Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris
c/o General Delivery
Battle Lake [zip code exempt]
MINNESOTA STATE

In Propria Persona

Under Protest and
by Special Visitation






                  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                      DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

                         FOURTH DIVISION


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic], ) Case No. CR-4-96-65
                                ) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
          Plaintiff [sic],      ) FOR RECONSIDERATION;
                                ) NOTICE OF EXPLICIT RESERVATION;
     v.                         ) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
                                ) TO STAY PROCEEDINGS FOR
EVERETT C. GILBERTSON [sic],    ) FAILING TO COMPLY WITH
                                ) JURY SELECTION POLICY;  AND
          Defendant [sic].      ) NOTICE OF CHALLENGE AND
                                ) CHALLENGE TO CONSTITUTIONALITY
                                ) OF FEDERAL STATUTE:
                                ) 28 U.S.C. 297, 517, 518, 1861,
                                ) 1865, 1867(d), (e);
                                ) F.R.Cr.P. Rule 6(b)(2);
                                ) F.R.Evid. Rule 201(d);
________________________________) Full Faith and Credit Clause


COMES NOW  Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris, Citizen of Minnesota

state, expressly  not a  citizen of  the United  States ("federal

citizen") and Defendant in the above entitled matter (hereinafter

"Defendant"), to  reserve His fundamental Right to abate all jury

actions in  the instant case; to Petition this honorable Court to

reconsider  Defendant's  previously  filed  Motion  to  stay  the

instant proceedings,  pursuant to  the  provisions  of  28 U.S.C.

1867(d), pending  final review of Plaintiff's proper challenge to

the constitutionality of 28 U.S.C. 1865; and to provide notice of

same to all interested parties.  The offensive statute follows:


       Motion to Stay Proceedings, Challenge to Statute :
                          Page 1 of 11


     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
          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]


     In stark  contrast, it  is the  policy of  the United States

that all citizens shall have the opportunity to be considered for

service on  juries in  the  district courts of the United States.

To be  constitutional, and  to be consistent with its legislative

intent, the  term "all  citizens", as  that term  is used  in  28

U.S.C. 1861,  must be  construed to  include also Citizens of the

freely associated compact states who 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]


       Motion to Stay Proceedings, Challenge to Statute :
                          Page 2 of 11


     Plaintiff hereby  provides notice  to all interested parties

of His  verified statement  of law  and facts  which constitute a

substantial  failure  to  comply  with  the  Constitution for the

United States  of America, as lawfully amended (hereinafter "U.S.

Constitution"), and  with  the  provisions  of  28  U.S.C.  1861:

Declaration  of  Policy.   See 28 U.S.C. 1867(d)  and (e).    The

indicting Grand  Jury and  the convicting Petit Jury consisted of

members all  of whom  were citizens  of the  United  States,  not

necessarily Citizens of Minnesota state.  See Dyett v. Turner and

State v.  Phillips infra;  Right of Election;  voter registration

affidavits;  U.S. v. Griffith, 2 F.2d 925 (1924).  Also confer at

"Federal citizenship" in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.

     By way  of introduction  to the  crucial matters of fact and

law  which  are  discussed  at  length  in  Plaintiff's  verified

statement, which  is incorporated  by reference  as if  set forth

fully herein,  this honorable  Court is  hereby requested to take

formal judicial notice of the following standing authorities:

     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
     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)]
                                                 [emphasis added]


       Motion to Stay Proceedings, Challenge to Statute :
                          Page 3 of 11


     As a  Party to the instant case, Plaintiff hereby challenges

both the  Grand and  Trial Juries  on the ground that such juries

was not  selected in  conformity  with  section 1861 of Title 28,

because Citizens  of Minnesota state who are not also citizens of

the United States  (a/k/a federal citizens) are disqualified from

serving  by  virtue  of  their chosen  Citizenship  status.   See

28 U.S.C. 1867(e);  Right  of Election;  15  Statutes  at  Large,

Chapter 249  (Section 1),  enacted July 27, 1868;  jus soli;  jus

sanguinis.    Specifically,  the  offensive  statute  forces  the

following unconstitutional  result  upon  Citizens  of  Minnesota

state who  choose not  also to  be citizens  of the United States

(a/k/a federal citizens), by Right of Election:

            citizen of         Citizen of         Qualified
          United States      Minnesota state      to serve

               Yes                Yes                Yes
               Yes                No                 Yes
               No                 No                 No
               No                 Yes                No     **


This result  ("**") violates the Tenth Amendment by disqualifying

Citizens of  Minnesota state  from serving  on federal  grand and

petit juries  when they  are  not  also  federal  citizens,  thus

denying to  accused Citizens  of Minnesota  state a jury of Their

Peers when a jury consists only of federal citizens.

