Floyd Raymond, Looker, Sui Juris
c/o General Delivery
Nettie [zip code exempt]
WEST VIRGINIA
In Propria Persona
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
NORTHERN JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Floyd Raymond, Looker, ) Docket Nos. 5:96-CR-40
) 1:96-CR-41
Plaintiff, ) 1:96-CR-42
) 1:96-CR-43
v. )
) REBUTTAL TO RESPONSE OF
United States, ) UNITED STATES TO PLAINTIFF'S
and Does 1-99, ) MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
) UNTIL FINAL REVIEW OF CHALLENGE
Respondents. ) TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
) JURY SELECTION AND SERVICE ACT:
______________________________) 28 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.
COMES NOW Floyd Raymond, Looker, Sui Juris, Citizen of West
Virginia state, expressly not a citizen of the United States, and
Plaintiff in the above entitled matter (hereinafter "Plaintiff"),
to present this, His Rebuttal to the formal RESPONSE of the
United States to Plaintiff's MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS, pending
final review of Plaintiff's challenge, previously filed in the
instant case(s), to the constitutionality of the Jury Selection
and Service Act, 28 U.S.C. 1861 et seq. (hereinafter "JSSA").
Respondents do well to cite Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure [sic]. The Advisory Committee Notes, 1944
Adoption, state the following concerning this Rule:
Note to Subdivision (a). 1. This rule abolishes pleas to
the jurisdiction, pleas in abatement, demurrers, special
pleas in bar, and motions to quash.
[emphasis in original]
Rebuttal to U.S. Response to Motion to Stay Proceedings:
Page 1 of 11
Rule 12(a) reads as follows:
(a) Pleadings and Motions. Pleadings in criminal
proceedings shall be the indictment and the information, and
the pleas of not guilty, guilty and nolo contendere. All
other pleas, and demurrers and motions to quash are
abolished, and defenses and objections raised before trial
which heretofore could have been raised by one or more of
them shall be raised only by motion to dismiss or to grant
appropriate relief, as provided in these rules.
[emphasis added]
Plaintiff admits that, in light of this rule and the Advisory
Committee Notes quoted supra, Plaintiff's PLEA IN ABATEMENT AND
MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS is technically in error for attempting
to utilize a procedure which has ostensibly been abolished.
Specifically, a plea in abatement has been abolished since the
authority in U.S. v. Griffith was decided (1924). If it should
please this honorable Court, Plaintiff hereby requests leave to
amend all prior pleadings filed in the instant case(s), so as to
replace all occurrences of the phrase "PLEA IN ABATEMENT" with
the phrase "MOTION IN THE NATURE OF AN ABATEMENT" [sic].
However, a motion to stay proceedings, pending final review
of Plaintiff's proper and timely challenge to the
constitutionality of the federal JSSA, is "appropriate relief,"
as that term was intended to be applied in the instant case(s).
Specifically, Rule 12(b) goes on to state:
(b) Pretrial Motions. Any defense, objection, or request
which is capable of determination without the trial of the
general issue may be raised before trial by motion. Motions
may be written or oral at the discretion of the judge. The
following must be raised prior to trial:
(1) Defenses and objections based on defects in the
institution of the prosecution; ....
[emphasis added]
Rebuttal to U.S. Response to Motion to Stay Proceedings:
Page 2 of 11
Plaintiff submits that a proper and timely MOTION TO STAY
PROCEEDINGS, as previously filed in the instant case(s), is
capable of determination without the trial of the general issue;
may be raised before trial by motion; and constitutes a defense,
or objection, based on major defects in the institution of
instant case(s). Specifically, those defects consist of criminal
cases which were instituted in a court without competent
jurisdiction, and under color of indictments issued by federal
grand juries which were convened under color of a federal JSSA,
which Act is unconstitutional for exhibiting prohibited class
discrimination against Citizens of West Virginia state who are
not also citizens of the United States (hereinafter "federal
citizens"). Confer at "Federal citizenship" in Black's Law
Dictionary, Sixth Edition; "Juries in Check Around the Nation"
and "State Citizens Cannot Vote," both by Paul Andrew Mitchell,
which are attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set
forth fully herein
Plaintiff submits, for the consideration of this honorable
Court, the all important maxim that substance shall prevail over
form. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). At the
precise moment when Plaintiff's court-appointed attorney, Mr.
Stephen D. Herndon, failed to deliver to Plaintiff said PLEA IN
ABATEMENT AND MOTION TO STAY, Plaintiff was denied a fundamental
Right to the effective assistance of Counsel, in violation of the
Sixth Amendment, and Plaintiff was also denied a fundamental
Right to due process of law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Rebuttal to U.S. Response to Motion to Stay Proceedings:
Page 3 of 11
Pursuant to the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court in the
case of Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 468 (1938), the United
States District Court (hereinafter "USDC") ousted itself of
jurisdiction at the very moment that a sworn officer of said
Court failed to provide effective assistance of Counsel to his
client. The operative standard here is that effective assistance
of Counsel must be provided at every step in the proceedings.
See Johnson v. Zerbst supra.
These pleadings were properly styled so as to inform the
USDC, and this honorable Court, that Plaintiff had decided to
proceed In Propria Persona. In this mode, Plaintiff is not
"representing" Himself, because to "represent" anyone or any
thing is to stand in their place, as a substitute. Confer in
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition. Perhaps it is best to
understand the term "represent" instead by re-phrasing it as "re-
present." Plaintiff cannot "represent" Himself, because the law
does not recognize impossibilities. Lex non cogit impossibilia.
Mr. Herndon's failure to deliver said pleadings was the main
reason why the USDC was denied timely advanced notice of all of
the contents of said pleadings. As a litigant who is proceeding
In Propria Persona, as evidenced by all face pages of the eight
(8) pleadings which Mr. Herndon failed to deliver, Plaintiff had
every substantive and procedural Right to petition the USDC for a
stay of proceedings, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1867(a) and 1867(d).
Title 28, U.S.C., has been enacted into positive law.
Plaintiff wishes to direct this honorable Court to the
specific procedures required by 28 U.S.C. 1867(d). There is no
question that Plaintiff's MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS was properly
filed; Magistrate Seibert ordered them filed at the alleged
arraignment. In section 1867(d), Congress has acted to guarantee
that the moving Party shall be entitled to present, in support of
such motion, the testimony of the jury commissioner or clerk, if
available; any relevant records and papers not public or
otherwise available [and] used by the jury commissioner or clerk;
and any other relevant evidence.
Rebuttal to U.S. Response to Motion to Stay Proceedings:
Page 4 of 11
If the court determines that there has been a substantial
failure to comply with the provisions of this title in
selecting the grand jury, the court shall stay the
proceedings pending the selection of a grand jury in
conformity with this title or dismiss the indictment,
whichever is appropriate.
[28 U.S.C. 1867(d)]
The term "shall", as used in said statute, is mandatory; there
is no room for discretion on the part of the judge(s) presiding
over the USDC, or the over the District Court of the United
States (hereinafter "DCUS"). Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled
by Right to a hearing at which are produced testimony of the jury
commissioner or clerk (if available), any relevant records and
papers not public or otherwise available [and] used by the jury
commissioner or clerk, and any other relevant evidence.
Plaintiff submits that material evidence is now available
which implicates the President of the United States in the
receipt of illegal kick-backs, under color of a defunct federal
program, each and every time an indictment is issued by a federal
grand jury against the President's political enemies. Plaintiff
submits that, against His will and without His consent, Plaintiff
has been rendered a political enemy of the President, and of the
United States, by virtue of unconstitutional amendments which
were made to the Trading with the Enemy Act in the year 1933.
See Plaintiff's previously submitted FORMAL WITHDRAWAL OF PLEA
AND FORMAL OBJECTION TO MISNOMER.
Rebuttal to U.S. Response to Motion to Stay Proceedings:
Page 5 of 11
In support of this argument, Plaintiff submits, for the
consideration of this honorable Court, the essay entitled "The
Kick-Back Racket," authored by Paul Andrew Mitchell, who is also
one of Plaintiff's chosen Counsels in the instant case(s), which
essay is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set
forth fully herein. Plaintiff hereby reserves His fundamental
Rights, pursuant to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, to compel the
President's sworn testimony concerning these alleged kick-backs,
via subpoena. See Performance Management and Recognition
Termination Act of 1993, P.L. 103-89, effective November 1, 1993.
