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 OF EXPLICIT RESERVATION;
United States,                )  NOTICE OF MOTION AND
and Does 1-99,                )  MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
                              )  FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH
          Respondents.        )  JURY SELECTION POLICY;
                              )  AND NOTICE OF CHALLENGE AND
                              )  CHALLENGE TO CONSTITUTIONALITY
                              )  OF FEDERAL STATUTE:
                              )  28 U.S.C. 297, 517, 518, 1861,
                              )  1865, 1867(d),(e),
                              )  F.R.Cr.P. Rule 6(b)(2);
                              )  F.R.Evid. Rule 201(d);
                              )  Full Faith and Credit Clause
______________________________)


COMES NOW  Floyd Raymond,  Looker, Sui  Juris,  Citizen  of  West

Virginia  state  and  Plaintiff  in  the  above  entitled  matter

(hereinafter "Plaintiff"),  to reserve  His fundamental  Right to

abate all  jury actions in the instant case, and to Petition this

honorable Court  for a  stay of the instant proceedings, pursuant

to the  provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1867(d), pending proper and final

review of  the Plaintiff's  challenge to the constitutionality of

28 U.S.C.  1865, and  to provide notice of same to all interested

parties.  The offensive statute follows, to wit:


        Motion to Stay Proceedings, Challenge to Statute :
                          Page 1 of 9


     1865.  Qualifications for jury service

     (a)  The chief  judge of  the district  court, or such other
          district court  judge as the plan may provide ... shall
          determine solely  on the  basis of information provided
          on the  juror qualification  form and  other  competent
          evidence  whether  a  person  is  unqualified  for,  or
          exempt, or to be excused from jury service. ...

     (b)  In making  such determination  the chief  judge of  the
          district court,  or such  other district court judge as
          the plan  may provide,  shall deem any person qualified
          to serve  on grand  and petit  juries in  the  district
          court unless he --

          (1)  is  not  a citizen of the  United States  eighteen
               years old who has resided for a period of one year
               within the judicial district; ....

                                 [28 U.S.C. 1865, emphasis added]


     In stark  contrast, it  is the  policy of  the United States

that all citizens shall have the opportunity to be considered for

service on  juries in  the district  courts of the United States.

To be  constitutional, and  to be consistent with its legislative

intent, the  term "all  citizens", as  that term  is used  in  28

U.S.C. 1861,  must be  construed to  include also Citizens of the

freely associated compact states who are not also citizens of the

United States (a/k/a "federal citizens"):

     1861.     Declaration of policy

     It is  the policy of the United States that all litigants in
     Federal courts  entitled to  trial by  jury shall  have  the
     right to  grand and  petit juries  selected at random from a
     fair cross  section of  the community  in  the  district  or
     division wherein  the court  convenes.   It is  further  the
     policy of the United States that all citizens shall have the
     opportunity to  be considered for service on grand and petit
     juries in  the district  courts of  the United  States,  and
     shall have  an obligation  to serve  as jurors when summoned
     for that purpose.

                                 [28 U.S.C. 1861, emphasis added]


        Motion to Stay Proceedings, Challenge to Statute :
                          Page 2 of 9


     Plaintiff hereby  provides notice  to all interested parties

of  His  sworn  (verified)  statement  of  law  and  facts  which

constitute a  substantial failure to comply with the Constitution

for  the   United  States   of  America,   as  lawfully   amended

(hereinafter "U.S.  Constitution"), and with the provisions of 28

U.S.C. 1861:   Declaration  of Policy.  See 28 U.S.C. 1867(d) and

(e).   The indicting  Grand Jury consisted of members all of whom

were citizens  of the  United States, not necessarily Citizens of

West Virginia  state.   See Dyett v. Turner and State v. Phillips

infra;   Right of Election;  voter registration affidavits;  U.S.

v. Griffith,  2  F.2d  925  (1924).    Also  confer  at  "Federal

citizenship" in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.

