Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF   Document 23   Filed 03/11/2014   Page 1 of 3

 

 

Case No. 14-CR-27-F

 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR

TIMELY INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENTS:

Declaratory Judgments Act

 

 

TO:  Office of Chief Judge

     U.S. District Court

     2120 Capitol Avenue

     Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA

 

 

Greetings Your Honor:

 

Please accept this hand-written MOTION for INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENTS, as follows:

 

(1)     What constitutes a proper “request to appear” as that term occurs in the last paragraph of 18 U.S.C. 1504?  See “HISTORY, ANCILLARY LAWS AND DIRECTIVES” (LexisNexis version) under 18 U.S.C.S. 1504, to wit:  “Last paragraph was added to remove the possibility that a proper request to appear before a grand jury might be construed as a technical violation of this section.”  See also U.S. v. Bukowski, 435 F.2d 1094 (7th Cir. 1970) (“... its language clearly limits its applicability to communications in writing.”);  In re Grand Jury Appearance Request by Loigman, 370 NJ Super 406, 851 A.2d 671 (App.Div. 2004).

 

(2)     Is one Co-Defendant’s “REQUEST TO APPEAR IN WRITING: 18 U.S.C. 1504” a proper request as defined by this USDC/DWY at (1) above?

 

 

- 1 of 3 –


Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF   Document 23   Filed 03/11/2014   Page 2 of 3

 

 

(3)     Does this USDC/DWY concur with the main holdings In Re Grand Jury Application, 617 F.Supp. 199 (SDNY 1985) as applied to the latter “REQUEST TO APPEAR IN WRITING: 18 U.S.C. 1504” (see (2) above) and to all “Attachments” transmitted to the “Foreperson” under separate cover via U.S. Mail?  Are both properly classified as “exculpatory evidence”, as the latter term is explained in Brady v. Maryland [cite omitted], thus barring suppression of any such favorable evidence?

 

(4)     Is each NOTICE AND DEMAND, as mailed to one STEPHAN HARRIS [sic], protected by the Freedom of Speech and Petition Clauses in the First Amendment, U.S. Const., particularly in light of the FOIA’s blanket exemption for the entire Federal Judiciary at 5 U.S.C. 551(1)(B)?  Here see Miranda v. Arizona (re: rights secured by the U.S. Constitution);  Art. VI, Sec. 3, U.S. Const.;  44 U.S.C. 3512 (implying a Right to Inspect U.S. Office of Personnel Management Standard Forms 61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVIS for compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and its implementing Regulations at 5 CFR 1320.5) i.e. no OMB control number!

 

- 2 of 3 –


Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF   Document 23   Filed 03/11/2014   Page 3 of 3

 

 

(5)     Does 28 U.S.C. 1691 also apply to Federal search warrants, arrest warrants and indictments?  Should all be quashed if they violate either of the 2 key requirements imposed by Sec. 1691?  See 28 U.S.C.S. 1691, 28 U.S.C.A. 1691;  Clough v. U.S., 47 F. 791 (CCD Tenn. 1891) (re: arrest warrants);  In re Campbell, 761 F.2d 1181 (6th Cir. 1985) (re: search warrants);  Dwight v. Merritt, 4 F. 614 (CCD NY 1880) (re: subpoenas).

 

 

- REMEDY -

 

All premises having been duly considered, this honorable Court will please direct the Office of Clerk of Court to file the original of the instant MOTION in docket #14-CR-27-F (USA v. Hill et al.), and also serve photocopies on the Office of the U.S. Attorney in Cheyenne, and the Office of the Federal Public Defender also in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

 

Thank you.

 

 

Dated:    3/7/2014 A.D.

 

Signed:   /s/ Paul Mitchell, Sui Juris

 

Printed:  Paul Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Pro Per

 

 

- 3 of 3 –