Given that substance shall always prevail over form,
particularly when a litigant is proceeding In Propria Persona,
the remedy requested by Plaintiff in His PLEA IN ABATEMENT AND
MOTION TO STAY is entirely proper and does not, in any way,
violate the restrictions stated in Rule 12 supra. Specifically,
the RELIEF SOUGHT in said MOTION TO STAY expressed the substance,
not the form, of the motion before the USDC, to wit:
Wherefore, Defendant petitions this honorable Court for an
indefinite stay of the proceedings in the instant case,
pending proper review of the substantial issues of law and
fact which are alleged in this Motion and which are
contained in Defendant's sworn (verified) statement which is
attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set
forth fully herein. In the event that Defendant should
prevail on said issues, Defendant reserves His fundamental
Right to abate all jury action(s) in the instant case,
because of the unlawful class discrimination which is
exhibited by the Jury Selection and Service Act, 28 U.S.C.
1861 et seq.
[emphasis added]
Rebuttal to U.S. Response to Motion to Stay Proceedings:
Page 6 of 11
Here, as in all places and at all times, substance must prevail,
and has prevailed, over form. Plaintiff filed a proper and
timely MOTION TO STAY the proceedings, pending proper review of
Plaintiff's challenge to the constitutionality of the JSSA. Said
MOTION was only in the nature of a Plea in Abatement,
substantively, because only after requesting an indefinite stay
did the RELIEF SOUGHT expressly reserve Plaintiff's fundamental
Right to abate the all jury action(s) in the instant case(s),
because of the substantive issues of law and fact which were
documented in Plaintiff's VERIFIED STATEMENT supporting said
MOTION TO STAY, which were never rebutted by Respondent, and
which are now the truth of the case. Said VERIFIED STATEMENT is
an affidavit. See 28 U.S.C. 1746(1). Respondents failed to
demonstrate a correct understanding of the meaning of the term
"United States" as that term is utilized in 28 U.S.C. 1746.
The reservation of Rights, as stated in the RELIEF SOUGHT,
was proper and timely, especially in light of the high
probability, given current federal "criminal" practices, that the
USDC would proceed to trial, even though "criminal" actions are
brought in a forum without any criminal jurisdiction whatsoever.
See 18 U.S.C. 3231; inclusio unius est exclusio alterius; and
"Karma and the Federal Courts," by Paul Andrew Mitchell, which
essay is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set
forth fully herein. Proceeding to trial, when an indefinite stay
of proceedings is warranted, is barratry and an unconstitutional
deprivation of the fundamental Right to due process of law, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. 242. Confer at "Barratry" in Black's Law
Dictionary, Sixth Edition; State v. Batson, 17 S.E.2d 511-513.
Rebuttal to U.S. Response to Motion to Stay Proceedings:
Page 7 of 11
Furthermore, the apparent error in filing a PLEA IN
ABATEMENT simply does not appear in Plaintiff's subsequent NOTICE
OF EXPLICIT RESERVATION; NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY
PROCEEDINGS FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH JURY SELECTION POLICY;
AND NOTICE OF CHALLENGE AND CHALLENGE TO CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
FEDERAL STATUTE, properly and timely submitted to this honorable
Court, after the Respondents failed timely to produce competent
and verified proof of any jurisdiction to proceed with a criminal
prosecution in the USDC in the first instance, whether or not
there is an unconstitutional defect in the JSSA. On the strength
of Respondents' failure to produce said evidence on or before
Plaintiff's published, reasonable, and conspicuous deadline for
production of same, Plaintiff properly removed the instant
case(s) into this honorable DCUS, which is a court of competent
jurisdiction to proceed over the subject matter at hand. See
immunity from diminution of judicial compensation at Article III,
Section 1. Plaintiff now awaits qualified judges to preside.
In closing, Plaintiff submits that it is unconstitutional
for this honorable Court, and for the USDC, to require that all
pleadings be filed by court-appointed attorneys. Any such
requirement clearly violates the Petition Clause in the First
Amendment, the Right to effective assistance of Counsel in the
Sixth Amendment, and the prohibition against Titles of Nobility
in the original Thirteenth Amendment. The terms "attorney" and
"esquire" are titles of nobility which are prohibited by the
original Thirteenth Amendment. Attorneys who are employed by the
United States Department of Justice, which is an office in the
Executive Branch of the federal government, exhibit a clear and
prejudicial conflict of interest when they become officers of any
federal courts, which are in the Judicial Branch of the federal
government. Such an obvious conflict of interest violates the
separation of powers implicit in the Tenth Amendment.
