Floyd Raymond, Looker, Sui Juris
c/o General Delivery
Nettie [zip code exempt]
WEST VIRGINIA

In Propria Persona

All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice







               DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

           NORTHERN JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA


Floyd Raymond, Looker,        )  Docket Nos. 5:96-CR-40
                              )              1:96-CR-41
          Plaintiff,          )              1:96-CR-42
                              )              1:96-CR-43
     v.                       )
                              )  NOTICE OF PETITION AND VERIFIED
United States,                )  PETITION FOR WARRANT OF REMOVAL
and Does 1-99,                )  BY THREE-JUDGE PANEL:
                              )  18 U.S.C. 1964(a);
          Respondents.        )  28 U.S.C. 292(b), 1331, 1332,
                              )  1333(1), 1359, 1367(a), 1441(b),
                              )  1441(c), 1446, 1451(2), 1631,
                              )  2284;  5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B);
                              )  FRCP Rules 9(h), 11, 38;
______________________________)  JURY TRIAL DEMANDED


COMES NOW  Floyd Raymond,  Looker, Sui  Juris,  Citizen  of  West

Virginia  state  and  Plaintiff  in  the  above  entitled  matter

(hereinafter "Plaintiff"), to petition this honorable Court for a

Warrant of  Removal by  a  three-judge  panel,  pursuant  to  the

authorities cites  supra, of  the several  cases enumerated above

(hereinafter "Criminal  Cases") from  the United  States District

Court [sic]  (hereinafter  "USDC"),  Northern  District  of  West

Virginia, to  the District  Court  of  the  United  States  [sic]

(hereinafter  "DCUS"),   Northern  Judicial   District  of   West

Virginia, on the several federal questions involved, to wit:


Notice and Verified Petition for Warrant of Removal:  Page 1 of 8


     (1)  The federal  Jury Selection  and Service Act, 28 U.S.C.

1861 thru  1865, presently  lacks any  policy for  grand jury  or

petit jury selection or service within the USDC, whereas said Act

does exhibit  a policy  for jury selection and service within the

DCUS;  see 28 U.S.C. 1861 in pari materia with 1 U.S.C. 1 et seq.

     (2)  Plaintiff has  authorized His  chosen Counsel of record

to submit proper Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") requests for

the  official   credentials  of  the  alleged  federal  officers,

employees, and  agents who have touched the Criminal Cases in any

way, and  for other  certified documentary  evidence necessary to

prove, as  a matter  of record,  the existence,  or  absence,  of

lawful federal  authority to  proceed with  the Criminal Cases in

the first instance;

     (3)  Plaintiff  complains   of  systematic   deprivation  of

fundamental Rights  guaranteed by the Constitution for the United

States  of   America,  as  lawfully  amended  (hereinafter  "U.S.

Constitution"),  and  the  Constitution  of  the  State  of  West

Virginia, as lawfully amended (hereinafter "State Constitution"),

which deprivations  are criminal violations of 18 U.S.C. 242, and

possibly also 18 U.S.C. 241;

     (4)  Other federal  questions have arisen since the Criminal

Cases first  began, which  questions include, but are not limited

to, the  several related  federal cases  whose litigants  are now

desirous  of   either  joining,   removing  to,  and/or  formally

intervening in,  the  instant  case  because  of  a  demonstrable

failure by  the United  States (federal government) to establish,

as a  matter of  official Court  record, that  the USDC  has  any

criminal jurisdiction  whatsoever, either over the subject matter

or over  the Person  of the Plaintiff, a Citizen of West Virginia

state who  is expressly  not also  a federal  citizen;  confer at

"Federal citizenship" in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.


Notice and Verified Petition for Warrant of Removal:  Page 2 of 8


     (5)  Plaintiff has satisfied all procedural prerequisites to

bring a  proper challenge to the constitutionality of the federal

Jury Selection  and Service  Act, by  means of  a proper  Plea in

Abatement, on  grounds of prohibited class discrimination against

Citizens of  West Virginia state who are not also citizens of the

United States  (hereinafter "federal  citizens");   but Plaintiff

was denied  a fundamental  Right to  due process  of law when the

Magistrate Judge  in the  Criminal Cases  pled  past  Plaintiff's

proper Motion  to Stay  Proceedings, pending  final resolution of

said challenge,  by entry  sua sponte  of a Plea of "Not Guilty",

thereby violating  28  U.S.C.  454,  the  federal  statute  which

prohibits the  practice of law by federal judges and magistrates,

and denying  to Plaintiff  proper adjudication  of the  matter at

hand.  See Plaintiff's PLEA IN ABATEMENT already filed.

