Time: Fri Aug 01 21:14:15 1997
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 21:10:51 -0700
To: ignition-point@majordomo.pobox.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLF: update in Gilbertson appeal, 8th Circuit, St. Louis
References: <3.0.3.16.19970801175747.40679130@pop.primenet.com>
Rule 38 proves that the terms are synonymous.
The Right is inviolate, under the Seventh Amendment.
The more important statute is 28 U.S.C. 2072,
which grants authority to the U.S. Supreme Court
to promulgate rules for the USDC, but NOT
for the DCUS. This is a pivotal finding,
which we forced into the record in U.S.A.
v. Knudson.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
At 07:27 PM 8/1/97 -0800, you wrote:
>You are demanding a "jury trial". Check the words and phrases and you will
>find that a "jury trial" is not a "trial by jury". Big difference. A
>trial by jury in a court of record is what I presume you are asking for?
>Please check this out.
>
>the best
>
>
>
>
>>[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
>>
>>Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris
>>c/o Rural Route 1, Box 140
>>Battle Lake [zip code exempt]
>>MINNESOTA STATE
>>
>>In Propria Persona
>>
>>Under Protest and
>>by Special Visitation
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
>>
>> EIGHTH CIRCUIT
>>
>>
>>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic], ) Case No. 97-2099-MNST
>> Plaintiff [sic]/ )
>> Appellees, ) USDC Minneapolis #CR-4-96-65
>> v. )
>> )
>>EVERETT C. GILBERTSON [sic], )
>> Defendant [sic]/ )
>> Appellant. )
>>________________________________)
>> )
>>Everett C. Gilbertson, ) DCUS Minneapolis #4-96-65
>> Plaintiff/Appellant, )
>> v. ) NOTICE OF MOTION,
>> ) MOTION FOR DISCRETIONARY
>>United States, ) JUDICIAL NOTICE, AND
>>James M. Rosenbaum, ) APPLICATION FOR LEAVE
>>and Does 2-99, ) TO FILE ENLARGED BRIEF:
>> Respondents. ) FRAP Local Rule 28A(e),(j);
>> ) Rule 201(c), Federal Rules
>>________________________________) of Evidence
>>
>>COMES NOW Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris, Citizen of Minnesota
>>
>>state, expressly not a citizen of the United States ("federal
>>
>>citizen"), and Appellant in the above entitled matter
>>
>>(hereinafter "Appellant"), to provide formal Notice to all
>>
>>interested party(s), to move this honorable Court for
>>
>>discretionary judicial notice, pursuant to Rule 201(c) of the
>>
>>Federal Rules of Evidence, and to apply for leave to file an
>>
>>enlarged REPLY BRIEF, pursuant to Local Rules 28A(e) and (j) of
>>
>>the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure ("FRAP").
>>
>>
>>Requests for Judicial Notice/Leave to File Enlarged Brief: Page
>> 1 of 6
>>
>>
>> Appellant respectfully requests judicial notice by this
>>
>>honorable Court of the pleading entitled DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
>>
>>AND DEMAND TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING FINAL REVIEW OF FORMAL
>>
>>CHALLENGE TO JUROR AND VOTER REGISTRANT QUALIFICATIONS, as filed
>>
>>July 8, 1997, in Mitchell v. Nordbrock, Pima County Consolidated
>>
>>Justice Court, Tucson, Arizona, case number #CV-97-3438. Said
>>
>>pleading (hereinafter "Arizona Pleading") is attached hereto and
>>
>>incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein. Arizona
>>
>>state is in the Ninth Circuit.
>>
>> The two exhibits attached to the Arizona Pleading are nearly
>>
>>identical in form, and substance, to the corresponding MOTION TO
>>
>>STAY PROCEEDINGS and the VERIFIED STATEMENT, as previously filed
>>
>>by Appellant, more than once, in the trial court below.
>>
>> The Complaint of Judicial Misconduct which follows the
>>
>>VERIFIED STATEMENT infra was filed by Paul Andrew Mitchell,
>>
>>Counselor at Law, against U.S. District Judge William D.
>>
>>Browning, who presided over the trial of Sheila T. Wallen in
>>
>>U.S.A. v. Wallen, USDC, Arizona, case number #95-484-WDB.
>>
>> Appellant requests discretionary judicial notice of said
>>
>>Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, in part to demonstrate the
>>
>>consistent lack of professionalism which the federal judiciary
>>
>>has exhibited, when presented with the uncontested facts and laws
>>
>>previously documented, under penalty of perjury and outside the
>>
>>United States, in Appellant's MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS and
>>
>>requisite VERIFIED STATEMENT. See 28 U.S.C. 1746(1) in chief.
