Dana, Dudley, Sui Juris
Citizen of Montana state
c/o General Delivery
Billings, Montana state

In Propria Persona

Under Protest, Necessity, and
By Special Visitation Only






                  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                      DISTRICT OF MONTANA

                       BILLINGS DIVISION


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic], )  Case No. CR-95- 51-BLG-JMB
                                )  Case No. CR-95-117-BLG-JMB
     Plaintiff [sic]            )
                                )  NOTICE OF PLEA AND
     v.                         )  PLEA IN ABATEMENT;
                                )  NOTICE OF MOTION AND
LEROY M. SCHWEITZER [sic]       )  MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
                                )  FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH
     Defendant [sic]            )  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),(e);
                                )  F.R.Cr.P. Rule 6(b)(2);
                                )  F.R.Evid. Rule 201(d)
                                )  Full Faith and Credit Clause
________________________________)


COMES NOW  Dana, Dudley, Sui Juris, Citizen of Montana state and

Respondent   in   the   above   entitled   matter   (hereinafter

"Respondent"), to  reserve Her  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 review of the

Respondent's challenge  to the  constitutionality of  28  U.S.C.

1865, and  to provide  notice of same to all interested parties.

The offensive statute follows:


    Plea in Abatement, Motion to Stay, 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 grand and petit 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]


    Plea in Abatement, Motion to Stay, Challenge to Statute:
                           Page 2 of 9


     Respondent hereby gives notice to all interested parties of

Her sworn (verified) statement of law and facts which constitute

a substantial  failure to  comply with  the Constitution for the

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

Constitution"), and  with the  provisions of  Title  28,  United

States Code,  Section 1861:   Declaration  of Policy.    See  28

U.S.C. 1867(d)  and (e).   The  federal grand  and petit  juries

consisted of  members all  of whom  were citizens  of the United

States, not necessarily Citizens of Montana 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).

     By way  of introduction  to the crucial matters of fact and

law  which   are  discussed  at  length  in  Respondent's  sworn

(verified) statement,  which is hereby 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]


     There are  over 100,000 elementary and secondary schools in
     the United  States. ...  Each of these now has an invisible
     federal  zone   extending  1,000  feet  beyond  the  (often
     irregular) boundaries of the school property.

                          [U.S. v. Lopez, 115 S.Ct. 1624 (1995)]


    Plea in Abatement, Motion to Stay, Challenge to Statute:
                           Page 3 of 9


     As a  Party to  the instant  case,  the  Respondent  hereby

challenges the  indicting grand  jury, and  the convicting petit

jury, on  the ground  that such  juries  were  not  selected  in

conformity with  section 1861  of Title  28, because Citizens of

Montana 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  Montana  state  who

choose not  also to  be citizens  of the  United  States  (a/k/a

federal citizens):

            citizen of         Citizen of         Qualified
          United States       Montana state       to serve

               Yes                Yes                Yes
               Yes                No                 Yes
               No                 No                 No
               No                 Yes                No     **


This result ("**") violates the Tenth Amendment by disqualifying

Citizens of  Montana state  from serving  on federal  grand  and

petit juries  when they  are not  also  federal  citizens,  thus

denying to  accused Citizens  of Montana  state a  grand jury of

Their Peers when a grand jury consists of federal citizens only.


    Plea in Abatement, Motion to Stay, Challenge to Statute:
                           Page 4 of 9


     An intentional  discrimination against  a class of persons,

solely because  of their  class, by  officers in  charge of  the

selection and  summoning of grand and petit 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 grand and petit juries,

as prohibited  by the  U.S. Constitution,  means an intentional,

systematic noninclusion  because of  class.   There are  two (2)

classes of citizenship  in  America.   E.g. Gardina  supra.  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 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:

     ... [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]


    Plea in Abatement, Motion to Stay, Challenge to Statute:
                           Page 5 of 9


     Once a  prima facie  case for  the existence  of purposeful

discrimination is made out, the burden shifts to the prosecution

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  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

Respondent'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:

     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)]


    Plea in Abatement, Motion to Stay, Challenge to Statute:
                           Page 6 of 9


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.

                         RELIEF SOUGHT

     Wherefore, Respondent 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  contained  in

Respondent's sworn (verified) statement which is attached hereto

and incorporated  by reference as if set forth fully herein.  In

the  event  that  Respondent  should  prevail  on  said  issues,

Respondent reserves  Her fundamental  Right to  abate  all  jury

action(s) in  the instant  case, because  of the  unlawful class

discrimination which  is exhibited  by the  Jury  Selection  and

Service Act, 28 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.


    Plea in Abatement, Motion to Stay, Challenge to Statute:
                           Page 7 of 9


Executed on: _________________________


Respectfully submitted,


/s/ Dana Dudley

Dana, Dudley, Sui Juris
Citizen of Montana state

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

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


    Plea in Abatement, Motion to Stay, Challenge to Statute:
                           Page 8 of 9


                        PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., 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 PLEA AND PLEA IN ABATEMENT;
        NOTICE OF MOTION AND 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),(e),
           F.R.Cr.P. Rule 6(b)(2); F.R.Evid. 201(d);
                  Full Faith and Credit Clause

by placing  one true  and correct  copy of  said document(s)  in

first  class  United  States  Mail,  with  postage  prepaid  and

properly addressed to the following:


Office of the United States Attorney
United States Department of Justice
c/o P.O. Box 1478
Billings, Montana state

Attorney General
Department of Justice
10th and Constitution, N.W.
Washington
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Solicitor General
Department of Justice
10th and Constitution, N.W.
Washington
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


Executed on: _____________________________


/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
__________________________________________
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, Sui Juris
Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness
and Counselor at Law

all rights reserved without prejudice


    Plea in Abatement, Motion to Stay, Challenge to Statute:
                           Page 9 of 9


                             #  #  #
      


Return to Table of Contents for

U.S.A. v. Dudley