Time: Thu May 15 12:55:21 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA21877; Wed, 14 May 1997 11:03:54 -0700 (MST) id NAA11202; Wed, 14 May 1997 13:46:50 -0400 (EDT) id NAA11133; Wed, 14 May 1997 13:46:29 -0400 (EDT) id AA28428; Wed, 14 May 1997 13:46:15 -0400 by usr10.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA11577; Wed, 14 May 1997 10:44:23 -0700 (MST) Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 10:50:25 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SNET: SLS: Motion for Rehearing En Banc, USA v. Gilbertson -> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris Citizen of Minnesota state and federal witness 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]/ ) USDC Minneapolis #CR-4-96-65 Appellee, ) DCUS Minneapolis #4-96-65 v. ) ) MOTION FOR REHEARING EVERETT C. GILBERTSON [sic], ) EN BANC: ) Local FRAP Rule 40A(b)(2); Defendant [sic]/ ) 28 U.S.C. 1652; Ninth Appellant. ) and Tenth Amendments; ) ________________________________) REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT COMES NOW Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris, Citizen of Minnesota state, federal witness, expressly not a citizen of the United States ("federal citizen"), and Appellant in the above entitled matter (hereinafter "Appellant") to move this honorable Court, pursuant to Rule 40A(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure ("FRAP"), for rehearing en banc of Appellant's MOTION FOR RELEASE PENDING APPEAL. Said MOTION was denied by ORDER of this Court, which ORDER was dated April 29, 1997. In support of the instant MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (hereinafter the "MOTION FOR REHEARING"), Appellant hereby respectfully requests the entire banc of qualified Judges, currently assigned to preside upon this honorable Court, to take formal judicial Notice of the following local Rule, to wit: Motion for Rehearing En Banc: Page 1 of 16 40A: PETITION FOR REHEARING BY PANEL (b) Petition for Rehearing. (2) TREATED AS PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC. On the request of any judge on the panel, a petition for rehearing by a panel will be treated as a petition for rehearing en banc. Every petition for rehearing en banc, however, shall automatically be deemed to include a petition for rehearing by the panel. [emphasis added] Accordingly, Appellant proceeds on the basis of the presumption that the panel which denied Appellant's MOTION FOR RELEASE PENDING APPEAL on April 29, 1997, will separately consider this MOTION FOR REHEARING and advise the entire banc of their ruling on same, before the entire banc rules on same. INCORPORATION OF TRANSCRIPTS In support of this MOTION FOR REHEARING, Appellant submits that the grounds for granting same are itemized thoroughly in the two (2) Reporter's Transcripts ("RT's") of: (1) the sentencing hearing had before the United States District Court ("USDC") on April 21, 1997 (hereinafter "21RT"); and, (2) the hearing on Appellant's MOTION FOR RELEASE PENDING APPEAL heard before the USDC on April 23, 1997 (hereinafter "23RT"). Appellant shall quote the 21RT and the 23RT by using bold type to highlight all quotations taken therefrom. Appellant therefore incorporates by reference both RT's, as if set forth fully herein, with the proviso that the 23RT evidently contains numerous errors which this Court would do well to consider carefully, to avoid possible prejudice to Appellant's arguments submitted herein. To this end, Appellant has previously filed and served a MOTION TO CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF SENTENCING HEARING (hereinafter "MOTION TO CORRECT TRANSCRIPT"). Motion for Rehearing En Banc: Page 2 of 16 Appellant respectfully requests this Court to rely upon the source documents for certain contiguous blocks of text in the 21RT, because Appellant did attempt diligently to read verbatim from these source documents at the hearing recorded in the 21RT. These source documents, and corresponding locations in the 21RT, are itemized as follows: Allocution at Sentencing Hearing Subject Matter Location in 21RT Beginning 21RT 2:9 Allocution 21RT 15:15 Credentials 21RT 19:6 Lack of Jurisdiction 21RT 20:11 Liability Statutes 21RT 23:13 Jury Selection and Service Act 21RT 24:7 ("JSSA") Withdrawal of Plea 21RT 25:2 Notice of Appeal 21RT 25:6 Clarification of Terms [starts] 21RT 25:10 Clarification of Terms [ends] 21RT 26:4 Urgent Memo (filed by USDC) 21RT 26:20 (not read) In contrast, Appellant did not attempt to read verbatim from any source documents at the hearing on April 23, 1997, and for this reason, at the present time Appellant has no means by which to correct any errors which may be extant in the 23RT. In summary, Appellant recommends this honorable Court first to consider the 23RT infra, then the 21RT supra, and lastly the source documents for 21RT, relying upon the table supra to locate corresponding blocks of text in the 21RT proper. This Court is advised to recognize that the 21RT contains certain matters in addition to those which are covered in said source documents. Motion for Rehearing En Banc: Page 3 of 16 ISSUES RAISED AT USDC HEARING ON APRIL 23, 1997 Judicial Incompetence: "sui something" Appellant submits that the 23RT exhibits evidence of bias and prejudicial incompetence in the man presiding over the USDC. Appellant herein highlights this evidence as follows: 23RT:2:16 I now have before me a motion signed by Edward [sic] C. [sic] Gilbertson sui something [sic]. Appellant argues that pleadings are proper when they exhibit the phrase "Sui Juris" immediately after Appellant's Proper Name (not nomme de guerre) at the top, left-hand corner of each face page. Confer at "Sui juris" in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (hereinafter "Black's"), to wit: Sui juris. Latin. Of his own right; possessing full social and civil rights; not under any legal disability, or the power of another, or guardianship. Having capacity to manage one's own affairs; not under legal disability to act for one's self. The bias exhibited by Mr. Rosenbaum in the 23RT is reinforced by Appellant's finding in the Historical and Statutory Notes following 28 U.S.C. 451 in Federal Civil Judicial Procedure and Rules, West Publishing Company, 1996 edition, to wit: Words "learned in law" were omitted as unnecessary. Such requirement is not made of United States judges and no reason appears to make a distinction respecting United States attorneys. [emphasis added] Appellant submits that clear evidence of judicial incompetence by Mr. Rosenbaum is sufficient ground for this Court to release Appellant, pending appeal, upon the same terms and conditions as Appellant's pre-trial release. See 28 U.S.C 372(c). Further in the 23RT, Mr. Rosenbaum is frank enough to admit that he did not understand one of Appellant's spoken sentences. The sentence in question now follows, to wit: Motion for Rehearing En Banc: Page 4 of 16 23RT 4:21 THE DEFENDANT: ... And I would request this release due to the fact that I have filed a notice of petition and intend to proceed with this ... appeal, because I believe I have done enough ... publishing forth the law and information about the law and cites, case law, to back up what I have said. [sic] THE COURT: Miss Reporter, would you read back his last sentence, please. (Read back.) THE DEFENDANT: I should pull back and strike the word publish. THE COURT: That's as -- I will be frank to tell you I didn't understand what that last sentence meant, and I thought it would get better if I heard it again. [emphasis added] Denial of Right to Assistance of Counsel Appellant clearly presents the grounds on which the USDC should have released Appellant. See 23RT:5:11. But, at a key point in this presentation, Appellant stops, because Appellant was being denied effective assistance of Counsel at that moment: 23RT:6:9 THE DEFENDANT: ... I don't know anything more what to say, because I wanted to have opportunity to consult with this counselor [Paul Andrew Mitchell], but that has been denied. [emphasis added] Despite what follows, up to and including 23RT:7:4, Appellant submits that the real reasons for Mr. Rosenbaum's position is found in the dialogue beginning at 23RT:3:1 and ending at 23RT:3:21, inclusive. Mr. Rosenbaum erred therein by disqualifying Appellant's chosen Counsel merely because said Counsel is not a licensed attorney [sic], and He has no intention of ever becoming a licensed attorney, because of the original 13th Amendment (1819). See Article V; Supremacy Clause; Full Faith and Credit Clause; records of the Commonwealth of Virginia; 28 U.S.C. 1652; and Minnesota state Constitution. Motion for Rehearing En Banc: Page 5 of 16 Consequently, Appellant was denied assistance of Counsel, which is a fundamental Right guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. See Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 468 (1938). Such a deprivation ousted the USDC of any and all jurisdiction which said USDC might otherwise have had. See Johnson supra. Moreover, Appellant has relied extensively upon the published decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States