REFUSAL OF SUBPOENA FOR CAUSE

Mr. John S. Ransom

Ransom and Blackman LLP

1001 S.W. Fifth Ave., Suite 1400

Portland, Oregon 97204

Mary Moran dba Clerk of Court

Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse

1000 Southwest Third Avenue, Suite 740

Portland, Oregon 97204-2930

Anna J. Brown dba U.S. District Judge

Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse

1000 Southwest Third Avenue

Portland, Oregon 97204-2930

Foreperson, Federal Grand Jury

Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse

1000 Southwest Third Avenue

Portland, Oregon 97204-2930

William Knaust, Acting U.S. Marshal

Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse

1000 Southwest Third Avenue Room 401

Portland, Oregon 97204-2930

Date: April 28, 2010 A.D.

Dear Mr. Ransom:

After doing some research, by way of proving due diligence on my part, I have come to the conclusion that there are serious defects not only in the SUBPOENA you sent, but with the case in general. As such, I am “refusing for cause” the defective SUBPOENA, and with it your request that I testify on behalf of Tony Dutson. My reasons for doing so are partially explained as follows:

I am aware of the fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment in the Constitution for the United States of America, specifically concerning compulsory process. However, a defective “subpoena” does not qualify as lawful “process” as that term occurs at 28 U.S.C. 1691.

Please also note the following missing credentials from the alleged “judges” seated on the U.S. District Court for the Judicial District of Oregon. For your convenience, like all other Internet links cited herein this evidence is readily available on the Internet here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm#DOR

Anna J. Brown's Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) Standard Form 61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS is defective for 2 reasons:

1. It is NOT an OPM Standard Form 61 APPOINTMENTS AFFIDAVIT; and,

2. It lacks the required OMB control number as mandated by the Paperwork Reduction Act

On the Internet, please see:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/brown.anna/affidavit.refused.gif

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/brown.anna/affidavit.gif

Please note in particular the signature by "Michael R. Hogan" above, and also here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/brown.anna/oath.gif

The Federal statute at 5 U.S.C. 2903 requires that OPM Standard Form 61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS must be administered, and witnessed, by a duly qualified officer (also mentioned at the very bottom of OPM Standard Form 61):

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/2903.html

Michael R. Hogan is also missing credentials:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/hogan.michael/nad.missing.credentials.2.htm

Mary L. Moran has also refused to produce credentials (see attached email files for proof). The Federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 1691 requires BOTH the Clerk's signature and the Court's seal in order for any such SUBPOENA to be lawful and valid in the first instance:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1691.html

Many pertinent authorities in support of this statutory requirement are located here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/stat/62/28usc1691.case.law.2.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/stat/62/28usc1691.case.law.htm

e.g.:

It will not be denied that a writ is a mandatory precept issued by a court, commanding the person to whom it is addressed to do or refrain from doing some act therein specified. Because it is a mandatory, and issued by a court, it is an order of the court. ... A subpoena is a writ or process, and is mandatory in nature, being a positive command. ... In some of the states statutes may permit a summons or a subpoena to be issued by an attorney, but such statutes do not apply to proceedings in federal courts.

[In re Simon, 297 F. 942, 944-946]

[(2^nd Cir. 1924), emphases added]

Proper Parties

"United States of America" are not Proper Parties to be appearing on a SUBPOENA or as the Complainants (plural) in a Federal criminal case. Cf. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1856) and:

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/us-v-usa.htm

Congress has never conferred legal standing upon the “United States of America” (read 50 States of the Union) as such to appear as Proper Parties. However, Congress has conferred legal standing upon the "United States" (Federal Government) to appear as a Plaintiff. The “United States” and the “United States of America” are not one and the same. See 28 U.S.C. 1345 (“United States as Plaintiff”):

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1345.html

U.S. Attorneys have no powers of attorney legally to represent the 50 States of the Union, whether individually or as a group, because they have no standing to appear on behalf of those States as such. Each State has its own Attorney General. For all 50 States to appear as a group, each would need to appear separately under auspices of the respective Attorney General for each State of the Union.

U.S. Attorneys do have powers of attorney legally to represent the United States (Federal Government) and its agencies. See 28 U.S.C. 547:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/547.html

Moreover and of even greater importance, the so-called "INDICTMENT" is also fatally defective because it shows "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" [sic] as the Plaintiff (singular and in ALL CAPS). Please compare here how the "subpoena" changed the spelling of Parties from “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” [sic] to "United States of America" using UPPER- and lower-case letters.

Verifiable evidence now available from the Office of the Delaware Secretary of State indicates that the entity “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” incorporated twice as such in Delaware; but, both charters were subsequently revoked by the Delaware Secretary of State:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.inc/Division%20of%20Corporations%20-%20Online%20Services.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.inc/registered.agent.2007-02-12.gif

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.corp/Division%20of%20Corporations%20-%20Online%20Services.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.corp/registered.agent.2007-02-12.gif

They tried again by incorporating "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" read: more proof of FRAUD:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.inc/THE.UNITED.STATES.OF.AMERICA.JPG

Again, see this for more particulars:

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/us-v-usa.htm

The panel of federal citizens was also not a duly convened Federal Grand Jury:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/opening.htm#topic-a

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/citizenship.for.dummies.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/comments.on.citizenship.for.dummies.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/correct.amendment.htm quoting in part:

