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