
His OPENING BRIEF on first impression in the above entitled
cases, and respectfully to request full appellate review of all
proceedings below, with emphasis on the issues discussed herein.
Appellant’s Opening Brief: Preface Page
(1) Summary
The USDC erred by denying both a motion to stay proceedings
and a motion to reconsider same. Appellant's challenge to the
Jury Selection and Service Act ("JSSA") had serious implications
for the legality of the indicting grand jury, and the convicting
petit jury. This challenge deserved final review before trial.
The judge of the USDC committed serious errors by alleging
to preside over sentencing and by alleging to deny Appellant's
MOTION FOR RELEASE PENDING APPEAL, due to an obvious, adverse
conflict of interest, in violation of 28 U.S.C. 455.
Appellant's civil case in the DCUS should be allowed to
proceed, to obtain pivotal declaratory relief from a competent
and qualified federal petit jury concerning several substantive
questions of law and fact which arose in the record below.
A three-judge federal panel presiding over the DCUS should
be convened, enjoined from issuing summary remands of the cases
back to the USDC, and mandated to proceed to trial on the merits.
All of Appellant's constitutional challenges should also be
decided finally by this honorable Court, or the U.S. Supreme
Court, before any further proceedings occur in either the USDC,
or the DCUS, due to their obvious impact on matters to be decided
in those two forums.
Request for Oral Argument
Appellant hereby requests leave for Appellant's Counselor,
Paul Andrew Mitchell, to present oral arguments to this honorable
Court, by allocating at most five (5) minutes to each of the
seven (7) major issues which are itemized infra. Such a schedule
would require a maximum of thirty-five (5 x 7 = 35) minutes of
oral arguments by Appellant's Counselor, who authored this Brief.
Appellant’s Opening Brief: Page 1 of 50
(2) Table of Contents
Page
(1) Summary .................................................. 1
(2) Table of Contents (this page) ............................ 2
(A) Table of Cases ...................................... 3
(B) Statutes ............................................ 4
(C) Other Authorities ................................... 5
(3) Preliminary Statement .................................... 7
Verification by Appellant ........................... 7
(4) Statement of Issues: ..................................... 8
(A) Jury Selection and Service Act ("JSSA") ............. 8
(B) Minnesota Voter Registration Practices ............. 11
(C) Apportionment of Congressional Districts ........... 15
(D) Blanket FOIA Exemption for Judiciary ............... 19
(E) Federal Removal Statutes ........................... 27
(F) Downes Doctrine Revisited .......................... 40
(G) Vagueness in the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC") ..... 44
(5) Statement of the Case ................................... 48
(6) Summary of Argument ..................................... 49
(7) Proof of Service ........................................ 50
(8) Appendices, by docket date/entry (under separate cover):
5/16/97 MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (8th Circuit)
4/17/97 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
4/17/97 AFFIDAVIT OF APPLICABLE LAW & DENIAL OF LIABILITY
4/14/97 PETITION FOR WARRANT OF REMOVAL BY 3-JUDGE PANEL
4/09/97 AFFIDAVITS OF DEFAULT AND OF PROBABLE CAUSE
4/02/97 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF STAY MOTION (2 of 3)
4/02/97 VERIFIED STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF CHALLENGE TO JSSA
3/20/97 NOTICE & DEMAND FOR PROOF OF POWER, STANDING, JURISDIC.
3/20/97 NOTICE & DEMAND TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF CRIMINAL JURIS.
3/20/97 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF CHALLENGE TO CRIMINAL JURIS.