     An intentional  discrimination against  a class  of persons,

solely because  of their  class, by  officers in  charge  of  the

selection and  summoning of grand jurors in a criminal case, is a

violation  of the  fundamental Rights of an accused.  See Cassell

v. Texas,  339 U.S.  282;  Atkins v. Texas, 325 U.S. 398;  Pierre

v. Louisiana,  306 U.S.  354.  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.


       Motion to Stay Proceedings, Challenge to Statute :
                          Page 4 of 11


     Discrimination  in   the  selection  of  a  grand  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  America.   E.g. Gardina  supra.   The

statute  28 U.S.C. 1865(b)(1) specifically excludes those classes

of Citizens  who are  not mentioned.  Inclusio unius est exclusio

alterius.

     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 of  the United  States" (a/k/a  federal

citizens).   The Act  of Congress called the Civil Rights Act, 14

U.S. Statutes  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]


       Motion to Stay Proceedings, Challenge to Statute :
                          Page 5 of 11


     Once a  prima facie  case for  the existence  of  purposeful

discrimination is  made out, the burden shifts to the prosecution

in a  criminal case  to prove  otherwise.  See Whitus v. Georgia,

385 U.S.  545.  Reliance on the so-called Fourteenth Amendment to

resolve this matter is moot, because 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  citizen,  whether  or  not  the

Fourteenth  Amendment  was  lawfully  ratified.    See  State  v.

Phillips, 540  P.2d 936, 941 (1975);  Dyett v. Turner, 20 Utah 2d

403, 439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968);  Full Faith and Credit Clause;  28

Tulane Law  Review 22;   11  South Carolina  Law  Quarterly  484;

House Congressional Record, June 13, 1967, p. 15641 et seq.

     As such,  there is no constitutional provision which makes a

federal citizen  also a  citizen of the Union state in which s/he

resides, nor  is there  any constitutional provision which states

that the validity of the public debt shall not be questioned.

     The judicial  history of  American citizenship  is a subject

which  is   rich  in   nuance  and  detail,  as  demonstrated  in

Plaintiff's verified  statement.   For example,  at a  time  when

those Islands  were in the federal zone, the Supreme Court of the

Philippine Islands  found that  "citizenship," strictly speaking,

is a  term of  municipal law  and, according to that Court, it is

municipal law which regulates the 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 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)]


       Motion to Stay Proceedings, Challenge to Statute :
                          Page 6 of 11


Indeed, international  law is  divided roughly  into two  groups:

(1) public  international law  and (2) private international law.

Citizenship is a term of private international law (also known as

municipal law) in which the terms "state", "nation" and "country"

are all synonymous:

     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.

                   GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION

     Plaintiff only  recently discovered that the counsel on whom

Plaintiff relied  for paralegal assistance in preparing the first

such motion,  failed to  transmit all text properly via counsel's

electronic mail  ("email") system.   This  meant that Plaintiff's

Motion to  Stay Proceedings,  as  previously  submitted  to  this

honorable Court,  was  incomplete  and  missing  important  (even

crucial) information.   Plaintiff desires this honorable Court to

have the  best information  available to  reconsider said Motion.

Plaintiff now attaches the essay entitled "Juries in Check Around

the Nation"  by Paul  Andrew Mitchell,  not previously submitted,

and incorporates it by reference as if set forth fully herein.


       Motion to Stay Proceedings, Challenge to Statute :
                          Page 7 of 11


                          RELIEF SOUGHT

     Wherefore, Plaintiff  petitions  this  honorable  Court  for

reconsideration of  Plaintiff's proper  Motion for  an indefinite

stay of proceedings in the instant case, pending proper review of

the substantial  issues of law and fact which are alleged in this

Motion and  which are  contained in  Plaintiff's sworn (verified)

statement which  is submitted  concurrently with this Motion, and

which is incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein.

     In the  event that  Plaintiff should prevail on said issues,

Plaintiff explicitly  reserves His fundamental Right to abate all

jury action(s)  in the  instant case,  and to dismiss the instant

case with prejudice, because of the unlawful class discrimination

which is exhibited by the current Jury Selection and Service Act,

28 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.


Dated: _______________________________________


Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Everett C. Gilbertson
______________________________________________
Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris
Citizen of Minnesota state
(expressly not a citizen of the United States)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


       Motion to Stay Proceedings, Challenge to Statute :
                          Page 8 of 11


                        PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Everett  C.  Gilbertson,  Sui  Juris,  hereby  certify,  under

penalty of  perjury, under  the laws  of  the  United  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 MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION;
                 NOTICE OF EXPLICIT RESERVATION;
         NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
        FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH JURY SELECTION POLICY;
            AND NOTICE OF CHALLENGE AND CHALLENGE TO
              CONSTITUTIONALITY OF FEDERAL STATUTE:
       28 U.S.C. 297, 517, 518, 1861, 1865, 1867(d), (e);
         F.R.Cr.P. Rule 6(b)(2);  F.R.Evid. Rule 201(d);
                  Full Faith and Credit Clause

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:


Henry Shea
United States Attorneys
110 South Fourth Street
Minneapolis [zip code exempt]
MINNESOTA STATE

Attorney General
Department of Justice
10th & Constitution, N.W.
Washington [zip code exempt]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Solicitor General
Department of Justice
10th & Constitution, N.W.
Washington [zip code exempt]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


Dated:  _________________________________

/s/ Everett C. Gilbertson
__________________________________________
Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris
Citizen of Minnesota state
(expressly not a citizen of the United States)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

See USPS Publication #221 for addressing instructions.


       Motion to Stay Proceedings, Challenge to Statute :
                          Page 9 of 11


For Immediate Release                               July 27, 1996


                Juries in Check Around the Nation


Payson, Arizona

     The founders  of a  new legal cooperative -- the Supreme Law
Firm --  have just  issued a  ground-breaking formal challenge to
the process  of selecting  grand and  trial juries  everywhere in
America.

     Paul  Mitchell,   one  of   the  co-founders,  has  recently
documented a  serious flaw  in the  laws enacted  by Congress  to
select jurors  for grand  and trial jury service.  These laws are
found in  Title 28,  United States  Code, Sections 1861 and 1865,
the federal Jury Selection and Service Act.

     On the  one hand, Congress has said that all citizens should
have the  opportunity to  serve on  both kinds of juries (section
1861).   On the  other hand,  Congress has  also said  that  jury
candidates must  be federal citizens (section 1865).  Citizens of
the several  Union states  are not  mentioned in  these  Acts  of
Congress, and the omission was intentional.

     Grand juries  are convened  to consider  probable cause  for
issuing indictments,  or formal charges, against people suspected
of criminal  behavior.   Trial juries  are convened  to try those
people and  to determine their guilt or innocence.  Both kinds of
juries are  now assembled entirely from voter registration lists,
which consist  of federal citizens only.  In many states, it is a
felony to falsify information on a voter registration affidavit.

     Ever since  the  Civil War, Congress  has been pushing hard,
through force  and fraud,  to get  all Americans  into a  second,
inferior class of citizenship known as federal citizenship.  This
class did not exist in the law before the Civil War.

     Prior to  that war, there was only one class of citizenship,
a class  which today  is called  state Citizenship.   This is the
class that  is mentioned in the qualifications for serving in the
Congress and  the White House.  The term "United States" in those
provisions means  "states United",  and the  "C" in  Citizen is a
capital "C",  not a  lower-case "c"  as in  the case  of  federal
citizens.

     Unfortunately for  Congress,  the  U.S.  Supreme  Court  has
ruled, several  times, that class discrimination in the selection
of grand  or trial  jurors is a ground for proving that a jury is
not a  legal body.  This means that any jury which exhibits class
discrimination cannot  issue lawful indictments, nor can it issue
lawful verdicts.  There are two "classes" of citizens in America.

     In fact, several courts have already ruled that one can be a
state Citizen without also being a federal citizen, regardless of
the Civil War and its ugly aftermath.


       Motion to Stay Proceedings, Challenge to Statute :
                          Page 10 of 11


     "We are  prepared to stipulate that federal citizens have no
standing to  challenge the  obvious conflict  between  these  two
statutes," says Paul Mitchell, the author of several court briefs
which are  racing through the Internet at present.  "But, when it
comes to  Sovereign state  Citizens, the  class discrimination is
unmistakable, and unconstitutional."

     At an  introductory lecture  last  week  in  Mesa,  Arizona,
members of  the audience  were enthralled  by the  prospect  that
government indictments against state Citizens will soon be thrown
out.  "The correct procedural move is to petition the court for a
dismissal, or  a stay of proceedings, pending final resolution of
the challenge,"  explained Mitchell.   A  stay  is  a  procedural
"freeze" on  any  further  hearings,  until  the  controversy  is
settled.

     Final resolution  means that  the  matter  will  be  finally
decided by the United States Supreme Court, probably after two or
more federal  appeals courts  decide  the  matter  with  opposite
results.  This will almost guarantee a hearing before the Supreme
Court.

     Sample briefs  can be  obtained from the Supreme Law Firm by
contacting founder Paul Mitchell at supremelawfirm@altavista.net.
With minor changes, the two briefs can be adapted to any state or
federal prosecution,  no matter  at what step in the proceedings.
Mitchell is even prepared to utilize their logic in habeas corpus
petitions, in  order  to  release  state  Citizens  from  federal
prisons.   Their indictments  and  convictions  were  decided  by
juries that were not legal bodies.


Contact:  Paul Mitchell,      Mail: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776
          Counselor at Law              Tucson [zip code exempt]
          Supreme Law Firm              ARIZONA STATE

email:    supremelawfirm@altavista.net

website:  http://supremelaw.com


       Motion to Stay Proceedings, Challenge to Statute :
                          Page 11 of 11


                             #  #  #
      


Return to Table of Contents for

U.S.A. v. Gilbertson, 8th Circuit