on the question of Counsel, and should not be punished unnecessarily for doing so. See U.S. v. Mason, 412 U.S. 391, 399-400 (1973). See also Appellant's MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL OF CHOICE: Sixth Amendment, previously executed, filed, and served upon all interested parties, and replete with authorities. Questions of Law and Fact Likely to Result in Reversal or New Trial The United States Attorney opens this question as follows: 23RT:7:6 MR. SHEA: Your Honor, the United States opposes the motion under Section 3143, Title 18. One of the requirements for the Court to find, to grant a motion such as this, is that the defendant has presented a question of law or a fact that is likely to result in a reversal and order of new trial. In other words, a substantial question of law or fact. We believe none exist [sic] in this case, none have [sic] been identified by the defendant, and on that ground we feel the motion should be denied. Here, Mr. Rosenbaum discusses the statute at 18 U.S.C. 3143, even quoting this statute verbatim, after which Mr. Rosenbaum says: 23RT:9:1 That's the rule which I'm required to follow. All right. You may say anything further about that, and that only, and then I will rule. THE DEFENDANT: Okay. The law that, or the thing that I want to appeal, I want to challenge again, is the jurisdiction of this Court. The constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Motion for Rehearing En Banc: Page 6 of 16 THE COURT: On what basis? THE DEFENDANT: On the basis that I am not a federal citizen, nor do I abide or live in a federal zone. THE COURT: Okay. THE DEFENDANT: And that ... it is not done to ... circumvent or to delay this process. And this was the appeal I did earlier, but I did untimely. In which the appeals court sent its decision down that it was not, did not have jurisdiction because sentencing, or the judge had not certified. So that is one of the things that I -- [unexplained gap here] And also the constitutionality of the Jury Selection Act as far as limiting jury members to just federal citizens, where I've stated in court that I am a Citizen of Minnesota state. I'm challenging that aspect of the jury selection act [sic]. I'm also challenging in this appeal the aspect of ... competent counsel, which was part of the sentencing guidelines and Rule 32, I think I alluded to that in my sentencing. And I'm also challenging ... the ... fact that I have requested that the Freedom of Information Act credentials of all the actors. I have not ... you know, that are required under law to ... have their oaths certified, signatures on file. Which I've requested and have not obtained any certified to this point. That includes all the way from the judicial to the legislative to the agencies that are involved as well. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Appellant has thus itemized the specific questions of law and fact which are likely to result in a reversal and order of new trial. Appellant argues that these are, indeed, substantial questions of law and fact, in particular, Appellant's arguments concerning the Jury Selection and Service Act ("JSSA") and the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"); but Messrs. Rosenbaum and Shea appear to claim a superior knowledge of the future here, providing further evidence of bias and irreversible prejudice in a hearing at which the USDC ultra vires decided Appellant's freedom or detention. See Fifth Amendment; 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B). Motion for Rehearing En Banc: Page 7 of 16 Mr. Rosenbaum's Responses to Issues At this point, Mr. Rosenbaum responds to these issues as follows: 23RT:10:18 THE COURT: ... But the primary concern that I have is, first of all, whether or not you are -- no, you are a person who adamantly refuses to admit that you are a citizen of the United States [sic] and that this Court or the United States has any authority over you. Now, a person who makes such a statement is not a person who can be depended upon to return to the court. Appellant submits that this statement by Mr. Rosenbaum clearly deprived Appellant of His fundamental Rights to freedom of speech and to petition government for redress of grievances, as guaranteed by the First Amendment, in clear violation of 18 U.S.C. 242: deprivation of fundamental Rights under color of law. See Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 207 U.S. 142, 148 (1907), in which the high Court held that the Petition Clause is the Right conservative of all