William Michael, Kemp, Sui Juris
c/o General Delivery
Gadsden, Alabama state
(non-domestic zip code exempt)
In Propria Persona
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
NORTHERN JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
STATE OF ALABAMA [sic] ) Case No. #CV-97-H-0022-M
)
Plaintiff [sic] ) 16th Cir. Case #CC-95-1083-DWS
)
v. ) NOTICE OF EXPLICIT RESERVATION;
) NOTICE OF MOTION AND
WILLIAM MICHAEL KEMP [sic], ) MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
) FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH
Defendant [sic] ) FEDERAL JURY SELECTION POLICY;
) AND NOTICE OF CHALLENGE AND
) CHALLENGE TO CONSTITUTIONALITY
) OF FEDERAL STATUTE:
) 28 U.S.C. 297, 517, 518, 1652,
) 1861, 1865, 1867(d), (e);
) F.R.Evid. Rules 201(d), 301, 302;
_____________________________) Full Faith and Credit Clause
COMES NOW William Michael, Kemp, Sui Juris, Citizen of Alabama
state, expressly not a citizen of the United States (hereinafter
"federal citizen"), and Defendant in the above entitled action
(hereinafter "Defendant"), to reserve His fundamental Right to
abate all jury actions in the instant case, and to Petition this
honorable Court for a stay of the instant proceedings, pursuant
to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1867(d), pending proper and final
review of Defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of
section 1865 of the federal Jury Selection and Service Act, and
to provide notice of same to all interested parties. The
offensive statute follows, to wit:
Motion to Stay Proceedings, Challenge to Statute : Page 1 of 9
1865. Qualifications for jury service
(a) The chief judge of the district court, or such other
district court judge as the plan may provide ... shall
determine solely on the basis of information provided
on the juror qualification form and other competent
evidence whether a person is unqualified for, or
exempt, or to be excused from jury service. ...
(b) In making such determination the chief judge of the
district court, or such other district court judge as
the plan may provide, shall deem any person qualified
to serve on grand and petit juries in the district
court unless he --
(1) is not a citizen of the United States eighteen
years old who has resided for a period of one year
within the judicial district; ....
[28 U.S.C. 1865, emphasis added]
In stark contrast, it is the policy of the United States
that all citizens shall have the opportunity to be considered for
service on juries in the district courts of the United States.
To be constitutional, and to be consistent with its legislative
intent, the term "all citizens", as that term is used in 28
U.S.C. 1861, must be construed to include also Citizens of the
freely associated compact states who are not also citizens of the
United States (a/k/a "federal citizens"):
1861. Declaration of policy
It is the policy of the United States that all litigants in
Federal courts entitled to trial by jury shall have the
right to grand and petit juries selected at random from a
fair cross section of the community in the district or
division wherein the court convenes. It is further the
policy of the United States that all citizens shall have the
opportunity to be considered for service on grand and petit
juries in the district courts of the United States, and
shall have an obligation to serve as jurors when summoned
for that purpose.
[28 U.S.C. 1861, emphasis added]
Motion to Stay Proceedings, Challenge to Statute : Page 2 of 9
Defendant hereby provides notice to all interested party(s)
of His sworn (verified) statement of law and facts which
constitute a substantial failure by the United States to comply
with the Constitution for the United States of America, as
lawfully amended (hereinafter "U.S. Constitution"), and with the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1861: Declaration of Policy. See 28
U.S.C. 1867(d) & (e); Tenth Amendment.
Federal grand and petit juries consist of members all of
whom are citizens of the United States, not necessarily Citizens
of Alabama state. See Dyett v. Turner and State v. Phillips
infra; Right of Election; voter registration affidavits; U.S.
v. Griffith, 2 F.2d 925 (1924). Also confer at "Federal
citizenship" in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.
By way of introduction to the crucial matters of fact and
law which are discussed at length in Defendant's sworn (verified)
statement, which is served herewith and incorporated by reference
as if set forth fully herein, this honorable Court is hereby
respectfully requested to take formal judicial notice of the
additional standing authorities on this question:
We have in our political system a Government of the United
States and a government of each of the several States. Each
one of these governments is distinct from the others, and
each has citizens of its own .... Slaughter-House Cases
[United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)]
[emphasis added]
A person who is a citizen of the United States** is
necessarily a citizen of the particular state in which he
resides. But a person may be a citizen of a particular
state and not a citizen of the United States. To hold
otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest exercise
of its sovereignty, -- the right to declare who are its
citizens.