     By way  of introduction  to the  crucial matters of fact and

law which are discussed at length in Plaintiff's sworn (verified)

statement, which  is hereby  incorporated by  reference as if set

forth fully  herein, this  honorable Court is hereby respectfully

requested to  take  formal  judicial  notice  of  the  additional

standing authorities on this question:

     We have  in our  political system a Government of the United
     States and a government of each of the several States.  Each
     one of  these governments  is distinct  from the others, and
     each has citizens of its own ....  Slaughter-House Cases

                [United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)]
                                                 [emphasis added]


     A person  who  is  a  citizen  of  the  United  States**  is
     necessarily a  citizen of  the particular  state in which he
     resides.   But a  person may  be a  citizen of  a particular
     state and  not a  citizen of  the United  States.   To  hold
     otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest exercise
     of its  sovereignty, --  the right  to declare  who are  its
     citizens.
                               [State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380]
                                [6 S. 602 (1889), emphasis added]


     There are,  then, under  our republican  form of government,
     two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of
     the state.  One class  of citizenship may exist in a person,
     without the  other, as  in the  case of  a resident  of  the
     District of  Columbia; but both classes usually exist in the
     same person.

                   [Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155]
                          [48 S. 788, 791 (1909), emphasis added]


     There are  over 100,000  elementary and secondary schools in
     the United  States. ...   Each of these now has an invisible
     federal  zone   extending  1,000   feet  beyond  the  (often
     irregular) boundaries of the school property.

                           [U.S. v. Lopez, 115 S.Ct. 1624 (1995)]


        Motion to Stay Proceedings, Challenge to Statute :
                          Page 3 of 9


     As a  Party  to  the  instant  case,  the  Plaintiff  hereby

challenges the  indicting Grand Jury on the ground that such jury

was not  selected in  conformity with  section 1861  of Title 28,

because Citizens of West Virginia state who are not also citizens

of the  United States  (a/k/a federal  citizens) are disqualified

from serving  by virtue  of their chosen Citizenship status.  See

28 U.S.C.  1867(e);   Right of  Election;   15 Statutes at Large,

Chapter 249  (Section 1),  enacted July 27, 1868;  jus soli;  jus

sanguinis.    Specifically,  the  offensive  statute  forces  the

following unconstitutional  result upon Citizens of West Virginia

state who  choose not  also to  be citizens  of the United States

(a/k/a federal citizens):

            citizen of         Citizen of         Qualified
          United States      West Virginia        to serve

               Yes                Yes                Yes
               Yes                No                 Yes
               No                 No                 No
               No                 Yes                No     **


This result  ("**") violates the Tenth Amendment by disqualifying

Citizens of West Virginia state from serving on federal grand and

petit juries  when they  are  not  also  federal  citizens,  thus

denying to  accused Citizens  of West  Virginia state  a jury  of

Their Peers when a jury consists only of federal citizens.

     An intentional  discrimination against  a class  of persons,

solely because  of their  class, by  officers in  charge  of  the

selection and  summoning of grand jurors in a criminal case, is a

violation of  the fundamental  Rights of an accused.  See Cassell

v. Texas,  339 U.S.  282;  Atkins v. Texas, 325 U.S. 398;  Pierre

v. Louisiana,  306 U.S.  354.  Such a violation is not excused by

the fact  that the  persons actually  selected for  jury  service

otherwise possess  the necessary  qualifications  for  jurors  as

prescribed by statute.  See State v. Jones, 365 P.2d 460.


        Motion to Stay Proceedings, Challenge to Statute :
                          Page 4 of 9


     Discrimination  in   the  selection  of  a  grand  jury,  as

prohibited  by  the  U.S.  Constitution,  means  an  intentional,

systematic non-inclusion  because of  class.   There are  two (2)

classes of  citizenship in  America.   E.g. Gardina  supra.   The

statute 28  U.S.C. 1865(b)(1) specifically excludes those classes

of Citizens  who are  not mentioned.  Inclusio unius est exclusio

alterius.

     The  following   statute  dramatically   demonstrates   that

Congress appreciates  the difference between the two classes, and

knows how  to discriminate  between "white citizens" (read "state

Citizens") and  "citizens of  the United  States" (a/k/a  federal

citizens).   The Act  of Congress called the Civil Rights Act, 14

U.S. Statutes  at Large,  p. 27,  which was the forerunner of the

so-called 14th  Amendment, amply shows the intent of Congress, as

follows:

     ... [A]ll  persons born in the United States and not subject
     to any  foreign power,  excluding  Indians  not  taxed,  are
     hereby declared  to be  citizens of  the United States;  and
     such citizens,  of every  race and  color ... shall have the
     same right,  in every  State and  Territory  in  the  United
     States ...  to full  and  equal  benefit  of  all  laws  and
     proceedings for  the security  of person and property, as is
     enjoyed by white citizens.
                                                 [emphasis added]


        Motion to Stay Proceedings, Challenge to Statute :
                          Page 5 of 9


     Once a  prima facie  case for  the existence  of  purposeful

discrimination is  made out, the burden shifts to the prosecution

in a  criminal case  to prove  otherwise.  See Whitus v. Georgia,

385 U.S.  545.  Reliance on the so-called Fourteenth Amendment to

resolve this matter is moot, because the Fourteenth Amendment was

never lawfully  ratified, and because the authorities cited supra

allow for  the possibility  that a  Person can be a state Citizen

without  also  being  a  federal  citizen,  whether  or  not  the

Fourteenth  Amendment  was  lawfully  ratified.    See  State  v.

