Allocution at Sentencing Hearing
                  Scheduled for April 21, 1997

                      U.S.A. v. Gilbertson

                  United States District Court
                      District of Minnesota
                         Fourth Division

                     Case Number #CR-4-96-65


                Allocution at Sentencing Hearing:
                           Page 1 of 7


                Allocution at Sentencing Hearing

                            Beginning

     For the  record, Mr.  Rosenbaum, I  am entering  this  Court
expressly under  protest, primarily due to a demonstrated lack of
jurisdiction by the United States District Court ("USDC").

     I also  want the  official record to show that Mr. Rosenbaum
now has  an adverse  interest in  this case, due to the First and
Tenth Amendment  petition  which  I  have  now  served  upon  Mr.
Rosenbaum and  filed in  the District Court of the United States.
See 28 U.S.C. 455.

     To put  it simply,  Mr. Rosenbaum  is no  longer  a  neutral
referee in  a boxing  match.   He now wears boxing gloves in this
contest, and a different neutral referee must be appointed.

     Until that  happens, the United States federal government is
depriving Me of My fundamental Right to due process of law, which
is a  criminal violation  of 18 U.S.C. 242 and probably also 241,
conspiracy to violate fundamental Rights.

     Furthermore, any  appearance which  I might give of "moving"
this Court  for any  specific relief,  and/or of "requesting" any
specific relief,  must be construed as a formal notice and demand
upon all  government actors  associated with  this case,  whether
present or not, in light of the proven lack of jurisdiction.

     My presence  here will  not be  construed  as  a  waiver  of
jurisdictional defects  which are  now  plainly  evident  in  the
official record.  Defects in jurisdiction cannot be waived, ever,
because they  can only be corrected by Acts of Congress, pursuant
to the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully
amended.

                           Allocution

     All statements  made by  Me during this proceeding are being
made under  protest and under My Right of Allocution.  This Right
is protected  by the  Petition Clause  of the First Amendment.  I
demand that  all statements,  made by  Me here  today, be entered
into the record.

     Rule 32(a)(1)  of the  Federal Rules  of Criminal  Procedure
states that  the court  must afford  counsel for the defendant an
opportunity to comment.

     However, Mr.  Scott is  presently  working  for  the  United
States, quite  literally, and  not for  Me.  Therefore, he has an
irreconcilable conflict  of interest,  not  unlike  that  of  Mr.
Rosenbaum.

     Therefore, I am being denied effective assistance of Counsel
and the fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.


                Allocution at Sentencing Hearing:
                           Page 2 of 7


     Based on  the  following  facts,  even  if  this  Court  had
jurisdiction at  some time  or other,  and I  have proven that it
does not  have  jurisdiction  due  to  an  unconstitutional  Jury
Selection  and   Service  Act   ("JSSA"),  it  ousted  itself  of
jurisdiction in any event when:

     1.   Counsel failed to furnish Me with credentials when they
          were properly  and timely  requested by  a  Freedom  of
          Information Act request for same.

     2.   The recent pleading entered by Mr. Scott -- Position of
          the Parties  -- deprived  Me of effective assistance of
          Counsel,  because   Mr.  Scott   made  an  unauthorized
          admission that betrayed Me without My permission.

     3.   I was  denied the Right to bring in whomever I chose to
          be My Counsel.


     Mr.  Scott  knew,  or  should  have  known,  that  effective
assistance of  Counsel is  a constitutional  guarantee.   When  I
commenced to  file pleadings  In Propria  Persona, he should have
known, at  least from  that point forward, that he had absolutely
no power  of attorney  whatsoever to  file  pleadings  under  his
signature, without My prior written authorization.

     As an  officer of  this Court,  Mr. Scott's action in filing
that unauthorized  pleading was a breach of ethics and the canons
of judicial  conduct, and  a clear  violation of the law, because
the record  still fails  to exhibit  any liability statutes which
applied to Me during the periods in question.

     Accordingly, the  Supreme Court  of the  United  States  has
ruled that,  if effective  assistance of Counsel is not provided,
this Court  ousts itself of jurisdiction.  See Johnson v. Zerbst,
304 U.S.  458 at  468.  I cannot be punished for relying upon the
decisions of the Supreme Court.  See U.S. v. Mason, 412 U.S. 391,
399-400 (1973).

     Therefore,  I   demand  a   dismissal  of  this  case,  with
prejudice, for  violating the  clear holding of the Supreme Court
of the United States in Johnson v. Zerbst supra.

     Nor can this Court attempt to "deny" any of the demands I do
make here  today, because demands are not motions, and demands go
to fundamental  Rights.   Any attempt to "deny" any demand I make
here today  is practicing  law, which  is a  high misdemeanor  in
violation of 28 U.S.C. 454.