     (6)  Plaintiff  was  deprived  of  a  fundamental  Right  to

effective assistance  of  Counsel,  in  violation  of  the  Sixth

Amendment to  the U.S.  Constitution, when  the  USDC  failed  to

guarantee effective  assistance of  Counsel at  every step in the

proceedings, causing  the USDC to oust itself of any jurisdiction

it might  otherwise have  had, pursuant  to the  holding  of  the

Supreme Court  of the  United States  in the  case of  Johnson v.

Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 468 (1938).

     (7)  Plaintiff was  likewise deprived of a fundamental Right

to petition  government (the  courts) for  redress of grievances,

pursuant to  the Petition  Clause, when the attorney appointed by

the USDC  to "represent"  [sic] Plaintiff  refused to  deliver or


Notice and Verified Petition for Warrant of Removal:  Page 3 of 8


otherwise  assist   in  the  delivery,  signing,  and  filing  of

Plaintiff's proper  Plea in  Abatement  and  Verified  Statement,

signed and  dated in  support of  said  Plea,  under  penalty  of

perjury, both  of which  pleadings were later filed by Plaintiff,

in open court at the scheduled arraignment in the Criminal Cases.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Petition Clause is the Right

conservative of  all other Rights, rendering this deprivation one

with the  most serious and far-reaching consequences of all.  See

Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 207 U.S. 142, 148 (1907).


                          JURISDICTION

     This District  Court  of  the  United  States  has  original

jurisdiction of this action, pursuant to authorities cited in the

above caption, to wit: 18 U.S.C. 1964(a), 28 U.S.C. 292(b), 1331,

1332, 1333(1),  1359, 1367(a),  1441(b) and  (c), 1446,  1451(2),

1631 and  2284.  Pursuant to the definition at 28 U.S.C. 1451(2),

the USDC  from which  the criminal  action is  being removed is a

"State" court  as  defined  therein,  because  said  court  is  a

legislative tribunal  domiciled in the District of Columbia.  See

Balzac v. Porto Rico [sic], 42 S.Ct. 343, 258 U.S. 298 at 312, 66

L.Ed 627 (1921);  and compare 18 U.S.C. 1964(a) ("district courts

of the  United States")  with 1964(c)  ("United  States  district

court").

     In contrast,  the DCUS  is an Article III court with general

authority to  hear all  questions arising under the Constitution,

Laws, and  Treaties of  the  United  States,  including  but  not

limited  to   the  First   Amendment,  Fourth   Amendment,  Fifth

Amendment, Sixth  Amendment, Eighth  Amendment, Ninth  Amendment,

Tenth Amendment, Thirteenth Amendment, the International Covenant

on Civil  and Political  Rights, and the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights.  See Supremacy Clause.


Notice and Verified Petition for Warrant of Removal:  Page 4 of 8


                INCORPORATION OF PRIOR PLEADINGS

     Plaintiff hereby  incorporates by  reference  all  pleadings

heretofore filed  or otherwise  lodged  in  the  Criminal  Cases,

specifically  including   but  not   limited  to   all  pleadings

previously filed  by Plaintiff in said cases, and also by alleged

officers, employees,  and/or agents of the Department of Justice,

who are alleged agents of the United States who have claimed, but

failed to  demonstrate, any  powers of  attorney to represent the

UNITED STATES  OF AMERICA  as Plaintiffs  with lawful standing in

the Criminal  Cases which  were allegedly brought before the USDC

for criminal prosecution.


                     NOTICE OF RELATED CASES

     Plaintiff  also  wishes  respectfully  to  demand  mandatory

judicial notice,  pursuant to Rule 201(d) of the Federal Rules of

Evidence, and  pursuant to  the Full  Faith and Credit Clause, of

two related cases, to wit:

     (1)  People of  the United  States of  America ex  relatione

Paul Andrew  Mitchell v.  United States  et  al.,  DCUS  Montana,

Billings Division, Case Number #CV-96-163-BLG;  see attached copy

of  NOTICE   OF  REFUSAL  FOR  CAUSE  [cites  omitted]  which  is

incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein;

     (2)  In re:  Paul Andrew Mitchell Freedom of Information Act

Request, USDC Montana, Helena Division, Case Number #MCV-96-50-H-

CCL;   see attached  copy of  NOTICE OF  REFUSAL FOR CAUSE [cites

omitted] which  is also incorporated by reference as if set forth

fully herein.