[State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380]
[6 S. 602 (1889), emphasis added]
There are, then, under our republican form of government,
two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of
the state. One class of citizenship may exist in a person,
without the other, as in the case of a resident of the
District of Columbia; but both classes usually exist in the
same person.
[Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155]
[48 S. 788, 791 (1909), emphasis added]
Motion to Stay Proceedings, Challenge to Statute : Page 3 of 9
There are over 100,000 elementary and secondary schools in
the United States. ... Each of these now has an invisible
federal zone [sic] extending 1,000 feet beyond the (often
irregular) boundaries of the school property.
[U.S. v. Lopez, 115 S.Ct. 1624 (1995)]
[emphasis added]
As a Party to the instant case, the Defendant hereby
challenges federal jury selection statutes, policies, procedures,
practices, customs, and rules (if any) on the ground that no jury
can be selected in conformity with section 1861 of Title 28,
because Citizens of Alabama state who are not also citizens of
the United States (a/k/a federal citizens) are disqualified from
serving by virtue of their chosen Citizenship status. See 28
U.S.C. 1867(e); Right of Election; 15 Statutes at Large,
Chapter 249 (Section 1), enacted July 27, 1868; jus soli; jus
sanguinis. Specifically, the offensive statute forces the
following unconstitutional result upon Citizens of Alabama state
who choose not also to be citizens of the United States (a/k/a
federal citizens):
Decision Table
citizen of Citizen of Qualified
United States Alabama state to serve
Yes Yes Yes
Yes No Yes
No No No
No Yes No **
Motion to Stay Proceedings, Challenge to Statute : Page 4 of 9
This result ("**") violates the Tenth Amendment by disqualifying
Citizens of Alabama state from serving on federal grand and petit
juries when they are not also federal citizens, thus denying to
accused Citizens of Alabama state a jury of Their Peers when a
jury consists only of federal citizens.
An intentional discrimination against a class of persons,
solely because of their class, by officers in charge of the
selection and summoning of grand jurors in a criminal case, is a
violation of the fundamental Rights of an accused. See Cassell
v. Texas, 339 U.S. 282; Atkins v. Texas, 325 U.S. 398; Pierre
v. Louisiana, 306 U.S. 354. Such a violation is not excused by
the fact that the persons actually selected for jury service
otherwise possess the necessary qualifications for jurors as
prescribed by statute. See State v. Jones, 365 P.2d 460.
Discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, as
prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, means an intentional,
systematic non-inclusion because of class. There are two (2)
classes of citizenship in America. See Gardina supra; 28
U.S.C. 1652. The statute 28 U.S.C. 1865(b)(1) specifically
excludes those classes of Citizens who are not mentioned.
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.
The following statute dramatically demonstrates that
Congress appreciates the difference between the two classes, and
knows how to discriminate between "white citizens" (read "state
Citizens") and "citizens of the United States" (a/k/a federal
citizens). The Act of Congress called the Civil Rights Act, 14
U.S. Statutes at Large, p. 27, which was the forerunner of the
so-called 14th Amendment, amply shows the intent of Congress, as
follows:
Motion to Stay Proceedings, Challenge to Statute : Page 5 of 9
... [A]ll persons born in the United States and not subject
to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are
hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and
such citizens, of every race and color ... shall have the
same right, in every State and Territory in the United
States ... to full and equal benefit of all laws and
proceedings for the security of person and property, as is
enjoyed by white citizens.
[emphasis added]
Once a prima facie case for the existence of purposeful
discrimination is made out, the burden shifts to the prosecution
in a criminal case to prove otherwise. See Whitus v. Georgia,
385 U.S. 545. Reliance on the so-called Fourteenth Amendment to
resolve this matter is moot, because the Fourteenth Amendment
[sic] was never lawfully ratified, and because the authorities
cited supra allow for the possibility that a Person can be a
state Citizen without also being a federal citizen, whether or
not the Fourteenth Amendment was lawfully ratified. See State v.
Phillips, 540 P.2d 936, 941 (1975); Dyett v. Turner, 20 Utah 2d
403, 439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968); Full Faith and Credit Clause; 28
Tulane Law Review 22; 11 South Carolina Law Quarterly 484;
House Congressional Record, June 13, 1967, p. 15641 et seq.
As such, there is no constitutional provision which makes a
federal citizen also a citizen of the Union state in which s/he
resides, nor is there any constitutional provision which states
that the validity of the public debt shall not be questioned.
