Floyd Raymond, Looker, Sui Juris c/o HC 63, Box 12-AA Nettie [zip code exempt] WEST VIRGINIA In Propria Persona Under Protest, Necessity, and by Special Visitation Only UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, [sic] ) Criminal No. 5:96-CR-40 ) Plaintiff, [sic] ) AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE ) AND NOTICE OF INTENT v. ) TO FILE CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS: ) 28 U.S.C. 1746(1); FLOYD RAYMOND LOOKER, a/k/a RAY, ) Rule 201(d), Federal Rules JAMES M. JOHNSON, a/k/a J.J. and ) of Evidence IMAM A. LEWIS, [sic] ) ) Defendants. [sic] ) _________________________________) COMES NOW Floyd Raymond, Looker, Sui Juris, Citizen of West Virginia state and Defendant in the above entitled matter (hereinafter "Defendant"), to record this, His verified AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE as evidence of criminal misconduct by government officers, employees, and agents who have heretofore come in contact with the above entitled case; and to provide formal Notice of same to all interested party(s), and of His intent to file formal criminal complaints against those who are responsible for committing said misconduct. Defendant also demands mandatory judicial notice of this AFFIDAVIT and NOTICE OF INTENT, pursuant to Rule 201(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Affidavit of Probable Cause/Notice of Intent: Page 1 of 11 VERIFICATION I, Floyd Raymond, Looker, Sui Juris, hereby verify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the "United States", that the following Statement 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), to wit: AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE The wife of My first court-appointed counsel was a United States Attorney, and My opponent is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic]. I did not feel comfortable with that appointment, and I requested that another counsel be appointed. I expressed My interest in a particular attorney, but the Magistrate Judge saw fit to appoint Mr. Stephen D. Herndon, "Attorney at Law" [sic]. Mr. Herndon was appointed to represent Me on Monday, October 21, 1996. Mr. Herndon then waited to see Me until the day before My bail setting and preliminary hearing. At the time we met in the Buckhannon, Upshur County Jail, we had to sit in the visitors' booth and talk through the glass divider. Hearing was difficult for Me, and we had to speak rather loudly. Mr. Herndon felt that his side of the enclosure was too hot, so he "cracked" the door a little, in order to let cooler air flow in. This further allowed everyone in the waiting room to hear everything that was being said between Me and Mr. Herndon. One individual who overheard the conversation then went to the U.S. Marshals office to be a witness against Me. Although the court refused to use any testimony of what he overheard between Mr. Herndon and Me, he embellished his story with a few "facts" of his own (read "lies"). This same individual later said that he had overheard our conversation, and that I had "confessed" to everything. Affidavit of Probable Cause/Notice of Intent: Page 2 of 11 At court the next day, Mr. Herndon indicated that we would be able to talk with each other the following Thursday, October 31, 1996. At that meeting on October 31, 1996, Mr. Herndon talked about his strategy for winning the case. His opinion was that his strategy was the only way it could be won. I wasn't entirely happy with the strategy he proposed, because it was a passive submission to whatever might develop at the trial. I had proposed a more active and aggressive role with which he did not feel comfortable. We discussed several possible attorneys who might be interested in helping with My cases. It was My understanding that Mr. Herndon was "open" to outside assistance -- if that were available. I had given him the name of an attorney in North Carolina state who is well experienced in entrapment cases, and who had already expressed an interest in My cases. Mr. Herndon indicated that he had tried to contact these individuals, but had been unsuccessful. While Mr. Herndon was on a three-week vacation in Europe, I had received information from My Pastor, Butch Paugh, that Mr. Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., from Tucson, Arizona state, had developed a particularly good strategy which fit well with the strategy which I had somewhat outlined to Mr. Herndon. I then wrote several letters to Mr. Herndon in which I expressed My uneasiness with the strategy he had suggested, and in which I requested that he contact Mr. Mitchell to discuss the merits of the strategy, and how it could be applied to My cases. Affidavit of Probable Cause/Notice of Intent: Page 3 of 11 Mr. Herndon chose to ignore My requests and, upon his return from Europe, he chose not to contact Me prior to the day of the arraignment, and he chose instead to contact Me in person approximately three and one-half hours before the arraignment. I had previously requested from My Pastor, Butch Paugh, living in Nettie, West Virginia state, to please contact Mr. Paul Mitchell, and that I needed more information about Mr. Mitchell's plan(s). When I received a copy of that plan and strategy, I knew at once that I had found the strategy