other rights! See also "Right/Constitutional Rights/Political rights" in Black's supra. In particular, the Right of state Citizenship [sic] is a political Right, of which Mr. Rosenbaum clearly has deprived Appellant here, and in what follows: 23RT:10:23 And the reason is is because if the Court has no authority over you, you are obviously free, as you have felt in the past, to disregard the mandates of Congress, and per force you would also feel free to disregard this Court's instruction, because you do not recognize this Court. You have said so in your own statements. Appellant submits that Mr. Rosenbaum has flatly contradicted himself here, and elsewhere, by stating that Appellant is not someone who can be depended upon to return to the USDC when, in point of fact, staring Mr. Rosenbaum right in the face is the Person of Appellant, who voluntarily appeared at the sentencing hearing, when He could have absconded, but at no time ever did! Motion for Rehearing En Banc: Page 8 of 16 Moreover, Mr. Rosenbaum strongly implies that the USDC is committing extortion against Appellant, by forcing Appellant to submit to its "instruction", when the USDC had no lawful authority over Appellant in the first instance. Paraphrasing Mr. Rosenbaum now, if the USDC has no jurisdiction, Appellant was obviously free (as Appellant has felt in the past) to disregard the USDC's "instruction" [sic] (whatever that is); Mr. Rosenbaum is ironically correct here, for once. See 18 U.S.C. 872 and 1951. Appellant submits that the official record of the instant case exhibits more than sufficient proof that the USDC lacked any jurisdiction whatsoever over the subject matter. This evidence is to be found, in particular, in Appellant's AFFIDAVITS OF DEFAULT AND OF PROBABLE CAUSE executed, served, filed in the record, and unrebutted to date. There are no regs for IRC 7402. Moreover, the offices of the U.S. Attorney and Solicitor General fell totally and completely silent in the face of Appellant's final NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR PROOF OF POWER, STANDING, AND JURISDICTION IN THE PARTICULARS, executed, served, and filed. There are no regs for 28 U.S.C. 1861 et seq. either! Their silence is, therefore, a fraud upon Appellant, the American People, and the district courts, when there is a legal or a moral duty to speak. See U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977). Moreover, silence activates estoppel. See Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906). See also IRC 7401, in pari materia. Said moral and legal duty arises from evidence that the requisite Oath of Office has been properly executed and recorded by each and every government actor who has touched the instant case in any way, including Mr. Rosenbaum in particular. Motion for Rehearing En Banc: Page 9 of 16 To this end, Appellant went to exhaustive efforts timely to request the requisite credentials from all of said actors, under authority of the FOIA. Appellant also went to the same efforts timely to appeal their failure to produce certified evidence of said credentials. Uncertified documents are not admissible. Last but not least, Appellant went the final mile by submitting a lawful NOTICE AND DEMAND to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, and to the Clerk of the USDC, demanding exhibition of the requisite credentials. Appellant did this in recognition of the colorable authority to be found in the blanket FOIA exemption for the entire federal judicial branch. See 5 U.S.C. 551(1)(A) and (B). Finally, Appellant has explicitly challenged the constitutionality of said blanket exemption for being overly broad, and for violating the Oath of Office provision in the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended (hereinafter "U.S. Constitution"). See Article VI, Clauses 2 and 3 ("6:2", "6:3"); 28 U.S.C. 453; 5 U.S.C. 3331. As such, Appellant has raised meritorious and non-frivolous issues, which separately invoke the original jurisdiction of the District Court of the United States ("DCUS"), a forum which is convened under authority of Article III in the U.S. Constitution; the USDC is a forum convened under Article IV in the U.S. Constitution. See American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 1 Pet. 511, 7 L.Ed 242 (1828); Balzac v. Porto Rico [sic], 258 U.S. 298 at 312, 66 L.Ed 627 (1921); 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B); ORDER dated May 21, 1996, In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Served on New Life Health Center Company, USDC Arizona, Tucson, #GJ-95-1-6. Motion