>>
>> Appellant hereby directs the attention of this honorable
>>
>>Court to the following key points of law which are elaborated in
>>
>>some detail in the Arizona Pleading, to wit:
>>
>>
>>Requests for Judicial Notice/Leave to File Enlarged Brief: Page
>> 2 of 6
>>
>>
>> (1) The "Right of Election" is established and recognized
>> by the Maine Supreme Court, Appleton concurring at 44
>> Maine 528-529 (1859). The Maine Legislature had
>> requested that court's judicial opinion, in response to
>> the holding in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393
>> (1856).
>>
>> (2) The existence of two (2) classes of citizenship under
>> American law, never repealed, is also recognized by
>> numerous authorities infra, both state and federal.
>>
>> (3) The proper construction and common understanding of the
>> Qualifications Clauses are also explored thoroughly,
>> with pertinent citations dating back to the California
>> Constitution of 1849, and subsequently in People v. De
>> La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870).
>>
>> (4) The cases recognize that one may be a citizen of the
>> United States ("federal citizen") without also being a
>> Citizen of any particular Union state. See e.g. Hough
>> v. Societe Electrique Westinghouse de Russie, 231 F.
>> 341, (USDC, NY, 1916).
>>
>> (5) The cases also recognize that Americans may be Citizens
>> of a Union state without also being federal citizens.
>> See McDonel v. State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883); Crosse v.
>> Board of Supervisors of Elections, 221 A.2d 431 (1966);
>> 11 C.J., Section 3, page 777 and cases cited therein
>> (Harding, McDonel, Fowler).
>>
>> (6) The cases also recognize that, both before and after
>> the so-called Fourteenth amendment [sic], it has not
>> been necessary for one to be a federal citizen in order
>> to be a Citizen of a Union state.
>>
>> (7) The failure to capitalize the "C" in "Citizen", as that
>> term is used in the Qualifications Clauses, has created
>> an immense, nearly immeasurable, amount of confusion
>> among references to state and federal citizenship in
>> all federal and state laws which utilize the phrase
>> "citizen of the United States" [sic].
>>
>> (8) It is also clear that this confusion was intentional,
>> in order to co-opt the American People into associating
>> with a political jurisdiction which is not protected by
>> the Guarantee Clause. The United States (federal
>> government) is not required to guarantee a Republican
>> Form of Government to the federal zone, only to the
>> state zone [sic]. See Guarantee Clause.
>>
>> (9) Congress cannot by legislation alter the Constitution,
>> from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and
>> within whose limitations alone that power can be
>> lawfully exercised. See Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S.
>> 189 (1919) (holding predicated on ratification of the
>> 16th amendment [sic] as applied to the term "income").
>>
>>
>>Requests for Judicial Notice/Leave to File Enlarged Brief: Page
>> 3 of 6
>>
>>
>> (10) The Qualifications Clauses have never been amended,
>> despite recent efforts to impose limits on the terms of
>> federal Representatives and/or Senators. Appellant
>> agrees that limits upon the terms of federal lawmakers
>> would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
>> See U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 115 S.Ct. 1842,
>> 131 L.Ed.2d 881 (1995).
>>
>> (11) It is a cardinal rule in dealing with written
>> instruments that they are to receive an unvarying
>> interpretation, and that their practical construction
>> is to be uniform. See Cory et al. v. Carter, 48 Ind.
>> 327, 335 (1874); Qualifications Clauses, 3:2:1, 4:2:1.
>>
>> (12) Citizenship is a term of municipal law. Prior to the
>> 1866 Civil Rights Act, which legislated federal
>> citizenship into existence as a municipal franchise,
>> one and only one class of citizenship was recognized by
>> the U.S. Constitution. Thus, prior to 1866, all
>> constitutional references to "Citizen of the United
>> States" and "citizen of the United States" were
>> identical in all respects. See Roa v. Collector of
>> Customs, 23 Philippine 315, 332 (1912); Murphy v.
>> Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 (1885); People v. De La Guerra, 40
>> Cal. 311, 342 (1870).
>>
>>
>> REMEDY REQUESTED
>>
>> Appellant respectfully requests this honorable Court to take
>>
>>formal judicial Notice of all authorities cited herein, pursuant
>>
>>to Rule 201(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and to grant
>>
>>Appellant leave to file an enlarged REPLY BRIEF, pursuant to FRAP
>>
>>Local Rules 28A(e) and (j). Appellant also requests leave to
>>
>>incorporate the instant application into Appellant's REPLY BRIEF,
>>
>>now in preparation, as if set forth fully therein.
>>
>>
>> VERIFICATION
>>
>>I, Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris, hereby verify, under penalty
>>
>>of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America,
>>
>>without the "United States", that the above statement of facts is
>>
>>true and correct, to the best of My current information,
>>
>>knowledge, and belief, so help Me God, per 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
>>
>> [Please see next page et seq.]
