In Propria Persona

without Prejudice

District Court of the United States

Central Judicial District of California

Southern Division

The People of California ) No. SA CV 02-0382 GLT(ANx)

ex relatione )

Gayle Bybee et al., ) FOURTH NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR

) MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE:

Plaintiffs, )

v. ) Petition Clause, First Amendment

) in pari materia with Rule 201(d),

Andrew Erath et al., ) Federal Rules of Evidence;

) 28 U.S.C. 2072(a).

Defendants. )

------------------------------)

)

United States )

ex relatione )

Paul Andrew Mitchell, )

)

Intervenor. )

______________________________)

COMES NOW Teresa Giordano, Sui Juris, Citizen of California State, expressly not a citizen of the United States (“federal citizen”), and Co-Plaintiff in the above entitled matter (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), to demand mandatory judicial Notice of the pleading incorporated by reference infra, containing relevant adjudicative facts, and to provide formal written notice to all interested party(s) of same.

INCORPORATION OF CERTIFIED DOCUMENT

In support of the instant DEMAND, Plaintiff hereby attaches a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE TWO CIVIL CASES, and incorporates same by reference to Attachment “A” infra, as if set forth fully here.

THE RULES ENABLING ACT LIMITS THE SCOPE OF RULES

TO THE ARTICLE IV UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff also demands mandatory judicial notice of the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 2072(a), which expressly confers authority on the U.S. Supreme Court to promulgate rules of evidence and civil procedure for the Article IV United States District Court (“USDC”), but not for this Article III District Court of the United States (“DCUS”).

Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.

Similarly, the scope of the Local Rules is limited to the USDC and does not even mention this DCUS.

STATUTES CONFERRING ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

MUST BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED

Statutes conferring original jurisdiction on federal courts must be strictly construed. For a sample of pertinent authorities, see:

36 C.J.S. 55: Thomson v. Gaskill, 315 U.S. 442 (1942); City of Indianapolis v. Chase Nat. Bank of the City of New York, 314 U.S. 63 (1941); Harris v. American Legion, 162 F.Supp. 700 (S.D. Ind.); Detres v. Lions Bldg. Corp., 136 F.Supp. 699 (N.D. Ill. 1955); Blair Holdings Corp. v. Rubinstein, 133 F.Supp. 496 (S.D.N.Y. 1955); Scarborough v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., 45 F.Supp. 176 (W.D. Texas 1942); and,

36 C.J.S. 4‑5: Joy v. City of St. Louis, 122 Fed. 524 (1906); Carroll v. U.S., 354 U.S. 394 (1957); Aetna Insurance Co. v. Chicago R.I. & P.R. Co., 229 F.2d 584 (10^th Cir. 1956); Tsang v. Kansas, 173 F.2d 204 (9^th Cir.); Central Mexico Light & Power Co. v. Munch, 116 F.2d 85 (2^nd Cir. 1940); The Emma Giles, 15 F.Supp. 502; Sweet v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 68 F.Supp. 782.

PLEADINGS TO THIS COURT EXERCISE A RIGHT

THAT IS CONSERVATIVE OF ALL OTHER RIGHTS

Proper pleadings submitted to this Court are petitions to the Government for a redress of grievances. As such, they are protected by the Petition Clause in the First Amendment:

As the U.S. Supreme Court has held, the right to petition for redress of grievances is “among the most precious of the liberties safeguarded in the bill of rights.” ... Inseparable from the guaranteed rights entrenched in the First Amendment, the right to petition for redress of grievances occupies a “preferred place” in our system of representative government and enjoys a “sanctity and a sanction not permitting dubious intrusions.” Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516; 65 S.Ct 315, 322. Indeed, “It was not by accident or coincidence that the rights to freedom in speech and press were coupled in a single guarantee with the rights of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances.”

[U.S. v. Hylton, 710 F.2d 1111 (5^th Cir.)]

