Donald E. Wishart, Sui Juris
Citizen of California State
and Federal Witness [sic]
c/o 5150 Graves Avenue, Suite 12-C
San Jose [ZIP code exempt]
CALIFORNIA, USA
In Propria Persona and
by Special Appearance Only
All Rights Reserved
without Prejudice
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic],
) Case Number CR-00-20227-JF
)
Plaintiff [sic], ) NOTICE OF
MOTION AND
) MOTION TO CONTINUE
PROCEEDINGS
v. )
FOR 60 DAYS:
)
DONALD E. WISHART [sic], )
) Rules 16(c), (d)(1): Federal
Defendant [sic] ) Rules of Criminal
Procedure (“FRCrP”);
)
________________________________)
COMES NOW Donald E. Wishart, Sui Juris, Citizen of California State, expressly not a “citizen of the United States” [sic], and Defendant in the above entitled matter (hereinafter “Defendant”), to move this honorable Court for a routine ORDER continuing the instant case for sixty (60) calendar days, and to provide formal NOTICE to all interested Parties of same.
REASONS TO
CONTINUE
Defendant respectfully requests a
routine continuance, primarily to guarantee that reciprocal discovery is
allowed to proceed in the proper sequence and with sufficient time for all
Proper Parties to review an unusually large set of documents.
Proceeding In Propria Persona,
Defendant’s legal resources are necessarily limited, both in available time and
expertise in a federal criminal procedure.
Defendant has also recently retained
new Counsel, who needs additional time to review the large set of documents
which Defendant and attorneys for the government both intend to enter into
evidence.
Altogether, Defendant only today
counted a total of twenty-six (26) “banker boxes” of documents which Defendant
and His new Counsel must review, before deciding which are relevant and
material to Defendant’s defense, which are not relevant or material, and
then transmitting the former to the government.
Defendant’s new Counsel, in
particular, needs additional time to sift said documents, in order to assist
Defendant in complying with the government’s request for reciprocal discovery.
On this point, Mr. Thomas DiLeonardo
recently wrote to Defendant, in order to make Defendant aware that two sets of
documents are awaiting Defendant’s inspection at IRS in San Jose, California.
Mr. DiLeonardo’s letter informed
Defendant that Defendant will be permitted to take permanent possession of one
set of documents (“set one”); but,
Defendant will only be permitted to inspect the second set of documents
(“set two”). Defendant will not
be permitted to remove set two from IRS premises in San Jose.
Said letter also directed Defendant
to schedule the pickup of set one from Mr. Brian Watson at IRS, San Jose.
In a subsequent letter, however, Mr.
DiLeonardo directed Defendant to refrain from any further contact with Mr.
Watson.
Defendant is now confused by these
seemingly contradictory directives, and this confusion is causing additional
delays in Defendant’s plans to pickup set one, and inspect set two.
STATUS OF FOIA
REQUESTS OUTSTANDING
In prior pleadings already filed in
the instant case, Defendant has demonstrated due diligence by demanding formal
judicial notice of Defendant’s several requests submitted under the Freedom of
Information Act, 5
U.S.C. 552 (“FOIA”). The following
table summarizes those FOIA
requests, with dates:
Sequence Request Appeal Final
Number Date Date Deadline
-------- --------- --------- ----------
1 8/16/2000 9/ 5/2000 10/
4/2000
2 9/ 5/2000 9/20/2000 10/19/2000
3 9/ 5/2000 9/20/2000 10/19/2000
4 9/ 6/2000 9/21/2000 10/20/2000
5 9/ 6/2000 9/21/2000 10/20/2000
6 9/ 6/2000 9/21/2000 10/20/2000
7 9/ 6/2000 9/21/2000 10/20/2000
8 9/ 6/2000 9/21/2000 10/20/2000
9 9/ 6/2000 9/21/2000 10/20/2000
10 9/12/2000 9/27/2000 10/26/2000
11 9/12/2000 9/27/2000 10/26/2000
12 9/12/2000 9/27/2000 10/26/2000
13 9/12/2000 9/27/2000 10/26/2000
14 9/12/2000 9/27/2000 10/26/2000
15 9/12/2000 9/27/2000 10/26/2000
16 9/12/2000 9/27/2000 10/26/2000
Notably, the next event in the
instant case is the Law and Motion Hearing scheduled for October 10, 2000. After October 26, 2000, Defendant should
know whether or not government attorneys and witnesses possessed requisite
credentials, when they testified to the panel of federal citizens alleged to be
a lawfully convened grand jury (hereinafter “panel”).