The judicial history of American citizenship is a subject
which is rich in nuance and detail, as demonstrated in
Defendant's sworn (verified) statement. For example, at a time
when those Islands were in the federal zone, the Supreme Court of
the Philippine Islands found that "citizenship," strictly
speaking, is a term of municipal law and, according to that
Court, it is municipal law which regulates the conditions on
which citizenship is acquired:
Motion to Stay Proceedings, Challenge to Statute : Page 6 of 9
Citizenship, says Moore on International Law, strictly
speaking, is a term of municipal law and denotes the
possession within the particular state of full civil and
political rights subject to special disqualifications, such
as minority, sex, etc. The conditions on which citizenship
are [sic] acquired are regulated by municipal law. There is
no such thing as international citizenship nor international
law (aside from that which might be contained in treaties)
by which citizenship is acquired.
[Roa v. Collector of Customs, 23 Philippine 315, 332 (1912)]
Indeed, international law is divided roughly into two groups:
(1) public international law and (2) private international law.
Citizenship is a term of private international law (also known as
municipal law) in which the terms "state", "nation" and "country"
are all synonymous:
Private international law assumes a more important aspect in
the United States than elsewhere, for the reason that the
several states, although united under the same sovereign
authority and governed by the same laws for all national
purposes embraced by the Federal Constitution, are
otherwise, at least so far as private international law is
concerned, in the same relation as foreign countries. The
great majority of questions of private international law are
therefore subject to the same rules when they arise between
two states of the Union as when they arise between two
foreign countries, and in the ensuing pages the words
"state," "nation," and "country" are used synonymously and
interchangeably, there being no intention to distinguish
between the several states of the Union and foreign
countries by the use of varying terminology.
[16 Am Jur 2d, Conflict of Laws, Sec. 2]
[emphasis added]
Congress does refer to the Union states as "countries." See 28
U.S.C. 297. For purposes of municipal law, the several states
are foreign with respect to each other, and also with respect to
the municipal jurisdiction of the federal zone.
Motion to Stay Proceedings, Challenge to Statute : Page 7 of 9
RELIEF SOUGHT
Wherefore, Defendant petitions this honorable Court for an
indefinite stay of the proceedings in the instant case, pending
proper review of the substantial issues of law and fact which are
alleged in this Motion, and which are documented in Defendant's
sworn (verified) statement which is filed herewith in this Court
and which is incorporated by reference as if set forth fully
herein. In the event that Defendant should prevail on said
issues, Defendant explicitly reserves His fundamental Right to
abate all federal jury action(s) in the instant case, until such
time as Congress lawfully cures the unlawful class discrimination
which is exhibited by the current Jury Selection and Service Act,
28 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.
Executed on: __________________________________
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Mike Kemp
William Michael, Kemp, Sui Juris
Citizen of Alabama state
all Rights reserved without prejudice
Executed on January 17, 1997:
/s/ Paul Mitchell
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness,
Counselor at Law, and Counsel to Defendant
all Rights reserved without prejudice
Motion to Stay Proceedings, Challenge to Statute : Page 8 of 9
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, William Michael, Kemp, 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 OF EXPLICIT RESERVATION;
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL JURY SELECTION POLICY;
AND NOTICE OF CHALLENGE AND
CHALLENGE TO CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTE:
28 U.S.C. 297, 517, 518, 1652, 1861, 1865, and 1867(d),(e),
Rules 201(d), 301, 302, Federal Rules of Evidence;
Full Faith and Credit Clause
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:
James E. Hedgspeth, Jr. Clerk of Court
Etowah County Offices Circuit Court of Etowah County
c/o 800 Forrest Avenue c/o 800 Forrest Avenue
Gadsden [zip code exempt] Gadsden [zip code exempt]
ALABAMA ALABAMA
Solicitor General Clerk of Court
Department of Justice Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
10th and Constitution, N.W. c/o P.O. Box 301555
Washington [zip code exempt] Montgomery [zip code exempt]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ALABAMA
Attorney General Clerk of Court
Department of Justice District Court of the United States
10th and Constitution, N.W. c/o 1729 Fifth Avenue North
Washington [zip code exempt] Birmingham [zip code exempt]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ALABAMA
Chief Judge William H. Rehnquist, C.J.
11th Circuit Court of Appeals Supreme Court of the United States
c/o 56 Forsyth Street, N.W. 1 First Street, N.E.
Atlanta [zip code exempt] Washington [zip code exempt]
GEORGIA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Executed on ____________________________________
/s/ Mike Kemp
William Michael, Kemp, Sui Juris
Citizen of Alabama state [See USPS Publication #221.]
Motion to Stay Proceedings, Challenge to Statute : Page 9 of 9
# # #
Return to the Table of Contents for
Alabama v. Kemp