2/18/97 NOTICE & DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE (FOIA)
10/31/96 MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS/CHALLENGE TO JSSA (1 of 3)
10/31/96 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
7/17/96 MEMORANDUM: CITIZENSHIP STATUS OF USDC JURORS
6/06/96 STATUS REPORT & CITIZEN'S GUIDE TO THE FOIA/PRIVACY ACT
library The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue
Appellant’s Opening Brief: Page 2 of 50
(A) Table of Cases
U.S. Supreme Court:
American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton:........ 30, 31, 33
Atkins v. Texas:.............................................. 10
Baker v. Carr:................................................ 13
Balzac v. Porto Rico [sic]:............................... 31, 33
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company:.................. 25
Cassell v. Texas:............................................. 10
Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.:..................... 7
Connally v. General Construction Co.:......................... 45
Downes v. Bidwell:................................ 12, 26, 40, 42
Evans v. Gore:............................................ 40, 41
Gregory v. Ashcroft:.......................................... 12
Helstoski v. Meanor:........................................... 7
Hooven & Allison v. Evatt:................................ 24, 43
International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union
v. Juneau Spruce Corp.:..................................... 31
Marbury v. Madison:........................................... 13
Miranda v. Arizona:........................................... 13
Mookini v. U.S.:.............................................. 28
New York v. United States:.................................... 12
Norton v. Shelby County:...................................... 13
O'Donoghue v. U.S.:........................................... 28
O'Malley v. Woodrough:........................................ 41
Pierre v. Louisiana:.......................................... 10
Slaughter House Cases:......................................... 8
South Carolina v. Katzenbach:................................. 13
Spreckles Sugar Refining Co. v. McLain:....................... 46
U.S. v. Cruikshank:........................................ 8, 44
U.S. v. Lopez:..................................... 9, 30, 42, 43
U.S. v. Wigglesworth:......................................... 45
Waltz v. Tax Commission of New York City:..................... 27
U.S. Court of Appeals:
Denison v. Commissioner (8th Cir.):........................... 23
Graves v. Snead (6th Cir.):................................... 29
Hubbard v. Ammerman (5th Cir.):............................... 29
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union
v. Wirtz (9th Cir.):........................................ 31
Lively v. Commissioner (8th Cir.):............................ 23
U.S. v. Griffin (9th Cir.):.................................... 7
U.S. v. Hicks (9th Cir.):..................................... 40
U.S. v. Johnson (4th Cir.):................................... 32
U.S. v. Layton (9th Cir.):..................................... 7
U.S. v. Saunders (9th Cir.):.................................. 29
U.S. v. Tweel (5th Cir.):..................................... 20
U.S. v. Woodley (9th Cir.):................................... 27
U.S. v. Yellows Freight Systems, Inc. (9th Cir.):.............. 7
Valley Broadcasting Co. v. USDC (9th Cir.):................... 20
Federal District Courts:
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Served on New Life Health Center,
(USDC, D. Arizona):..................................... 18, 43
Lord v. Kelley (USDC, D. Massachusetts):...................... 41
U.S. v. De Cadena (USDC, N.D. California):.................... 44
U.S. v. One 1972 Cadillac Coupe de Ville (USDC, E.D.Ky.):..... 28
Appellant’s Opening Brief: Page 3 of 50
State Courts:
Alexander v. R.D. Geier & Sons Co. (Maryland Appeals):........ 14
Carmine v. Bowen (Maryland Appeals):...................... 17, 20
Carter v. Commission on Qualifications (California Supreme):.. 13
Crosse v. Board of Supervisors (Maryland Appeals):............. 8
Dyett v. Turner (Utah Supreme):............................... 24
Erdahl v. Spannaus (Minnesota District):...................... 11
Ex parte Knowles (California Supreme):......................... 9
Fort v. Civil Service Commission: (California Supreme):....... 13
Gardina v. Board of Registrars (Alabama Supreme):.......... 8, 10
People v. Boxer (California Supreme):..................... 23, 27
People v. Pablo De La Guerra (California Supreme):............. 9
People v. Washington (California Supreme):................. 13-14
Respublica v. Wray (Pennsylvania Supreme):.................... 20
State v. Bernoudy (Missouri Supreme):......................... 20
State v. Christensen (Utah Supreme):.......................... 20
State v. Fowler (Louisiana Supreme):........................... 8
State v. Jones (Hawaii Supreme):.............................. 10
Other Courts:
Roa v. Collector (Philippine Supreme):........................ 11
(B) Statutes
Federal Statutes:
1 U.S.C.:.................................................... 44