that would stand the best chance of winning. What I really liked about the strategy which Mr. Mitchell presented was that it was primarily "pre-trial," while Mr. Herndon's strategy was "during trial." I felt that there was room enough to implement both plans, if need be. If Mr. Mitchell's plan worked, then there would be no trial. It if did not work, then Mr. Herndon still had plenty of time to prepare for trial. Upon his return from Europe, Mr. Herndon chose not to contact Me about any of the letters which I had written. He also chose not to contact Mr. Paul Mitchell, as I had requested of him. I had attempted to contact Mr. Herndon many times in the week immediately prior to the arraignment, but I was unable to do so, because Mr. Herndon had requested the Northern Regional Jail and Correctional Center ("NRJ") to put a restrictive block on the telephone, so that I could not contact him by telephone. Affidavit of Probable Cause/Notice of Intent: Page 4 of 11 I called Mr. Paul Mitchell and requested that he prepare a Plea in Abatement and a Motion to Stay Proceedings for filing in the United States District Court prior to the arraignment, if at all possible. Mr. Mitchell did so, and immediately shipped the pleadings via Express U.S. Mail, with a fax transmittal letter, to Magistrate Judge Seibert, to the Clerk of Court, and to other individuals as well, including but not limited to Mr. Stephen D. Herndon. In a fax to Mr. Mitchell dated Sunday, December 1, 1996, Mr. Herndon acknowledged that he had received the Express U.S. Mail package with My pleadings on Saturday, November 30, 1996. In that fax letter to Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Herndon indicated his unwillingness to cooperate in the delivery and filing of these pleadings, because he had decided, by himself, that they had no legal basis and that they were "frivolous" [sic]. He further indicated that he would not cooperate in any way with the written directions which Mr. Mitchell had given him, according to My explicit verbal instructions. On Monday, December 2, 1996, Mr. Herndon arrived at the NRJ to talk with Me about the arraignment, and about some of the things which he proposed to do at that arraignment. With regard to Mr. Mitchell's request that Mr. Herndon assist with the filing of these pleadings, Mr. Herndon refused to cooperate; he refused to deliver them. Although he said that he had them in his possession, he indicated that he would not give them to Me, as instructed to do so by Mr. Mitchell. He said that he would give them to Me in the courtroom; this he never did. Affidavit of Probable Cause/Notice of Intent: Page 5 of 11 Fortunately, the Express U.S. Mail that Mr. Mitchell had sent to Me on Friday, November 29, 1996, did arrive at the NRJ at exactly 11:00 a.m. on Monday, December 2, 1996, just minutes before the U.S. Marshals office arrived to pick Me up and escort Me to the courtroom. In the courtroom, Mr. Herndon gave Me a copy of the fax he had sent to Mr. Mitchell, which expressed his unwillingness to cooperate in the filing of these pleadings. Because I had received from the U.S. Postal Service copies of the Plea in Abatement and of the Motion to Stay Proceedings prepared by Mr. Mitchell, I was able to execute same, and I was able to file them in open court. Mr. Herndon expressed his unwillingness to participate or to cooperate in any way with the filing of these pleadings, because he felt that they were "frivolous" [sic]. I informed the court that I personally took offense at Mr. Herndon's calling these pleadings "frivolous", because it was My life on the line, and because anything that was filed specifically on My behalf, I did not consider frivolous at all. Because of Mr. Herndon's unwillingness to cooperate with the Me, I requested that he be removed, and that a new court- appointed attorney be assigned to My cases. That request was ignored by the court. When Magistrate Seibert entered a plea of "Not Guilty" on My behalf, Mr. Herndon offered no objections, even though I had stated to the court that I objected to the entering of any plea on My behalf, either by My attorney or by the Magistrate. I suffer from a hearing loss in both ears, sustained during Vietnam combat, and I never actually knew that the Magistrate did, indeed, enter a plea on My behalf. I eventually discovered this while watching the evening news only later that day. Affidavit of Probable Cause/Notice of Intent: Page 6 of 11 When the Magistrate continued to proceed with court scheduling, Mr. Herndon offered no protests on My behalf, even though a proper Plea in Abatement and a proper Motion to Stay Proceedings had already been entered in open court. When My subsequent protest was summarily ignored by the Court, Mr. Herndon never offered to speak up for Me. Although Mr. Herndon had indicated that he would have nothing to do with My pleadings, once they were entered into the court record, he had an obligation to protest all obvious procedural errors and any judicial misconduct. He never did. I have subsequently learned from Mr. Mitchell that the Magistrate's act of entering a Plea of "Not Guilty" after I had previously filed a proper Plea in Abatement, constitutes grounds for charging the Magistrate with practicing law from the bench, in direct