Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Battle Lake [zip code exempt] MINNESOTA STATE In Propria Persona Under Protest and by Special Visitation UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA FOURTH DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic], ) Case No. CR-4-96-65 ) Plaintiff [sic], ) NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR ) EXHIBITION OF CRIMINAL v. ) STATUTES, IN THE PARTICULAR ) EVERETT C. GILBERTSON [sic], ) ) Defendant [sic]. ) ________________________________) COMES NOW Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris, Citizen of Minnesota state, expressly not a citizen of the United States ("federal citizen") and Defendant in the above entitled matter (hereinafter "Defendant"), to provide formal Notice to all interest party(s), and to demand mandatory judicial Notice by this honorable Court, pursuant to Rule 201(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, of this, Defendant's NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR EXHIBITION OF CRIMINAL STATUTES, IN THE PARTICULAR. In a pleading entitled GOVERNMENT'S POSITION WITH RESPECT TO SENTENCING, filed in the instant case on March 5, 1997, by Messrs. David L. Lillehaug and Henry J. Shea, alleging to be United States Attorney [sic] and Assistant U.S. Attorney [sic], said pleading discusses the following: Notice and Demand for Exhibition of Criminal Statutes: Page 1 of 5 "... [T]he Presentence Report's proposed two level enhancement for attempted obstruction of justice during the IRS [sic] investigation of his case. The government submits that the evidence at trial clearly showed threatening and intimidating conduct by the defendant that supports application of the enhancement. [page 2] Referring to a "Constructive Notice" [sic] served upon Mr. Larry Doss of the First National Bank, said pleading goes on to say the following: ... [T]his document, like the others sent by defendant to recipients of IRS summons for his records, was intended to threaten and intimidate the prospective witnesses from providing material information to the IRS during its investigation of defendant. It further was intended to obstruct and delay that case investigation through defendant's intentional misrepresentation and false statements regarding the IRS [sic], its summons authority [sic], and the consequences of failure to obey a summons. [page 3] Further, said pleading also goes on to say the following: ... [D]efendant's obstructive conduct was not limited to third party recipients of IRS [sic] summons. Defendant also directly attempted to intimidate IRS [sic] agents during the IRS's [sic] investigation of him. For the benefit of this honorable Court, and for the benefit of all interested party(s), Defendant herein takes the liberty of itemizing all "violations" alleged above, to wit: 1. obstruction of justice 2. threatening and intimidating conduct 3. threatening and intimidating prospective witnesses 4. obstruction and delay of an investigation 5. intentional misrepresentation and false statements It is evident from said pleading that Messrs. Lillihaug and Shea are attempting to justify the application of "enhancements" to the sentencing guidelines. In their CONCLUSION, they state the following: Notice and Demand for Exhibition of Criminal Statutes: Page 2 of 5 The Court should sentence defendant at the highest level of his sentencing guidelines range, impose a reasonable fine, and order defendant to pay forthwith all taxes, interest, and penalties due and owing the IRS. In a pleading recently filed by Defendant entitled NOTICE AND DEMAND TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF ANY CRIMINAL JURISDICTION WHATSOEVER, Defendant accurately quotes the Advisory Committee Notes for Rule 26, Taking of Testimony, in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 1944 Adoption, paragraph 2. The key paragraph is repeated here, as follows: On the other hand, since all Federal crimes are statutory and all criminal prosecutions in the Federal courts are based on acts of Congress, uniform rules of evidence appear desirable if not essential in criminal cases, as otherwise the same facts under differing rules of evidence may lead to a conviction in one district and to an acquittal in another. [emphasis added] Defendant respectfully requests this honorable Court, and all interested party(s), to please take formal notice that all federal crimes are statutory, and all criminal prosecutions in the federal courts are based on lawful Acts of Congress. DEMAND FOR EXHIBITION OF STATUTES AND DEADLINE Accordingly, Defendant now makes his lawful Demand upon the office of the United States Attorney to exhibit the specific statute(s), by Title, Section, and/or other pertinent citation(s) which exactly identify the violations alleged to have been committed by Defendant, which allegations were made and filed in the instant case in the GOVERNMENT'S POSITION WITH RESPECT TO SENTENCING. Said statutes must be documented in writing, filed in the official Court record of the instant case, and served upon Defendant by transmitting said documents in sealed envelopes via first class United States Mail to the following lawful mailing location (see USPS Publication #221 for addressing instructions): Notice and Demand for Exhibition of Criminal Statutes: Page 3 of 5 Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Battle Lake [zip code exempt] MINNESOTA STATE no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, April 4, 1997. Failure to do either (filing and service) will constitute an open admission that the requisite statutes do not exist, and that the United States (federal government) is forever estopped from further action(s) on the alleged "violations" for having made libelous statements in this honorable Court concerning alleged crimes of which Defendant was never indicted, charged, arraigned, tried, or convicted by a jury of Defendant's Peers, in violation of Defendant's fundamental guarantee of due process of law. See 18 U.S.C. 242, 241, for example; as time permits, Defendant may discover other criminal statutes which apply to the probable libels which Defendant believes He has now suffered at the hands of Messrs. Lillihaug and Shea. 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 and Demand for Exhibition of Criminal Statutes: Page 4 of 5 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 AND DEMAND FOR EXHIBITION OF CRIMINAL STATUTES, IN THE PARTICULARS 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: 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 and Demand for Exhibition of Criminal Statutes: Page 5 of 5 # # #
Return to Table of Contents for
U.S.A. v. Gilbertson, District Court