     Criminal conduct  by the  presiding  judge  is  yet  another
ground for dismissal, whether felony or misdemeanor.


                Allocution at Sentencing Hearing:
                           Page 3 of 7


                           Credentials

     Of all the FOIA requests which I have submitted to date, not
one was  ever answered  with certified  copies of  the  requisite
credentials of  the government employees in question, or of other
crucial documents  requested, such  as the regulations which have
been published  in the  Federal Register,  if any,  for pertinent
statutes as those statutes have been applied, under color of law,
in the instant case.

     Even though I recognize that Congress has extended a blanket
FOIA exemption  to the  entire judicial  branch, I  have properly
challenged the  constitutionality of  this blanket exemption, for
violating the Oath of Office provision in the U.S. Constitution.

     Moreover, in  addition to  proper FOIA requests, I have also
submitted a  timely Notice  and Demand  to  Mr. Rosenbaum, to the
Clerk of  Court, and  to the  Administrative Office of the United
States Courts,  for the  same credentials.   To date, no judicial
credentials have been produced either.

     Accordingly, I  am entitled by Right to proceed on the basis
of the  conclusive presumption  that the requisite credentials do
not exist,  pursuant to the doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence.
See "acquiescence"  and "estoppel"  in  Black's  Law  Dictionary.
Silence activates  estoppel, pursuant  to Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A.
932 (1906).

     Likewise, silence  in  this  matter  is  a  fraud  upon  Me,
pursuant to  the case of U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977).
Fraud is  a cause of action for recovery of actual, compensatory,
and exemplary  damages, issued  by a competent and qualified jury
of My peers, namely, Citizens of Minnesota state who are not also
citizens of the United States.


                      Lack of Jurisdiction

     I have  systematically  tried  to  obtain  from  the  United
States, proof that the Plaintiffs of record have standing to sue,
and they have failed to produce any proof of same.  This alone is
a ground to dismiss this case, with prejudice.

     I have  systematically  tried  to  obtain  from  the  United
States, proof  that the  Office of the United States Attorney has
power of attorney to represent the Plaintiffs of record, and they
have failed to produce any proof of same.  This alone is a ground
to dismiss this case, with prejudice.

     I have  systematically  tried  to  obtain  from  the  United
States,  proof  that  this  USDC  has  original  jurisdiction  to
prosecute alleged  criminal violations of Title 18, United States
Code, and  of the  Internal Revenue Code, and they have failed to
produce any  proof of  same.   This alone  is a ground to dismiss
this case, with prejudice.

     I  have   testified  to   the  absence   of  these   crucial
authorities, in  My Affidavit  of Default  and of Probable Cause,
and the  United  States  is  now  estopped  from  producing  said
authorities, even  if they  do exist,  because  their  window  of
opportunity passed,  and their silence activates estoppel, and it
also constitutes a fraud upon Me.  See Tweel and Carmine supra.


                Allocution at Sentencing Hearing:
                           Page 4 of 7


     Proceeding  as  they  have  without  jurisdiction  gives  Me
verified, probable cause to complain and to charge all government
actors associated  with this  case, whether  present or not, with
barratry and  other applicable criminal violations of the laws of
Minnesota state,  specifically  because  these  actors  have  not
proven, as  a matter  of record,  that they  are, indeed, federal
employees.  See 18 U.S.C. 241, to wit:

     "If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on
     the premises  of another,  with intent  to prevent or hinder
     his free  exercise or  enjoyment of  any right  or privilege
     secured to  him by  the Constitution  or laws  of the United
     States  ...   they  shall  be  fined  under  this  title  or
     imprisoned not more than ten years or both ...."


See also Title 18, United States Code, section 242 in chief.

     I submit  to you  that the  demonstrated  failure  of  these
government  actors   to  present   certified  evidence  of  their
credentials, gives  Me probable  cause to proceed on the basis of
the conclusive  presumption that  they do  not have the requisite
authorities and,  therefore, I have probable cause to charge each
and every one of them with violating 18 U.S.C. 241 and 242.

     Last but  not least, the doctrines of absolute and qualified
immunity  only   apply  when   these  government  actors  proceed
according to law.  If this Court lacks original jurisdiction over
the subject  matter in  the first  instance, which  has now  been
established beyond  any shadow  of a  doubt, then  such a  defect
cannot be  waived by anything which any of the interested parties
might do,  or not  do;  and the actors in question are prevented,
by law,  from invoking  immunity for  their defense.   They  are,
therefore, jointly  and  severally  liable  to  Me  for  multiple
violations of  Title 18,  and also  pertinent  state  laws  which
remain unspecified at the present time.

