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
)
Plaintiff [sic], ) NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR
) EXHIBITION OF CRIMINAL
v. ) STATUTES, IN THE PARTICULAR
)
EVERETT C. GILBERTSON [sic], )
)
Defendant [sic]. )
________________________________)
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 provide formal Notice to all interest party(s),
and to demand mandatory judicial Notice by this honorable Court,
pursuant to Rule 201(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, of
this, Defendant's NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR EXHIBITION OF CRIMINAL
STATUTES, IN THE PARTICULAR. In a pleading entitled GOVERNMENT'S
POSITION WITH RESPECT TO SENTENCING, filed in the instant case on
March 5, 1997, by Messrs. David L. Lillehaug and Henry J. Shea,
alleging to be United States Attorney [sic] and Assistant U.S.
Attorney [sic], said pleading discusses the following:
Notice and Demand for Exhibition of Criminal Statutes:
Page 1 of 5
"... [T]he Presentence Report's proposed two level
enhancement for attempted obstruction of justice during the
IRS [sic] investigation of his case. The government submits
that the evidence at trial clearly showed threatening and
intimidating conduct by the defendant that supports
application of the enhancement.
[page 2]
Referring to a "Constructive Notice" [sic] served upon Mr. Larry
Doss of the First National Bank, said pleading goes on to say the
following:
... [T]his document, like the others sent by defendant to
recipients of IRS summons for his records, was intended to
threaten and intimidate the prospective witnesses from
providing material information to the IRS during its
investigation of defendant. It further was intended to
obstruct and delay that case investigation through
defendant's intentional misrepresentation and false
statements regarding the IRS [sic], its summons authority
[sic], and the consequences of failure to obey a summons.
[page 3]
Further, said pleading also goes on to say the following:
... [D]efendant's obstructive conduct was not limited to
third party recipients of IRS [sic] summons. Defendant also
directly attempted to intimidate IRS [sic] agents during the
IRS's [sic] investigation of him.
For the benefit of this honorable Court, and for the benefit
of all interested party(s), Defendant herein takes the liberty of
itemizing all "violations" alleged above, to wit:
1. obstruction of justice
2. threatening and intimidating conduct
3. threatening and intimidating prospective witnesses
4. obstruction and delay of an investigation
5. intentional misrepresentation and false statements
It is evident from said pleading that Messrs. Lillihaug and
Shea are attempting to justify the application of "enhancements"
to the sentencing guidelines. In their CONCLUSION, they state
the following:
Notice and Demand for Exhibition of Criminal Statutes:
Page 2 of 5
The Court should sentence defendant at the highest level of
his sentencing guidelines range, impose a reasonable fine,
and order defendant to pay forthwith all taxes, interest,
and penalties due and owing the IRS.
In a pleading recently filed by Defendant entitled NOTICE
AND DEMAND TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF ANY CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
WHATSOEVER, Defendant accurately quotes the Advisory Committee
Notes for Rule 26, Taking of Testimony, in the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure, 1944 Adoption, paragraph 2. The key
paragraph is repeated here, as follows:
On the other hand, since all Federal crimes are statutory
and all criminal prosecutions in the Federal courts are
based on acts of Congress, uniform rules of evidence appear
desirable if not essential in criminal cases, as otherwise
the same facts under differing rules of evidence may lead to
a conviction in one district and to an acquittal in another.
[emphasis added]
Defendant respectfully requests this honorable Court, and
all interested party(s), to please take formal notice that all
federal crimes are statutory, and all criminal prosecutions in
the federal courts are based on lawful Acts of Congress.
DEMAND FOR EXHIBITION OF STATUTES AND DEADLINE
Accordingly, Defendant now makes his lawful Demand upon the
office of the United States Attorney to exhibit the specific
statute(s), by Title, Section, and/or other pertinent citation(s)
which exactly identify the violations alleged to have been
committed by Defendant, which allegations were made and filed in
the instant case in the GOVERNMENT'S POSITION WITH RESPECT TO
SENTENCING. Said statutes must be documented in writing, filed
in the official Court record of the instant case, and served upon
Defendant by transmitting said documents in sealed envelopes via
first class United States Mail to the following lawful mailing
location (see USPS Publication #221 for addressing instructions):
Notice and Demand for Exhibition of Criminal Statutes:
Page 3 of 5
Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris
c/o General Delivery
Battle Lake [zip code exempt]
MINNESOTA STATE
no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, April 4, 1997. Failure to do
either (filing and service) will constitute an open admission
that the requisite statutes do not exist, and that the United
States (federal government) is forever estopped from further
action(s) on the alleged "violations" for having made libelous
statements in this honorable Court concerning alleged crimes of
which Defendant was never indicted, charged, arraigned, tried, or
convicted by a jury of Defendant's Peers, in violation of
Defendant's fundamental guarantee of due process of law. See 18
U.S.C. 242, 241, for example; as time permits, Defendant may
discover other criminal statutes which apply to the probable
libels which Defendant believes He has now suffered at the hands
of Messrs. Lillihaug and Shea.
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
Notice and Demand for Exhibition of Criminal Statutes:
Page 4 of 5
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 AND DEMAND FOR EXHIBITION
OF CRIMINAL STATUTES, 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:
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.
Notice and Demand for Exhibition of Criminal Statutes:
Page 5 of 5
# # #
Return to Table of Contents for
U.S.A. v. Gilbertson, District Court