1 U.S.C. 1:.............................................. 28, 32
5 U.S.C. 551(A), (B):........................................ 20
5 U.S.C. 552 et seq.:........................................ 35
5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B):........................... 18, 35, 36, 38
5 U.S.C. 552(f):............................................. 19
5 U.S.C. 3331:........................................... 20, 38
18 U.S.C. 241:................................................ 14
18 U.S.C. 1962:............................................... 32
18 U.S.C. 1964:............................................... 32
18 U.S.C. 3241:............................................... 31
26 U.S.C.:............................................ 29, 44, 45
26 U.S.C. 7206(1):............................................. 7
26 U.S.C. 7401:............................................... 28
28 U.S.C.:........................................ 17, 29, 30, 45
28 U.S.C. 132:............................................ 29, 45
28 U.S.C. 297:................................................ 12
28 U.S.C. 453:............................................ 20, 38
28 U.S.C. 951:............................................ 20, 38
28 U.S.C. 1291:................................................ 7
28 U.S.C. 1346(1):............................................ 22
28 U.S.C. 1441 et seq.:................................... 32, 33
28 U.S.C. 1441(a):............................................ 35
28 U.S.C. 1441(b):.................................... 34, 35, 39
28 U.S.C. 1441(e):.................................... 27, 38, 39
28 U.S.C. 1443:............................................... 37
28 U.S.C. 1446(c)(1):......................................... 36
28 U.S.C. 1447(d):............................ 27, 36, 37, 38, 39
28 U.S.C. 1451(2):........................................ 34, 39
28 U.S.C. 1631:........................................... 22, 39
28 U.S.C. 1652:............................................... 40
28 U.S.C. 1738-1742:.......................................... 19
28 U.S.C. 1746(1):......................................... 7, 21
Appellant’s Opening Brief: Page 4 of 50
28 U.S.C. 1861:............................................... 16
28 U.S.C. 1865(b)(1):............................... 8, 9, 10, 16
28 U.S.C. 1867(d):........................................ 16, 45
28 U.S.C. 2284:............................................... 15
28 U.S.C. 2402:............................................... 22
Act June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 895:.......................... 29, 30
Act November 13, 1963, 77 Stat. 331:.......................... 29
Act September 13, 1994:....................................... 14
Civil Rights Act (1866):....................................... 9
Expatriation Statute:......................................... 12
Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"):....................................................18, 19, 21, 27, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
Internal Revenue Code ("IRC"):.................... 23, 24, 44, 46IRC section 1(c):............................................. 23
IRC section 7206:............................................. 44
IRC section 7401:......................................... 27, 44
IRC section 7402:..................................... 28, 29, 44
IRC section 7851(a)(6)(A):.................................... 44
IRC subtitle F:............................................... 44
Jury Selection and Service Act ("JSSA"):.................. 11, 15P.L. 92-310, P.L. 103-322:................................ 28, 14
State Statutes:
Minnesota Statute 201.014:.................................... 11
(C) Other Authorities
Federal Constitution:
U.S. Constitution:.10, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 28, 29, 40, 42, 43
Article I:................................................ 28, 41
Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 ("1:2:2"):...................... 9Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 ("1:2:3"):................. 23, 24Article I, Section 3, Clause 3 ("1:3:3"):...................... 9Article I, Section 8:......................................... 23
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 ("1:8:17"):............ 9, 40, 43Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 ("1:9:4"):................. 23, 24Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 ("2:1:5"):..................... 9Article III:.............................. 18, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32
Article III, Section 1 ("3:1"):................... 40, 41, 42, 43Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 ("3:2:1"):.................... 9Article IV:........................................... 28, 32, 41
Article IV, Section 1 ("4:1"):............................ 10, 19 Full Faith and Credit Clause ("4:1"):.................. 10, 19Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 ("4:2:1"):................. 9, 41 Privileges and Immunities Clause ("4:2:1"):............. 9, 41Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 ("4:3:2"):............. 9, 31, 34 Territory Clause ("4:3:2"):......................... 9, 31, 34Article IV, Section 4 ("4:4"):.................... 11, 12, 13, 15 Guarantee Clause ("4:4"):...................... 11, 12, 13, 15Article VI, Clause 2 ("6:2"):..................... 12, 13, 19, 20 Supremacy Clause ("6:2"):...................... 12, 13, 19, 20Article VI, Clause 3 ("6:3"):..................... 19, 20, 21, 38 Oath of Office Clause ("6:3"):................. 19, 20, 21, 38Preamble, Bill of Rights:..................................... 14
First Amendment:.......................................... 11, 15
Petition Clause:....................................... 19, 34
Fifth Amendment:...................................... 21, 34, 37
Due Process Clause:.................................... 27, 37
Appellant’s Opening Brief: Page 5 of 50
Sixth Amendment:.............................................. 44
Nature and Cause Clause:................................... 44
Seventh Amendment:............................................ 22
Ninth Amendment:.......................................... 21, 43
Tenth Amendment:.......................... 11, 15, 16, 21, 34, 43
Thirteenth Amendment (1819):.............................. 10, 20
Fourteenth amendment (1868):.......................... 13, 23, 24
Sixteenth amendment (1913):................... 23, 24, 40, 46, 47
Declaration of Independence:.................................. 14
United States Treaties:............................... 27, 35, 40
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:..... 27, 40
Universal Declaration of Human Rights:.................... 27, 40
State Constitutions:.......................................... 21
Minnesota state Constitution:............................. 11, 15
Article VII, Sections 1, 6:................................ 11
Code of Federal Regulations:
26 CFR 1.1-1(a)(1):........................................... 23
26 CFR 1.1-1(a) thru (c):..................................... 23
31 CFR 51.2:.............................................. 34, 37
31 CFR 52.2:.............................................. 34, 37
Federal Rules of Procedure:
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Local Rule 28A(j):...... 25
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 38:.................... 22
Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 201(d):....................... 19
U.S. Treasury Decisions:
Treasury Decision 2313:................................... 24, 25
Legal Maxims/Doctrines:
Downes Doctrine:...................................... 24, 40, 43
Equal Footing Doctrine:....................................... 13
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius:.............. 9, 10, 29, 35
In pari materia:.............................................. 22
Lex non cogit impossibilia:................................... 25
Nunc pro tunc:................................................ 22
Reductio ad absurdum:.......................................... 9
Other Sources:
A Citizen's Guide on Using the Freedom of Information Act
and the Privacy Act of 1974 to Request Government Records,
1993 Edition, H. Rep. 103-104, 103rd Cong., 1st Sess.:...... 18
American Digest System:....................................... 21
American Jurisprudence:....................................... 13
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition:.. 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 29
Corpus Juris:................................................. 20
Corpus Juris Secundum:........................................ 20
The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue:.........
............................................... 9, 24, 25, 42, 47
Merritt, "The Guarantee Clause and State Autonomy: Federalism
for a Third Century," 88 Columbia Law Review 1 (1988):...... 12
Sutherland, Statutes and Statutory Construction:.............. 45
UCLA Law Review, Vol. 24, No. 2, Dec. 1976:................... 41
Appellant’s Opening Brief: Page 6 of 50
(3) Preliminary Statement
i. The instant appeal is taken from conviction and
judgment by Mr. James M. Rosenbaum, claiming to preside
on the United States District Court, District of
Minnesota, Fourth Division, at Minneapolis, Minnesota
state, for two counts of violating 26 U.S.C. 7206(1).
ii. Appellant alleges, and herein proves, that the United
States District Court ("USDC") which prosecuted Appellant lacked any jurisdiction whatsoever, civil or
criminal, over the subject matters which arose in the
instant cases.
iii. This United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit has appellate jurisdiction of the instant
Criminal Case [sic], pursuant to the Final Judgments
Act at 28 U.S.C. 1291.
iv. This Court also has appellate jurisdiction of the
instant Civil Case, pursuant to decisions of the U.S.
Supreme Court in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan
Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528
(1949); Helstoski v. Meanor, 442 U.S. 500, 99 S.Ct.
2445, 2449, 61 L.Ed.2d 30 (1979); U.S. v. Griffin, 617
F.2d 1342, 1345-46 (9th Cir. 1980), cert denied, 101
S.Ct. 167, 66 L.Ed.2d 80; and U.S. v. Yellows Freight
Systems, Inc., 637 F.2d 1248 (9th Cir. 1981). See also
U.S. v. Layton, 645 F.2d 681, 682-683 (9th Cir. 1981),
citing Cohen supra at 682-683.
