COMPLAINT FORM
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OR DISABILITY
MAIL THIS FORM TO THE CLERK, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, 10th AND MAIN STREETS, RICHMOND, COMMONWEALTH
OF VIRGINIA, POSTAL ZONE 23219/tdc. MARK THE ENVELOPE "JUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT" OR "JUDICIAL DISABILITY COMPLAINT". DO NOT
PUT THE NAME OF THE JUDGE OR MAGISTRATE ON THE ENVELOPE.
1. Complainant's name: Floyd Raymond, Looker, Sui Juris
(currently in federal custody)
Address: c/o NRJ, Jail Side, B4-4
RD 2, Box 1
Moundsville
WEST VIRGINIA
Daytime telephone: none
(contact Northern Regional Jail)
2. Judge or magistrate complained about:
Name: James E. Seibert [sic]
United States Magistrate Judge [sic]
Court: United States District Court
Wheeling, West Virginia state
3. Does this complaint concern the behavior of the judge or
magistrate in a particular lawsuit or lawsuits?
( X ) Yes ( ) No
If "yes" give the following information about each lawsuit
(use the reverse side if there is more than one):
Court: United States District Court
Docket Numbers: 5:96-CR-40
1:96-CR-41
1:96-CR-42
1:96-CR-43
Are (were) you a party or lawyer in the lawsuit?
( X ) Party ( ) Counsel ( ) Neither
If party, give the name, address, and telephone number of
your Counsel:
Judicial Complaint Against James E. Seibert:
Page 1 of 4
Retained by Defendant:
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Counselor at Law and federal witness
c/o 2509 North Campbell Avenue, #1776
Tucson, Arizona state
[phone redacted]
Appointed by Court:
Stephen D. Herndon
Attorney at Law
76 Fifteenth Street
Wheeling, West Virginia state
Docket numbers of any appeals to the Fourth Circuit:
n/a
4. Have you filed any lawsuits against the judge or magistrate?
( ) Yes ( X ) No (not yet)
If yes, give the following information about each lawsuit
(use the reverse side if there is more than one):
Court: n/a
Present status of suit: n/a
Name, address, and telephone number of your Counsel:
n/a
Court to which any appeal has been taken:
n/a
Docket number of appeal:
n/a
Present status of appeal:
Defendant Looker is contemplating a Petition for Writ
of Mandamus to compel the United States District Court
to rule on His PLEA IN ABATEMENT AND MOTION TO STAY
PROCEEDINGS, filed in court at the arraignment.
Judicial Complaint Against James E. Seibert:
Page 2 of 4
5. On separate sheets of paper, no larger than the paper this
form is printed on, describe the conduct or the evidence of
disability that is the subject of this complaint. Do not
use more than 5 pages (5 sides). Most complaints do not
require that much.
see attached GROUNDS FOR COMPLAINT
6. You should either:
(1) check the first box below and sign this form in
the presence of a notary public; or
(2) check the second box and sign the form. You do
not need a notary public if you check the second
box.
( ) I swear (affirm) that --
(X) I declare under penalty of perjury --
I have read the Rules of the Judicial Council of
the Fourth Circuit Governing Complaints of
Judicial Misconduct or Disability, and the
statement made in this complaint is true and
correct to the best of my knowledge.
Executed on: __________________________________
/s/ Ray Looker
________________________________________________
Floyd Raymond, Looker, Sui Juris
Citizen of West Virginia state
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
copies: Chief Judge, Fourth Circuit, Richmond, Virginia
U.S. Marshals, Wheeling, West Virginia
FBI, Clarksburg, West Virginia
Attorney General, State of West Virginia
Governor, State of West Virginia
Speaker, West Virginia House of Delegates
President, West Virginia State Senate
Judicial Complaint Against James E. Seibert:
Page 3 of 4
GROUNDS FOR COMPLAINT
On Monday, December 2, 1996, at the arraignment(s) scheduled
for the criminal case(s) described above, Defendant Floyd Raymond
Looker (hereinafter "Looker") properly filed, in court, his PLEA
IN ABATEMENT AND MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS. Looker filed this
plea, instead of any other standard pleas, such as "Guilty," "Not
Guilty," or "Nolo contendere." See Hudson v. U.S., 272 U.S. 451.
According to the authority in U.S. v. Griffith, 2 F.2d 925
(1924), which Looker cited, a Plea in Abatement is the correct
procedure to invoke when a criminal defendant chooses to
challenge the legality of any federal grand jury's action(s).
Furthermore, the cases cited in Looker's PLEA IN ABATEMENT
AND MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS show that Looker was required to
make a prima facie case for the existence of purposeful
discrimination in the selection of the federal grand jury which
indicted Him.
This prima facie case was amply demonstrated in His VERIFIED
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF CHALLENGE TO GRAND JURY SELECTION POLICY
AND ITS FEDERAL STATUTE, also filed in court at the scheduled
arraignment(s). This statement has the force and effect of an
affidavit, since it was verified pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
The case of Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 545, held that the
burden of proof shifted to the prosecution, once Looker carried
his burden of making a prima facie case for challenging the
constitutionality of the Jury Selection and Service Act as
applied in the instant case, because of purposeful and unlawful
class discrimination which is exhibited by said Act.
Specifically, compare 28 U.S.C. 1861 and 28 U.S.C. 1865.
Despite a properly executed and properly filed Plea in
Abatement, of which Mr. Seibert took formal judicial notice, Mr.
Seibert then entered a plea of "Not Guilty" on Looker's behalf.
This action by Mr. Seibert constituted the practice of law,
in direct contradiction to Looker's Plea in Abatement and in
direct violation of the prohibition against such conduct which
Congress enacted at 28 U.S.C. 454. For this reason, Looker
herein charges Magistrate Seibert with a high misdemeanor, in
violation of said statute.
Judicial Complaint Against James E. Seibert:
Page 4 of 4
# # #
Return to Table of Contents for
U.S.A. v. Looker