Rebuttal to U.S. Response to Motion to Stay Proceedings:
Page 8 of 11
Finally, Respondents' statement that Plaintiff is a
"resident alien" assumes facts not in evidence. Moreover,
Respondents committed a fraud upon this honorable Court, and upon
the USDC, when they alleged that Plaintiff had asserted that
"resident aliens are citizens of the State of West Virginia and
therefore cannot be excluded from the prospective jury panel ..."
[sic]. Plaintiff has made no such statement anywhere in any of
the pleadings heretofore filed or otherwise lodged or submitted
in the instant case(s). All other references to "resident aliens"
in Respondents' RESPONSE are similarly defective for assuming
facts that are not in evidence anywhere in the instant case(s).
A Citizen of West Virginia state, who is not also a federal
citizen, is not a "resident alien" by any stretch of the
imagination. A Citizen of West Virginia state is a nonresident
alien with respect to the municipal jurisdiction of the District
of Columbia. See 1:2:2, 1:3:3, 1:8:17, 2:1:5, 3:2:1, 4:2:1 and
4:3:2 in the Constitution for the United States of America, as
lawfully amended. Prior to the 1866 Civil Rights Act, there was
no such thing as a "citizen of the United States." See Ex parte
Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855). The qualifications for serving in
the U.S. Senate, House of Representatives, and the White House,
all refer to Citizens of one of the several States of the Union,
and not to federal citizens. Those provisions have never been
amended. See People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870).
The federal JSSA is unconstitutional for deliberately excluding
those very People who are eligible for the highest elective
offices in the federal government; this result is absurd. See
Reductio ad absurdum in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.
Rebuttal to U.S. Response to Motion to Stay Proceedings:
Page 9 of 11
REMEDY REQUESTED
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1867(d), Plaintiff is entitled to, and
hereby moves this honorable Court for, a proper hearing to
present testimony of the jury commissioner or clerk, any relevant
records and papers not public or otherwise available and used by
the jury commissioner or clerk, and any other relevant evidence,
including but not limited to the sworn testimony of the President
of the United States, and other federal officers, employees or
agents, concerning any rewards, cash or otherwise, which said
persons might have already received under color of the now
defunct Performance Management and Recognition System ("PMRS"),
upon the issuance of indictments from federal grand juries
against American People as yet unnamed. Plaintiff also demands
that the requested relief be granted by a federal judge whose
compensation is not being diminished by federal income taxes, in
violation of Article III, Section 1, and Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S.
245 (1920) (never overturned).
Executed on: _____________________________
/s/ Ray Looker
Floyd Raymond, Looker, Sui Juris
Citizen of West Virginia state
(expressly not a federal citizen)
Executed on January 10, 1997:
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness,
Counselor at Law, Counsel of Record in Fact,
and Relator in People v. United States et al.
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Rebuttal to U.S. Response to Motion to Stay Proceedings:
Page 10 of 11
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Paul Andrew, Mitchell, Sui Juris, hereby certify, under
penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of
America, without the "United States," 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):
REBUTTAL TO RESPONSE OF UNITED STATES
TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
UNTIL FINAL REVIEW OF CHALLENGE TO CONSTITUTIONALITY
OF JURY SELECTION AND SERVICE ACT:
28 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.
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:
United States Attorney Clerk of Court
Federal Building United States District Court
c/o P.O. Box 591 c/o P.O. Box 471
Wheeling [zip code exempt] Wheeling [zip code exempt]
WEST VIRGINIA WEST VIRGINIA
Attorney General Solicitor General
Department of Justice Department of Justice
10th and Constitution, N.W. 10th and Constitution, N.W.
Washington [zip code exempt] Washington [zip code exempt]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Chief Judge William H. Rehnquist, C.J.
4th Circuit Court of Appeals Supreme Court of the U.S.
10th & Main Streets 1 First Street, N.E.
Richmond [zip code exempt] Washington [zip code exempt]
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Executed on January 10, 1997:
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
__________________________________________
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness,
Counselor at Law, Counsel of Record in Fact,
and Relator in People v. United States et al.
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Rebuttal to U.S. Response to Motion to Stay Proceedings:
Page 11 of 11
# # #
Return to Table of Contents for
U.S.A. v. Looker