[bold emphasis added]

In stressing the importance of the Petition Clause in the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized its central role to our civilization when it wrote:

The Right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force. In an organized society it is the right conservative of all other rights, and lies at the foundation of orderly government. It is one of the highest and most essential privileges of citizenship, and must be allowed by each state to the citizens of all other states to the precise extent that it is allowed to its own citizens. Equality of treatment in this respect is not left to depend upon comity between the states, but is granted and protected by the Federal Constitution.

[Chambers v Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 207 U.S. 142, 148 (1907)]

[bold emphasis added]

In contrast to discretionary judicial notice, mandatory judicial notice leaves no room whatsoever for discretion on the part of this honorable District Court of the United States (and not the United States District Court).

REMEDY DEMANDED

All premises having been duly considered, Plaintiff respectfully demands mandatory judicial notice of the documents incorporated supra and of the statute(s) and court cases cited supra.

VERIFICATION

I, Teresa Giordano, Sui Juris, Citizen of California, hereby verify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (federal government), that the above statement of facts and laws is true and correct, according to the best of My current information, knowledge, and belief, so help me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1). See Supremacy Clause (Constitution, Laws and Treaties are all the supreme Law of the Land).

Dated: May 21, 2002 A.D.

Signed: /s/ Teresa Giordano

_________________________________________________

Printed: Teresa Giordano, Sui Juris, Citizen of California

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Teresa Giordano, Sui Juris, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (federal government), 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):

FOURTH NOTICE AND DEMAND

FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE:

Petition Clause, First Amendment

in pari materia with Rule 201(d),

Federal Rules of Evidence; 28 U.S.C. 2072(a)

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:

Clerk of Court

District Court of the United States

Central Judicial District of California

Southern Division

411 West Fourth Street, Room 1-053

Santa Ana 92701-4516

CALIFORNIA, USA

Gayle Bybee

c/o Marcia J. Brewer

300 Corporate Pointe, Suite 330

Culver City 90230

CALIFORNIA, USA

Carla Figaro

21213-B Hawthorne Blvd., #5361

Torrance 90503

CALIFORNIA, USA

Nora Moore

8400 Edinger Avenue, Apt. #Z-106

Huntington Beach 92647

CALIFORNIA, USA

Denise Ricca-White

4805 Glenhaven Drive

Oceanside 92056

CALIFORNIA, USA

Andrew Erath

c/o Office of Regional Inspector

Internal Revenue Service

P.O. Box 6238

Laguna Niguel 92607

CALIFORNIA, USA

Erik Newberry

c/o Office of Regional Inspector

Internal Revenue Service

P.O. Box 6238

Laguna Niguel 92607

CALIFORNIA, USA

Matthew Finney

c/o Office of Regional Inspector

Internal Revenue Service

P.O. Box 6238

Laguna Niguel 92607

CALIFORNIA, USA

John S. Gordon

U.S. Department of Justice

1200 United States Courthouse

312 North Spring Street

Los Angeles 90012

CALIFORNIA, USA

Alicia Villarreal

U.S. Department of Justice

1300 United States Courthouse

312 North Spring Street

Los Angeles 90012

CALIFORNIA, USA

Brian Hershman

U.S. Department of Justice

1300 United States Courthouse

312 North Spring Street

Los Angeles 90012

CALIFORNIA, USA

Courtesy Copies to:

Judge Florence-Marie Cooper

c/o Court Support Supervisor (KGP)

District Court of the United States

312 North Spring Street

Los Angeles 90012

CALIFORNIA, USA

Office of the Solicitor General

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 5614

Washington 20530-0001

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA

Judge Alex Kozinski (supervising)

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

P.O. Box 91510

Pasadena 91109-1510

CALIFORNIA, USA

[See USPS Publication #221 for addressing instructions.]

Dated: May 21, 2002 A.D.

Signed: /s/ Teresa Giordano

_________________________________________________

Printed: Teresa Giordano, Sui Juris, Citizen of California

Attachment “A”:

NOTICE OF MOTION AND

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

TWO CIVIL CASES

Executed on April 30, 2002 A.D.

Served on Clerk of Court and all Party(s)

on April 30, 2002 A.D.

(See PROOF OF SERVICE supra)

-and-

Copies of MINUTE ORDERS

Refused for Causes supra