The historical consequences of confusing these 2 separate classes of people have grown into a particularly twisted situation at present: those who are qualified to serve in the House, Senate and White House are not eligible to vote or serve on any juries. And, those who can vote and serve on juries are not eligible to serve in the House, Senate or White House. [end quote]

Criminal Jurisdiction

The U.S. District Courts (“USDC”) have no criminal jurisdiction whatsoever:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/court.conspiracy.exposed.htm

Strictly construed, as it should be, 18 U.S.C. 3231 confers original criminal jurisdiction upon the Article III District Courts of the United States, as those DCUS did for 159 years prior to the Acts of June 25, 1948:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/3231.html

You will please pay careful attention to the “Notes” under the latter statute, which strongly suggest that it was unlawfully “amended” by some action of the U.S. Senate but without any evidence of the required approval by the House of Representatives, and without the required signature of the President:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00003231----000-notes.html

Senate Revision Amendment

The text of this section was changed by Senate amendment. See Senate Report No. 1620, amendment No. 10, 80th Cong. [end quote]

The USDCs are Article IV legislative tribunals which originated in the Federal Territories. However, Oregon State is not a Federal Territory; it is a State of the Union (like a star on the American flag).

Attorney Oaths of Office

Attached is the required oath of office that must be signed by all attorneys admitted to the Oregon State bar:

http://www.osbar.org/_docs/admissions/forms/Oath.pdf (also attached)

This OATH is imposed by Section 9.250 of the Oregon Revised Statutes ("ORS"):

http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/009.html

9.250 Order for admission; oath of qualified applicant. (1) If the Supreme Court finds that an applicant for admission as an attorney is 18 years of age or more, is of good moral character and fit to practice law, and possesses the requisite learning and ability to practice as an attorney in all the courts of this state, the court shall enter an order that the applicant be admitted to practice as an attorney. The order shall specify that admission take effect upon the applicant taking the oath required by subsection (2) of this section.

(2) The applicant shall execute a written oath that in the practice of law the applicant will support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state, and be of faithful and honest demeanor in office. The applicant is entitled to practice as an attorney after the State Court Administrator has received the oath executed under this subsection. [Amended by 1973 c.827 §3; 1981 c.193 §8; 1989 c.1052 §6; 1991 c.726 §4; 1997 c.388 §3] [end quote]

In this context, the McDade Act at 28 U.S.C. 530B also requires all U.S. Attorneys stationed in Oregon to execute this very same OATH OF OFFICE:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/530B.html

("to the same extent and in the same manner")

The so-called INDICTMENT in UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic] v. MICAELA RENEE DUTSON and TONY DUTSON shows the following names on the last page:

KENT S. ROBINSON OSB number 096251

CRAIG J. GABRIEL OSB number 012571

HANNAH HORSLEY (not found in OSB member directory)

Based on a search of the Oregon State Bar's (“OSB”) website, you as well as KENT S. ROBINSON and CRAIG J. GABRIEL are active members of the Oregon State Bar, and as such must have Oaths on file e.g.:

http://www.osbar.org/members/display.asp?b=742655&s=1

However, HANNAH HORSLEY is not a member of the Oregon State Bar in good standing, based on a current search. Hannah Horsley is evidently admitted to The State Bar of California, and her record in that Bar's member directory shows her practicing in Portland, Oregon. However, she is not listed in the member directory of the Oregon State Bar!

Assuming these records are correct for the moment, Hannah Horsley is now violating the McDade Act by failing to be a member of the Oregon State Bar in good standing. This alone is grounds for nullifying the SECOND SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT signed by Hannah Horsley dba Assistant United States Attorney with offices in Portland, Oregon.

Accordingly, Hannah Horsley has already been formally charged, along with 200,000+ other "members" of The State Bar of California, in connection with their failure to indorse a certificate of oath upon their licenses to practice law, as required by Sections 6067 and 6068 of the California Business and Professional Code. For proof on the Internet, please see:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol2/criminal.complaint.4.htm

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=220436

(listed there as practicing law in the Office of the U.S. Attorney in Portland, Oregon)

A certified hard copy of the latter VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, ON INFORMATION can be provided to you upon receipt of polite request(s) for same.

Summary

Based on the above research, I am hereby formally refusing the defective “subpoena” for cause.

Please see the attached “subpoena” duly annotated “REFUSED FOR CAUSE”.

I am also formally demanding the following verifiable information, before taking any further action(s) in this matter:

Valid and proper Oaths presented to me for yourself and all attorneys associated with this case, including also the prosecutors as specifically named on the alleged “indictment”;

Valid and proper Oaths presented to me for all alleged “judges” now presiding upon the United States District Court for the Judicial District of Oregon; and,

Valid and proper Oaths presented to me for all alleged “Clerks” and “Deputy Clerks” of Court for the United States District Court for the Judicial District of Oregon.

If you do not provide the above information in a timely manner within the next ten (10) calendar days – no later than 5:00 p.m. on Monday, May 10, 2010 A.D. – I will require that you send me a formal written release from said “subpoena” with proof of copies served upon the alleged “Clerk of Court” and “Judge” in this matter.

Thank you very much for your timely and professional consideration.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Chester Evans, Davis

Chester Evans, Davis