If the requisite credentials are
being withheld in violation of Defendant’s fundamental Right to a
certified copy of the Oath of Office, mandated by Article VI,
Clause 3, Defendant asserts His Right to compel disclosure and to enjoin
improper withholding of same, before proceeding any further with the
instant case.
Upon any final determination that the
requisite credential do not exist, as a matter of fact, Defendant would
then have at least one good ground for dismissing the entire indictment
with prejudice -- for fraud upon the panel, and other related federal criminal
offenses.
Defendant’s other FOIA requests also go
to more evidence which may support dismissal of one or more counts on grounds other
than, and in addition to, the grounds already presented to this
Court.
In particular, Defendant has already
requested interlocutory order(s) finally resolving whether or not IRS
employees are even required to execute the Oath of Office mandated
by Article
VI, Clause 3, in the U.S. Constitution,
in the first instance.
If IRS employees are required
to execute (and file) said Oaths, Defendant’s FOIA request for same
is proper, timely, and deserves judicial enforcement once Defendant’s
administrative remedies are exhausted.
See statutes of limitation at 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(A),
(C).
If IRS employees are not
required to execute said Oaths, Defendant argues that such a judicial
determination would cast the panel’s record of proceedings in an entirely new
and different light, raising a host of interesting questions, e.g.
was the panel led to believe that IRS witnesses (if any) are officers of the
United States?
Defendant’s petition for
interlocutory order(s) requests declaratory relief in other matters, as well,
which matters must be finally decided before Defendant is able
adequately to prepare His defense in the instant case. See Sixth
Amendment, in chief.
REMEDY
REQUESTED
All premises having been duly
considered, Defendant respectfully moves this honorable Court for a routine
continuance of sixty (60) days, and hereby agrees to stop the “speedy trial”
clock during this same period. Defendant
also asks this Court kindly to take informal notice of the fact that
Defendant has previously waived time -- for the Faretta hearing.
I, Donald E. Wishart, Sui Juris, hereby verify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (federal government), that the above statement of facts and laws is true and correct, according to the best of My current information, knowledge, and belief, so help Me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1). See Supremacy Clause in pari materia with all provisions of Title 28, U.S.C. (Constitution, Laws and Treaties).
Dated: September 15, 2000 A.D.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Donald E. Wishart
Donald E. Wishart, Sui Juris
Citizen of California State and
Federal Witness (18 U.S.C. 1512, 1513)
(expressly not a “citizen of the United States” [sic])
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
I, Donald E. Wishart, Sui Juris, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (federal government), 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
FOR 60 DAYS:
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:
Office of the U.S. Attorney Office of the U.S. Attorney
280 South First Street, Ste. 371 312 North Spring Street
San Jose [ZIP code exempt] Los Angeles [ZIP code exempt]
CALIFORNIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA
U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Department of Justice
Western Criminal Enforcement Sec. West. Criminal Enforcement Sec.
P.O. Box 972, Ben Franklin Stn. P.O Box 972, Ben Franklin Stn.
Washington [ZIP code exempt] Washington [ZIP code exempt]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA
Federal Public Defender’s Office
160 W. Santa Clara St., Ste. 575
San Jose [ZIP code exempt]
CALIFORNIA, USA
Executed on September 15, 2000 A.D.
/s/ Donald E. Wishart
Donald E. Wishart, Sui Juris
Citizen of California State and
Federal Witness (18 U.S.C. 1512, 1513)
(expressly not a “citizen of the United States” [sic])
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice