Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris
c/o General Delivery
Battle Lake [zip code exempt]
MINNESOTA STATE
In Propria Persona
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
FOURTH DIVISION
Everett C. Gilbertson, ) Docket Number: CR-4-96-65
)
Plaintiff, ) NOTICE OF PETITION AND VERIFIED
) PETITION FOR WARRANT OF REMOVAL
v. ) BY THREE-JUDGE PANEL:
) 18 U.S.C. 1964(a);
United States, ) 28 U.S.C. 292(b), 1331, 1332,
and Does 1-99, ) 1333(1), 1359, 1367(a), 1441(b),
) 1441(c), 1446, 1451(2), 1631,
Respondents. ) 2284; 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B);
) FRCP Rules 9(h), 11, 38
)
) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
______________________________)
COMES NOW Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris, Citizen of Minnesota
state, expressly not a citizen of the United States, 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
case number #CR-4-96-65 (hereinafter "Criminal Case") from the
United States District Court [sic], District of Minnesota, Fourth
Division (hereinafter "USDC"), to the District Court of the
United States [sic], Judicial District of Minnesota, Fourth
Division (hereinafter "DCUS"), on the several federal questions
involved, to wit:
Notice of Petition and Verified Petition for Warrant of Removal:
Page 1 of 8
(1) As applied to Citizens of Minnesota state, the federal
Jury Selection and Service Act, 28 U.S.C. 1861 thru 1865, is
unconstitutional for exhibiting prohibited class discrimination
against Citizens of Minnesota who are not also citizens of the
United States ("federal citizens"), by Right of Election. The
statutes and practices of Minnesota state are likewise
unconstitutional for requiring that all registered voters be
federal citizens before they are eligible to vote in general
elections of United States Representatives, United States
Senators, and the President of the United States. Plaintiff
hereby stipulates that federal citizens do not have any legal
standing to bring this challenge in the first instance.
(2) Plaintiff has submitted proper Freedom of Information
Act ("FOIA") requests for certified copies of the official
credentials of all alleged federal officers, employees, and
agents who have touched the Criminal Case 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 Case in the first
instance. To date the certified documents requested by Plaintiff
have not been produced. See Plaintiff's AFFIDAVITS OF DEFAULT
AND OF PROBABLE CAUSE, previously filed in the Criminal Case.
Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to petition this honorable
Court for an order compelling production of documents improperly
withheld, and enjoining the withholding of documents properly
requested. The District Court of the United States is the court
of competent, original jurisdiction to litigate FOIA requests.
See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B).
Notice of Petition and Verified Petition for Warrant of Removal:
Page 2 of 8
(3) Plaintiff complains of systematic and premeditated
deprivations of fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution
for the United States of America, as lawfully amended
(hereinafter "U.S. Constitution"), and the Constitution of
Minnesota state, as lawfully amended (hereinafter "State
Constitution"), which deprivations are criminal violations of 18
U.S.C. 241 and 242. See also 28 U.S.C. 1652.
(4) Plaintiff seeks to convene a competent and qualified
three-judge panel, in order to adjudicate Plaintiff's challenge
to the apportionment of congressional districts within Minnesota
state. See 28 U.S.C. 2284. Plaintiff argues that the
apportionment of congressional districts within Minnesota state
is unconstitutional, by virtue of the prohibited, class-based
discrimination which is exhibited by the State Constitution, and
by related statutes and practices, all of which require that
registered voters be federal citizens.
The First and Tenth Amendments guarantee to Plaintiff the
Right of Election to associate with one, the other, both, or
neither of the two (2) separate classes of citizenship which
exist in American law never repealed (4 cases total). In all
general and special elections, Minnesota state is not counting
any Citizens of Minnesota state who are not also federal
citizens, because the former simply cannot register as such to
vote in Minnesota state.
Notice of Petition and Verified Petition for Warrant of Removal:
Page 3 of 8
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 Plaintiff seeks to remove the
Criminal Case 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, enacted with reservations. See Supremacy Clause.
INCORPORATION OF PRIOR PLEADINGS
Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all pleadings
heretofore filed or otherwise lodged in the Criminal Case,
specifically including but not limited to all pleadings
previously filed or lodged in said case by Plaintiff, 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 credentials or power(s)
of attorney to represent the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic] as
Plaintiffs with lawful standing in the Criminal Case which was
allegedly brought before the USDC for criminal prosecution.
Notice of Petition and Verified Petition for Warrant of Removal:
Page 4 of 8
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
the following 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.
(3) Looker v. United States et al., DCUS West Virginia,
Northern Judicial District, Case Numbers #5:96-CR-40, #1:96-CR-
41, #1:96-CR-42, and #1:96-CR-43; see attached copy of REBUTTAL
TO RESPONSE OF UNITED STATES TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY
PROCEEDINGS UNTIL FINAL REVIEW OF CHALLENGE TO THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF JURY SELECTION AND SERVICE ACT: 28 U.S.C.
1861 et seq., which is also incorporated by reference as if set
forth fully herein.
(4) Sheila Terese Wallen v. United States et al., DCUS
Arizona, Tucson, Case Number #95-484-TUC and related action(s) of
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in said case.
(5) State of Alabama v. William Michael Kemp, DCUS,
Northern District of Alabama, Middle Division, Case Number #CV-
97-H-0022-M and related actions of the USDC in said case.
Notice of Petition 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 offers to prove that subsequent
U.S. Supreme Court decisions were founded on false premises.
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. Compare
5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B) in pari materia. There is no statute of
limitations on fraud, whether actual or constructive.
Notice of Petition and Verified Petition for Warrant of Removal:
Page 6 of 8
NOTICE OF RELATED ORDER
The court of original jurisdiction to litigate FOIA requests
is res judicata. See the ORDER of United States District Judge
John M. Roll, dated May 21, 1996, In re Grand Jury Subpoena
Served on New Life Health Center Company, Case No. GJ-95-1-6
(JMR), USDC, Tucson, Arizona state, to wit:
"... [T]his [USDC] is not the proper forum to bring a
request under the Freedom of Information Act."
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,
District of Minnesota, Fourth Division, to remove the Criminal
Case from said court into this District Court of the United
States, Judicial District of Minnesota, Fourth Division, with all
deliberate speed.
VERIFICATION
The Undersigned hereby verifies, 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 My current information, knowledge, and
belief, so 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
(expressly not a citizen of the United States)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Notice of Petition and Verified Petition for Warrant of Removal:
Page 7 of 8
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 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),
1359, 1367(a), 1441(b), 1441(c), 1446, 1631, 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:
Henry Shea
United States Attorneys
110 South Fourth Street
Minneapolis [zip code exempt]
MINNESOTA STATE
Attorney General
Department of Justice
10th & Constitution, N.W.
Washington [zip code exempt]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Solicitor General
Department of Justice
10th & Constitution, N.W.
Washington [zip code exempt]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Dated: _________________________________
/s/ Everett C. Gilbertson
__________________________________________
Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris
Citizen of Minnesota state
(expressly not a citizen of the United States)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
See USPS Publication #221 for addressing instructions.
Notice of Petition and Verified Petition for Warrant of Removal:
Page 8 of 8
# # #
Return to Table of Contents for
U.S.A. v. Gilbertson, 8th Circuit