Lonnie G. Schmidt, Sui Juris

Citizen of California State

11230 Gold Express Dr., #310-188

Gold River 95670-4484

CALIFORNIA, USA

 

tel:  (916) 858-2373

fax:  (916) 858-1568

 

In Propria Persona

 

All Rights Reserved

without Prejudice

 

 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 

FOURTH CIRCUIT

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,        )  Case No. 01-4101

                                 )

          Plaintiffs,            ) (in legislative mode)

                                 )

     v.                          )

                                 )

RAMONA HOLCOMBE,                 )

a/k/a Mona Holcombe,             )

                                 )

          Defendant.             )

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

United States                    )  NOTICE OF MOTION AND

ex relatione                     )  MOTION FOR INTERVENTION

Lonnie G. Schmidt,               )  OF RIGHT:

                                 )  3:2:1 (in judicial mode);

          Movant.                )  28 U.S.C. 530B, 2403(a)

                                 )  (United States not a party);

_________________________________)  FRAP Rule 44.

COMES NOW the United States (hereinafter “Movant”) ex relatione Lonnie G. Schmidt, Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America, decorated combat veteran and Private Attorney General (hereinafter “Relator”), to move this honorable Court for intervention of right, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2403(a) (United States not yet a party) and to provide timely Notice to all interested parties of same, pursuant to Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 (“3:2:1”) in the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended (“U.S. Constitution”).


NOTICE OF CHALLENGE TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY

OF THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 869

     Pursuant to the duties imposed upon it by virtue of 28 U.S.C. 2403(a), this Court will please certify to the Office of the Attorney General that the constitutionality of an Act of Congress affecting the public interest is herein drawn in question.

     Likewise, this Court will please certify Movant’s intervention for presentation of all evidence admissible in the above entitled case, and for argument(s) on the question of the constitutionality of the Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 869.

 

RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

     Subject to all applicable provisions of Law, Movant hereby expressly reserves all rights of a party and shall be subject to all liabilities of a party as to court costs, to the extent necessary for a proper presentation of the facts and laws relating to the question of the constitutionality of said Act.

     See Article II, Articles of Confederation (“United States, in Congress Assembled”);  28 U.S.C. 530B (willful misrepresentation);  Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553 (1933) (United States as plaintiff);  United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11 (1955);  3:2:1 (“Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;”).

     The “United States” and the “United States of America” are not one and the same.  Congress is expressly prohibited from re‑defining any terms found in the U.S. Constitution.  See Preamble (“Constitution for the United States of America”);  Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 (“2:1:1”) (“President of the United States of America”);  Article VII (“Independence of the United States of America”);  Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920):

Congress ... cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations that power can be lawfully exercised.

 

     The U.S. Department of Justice does not enjoy general power(s) of attorney to represent the United States of America.  Compare 28 U.S.C. 547(1), (2) (Duties).  Willful misrepresentation by officers employed by that Department is actionable under the McDade Act, 28 U.S.C. 530B (Ethical standards for attorneys for the Government).

     Whenever the United States proceeds as party plaintiff, an Article III constitutional court, exercising the judicial Power of the United States, is a prerequisite under 3:2:1 (“The judicial Power shall extend ... to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party”).  See 28 U.S.C. 1345 (United States as plaintiff).

Whenever the United States proceeds as a party defendant, the sovereign must grant permission to be sued.  See 28 U.S.C. 1346 (United States as defendant).  In this mode, a legislative court is permitted.  See Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553, 577 (1933):

     ... [C]ontroversies to which the United States may by statute be made a party defendant, at least as a general rule, lie wholly outside the scope of the judicial power vested by article 3 in the constitutional courts.  See United States v. Texas, 143 U.S. 621, 645, 646 S., 12 S.Ct. 488.

 

A private Citizen may move a federal court on behalf of the United States ex relatione.  United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11 (1955).

The federal statute at 18 U.S.C. 3231 vests original jurisdiction in the several district courts of the United States (“DCUS”).  These courts are Article III constitutional courts proceeding in judicial mode.  See Mookini v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201, 205 (1938) (term DCUS in its historic and proper sense).

Statutes granting original jurisdiction to federal district courts must be strictly construed.  [Numerous cites omitted here.]  Confer also at “Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius” in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.

The United States District Courts (“USDC”) are legislative courts typically proceeding in legislative mode.  See American Insurance v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 1 Pet. 511, 7 L.Ed. 242 (1828) (C.J. Marshall’s seminal ruling);  and Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 312 (1922) (The USDC is not a true United States court established under Article III.)  See 28 U.S.C. §§ 88, 91, 132, 152, 171, 251, 458, 461, 1367.

Legislative courts are not required to exercise the Article III guarantees required of constitutional courts.  See Keller v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 261 U.S. 428 (1923);  Federal Trade Commission v. Klesner, 274 U.S. 145 (1927);  Swift v. United States, 276 U.S. 311 (1928);  Ex parte Bakelite Corporation, 279 U.S. 438 (1929);  Federal Radio Commission v. General Electric Co., 281 U.S. 464 (1930);  Claiborne-Annapolis Ferry Co. v. United States, 285 U.S. 382 (1932);  O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516 (1933);  Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962);  Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982).

All guarantees of the U.S. Constitution were expressly extended into the District of Columbia in 1871, and into all federal Territories in 1873.  See 16 Stat. 419, 426, Sec. 34;  18 Stat. 325, 333, Sec. 1891, respectively;  Hooven & Allison v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) (only as Congress has made those guaranties [sic] applicable).


INCORPORATION OF EXHIBITS

Movant hereby incorporates Exhibits “A”, “B”, and “C” by reference, as if set forth fully herein.

 

REMEDY REQUESTED

All premises having been duly considered, Relator now moves this honorable Court, on behalf of the United States:

(1)  to certify to the Office of the Attorney General that the constitutionality of the Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 869, has been drawn into question;  and,

(2)  to certify Movant’s intervention for presentation of all evidence admissible in the above entitled cases, and for argument(s) on the question of the constitutionality of said Act.

Thank you for your professional consideration.

 

VERIFICATION

I, Lonnie G. Schmidt, Sui Juris, 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 the supreme Law of the Land).

Dated:   October 23, 2001 A.D.

 

Signed:  /s/ Lonnie G. Schmidt

         ______________________________________________

Printed: Lonnie G. Schmidt, Relator Sui Juris


PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Alan Wu, 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):

NOTICE OF MOTION AND

MOTION FOR INTERVENTION OF RIGHT:

3:2:1 (in judicial mode);

28 U.S.C. 530B, 2403(a) (United States not a party);

and FRAP Rule 44.

 

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:

 

Stephen G. Jory, Esquire [sic]    Philip H. Wright

Jory & Smith, L.C.                Office of the U.S. Attorney

One Randolph Avenue               300 Virginia Street East

P.O. Box 1909                     Room 4000

Elkins 26241                      Charleston 25301

WEST VIRGINIA, USA                WEST VIRGINIA, USA

 

 

Courtesy copies:

 

Hon. George W. Bush

President of the United States of America (2:1:1)

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington 20500

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA

 

Hon. John Ashcroft                Office of the Solicitor General

Attorney General                  U.S. Department of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice        950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

10th and Constitution, N.W.        Room 5614

Washington 20530                  Washington 20530-0001

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA         DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA

 

Paul Andrew Mitchell              Alex Kozinski (supervising)

Private Attorney General          Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

350 – 30th Street, Suite 444       P.O. Box 91510

Oakland 94609-3426                Pasadena 91109-1510

CALIFORNIA, USA                   CALIFORNIA, USA


[See USPS Publication #221 for addressing instructions.]

 

 

Dated:   October 23, 2001 A.D.

 

Signed:  /s/ Alan Wu

         ______________________________________________

Printed: Alan Wu, Sui Juris


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit “A”:

 

NOTICE OF CHALLENGE

TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY

OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS AND

REQUEST FOR APPROPRIATE

PROCEDURAL RELIEF

 

USA v. Makarian

 

Ninth Circuit #01-50422

 

September 20, 2001 A.D.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit “B”:

 

MOTION TO STRIKE

GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION

 

USA v. Makarian

 

Ninth Circuit #01-50422

 

October 10, 2001 A.D.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit “C”:

 

MOTION FOR INTERVENTION

OF RIGHT

 

USA et al. v. Microsoft Corporation

 

USDC D.C. #98-1232, #98-1233

 

September 27, 2001 A.D.