>>
>>
>>Requests for Judicial Notice/Leave to File Enlarged Brief: Page
>> 4 of 6
>>
>>
>>Dated: ______________________________
>>
>>
>>Respectfully submitted,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>______________________________________________
>>Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris
>>Citizen of Minnesota state, federal witness
>>(expressly not a citizen of the United States)
>>
>>All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
>>
>>
>>Requests for Judicial Notice/Leave to File Enlarged Brief: Page
>> 5 of 6
>>
>>
>> PROOF OF SERVICE
>>
>>I, Everett C. Gilbertson, 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 MOTION, MOTION FOR DISCRETIONARY JUDICIAL NOTICE,
>> AND APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ENLARGED BRIEF:
>> FRAP Local Rules 28A(e), (j);
>> Rule 201(c), 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:
>>
>>
>>Attorney General James M. Rosenbaum
>>Department of Justice United States District Court
>>10th & Constitution, N.W. 110 South Fourth Street
>>Washington [zip code exempt] Minneapolis [zip code exempt]
>>DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MINNESOTA STATE
>>
>>Solicitor General Henry Shea
>>Department of Justice United States Attorneys
>>10th & Constitution, N.W. 110 South Fourth Street
>>Washington [zip code exempt] Minneapolis [zip code exempt]
>>DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MINNESOTA STATE
>>
>>Courtesy copies to:
>>
>>William H. Rehnquist, C.J. Clarence Thomas, J.
>>U.S. Supreme Court U.S. Supreme Court
>>One First Street N.E. One First Street N.E.
>>Washington [zip code exempt] Washington [zip code exempt]
>>DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
>>
>>Paul Andrew Mitchell Alex Kozinski (supervising)
>>Counselor at Law, federal witness Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
>>c/o 2509 N. Campbell Ave., #1776 125 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 200
>>Tucson [zip code exempt] Pasadena [zip code exempt]
>>ARIZONA STATE CALIFORNIA STATE
>>
>>[See USPS Publication 221 for addressing instructions.]
>>
>>
>>Dated: ______________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>______________________________________________
>>Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris
>>Citizen of Minnesota state, federal witness
>>(expressly not a citizen of the United States)
>>
>>
>>Requests for Judicial Notice/Leave to File Enlarged Brief: Page
>> 6 of 6
>>
>>
>> # # #
>>
>>
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Attachment "A":
>>
>> DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND
>> DEMAND FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
>> PENDING FINAL REVIEW OF FORMAL CHALLENGE
>> TO JUROR AND VOTER REGISTRANT QUALIFICATIONS:
>> ARS 21-201, ARS 16-101; Guarantee Clause
>>
>> Mitchell v. Nordbrock
>>
>> Pima County Consolidated Justice Court
>> Pima County, Arizona state
>> Case Number #CV-97-3438
>>
>>
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Attachment "B":
>>
>> COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
>>
>> (with Complainant's Supporting Letter)
>>
>> by
>>
>> Paul Andrew Mitchell
>> Complainant
>>
>> versus
>>
>> William D. Browning
>> United States District Judge
>> Tucson, Arizona state
>>
>>
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Attachment "C":
>>
>> COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
>>
>> (with Complainant's Supporting Letter)
>>
>> by
>>
>> Paul Andrew Mitchell
>> Complainant
>>
>> versus
>>
>> John M. Roll
>> United States District Judge
>> Tucson, Arizona state
>>
>>
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Attachment "D":
>>
>> MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
>> FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH GRAND JURY SELECTION POLICY,
>> AND NOTICE OF CHALLENGE AND
>> CHALLENGE TO CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTE:
>> 28 U.S.C. 297, 517, 518, 1861, 1865 and 1867(d)
>>
>> In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Served on
>> New Life Health Center Company
>>
>> United States District Court
>> Tucson, Arizona state
>> Case Number #GJ-95-1-6
>>
>>
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> # # #
>>
>>
>>========================================================================
>>Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
>>B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
>>
>>tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
>>email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
>>website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
>>ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
>> Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
>> Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
>>
>>As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
>>not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
>>========================================================================
>>[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
>>
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>>-------------
>>To subscribe or unsubscribe, email
>>majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message:
>> subscribe ignition-point
>> or
>> unsubscribe ignition-point
>> http://ic.net/~celano/ip/
>
>
>Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd (true name)
>citizen of the United States of America
>
>If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better
>than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not
>your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May
>your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget ye were our
>countrymen. Samuel Adams
>
>The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it.
> John Hay: Castilian Days, II, 1872
>
>My homepage.
>http://www.alaska.net/~winter/jefferson.html
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe, email
>majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message:
> subscribe ignition-point
> or
> unsubscribe ignition-point
> http://ic.net/~celano/ip/
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail