REQUEST TO APPEAR IN WRITING: 18 U.S.C. 1504

REQUEST TO APPEAR IN WRITING:

18 U.S.C. 1504

TO: Foreperson

Federal Grand Jury

Joseph C. O'Mahoney Federal Center

2120 Capitol Avenue, 2nd Floor

Cheyenne 82001-3658

WYOMING, USA

DATE: January 15, 2013 A.D.

SUBJECT: sewer service

Greetings Foreperson and Panel Members:

We are writing to you with a good faith reliance upon the Federal statute at 18 U.S.C. 1504, which reads in pertinent part:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the communication of a request to appear before the grand jury.

It is well known that "appearances" can be made in writing, because an answer constitutes an "appearance." Wieser v. Richter, 247 Mich. 52, 225 N.W. 542, 543. See the several definitions of "appearance" in Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition with Guide to Pronunciation.

Several of us are writing to communicate the same or similar request to appear in writing before a duly convened Federal Grand Jury, due to nearly identical circumstances.

Under separate cover, our chosen Counsel, who is a professional and nationally recognized Private Attorney General, is assisting us by forwarding a bulky set of documentary Exhibits (cf. “Attachments” infra). We hereby incorporate those Attachments by reference, as if set for the fully here.

Because time is of the essence, we have chosen to strike a balance between overwhelming and insufficient details. Hopefully, all incorporated Attachments will fill in any blanks that you may find in this REQUEST.

We now itemize our objections to the matter at hand, as follows:

(1) The Federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 1691 has been violated, because the “process” in question lacks the Clerk’s signature and the Court’s official seal.

The statute at 28 U.S.C. 1691 reads as follows:

All writs and process issuing from a court of the United States shall be under the seal of the court and signed by the clerk thereof.

By now, the Court employees whose names appear on said “process” should have received formal requests to produce evidence of the credentials required of them by the Federal statutes at 5 U.S.C. 2906, 3331 and 28 U.S.C. 951. Those credentials include the Office of Personnel Management Standard Form 61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS, and OATH OF OFFICE of Clerks and Deputy Clerks, respectively.

We wish to emphasize that 5 U.S.C. 2906 expressly designates the “court” as the legal custodian of all APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS for judges, magistrates, clerks and deputy clerks currently employed by the Court.

Then, 28 U.S.C. 951 should make it sufficiently clear that personnel occupying the offices of Clerk and Deputy Clerk of Court have a legal obligation to maintain custody of their own APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS, in addition to the same for all judges and magistrates.

After submitting several nearly identical DEMANDS for production of those credentials, we have not received any evidence of them to date. This is rather serious, because Congress has enacted specific criminal penalties for: impersonating Federal officers, falsifying Federal Court records, mail fraud and racketeering. See 18 U.S.C. 912, 1001, 1341 and 1961 et seq. All are felony Federal offenses!

(2) The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (“A.O.”) is not the designated legal custodian of any of those credentials.

We are aware that personnel employed by the Offices of Clerk and Deputy Clerk of Court have made a routine of referring similar requests to the A.O. However, we have been unable to locate any Federal statutes which expressly designate that A.O. as the legal custodian of any of the credentials in question.

Moreover, a SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE to that A.O. is now long overdue and IN DEFAULT for the APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS and OATHS OF OFFICE for all justices, judges, magistrates, clerks and deputy clerks employed by all Federal Courts, no exceptions.

As such, affected officers and staff of the A.O. are now IN CONTEMPT of that SUBPOENA. For your convenience, you may find evidence of that overdue SUBPOENA here in the Supreme Law Library on the Internet:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aouscourts/

We regard such referrals to the A.O. as fraud in the inducement, at the very least because of the clear obligations created by the Federal statute at 5 U.S.C. 2906 and the absence of any such statutes designating the A.O. as the legal custodian of any credentials.

“Fraud in the inducement” is variously defined to mean "misleading parties as to the facts upon which they will base their decision to act".

(3) The Oath of Office Clause at Article VI, Section 3 in the U.S. Constitution elevates these credential requirements to the level of fundamental Rights.

Fundamental Rights are those which are guaranteed by the fundamental Law, defined as follows:

Fundamental law. The law which determines the Constitution of government in a nation or state, and prescribes and regulates the manner of its exercise. The organic law of a nation or state; its Constitution.

The absence of required credentials also implicates the suspects in violations of our fundamental Rights as guaranteed by the Oath of Office Clause at Article VI, Section 3 in the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended (“U.S. Constitution”).

As such, the fact that credentials are missing or not forthcoming constitutes probable cause that violations of 18 U.S.C. 242 and 241 have also occurred.

Section 242 prohibits the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Violations of section 242 are Federal misdemeanors.

Section 241 prohibits any conspiracy to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same. Violations of section 241 are Federal felonies.

(4) Federal employees claiming to occupy the offices of U.S. Attorney and Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of Wyoming, have failed to produce credentials in timely reply to Requests submitted under the Freedom of Information Act.

Within twenty (20) working days after October 11, 2012, Mr. Christopher A. Crofts had a legal obligation to produce evidence of his APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS, OATH OF OFFICE, SENATE CONFIRMATION and PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION. As of today, none of those required credentials has been forthcoming.

Within twenty (20) working days after October 11, 2012, Mr. L. Robert Murray had a legal obligation to produce evidence of his APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS, OATH OF OFFICE and APPOINTMENT LETTER. As of today, none of those required credentials has been forthcoming.

Requests submitted under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) create a Federal cause of action. Moreover, FOIA Requesters need not demonstrate relevance or materiality of the documents being requested. If those documents exist, the Requesters have a legal right to receive true and correct photocopies of same without undue delays.

