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