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.                        )
                               )  NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR
United States,                 )  TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT OF
and Does 1-99,                 )  3 JUDGES FROM THE COURT OF
                               )  INTERNATIONAL TRADE TO
          Respondents.         )  PRESIDE OVER THIS DISTRICT
                               )  COURT OF THE UNITED STATES:
                               )  28 U.S.C. 293, 296, 297,
_______________________________)  461(b)


Greetings to You:

     Chief Judge
     United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
     10th and Main Streets
     Richmond, Commonwealth of Virginia


     Formal NOTICE  AND DEMAND  are hereby respectfully made upon

You, the  Chief Judge,  by Me,  Floyd Raymond, Looker, Sui Juris,

Citizen of  West Virginia  state, expressly  not a citizen of the

United States  ("federal citizen"),  and Plaintiff  in the  above

entitled matter  (hereinafter "Plaintiff"),  to  present  to  the

Chief Justice  of the  United States  a certificate  of necessity

that the Chief Justice designate and assign temporarily three (3)

competent and  qualified judges  from the  Court of International

Trade, and/or  other court  of competent jurisdiction, to perform

judicial duties  in this  honorable District  Court of the United

States.   See 28  U.S.C. 293,  296, 297,  461(b);   also Evans v.

Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920) (never overturned).


   Notice & Demand for Temporary Assignment of Article III Judge:
                           Page 1 of 7


     The authority  in Evans  is particularly  poignant.   It  is

apparent to  Plaintiff, because  of exhaustive research which His

Counsel has  shared with  Him, that  all  sitting  United  States

District Judges  in America  are appointed  to serve in either an

Article I, or in an Article IV, capacity at the present time.  In

this capacity,  said Judges  do not  enjoy the  explicit immunity

which  is  found  in  Article  III,  Section  1  ("3:1")  of  the

Constitution for  the  United  States  of  America,  as  lawfully

amended (hereinafter "U.S. Constitution"), to wit:

     The Judges,  both of  the supreme and inferior Courts, shall
     hold their  Offices during  good Behaviour,  and  shall,  at
     stated Times,  receive for  their Services,  a Compensation,
     which shall  not be  diminished during  their Continuance in
     Office.
                      [U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 1]
                                                 [emphasis added]


     Plaintiff submits  that one  of the  major reasons  why said

Judges do  not enjoy the explicit immunity at 3:1 is the doctrine

of territorial  heterogeneity.    Confer  in  The  Federal  Zone:

Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue, Fourth Edition, previously

available on  the Internet via the Alta Vista search engine;  see

also U.S. v. Lopez, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995):

     Each of  these [schools]  now has  an invisible federal zone
     [sic] extending  1,000 feet  beyond  the  (often  irregular)
     boundaries of the school property.
                                                 [emphasis added]


Here, the U.S. Supreme Court utilized this term as a common noun,

without any  citations or footnotes.  The doctrine of territorial

heterogeneity,  as   such,  is   summarized  as  follows  in  the

Conclusions of  The Federal  Zone:  Cracking the Code of Internal

Revenue, to wit:


   Notice & Demand for Temporary Assignment of Article III Judge:
                           Page 2 of 7


     In exercising its exclusive authority over the federal zone,
     Congress  is   not  subject   to  the   same  constitutional
     limitations that  exist inside  the 50  States.    For  this
     reason, the  areas that  are inside  and outside the federal
     zone are  heterogeneous with  respect to  each other.   This
     difference   results   in   a   principle   of   territorial
     heterogeneity:   the  areas  within  the  federal  zone  are
     subject to one set of rules;  the areas without (or outside)
     the federal  zone are  subject to  a different set of rules.
     The Constitution  rules outside  the zone  and inside the 50
     States.   The Congress rules inside the zone and outside the
     50 States.   The  50 States  are, therefore,  in one general
     class, because  all constitutional  restraints upon Congress
     are in  force throughout the 50 States, without prejudice to
     any one  State.   The areas within the federal zone are in a
     different general  class, because  these same constitutional
     restraints simply do not limit Congress inside that zone.

        [The Federal Zone, electronic Fifth Edition, Conclusions]


     In the  pivotal case  of Downes  v. Bidwell,  182  U.S.  244

(1901), which  is discussed  at several  places in  the book  The

Federal Zone supra, the U.S. Supreme Court established a doctrine

whereby the  Constitution of  the "United  States", as such, does

not extend  beyond the  limits of  the States which are united by

and under  it.  This doctrine of territorial heterogeneity is now

commonly identified as the "Downes Doctrine."

     This doctrine has been reinforced by subsequent decisions of

the U.S.  Supreme Court, notably, the case of Hooven & Allison v.

Evatt, 324  U.S. 652  (1945), in  which the high Court ruled that

the guarantees  of the  Constitution extend  to the  federal zone

only as  Congress has  made those  guarantees  applicable.    The

United  States  District  Courts  are  currently  established  by

Congress   as    territorial   (federal    zone)   courts,   with

constitutional authority  emanating from  Article IV,  Section 3,

Clause 2, to wit:

     The Congress  shall have  Power to  dispose of  and make all
     needed Rules  and Regulations  respecting the  Territory  or
     other Property belonging to the United States;  ....