     See Rankin  v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844 (9th Cir. 1980).  In the
absence of  all  jurisdiction,  the  second  prong  essential  to
absolute judicial  immunity is  missing.   See Stump v. Sparkman,
435 U.S.  349;   Bradley v.  Fisher, 13  Wall. 335,  20 L.Ed. 646
(1872);   Davis v.  Burris, 51  Ariz. 220,  75 P.2d  689  (1938);
Gregory v.  Thompson, 500  F.2d 59  (C.A. Ariz.  1974).  Numerous
other authorities  can be  provided to  the government  actors in
this case.

                       Liability Statutes

     The  record  shows  absolutely  no  evidence  that  I  am  a
withholding agent, as that term is defined at IRC 7701(a)(16).

     Aside from  the sections  listed in this definition, the IRC
has no  other liability  statutes for the income taxes imposed by
subtitle A,  in contrast  to IRC  sections 4401,  5005, and 5703,
which do  contain explicit  liability provisions  with respect to
other  taxes,   for  example,   petroleum  refiners  and  alcohol
distillers.

     No lawful  assessment was  ever made pursuant to IRC section
6203, delegation of authority to assess.


                Allocution at Sentencing Hearing:
                           Page 5 of 7


                 Jury Selection and Service Act

     I have already explained to this Court, in a filed pleading,
that My  first Motion  to Stay Proceedings was based on incorrect
information, due to errors committed by the paralegals I hired to
assist Me.

     I have  attempted to  remedy these  errors by  re-filing the
corrected pleadings,  and by  combining them with a proper Motion
(read "Demand") for Reconsideration.

     I am  entitled  to  a  hearing,  to  reconsider  My  pivotal
challenge to  the constitutionality  of the  JSSA, for exhibiting
class discrimination  against Citizens of Minnesota state who are
not also  citizens of  the United  States, by  Right of  Election
guaranteed by  the Tenth  Amendment.   See Gardina  v.  Board  of
Registrars, 160 Ala. 155, 48 S. 788, 791 (1909) in particular.

     Moreover, I demand that this Court prepare proper and timely
Findings of  Fact and  Conclusions of  Law in  the matter  of  My
challenge to the JSSA, by way of perfecting the case file for the
appeal which  I plan,  and fully  intend, to bring in the instant
case, on  final judgment  or upon  leave to  appeal interlocutory
order(s).


                       Withdrawal of Plea

     I hereby  demand that  the plea of "not guilty" be withdrawn
in this  case, because  it was  entered out  of order and over My
objections when  Mr. Noel  entered that plea for Me in a rude and
disorderly fashion, while I was speaking.


                        Notice of Appeal

     I hereby  request that  this Court  immediately certify this
case for  appeal,  pursuant  to  the  Final  Judgments  Act,  and
instruct the  Clerk of  Court to prepare and file a proper Notice
of Appeal,  pursuant to  Rule 32(c)(5)  of the  Federal Rules  of
Criminal Procedure,  because I  do intend  to bring all major and
minor issues  before the  United States  Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit, in due time, and according to due process of law.


                     Clarification of Terms

     My use  of the phrase "Under Protest" during this proceeding
indicates that I have explicitly reserved all of My Rights and:

     (1) that  I explicitly  reject any  and all  benefits of the
Uniform Commercial  Code, absent  a  valid  commercial  agreement
which is  in force  and to  which I  am a  party,  and  cite  its
provisions herein  only to  serve notice  upon  ALL  agencies  of
government, whether  international, national,  state,  or  local,
that they,  and not  I, are  subject to, and bound by, all of its
provisions, whether cited herein or not;


                Allocution at Sentencing Hearing:
                           Page 6 of 7


     (2) that My explicit reservation of Rights has served notice
upon ALL agencies of government of the "Remedy" they must provide
for Me  under Article  1, Section  207, of the Uniform Commercial
Code, whereby  I have explicitly reserved My Common Law Right not
to be  compelled to  perform under  any  contract  or  commercial
agreement, that  I have  not entered into knowingly, voluntarily,
and intentionally;

     (3) that My explicit reservation of Rights has served notice
upon ALL  agencies of  government that  they are  ALL limited  to
proceeding against  Me only  in harmony  with the  Common Law and
that I  do not, and will not accept the liability associated with
the "compelled"  benefit of any unrevealed commercial agreements;
and,

     (4) that My valid reservation of Rights has preserved all My
Rights and  prevented the  loss of any such Rights by application
of the concepts of waiver or estoppel.


     Thank you for your consideration.


Dated:  ______________________________________


Respectfully submitted,

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

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


                Allocution at Sentencing Hearing:
                           Page 7 of 7


                             #  #  #
      


Return to Table of Contents for

U.S.A. v. Gilbertson, District Court