for Rehearing En Banc: Page 10 of 16 Appellant submits that Mr. Rosenbaum either did not bother to confirm Appellant's numerous citations on this distinction, or did not understand them, even if he did confirm them. This was painfully confirmed when the subject of Appellant's COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF came before Mr. Rosenbaum. Mr. Rosenbaum Was Recused by 28 U.S.C. 455 In general, the presiding judge of any district court is presumed to have executed the solemn Oath of Office required of him (her) by Article VI, Clause 3 ("6:3") and by 28 U.S.C. 453. This Oath is like an on-off light switch in that, per force, its execution activates all the guarantees in the federal and state constitutions, without exception. Fiat lux et lux erat in mundo. This causal connection between those guarantees and a judge's Oath of Office is tersely expressed as follows: A district judge is bound by oath of office to uphold the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Hawaii; rule excluding illegally seized evidence falls within scope of such oath as such rule is a sanction essential to upholding federal and state constitutional safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures. State v. Wilson, 519 P.2d 228. [American Digest System, Eighth Decennial Digest] ["Judges", page 969, Section 5: "Qualifications"] [emphasis added] Therefore, using this elegant logic, all the Rights which are guaranteed by both the state and federal constitutions are sanctions which fall within the scope of the Oath of Office. The guarantee of due process of law is a Right which is on a par with a multitude of all other Rights which are guaranteed by those constitutions, whether or not they are enumerated. Together, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide explicit guarantees for that multitude, without any need to enumerate them. Motion for Rehearing En Banc: Page 11 of 16 Applying these principles to the instant case is not difficult. Appellant designed one deadline for exhaustion of all FOIA remedies, and for production of all certified documents demanded in Appellant's NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR PROOF OF POWER, STANDING, AND JURISDICTION IN THE PARTICULARS; NOTICE OF FRAUD. When this deadline passed without exhibition by any government employees of any of the documents requested, Appellant testified to this default in His AFFIDAVITS OF DEFAULT AND OF PROBABLE CAUSE. Appellant submits that the passage of this deadline provided Appellant with sufficient probable cause to remove the criminal case from the USDC into the DCUS, whereupon Appellant petitioned a three-judge DCUS panel for a Warrant of Removal. See Appellant's VERIFIED PETITION FOR WARRANT OF REMOVAL BY THREE-JUDGE PANEL, with a JURY TRIAL DEMANDED; FRCP Rule 38 in chief; Seventh Amendment; other authorities therein. At this moment, Appellant filed a separate MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS [in the DCUS] FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH JURY SELECTION POLICY (hereinafter "DCUS STAY MOTION"). See 28 U.S.C. 1865(b)(1). As such, this constituted Appellant's third attempt (1-2-3) to present, and obtain a proper hearing on, Appellant's challenge to section 1865(b)(1), for exhibiting prohibited class discrimination against Citizens of Minnesota state who choose not also to be federal citizens. See Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 48 S. 788, 791 (1909); State v. Fowler, 6 S. 602 (1889); Tenth Amendment; Guarantee Clause; Right of Election; all citations in the DCUS STAY MOTION; "Federal citizenship" in Black's supra; lastly, Appellant's MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, executed, served, filed in the USDC, and denied ultra vires (1-2). Motion for Rehearing En Banc: Page 12 of 16 Appellant submits that no single federal judge is qualified to preside on the DCUS, even for preliminaries, whose judicial compensation is being diminished by federal income taxes. See 3:1; Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920); Lord v. Kelley, 240 F.Supp. 167, 169 (1965). C.J. Rehnquist has argued, before the University of Arizona Law School in January of 1997, that Evans supra was overturned by O'Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939). Appellant disputes the main holding in O'Malley supra, for being predicated upon two false and rebuttable premises: (1) there is only one class of citizens (there are 2), and (2) all federal judges are citizens of either class (but no federal law