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