                       [U.S. Constitution, Art. 4, Sec. 3, Cl. 2]
                                                 [emphasis added]


   Notice & Demand for Temporary Assignment of Article III Judge:
                           Page 3 of 7


     Plaintiff wishes  to litigate  His civil  case  against  the

United States,  and against  Does 1  thru 99,  in an  Article III

Court of  competent jurisdiction.   In  particular, He  wishes to

invoke the  judicial power of the United States of America, among

several reasons,  in  order  to  enjoin  the  Respondent(s)  from

withholding the  agency records  which Plaintiff has requested in

lawful and  proper requests  under the Freedom of Information Act

("FOIA"), and  to order  the production  of  any  agency  records

improperly withheld from Plaintiff, and to enjoin the withholding

of agency  record properly requested.  See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B),

to wit:

     On complaint,  the district  court of  the United States ...
     has jurisdiction  to  enjoin  the  agency  from  withholding
     agency records  and to  order the  production of  any agency
     records improperly withheld from the complainant.

                          [5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B), emphasis added]


For the convenience of the Chief Judge of the United States Court

of Appeals  for the  Fourth Circuit ("Fourth Circuit"), Plaintiff

attaches His  previous NOTICE  AND DEMAND  FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL

NOTICE:  Rule 201(d), Federal Rules of Evidence, and incorporates

it by  reference as  if set  forth fully herein.  Said NOTICE AND

DEMAND summarizes  some of  the outstanding FOIA requests in this

case.

     In order  for this  case  to  proceed  forward,  and  it  is

Plaintiff's fundamental  Right under  the Fifth Amendment that it

do so,  this honorable  Court  must  be  seated  with  three  (3)

competent and qualified Judges who are not subject to any outside

executive controls  whatsoever.   This means, among other things,

that Article  III  judges  must  be  designated  and  temporarily

appointed to  preside over  the instant case, whose compensations

are not  being diminished  by federal  income  taxes,  and  whose

integrity and  independence from  all other  governments and  all

other government branches are unassailable and beyond question.


   Notice & Demand for Temporary Assignment of Article III Judge:
                           Page 4 of 7


     Plaintiff hereby objects strenuously to the existence of any

contract, either  verbal or  written, either expressed or implied

in fact,  between any  currently seated  United  States  District

Judge and  the "Internal  Revenue Service"  [sic]  or  any  other

controlling interests,  on grounds  of conflicts  of interest.  A

completed "IRS" Form 1040 is an expressed, written contract.

     Plaintiff  is   guaranteed  the   fundamental  right  to  an

independent and  unbiased judiciary.   See  Evans v.  Gore supra.

The existence  of a  contract between  presiding Judges  and  any

other branch  of the  federal government, or any of its agencies,

assigns, or  instrumentalities, is  evidence  of  a  conflict  of

interest and proof of a dependent and biased judiciary.  See Lord

v. Kelley,  240 F.Supp. 167, 169 (1965) and compare with Evans v.

Gore supra,  to measure  how far our civilization has degenerated

under the Downes Doctrine.

     This honorable Court will please take formal judicial notice

of the  holding and  the dicta  in Evans,  which case proves that

American courts  have an  obligation to  rule  on  matters  which

properly come  before them.   Plaintiff's  NOTICE AND  DEMAND, as

made herein, now comes properly before You, Sir.


   Notice & Demand for Temporary Assignment of Article III Judge:
                           Page 5 of 7


                        REMEDY REQUESTED

     Wherefore, Plaintiff  hereby makes  this formal  Demand upon

the Chief Judge of the Fourth Circuit:

     (1) to  prepare and  present to  the Chief  Justice  of  the

United States  a certificate  of necessity that the Chief Justice

designate  and   assign  temporarily   three  (3)  competent  and

qualified judges  from the Court of International Trade, or other

court of  competent jurisdiction,  to perform  judicial duties in

this honorable District Court of the United States;

     (2) to file said certificate in the official Court record of

the instant case;  and

     (3) to  serve said  certificate on  all interested  parties.

See PROOF OF SERVICE infra.


                       NOTICE OF DEADLINE

     Plaintiff hereby  demands that the above requested remedy be

granted no  later than  5:00 p.m.  on Friday,  January 24,  1997.

Time is of the essence.

     Thank you very much for your consideration.


Executed on ____________________________________


/s/ Ray Looker

Floyd Raymond, Looker, Sui Juris
Citizen of West Virginia state


Executed on December 23, 1996


/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness,
Counselor at Law, and Counsel to Plaintiff


   Notice & Demand for Temporary Assignment of Article III Judge:
                           Page 6 of 7


                        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):

           NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT
        OF 3 JUDGES FROM THE COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
    TO PRESIDE OVER THIS DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES:
                 28 U.S.C. 293, 296, 297, 461(b)

by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first

class U.S.  Mail, with  postage prepaid and properly addressed to

the following:


United States Attorney          Clerk of Court
Federal Building                District Court of the U.S.
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 December 23, 1996


/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
__________________________________________
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness,
Counselor at Law, and Counsel to Plaintiff


   Notice & Demand for Temporary Assignment of Article III Judge:
                           Page 7 of 7


                             #  #  #
      


Return to Table of Contents for

U.S.A. v. Looker