requires judges to be citizens at all). Moreover, no single judge is qualified to preside on the USDC or the DCUS who cannot, or will not, exhibit the Oath of Office required by 6:3 and 28 U.S.C. 453. There is a strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial records. See Valley Broadcasting Co. v. USDC, 798 F.2d 1289 (9th Cir. 1986). Thus, Appellant argues that Mr. (not "Judge") Rosenbaum never timely exhibited his requisite credentials, nor did the USDC Clerk, nor did his employer -- the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts in Washington, D.C. Nobody did! Silence activates estoppel, Carmine supra; silence is a fraud, Tweel supra. Failure to qualify by filing bond and taking the oath is ground for ouster by quo warranto. See 51 C.J. 319; State v. Bernoudy, 36 Mo. 279; Respublica v. Wray, 2 Yeates (Pa.) 429. It was at this precise point in the instant case that Appellant filed a timely and proper COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, specifically to compel Mr. Rosenbaum et al. to disclose credentials improperly withheld, and permanently to Motion for Rehearing En Banc: Page 13 of 16 enjoin Mr. Rosenbaum et al. from improperly withholding same. At the sentencing hearing, Mr. Rosenbaum was told, in no uncertain terms, that he had a personal interest in the instant case: 21RT:4:16 THE COURT: Can you tell me what personal interest you feel is involved? Free free to set it out. THE DEFENDANT: ... And that was for a complaint for injunctive relief and the fact where I requested credentials of all the actors in this court. THE COURT: Okay. [!] Further, the very same issue arose again during the hearing on April 21, 1997: 21RT:9:16 and 21RT:10:12. In particular, see 21RT:10:20, recorded as follows: THE COURT: There was actually a complaint served on the government? It lists me as a defendant. [emph. added] MR. SHEA: It also includes a demand for immediate recusal, I believe. [!] THE COURT: Well, I will -- I will consider this later, but at this time ... asking for any present relief, it's denied. [emphasis added] THE DEFENDANT: And I would like the record to show that I object. [!!] THE COURT: I'm sorry? THE DEFENDANT: I'd like the record to show that I object. [!!!] THE COURT: Objection's noted. [text in brackets added] Appellant is entirely satisfied that the official court record now before this honorable Court provides ample justification to release Appellant, upon the same terms and conditions as Appellant's pre-trial release, if for no other reason than the obvious, irrefutable, and adverse conflict of interest which Mr. Rosenbaum exhibited at both the sentencing hearing and the hearing had before the USDC to consider Appellant's timely and proper MOTION FOR RELEASE PENDING APPEAL. Motion for Rehearing En Banc: Page 14 of 16 REMEDY REQUESTED Wherefore, all premises having been properly considered, Plaintiff hereby moves this honorable United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, for an immediate ORDER releasing Appellant from detention by the Bureau of Prisons, upon the same terms and conditions as Appellant's pre-trial release, pending final review of the myriad and substantial issues of law and fact which have arisen in the instant case, which issues Appellant has diligently striven to document in perfect form, and in perfect citations to the pertinent constitutional provisions, laws, treaties, regulations, and related policies, practices, procedures, forms, rules and customs of the United States (federal government), emphasizing Article VI, Clauses 2 and 3. Thank you all for your careful and considerate attention. VERIFICATION I, Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris, hereby verify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without (outside) the "United States", that the above statement of facts and laws 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). Dated: ______________________________ Respectfully submitted, /s/ Everett C. Gilbertson _____________________________________ Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris Citizen of Minnesota state, federal witness (expressly not a citizen of the United States) Motion for Rehearing En Banc: Page 15 of 16 [proof of service deleted] # # # ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration 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 ======================================================================== -> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com -> Posted by: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail