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