(A) Verification by Appellant
I, Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris, hereby verify, under penalty
of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America,
without (outside) the "United States" (federal government), that
the following statement of facts and laws is 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/ Everett C. Gilbertson
_____________________________________
Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris
Citizen of Minnesota state, federal witness
(expressly not a citizen of the United States)
Appellant’s Opening Brief: Page 7 of 50
(4) Statement of Issues
Appellant hereby gives appropriate priority to the following
challenges to the constitutionality of certain federal statutes,
to wit:
(A) The Jury Selection and Service Act, Title 28, United
States Code (hereinafter "U.S.C."), section 1865(b)(1),
is unconstitutional for exhibiting class discrimination
against Citizens of Minnesota state who are not also
federal citizens, in violation of the First and Tenth
Amendments, and the Guarantee Clause.
There are two (2) classes of citizenship under American law
never repealed, not one (1). See Gardina v. Board of Registrars,
160 Ala. 155, 48 S. 788, 791 (1909). A Person may be a Citizen
of a particular state, and not a federal citizen. Confer at
"Federal citizenship" in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.
To hold otherwise would be to deny to Minnesota state the highest
exercise of its sovereignty -- the Right to declare who are its
Citizens. See State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 602 (1889);
Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections, 243 Md. 555, 221
A.2d 431, 434 (1966). Confer at "Right" and "Election" in
Black's supra, to derive "Right of Election" [sic].
We have in our political system a government of the United
States (federal government), and a government of each of the
several states of the Union. Each of these 51 governments is
distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own. See
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875). It is quite
clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States
("federal citizenship"), and a Citizenship of Minnesota state
("state Citizenship"), which are distinct from each other, and
which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in
the individual. See Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872).
Appellant’s Opening Brief: Page 8 of 50
The prohibited class discrimination in the Jury Selection
and Service Act ("JSSA") results in a demonstrably absurd
consequence. A Citizen of Minnesota state, who is not also a
federal citizen by Right of Election, is not a "resident alien"
by any stretch of the imagination. A Citizen of Minnesota state
is a nonresident alien with respect to the municipal jurisdiction
of the District of Columbia, also known as "the federal zone".
See Kennedy concurring in U.S. v. Lopez, 115 S.Ct. 1624 (1995);
1:2:2, 1:3:3, 1:8:17, 2:1:5, 3:2:1, 4:2:1 and 4:3:2 in the U.S.
Constitution; T.D. 2313; The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of
Internal Revenue, electronic Seventh Edition (1997).
Prior to the 1866 Civil Rights Act, there was no such thing
as a "citizen of the United States" [sic]. See Ex parte Knowles,
5 Cal. 300 (1855). The qualifications for serving in the U.S.
Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, and the White House, all
refer to Citizens of one of the several states of the Union, and
not to federal citizens; these provisions have never been
amended; they retain today the meaning which they had when the
U.S. Constitution was first enacted into the supreme Law. See
People v. Pablo De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870); Jus soli.
Therefore, the federal JSSA is unconstitutional for
deliberately excluding those very People who are eligible to
serve in the highest elective offices in the federal government;
this result is absurd. Confer at "Reductio ad absurdum" in
Black's supra. The omission of state Citizens from the JSSA was
intentional. Confer at "Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius" in
Black's supra. An irrefutable inference must be drawn that what
was omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded.
Appellant’s Opening Brief: Page 9 of 50
Similarly, since federal citizenship did not even exist, as
such, prior to 1866, the U.S. House, Senate, and White House must
have been occupied entirely by impostors between 1789 and 1865 --
a period of some 77 years. This result is also absurd, absent
further authoritative proof. See original Thirteenth Amendment
(1819); Full Faith and Credit Clause; Acts of the Virginia
Legislature circa 1819; Colorado state Records Custodian.
An intentional discrimination against a class of Persons,
solely because of their class, by officers in charge of the
selection and summoning of grand or petit jurors in a criminal
case, is a violation of the fundamental Rights of the Accused.
See Cassell v. Texas, 339 U.S. 282 (1950); Atkins v. Texas,
325 U.S. 398 (1945); Pierre v. Louisiana, 306 U.S. 354 (1939).
Such a violation is not excused by the fact that the persons
actually selected for jury service otherwise possess the
necessary qualifications for jurors as prescribed by statute.
See State v. Jones, 365 P.2d 460 (1961).
Discrimination in the selection of a grand or petit jury, as
prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, means an intentional,
systematic non-inclusion because of class. There are two (2)
classes of citizenship in American Law never repealed. E.g.
Gardina supra. The statute at 28 U.S.C. 1865(b)(1) specifically
excludes those classes of Citizens who are not mentioned. Confer
at "Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius" in Black's supra.
Therefore, Appellant was neither indicted by a legal body,
nor was Appellant convicted by a legal body, thereby depriving
the trial court of jurisdiction over the subject matter in the
first instance.
Appellant’s Opening Brief: Page 10 of 50
(B) The statutes and practices of Minnesota state, and of
all other 49 states by logical extension, are likewise
unconstitutional for requiring that all registered
voters be federal citizens before they are eligible to
vote in general elections of U.S. Representatives, U.S.
Senators, and the President of the United States, in
violation of the First and Tenth Amendments and also
the Guarantee Clause.
For reasons which are identical to the reasons why the JSSA
is unconstitutional, the corresponding constitutional provisions,
statutes, and practices of Minnesota state are likewise
unconstitutional for requiring that all registered voters be
federal citizens before they are eligible to vote in general
elections of U.S. Representatives, Senators, and the President.
A Minnesota state district court has ruled that a person who
is eighteen years old, a citizen of the United States [sic], and
a resident of Minnesota for twenty days, is qualified to vote.
The decision was not appealed. See Erdahl v. Spannaus et al.,
No. 393442, Ramsey District court, May 9, 1974; Minnesota
Statute 201.014 (Eligibility to Vote); Minnesota Constitution,
Article VII, Section 1, notes thereunder, and Section 6.
Congress therefore erred by adjudging Minnesota's state
constitution to be Republican in Form when Minnesota was first
admitted to the Union, and by neglecting to oversee subsequent
amendments to Minnesota's state constitution, because such a
restriction on voter eligibility is a clear violation of the
First and Tenth Amendments and also the Guarantee Clause ("4:4").
Citizenship, strictly speaking, is a term of municipal law.
See Roa v. Collector of Customs, 23 Philippine 315, 332 (1912).
Since the federal zone is, by definition, not a Union state,
there is no constitutional requirement that its municipal laws
and government(s) be Republican in Form [sic].
Appellant’s Opening Brief: Page 11 of 50
Federal citizens are members of a political community who
owe their allegiance to a government which is not Republican in
Form, at present; it is an absolute legislative democracy. See
Downes infra, Harlan dissenting. To force Citizens of Minnesota
state into this allegiance, as a condition precedent to electing
their Representatives in the U.S. Congress, is to force a
violation of the Guarantee Clause, at its most basic level.
The Guarantee Clause must be construed by this honorable
Court to enforce the Right of Election among Citizens of the
several states, and among federal citizens as well. See
Supremacy Clause; Jus soli; Act July 27, 1868, 15 Statutes at
Large, Chapter CCXLIX (i.e. 249), Section 1; 28 U.S.C. 297
(Union states are "countries"). Confer at "Expatriation" in
Black's supra (i.e. one's "country" [sic]).
Speaking through Justice O'Connor, the Supreme Court of the
United States ("U.S. Supreme Court") has raised without deciding
the possibility that the Guarantee Clause is justiciable and is a
constraint upon Congress' power to regulate the activities of the
several states. See New York v. United States, 112 S.Ct. 2408,
2432-2433 (1992); Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 463 (1991).
These opinions draw support from a powerful argument for
utilizing the Guarantee Clause as a judicially enforceable limit
on federal power. See Merritt, "The Guarantee Clause and State
Autonomy: Federalism for a Third Century," 88 Columbia Law Review
1 (1988). The restriction that Citizens of Minnesota state
cannot vote unless they also declare, under penalty of perjury,
that they are federal citizens, is a justiciable violation of the
Guarantee Clause ("4:4"). See also Supremacy Clause.
Appellant’s Opening Brief: Page 12 of 50