Notice and Verified Petition for Warrant of Removal:  Page 5 of 8


               RESERVATION OF RIGHTS DUE TO FRAUD

     Plaintiff hereby  explicitly reserves  His fundamental Right

to amend  this and all subsequent pleadings, should future events

and/or discoveries  prove that Plaintiff has failed adequately to

comprehend  the  full  extent  of  the  damage(s)  which  He  has

sustained at  the  hands  of  the  Respondents,  both  named  and

unnamed, now and at all times in the future.

     Plaintiff hereby  also explicitly  reserves His  fundamental

Right to  enjoy a  panel of  three (3)  competent  and  qualified

federal judges  whose compensations  are not  being diminished by

federal income taxes, pursuant to Article III, Section 1 ("3:1"),

in the  U.S. Constitution, and Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920)

(never overturned).

     Plaintiff hereby  specifically complains that Congress knew,

or  should  have  known,  that  the  federal  court  of  original

jurisdiction to  enforce the  FOIA is  the District  Court of the

United States  ("DCUS"), not  the United  States  District  Court

("USDC"), when  Congress published A CITIZEN'S GUIDE ON USING THE

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AND THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 TO REQUEST

GOVERNMENT RECORDS,  First  Report  by  the  House  Committee  on

Government  Operations,  Subcommittee  on  Information,  Justice,

Transportation, and  Agriculture, 1993 Edition, House Report 103-

104, 103rd Congress, 1st Session, Union Calendar No. 53.

     Said CITIZEN'S  GUIDE incorrectly  cited the  United  States

District  Court   ("USDC")  as  the  federal  court  of  original

jurisdiction for  judicial enforcement  of FOIA  requests.  See 5

U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B).   There  is no  statute  of  limitations  on

fraud, whether actual or constructive.


Notice and Verified Petition for Warrant of Removal:  Page 6 of 8


                        REMEDY REQUESTED

     Wherefore,  Plaintiff   hereby  petitions   this   honorable

District Court  of the  United States  for a three-judge panel to

issue a  Warrant of  Removal to the United States District Court,

Northern District  of West Virginia, to remove the Criminal Cases

from said  court into  this District  Court of the United States,

Northern Judicial  District of West Virginia, with all deliberate

speed.

                          VERIFICATION

     We,  the   Undersigned,  hereby  verify,  under  penalty  of

perjury, under  the laws of the United States of America, without

the "United  States", that  the above statements of fact are true

and correct,  to the  best of Our current information, knowledge,

and belief, so Us God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).


Executed on ____________________________________

/s/ Ray Looker

Floyd Raymond, Looker, Sui Juris
Citizen of West Virginia state


Executed on December 23, 1996

/s/ Paul Mitchell

Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness,
Counselor at Law, and Counsel to Plaintiff


Notice and Verified Petition for Warrant of Removal:  Page 7 of 8


                        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):

            NOTICE OF PETITION AND VERIFIED PETITION
          FOR WARRANT OF REMOVAL BY THREE-JUDGE PANEL:
   18 U.S.C. 1964(a);  28 U.S.C. 292(b), 1331, 1332, 1333(1),
   1334, 1359, 1367(a), 1441(b), 1441(c), 1446, 1746(1), 2284;
        5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B);  FRCP Rules 9(h), 11, 38;
                       JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

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:

United States Attorney          Clerk of Court
Federal Building                United States District Court
c/o P.O. Box 591                c/o P.O. Box 471
Wheeling [zip code exempt]      Wheeling [zip code exempt]
WEST VIRGINIA                   WEST VIRGINIA

Attorney General                Solicitor General
Department of Justice           Department of Justice
10th and Constitution, N.W.     10th and Constitution, N.W.
Washington [zip code exempt]    Washington [zip code exempt]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA            DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Chief Judge                     William H. Rehnquist, C.J.
4th Circuit Court of Appeals    Supreme Court of the U.S.
10th & Main Streets             1 First Street, N.E.
Richmond [zip code exempt]      Washington [zip code exempt]
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA        DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


Executed on December 23, 1996

/s/ Paul Mitchell
__________________________________________
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness,
Counselor at Law, and Counsel to Plaintiff


Notice and Verified Petition for Warrant of Removal:  Page 8 of 8


                             #  #  #


Return to the Table of Contents for

U.S.A. v. Looker