Phillips, 540  P.2d 936, 941 (1975);  Dyett v. Turner, 20 Utah 2d

403, 439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968);  Full Faith and Credit Clause;  28

Tulane Law  Review 22;   11  South Carolina  Law  Quarterly  484;

House Congressional Record, June 13, 1967, p. 15641 et seq.

     As such,  there is no constitutional provision which makes a

federal citizen  also a  citizen of the Union state in which s/he

resides, nor  is there  any constitutional provision which states

that the validity of the public debt shall not be questioned.

     The judicial  history of  American citizenship  is a subject

which  is   rich  in   nuance  and  detail,  as  demonstrated  in

Plaintiff's sworn  (verified) statement.   For example, at a time

when those Islands were in the federal zone, the Supreme Court of

the  Philippine   Islands  found   that  "citizenship,"  strictly

speaking, is  a term  of municipal  law and,  according  to  that

Court, it  is municipal  law which  regulates the  conditions  on

which citizenship is acquired:

     Citizenship,  says  Moore  on  International  Law,  strictly
     speaking, is  a  term  of  municipal  law  and  denotes  the
     possession within  the particular  state of  full civil  and
     political rights  subject to special disqualifications, such
     as minority,  sex, etc.  The conditions on which citizenship
     are [sic] acquired are regulated by municipal law.  There is
     no such thing as international citizenship nor international
     law (aside  from that  which might be contained in treaties)
     by which citizenship is acquired.

                                    [Roa v. Collector of Customs]
                                  [23 Philippine 315, 332 (1912)]


        Motion to Stay Proceedings, Challenge to Statute :
                          Page 6 of 9


Indeed, international  law is  divided roughly  into two  groups:

(1) public  international law  and (2) private international law.

Citizenship is a term of private international law (also known as

municipal law) in which the terms "state", "nation" and "country"

are all synonymous:

     Private international law assumes a more important aspect in
     the United  States than  elsewhere, for  the reason that the
     several states,  although united  under the  same  sovereign
     authority and  governed by  the same  laws for  all national
     purposes  embraced   by  the   Federal   Constitution,   are
     otherwise, at  least so  far as private international law is
     concerned, in  the same  relation as  foreign countries. The
     great majority of questions of private international law are
     therefore subject  to the same rules when they arise between
     two states  of the  Union as  when they  arise  between  two
     foreign countries,  and  in  the  ensuing  pages  the  words
     "state," "nation,"  and "country"  are used synonymously and
     interchangeably, there  being no  intention  to  distinguish
     between  the   several  states  of  the  Union  and  foreign
     countries by the use of varying terminology.

                         [16 Am Jur 2d, Conflict of Laws, Sec. 2]
                                                 [emphasis added]


Congress does  refer to  the Union states as "countries."  See 28

U.S.C. 297.

                          RELIEF SOUGHT

     Wherefore, Plaintiff  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 Plaintiff's

sworn (verified)  statement which  was previously  filed in  this

Court and  is incorporated  by reference  as if  set forth  fully

herein.   In the  event that  Plaintiff should  prevail  on  said

issues, Plaintiff  explicitly 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 current

Jury Selection and Service Act, 28 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.


        Motion to Stay Proceedings, Challenge to Statute :
                          Page 7 of 9


Executed on: __________________________________


Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Ray Looker

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

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


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

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


        Motion to Stay Proceedings, Challenge to Statute :
                          Page 8 of 9


                        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 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 STATUTE:
      28 U.S.C. 297, 517, 518, 1861, 1865, and 1867(d),(e),
            F.R.Cr.P. Rule 6(b)(2); F.R.Evid. 201(d);
                  Full Faith and Credit Clause

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


        Motion to Stay Proceedings, Challenge to Statute :
                          Page 9 of 9


                             #  #  #
      


Return to Table of Contents for

U.S.A. v. Looker