The failure to produce any of their required credentials implicates Christopher A. Crofts and L. Robert Murray in the commission of multiple felony Federal offenses, including but not limited to impersonation, mail fraud, wire fraud, extortion and attempted extortion, racketeering and jury tampering.

(5) A panel of federal citizens is not a lawfully convened Federal Grand Jury, due to prohibited class discrimination in the selection and summoning of potential jurors.

This fact may come as a total surprise to you, but there is no better opportunity to do so than the present circumstances facing all Americans.

At least since the end of the Civil War, employees of the Federal government have attempted fraudulently to perpetrate and sustain the falsehood that there is only one class of citizens in America. There is not one (1) class, but two (2) classes legally identified as State Citizens (also known as “Citizens of ONE OF the States united”) and federal citizens (also known as “citizens of the United States”).

Our chosen Counsel has written an essay entitled “Citizenship for Dummies” which is extraordinary for its clarity and immediate relevance to the matter at hand. For your convenience, a fully hyper-linked version is available here in the Supreme Law Library:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/citizenship.for.dummies.htm

An intentional discrimination against a class of Persons, solely because of their class, by officers in charge of the selection and summoning of grand or petit jurors in a criminal case, is a violation of the fundamental Rights of the Accused. See Cassell v. Texas, 339 U.S. 282 (1950); Atkins v. Texas, 325 U.S. 398 (1945); Pierre v. Louisiana, 306 U.S. 354 (1939).

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 (1961). A rather thorough exposition of this point can be found in the Supreme Law Library here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/opening.htm#topic-a

This prohibited class discrimination also violates the clear intent of Congress expressed at 28 U.S.C. 1861, to wit:

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. [emphasis added]

Therefore, the Federal Judiciary throughout the USA are presently violating stated Federal policy by making it legally impossible for State Citizens to be considered for service on grand and petit juries.

This violation is all the more serious when one realizes that State Citizens are the only class of Americans who are eligible to serve in the House, Senate and White House! Cf. Qualifications Clauses.

(6) For several decades of which we are aware, Federal “indictments” have been brought on behalf of a bogus Delaware corporation named “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”.

This violation of due process is particularly subtle, but no less serious, chiefly because the entity “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” did incorporate twice in the State of Delaware, but subsequently both corporate charters were revoked by the Delaware Secretary of State.

Even if both corporations were still in good standing and not revoked, Congress has never conferred any powers of attorney upon the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) legally to represent foreign Delaware corporations. Such willful misrepresentation is indirectly prohibited by the McDade Act at 28 U.S.C. 530B.

Moreover, the “United States” and the “United States of America” are not one and the same. For partial proof, see 28 U.S.C. 1746 and this detailed explanation of that revealing Federal statute:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm#Q16

The “United States” is the correct legal term for the Federal government domiciled in the District of Columbia. See 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1346 (“United States” as plaintiff and defendant, respectively).

The “United States of America” are a plural noun which legally refers only to the 50 States which are united by and under the Constitution for the United States of America: these are the 50 stars on the American flag.

Congress has never conferred any powers of attorney upon the U.S. Department of Justice legally to represent individual States of the Union, nor all of them collectively.

Accordingly, it should be obvious from the above that the entity named “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” is not a proper party to be appearing as the Complainant on any “indictments” issued by any Federal Grand Juries, and certainly not by any panels of federal citizens who are in fact impersonating a duly convened Federal Grand Jury in violation of 28 U.S.C. 1861 and standing U.S. Supreme Court decisions cited supra.

(7) The meaning of “sewer service” is well defined in American law.

Our chosen Counsel has already had multiple occasions requiring a clear definition of “sewer service”. For example, see this summary in the Supreme Law Library:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/sewer.service.htm

Quoting pertinent parts as follows:

The tricks of serving process papers can, however, reach a point that the courts will not tolerate because they subvert the purpose of service or threaten to disrupt the administration of justice. The most intolerable abuse is called sewer service. It is not really service at all but is so named on the theory that the server tossed the papers into the sewer and did not attempt to deliver them to the proper party. Sewer service is a fraud on the court, and an attorney who knowingly participates in such a scheme can be disbarred. ...

Service is also invalid if the defendant has been enticed into the jurisdiction by fraud. Courts have ruled that luring a potential defendant into the state in order to serve him with process when no other grounds exist to assert jurisdiction over him in that state violates the individual's right to due process of law. Service of process by fraud is null and void.

In the Attachments which are being transmitted to you under separate cover, we document standing Court decisions which have held that the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 1691 -- mandating the Clerk’s signature and Court’s seal on all Court process -- are matters that go to jurisdiction.

The failure to perfect service means that, in this instance, the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming currently lacks in personam jurisdiction over the Undersigned, and will continue to lack such jurisdiction as long as its personnel lack one or more of the credentials that are required of them by applicable Federal statutes and relevant Constitutional provisions.

If you or other members of your “panel” should have any further questions, please transmit your questions in writing via U.S. Mail properly addressed as shown below, using the correct “foreign address” format as explained in USPS Publication #221. (In point of law, the United States of America (50 States) are legally “foreign” with respect to the municipal jurisdiction of the Federal government.) Depending on the nature and complexity of your question(s), we will respond only after we have given our chosen Counsel an opportunity to review and comment on your question(s), as needed.

Thank you for your professional consideration.

Signed: /s/ Joseph Ruben Hill

____________________________________________________

Printed: Joseph Ruben Hill, Sui Juris

U.S. Mail:

Joseph Ruben Hill

c/o 1903 S. Greeley Highway, Unit #170

Cheyenne 82007

WYOMING, USA

[Please see USPS Publication #221 for “foreign” address formatting.]

Attachments