violation of 28 U.S.C. 454. I believe this is tantamount to entering a plea of "Guilty" immediately after a defendant enters a plea of "Not Guilty"; this is a high misdemeanor, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 454. There was a question from the court as to the status of Mr. Mitchell in these cases, and I replied that Mr. Paul Andrew Mitchell of Tucson, Arizona state, was a Counselor at Law, and was retained by Me as a paralegal for a specific purpose, in accordance with contract law, and with the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America. The court then proceeded deliberately to ignore My requests that all proceedings be stayed, pending a ruling by a higher judge who was competent and qualified to hear the matter now placed before the court by My Pleas in Abatement and My Motions to Stay Proceedings. Affidavit of Probable Cause/Notice of Intent: Page 7 of 11 Mr. Herndon had given Me a letter in the courtroom which I read much later. This letter indicated that he was not going to file a motion -- as I had requested him not to file -- on preventing the FBI from destroying evidence. Yet, at the arraignment, Mr. Herndon, from what I could understand, filed the Motion anyway. I am not sure what that was all about, and I remain confused by this action of his. While I had expressed some reservations about the value of that Motion, I had never instructed Mr. Herndon not to file the Motion. It seemed strange that, in spite of what the letter said, he had acted contrary to his intentions, as expressed in his own letter. Additionally, it should be noted that in his fax to Mr. Mitchell on Sunday, December 1, 1996, Mr. Herndon stated that legal mail (documents) must be hand-carried into the jail facility and not mailed there, because that was the policy of the West Virginia jail system. I found this interesting, because he had previously mailed copies of the grand jury indictments, and of the scheduled hearing dates, to Me at both the Central Regional Jail and the NRJ. The question now is this: Did he lie here and, if so, where else would he lie -- at trial? God forbid! I personally have serious problems with Mr. Herndon. He ignores all of My requests for contact with him; he ignores My suggestions to consult with other attorneys; he ignores My instructions for filing pleadings which could help Me in court. Affidavit of Probable Cause/Notice of Intent: Page 8 of 11 It must be noted that Mr. Herndon has ignored all My suggestions that we work together on strategy, all the while he has held onto his own strategy for the trial itself. In My opinion, testing a strategy under fire is a very poor strategy. If we lose -- I'm dead. Thanks, but no thanks! During the period when Mr. Herndon was on vacation in Europe, I had no legal counsel whatsoever. The Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") smashed in My front door, and then they took My fax machine and My copies of Title 18 United States Code, Sections 1512 and 1513. To take My means of communicating with Patriot groups across America is fraudulent, criminal conduct. Legal counsel was not available. To date, Mr. Herndon has said nothing about that incident. I would very much like to know if he knew about this incident involving the FBI. INCORPORATION OF EXHIBITS I hereby incorporate by reference the following documentary exhibits, as if they were set forth fully herein, to wit: 1. MEMO from Paul Andrew Mitchell to James E. Seibert, dated November 29, 1996 2. MEMO from Paul Andrew Mitchell to Stephen D. Herndon, dated November 29, 1996 3. FAX TRANSMITTAL from Stephen D. Herndon to Paul Andrew Mitchell, dated December 1, 1996 4. MEMO from Paul Andrew Mitchell to Stephen D. Herndon, dated December 2, 1996 5. MEMO from Paul Andrew Mitchell to Rita J. Sedosky, dated December 7, 1996 Further Affiant Sayeth Naught. Affidavit of Probable Cause/Notice of Intent: Page 9 of 11 Executed on _______________________________ /s/ Ray Looker ___________________________________________ Floyd Raymond, Looker, Sui Juris Citizen of West Virginia state Executed on December 10, 1996 /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell ___________________________________________ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, and Counselor at Law Affidavit of Probable Cause/Notice of Intent: Page 10 of 11 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Paul Andrew, Mitchell, 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): AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS: 28 U.S.C. 1746(1); Rule 201(d), Federal Rules of Evidence by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class U.S. Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed to the following: Office of the United States Attorney Federal Building c/o P.O. Box 591 Wheeling WEST VIRGINIA Clerk of Court United States District Court c/o P.O. Box 471 Wheeling WEST VIRGINIA 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 December 10, 1996 /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell __________________________________________ Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, Counselor at Law, and Counsel of Record in Fact Affidavit of Probable Cause/Notice of Intent: Page 11 of 11 # # #
Return to Table of Contents for
U.S.A. v. Looker