Vazrik A. Makarian, Sui Juris
c/o Forwarding Agent
8617 Raindrop Canyon Avenue
Las Vegas 89129
NEVADA, USA
All Rights Reserved
without Prejudice
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Case No. 01-50422
)
Plaintiffs/Appellees, ) NOTICE OF MOTION AND
) MOTION TO STRIKE
v ) GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION:
)
VAZRIK A. MAKARIAN, ) 28 U.S.C. §§ 530B, 1292,
) 1746, 1861, 1865, 1869(f)(?);
Defendant/Appellant. ) 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B);
_________________________________) FREv Rule 201(d).
COMES NOW Vazrik A. Makarian, Citizen of Nevada State and alleged Defendant in the above entitled matter (hereinafter “Appellant”), to move this honorable Court for an ORDER striking the GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION dated October 3, 2001 A.D., and to provide formal Notice of same to all interested Parties, for all of the meritorious reasons that follow, to wit:
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA have no standing to sue, as such. No such federal statute exists. Compare 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1345, 1346 (“United States” as plaintiff and defendant, respectively; not the “United States of America” [sic]).
The United States must be the Plaintiff, in order to institute a criminal prosecution against a Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America. See Article III (“Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party”); Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553 (1933).
The “United States” is not the Plaintiff in the instant case.
The “United States” and the “United States of America” are not one and the same. These two terms are both found in the U.S. Constitution, and Congress cannot re-define either term by any definition it might adopt. Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920).
The GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION commits a serious error by stating, in so many words, that “the United States is a plaintiff” [Page 1, footnote 1]. The United States is not a Party Plaintiff.
The government attorneys are either ignorant of the Law on this point, or they are committing a subtle fraud upon this Court. Neither possibility is very encouraging. The very real prospect of systematic Congressional error in this matter is even less encouraging.
Even though Mr. John S. Gordon may enjoy power(s) of attorney to represent the “United States” before this Court, he enjoys no power(s) of attorney whatsoever to represent the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA before this court. See 28 U.S.C. 1746(2).
Even though Mr. Ronald L. Cheng may enjoy power(s) of attorney to represent the “United States” before this Court, he enjoys no power(s) of attorney whatsoever to represent the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA before this court. See 28 U.S.C. 1746(2).
Even though Mr. Eliot F. Krieger may enjoy power(s) of attorney to represent the “United States” before this Court, he enjoys no power(s) of attorney whatsoever to represent the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA before this court. See 28 U.S.C. 1746(2).
These employees in the office of the United States Attorney are not attorneys for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic]; they are not State Attorneys General, nor are they delegates thereof.
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are the several (now 50) States of the Union, united by and under the Constitution for the United States of America (hereinafter “U.S. Constitution”).
The respective Attorneys General of those 50 States have made no appearances whatsoever in the instant case. Frankly, they have failed entirely to prosecute. Compare Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1.
Therefore, Messrs. John S. Gordon, Ronald L. Cheng, and Eliot F. Krieger (“government attorneys”) are now in violation of 28 U.S.C. 530B (Ethical standards for attorneys for the Government), for willful misrepresentation actionable under California State Bar disciplinary guidelines. Confer also at “Fraud” in Black’s Sixth.
The government attorneys also misguide this Court by arguing that Appellant appeals from an order that is not final. Appellant has effectively stipulated this point already: Appellant openly admits He is not appealing a final judgment under 28 U.S.C. 1291.
But, this is not the point! The government attorneys will please stay on point.
One of the major questions before this Court is not whether Appellant is appealing from an order that is final. No question here!
One of the major questions now before this Court is whether 28 U.S.C. 1292 authorizes this Court to entertain interlocutory appeals from orders issued by United States District Courts.
The GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION is obviously unresponsive on this crucial point, and should be stricken.
If Appellant cannot appeal any interlocutory orders issued by United States District Courts, He is obviously confronted by a tribunal in which summary proceedings are the norm, and in which due process of law has been corruptly short-changed. See 3:2:3; Due Process Clause in the Fifth Amendment; Sixth Amendment; and Article 14 in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Appellant is not required to make any general appearances before any federal court that lacks original jurisdiction over the subject matter. 18 U.S.C. 3231. The United States District Court is simply not competent to entertain any plea in answer to any criminal indictments; nor is it independent or impartial. See Covenant supra.
The proper way to settle this question, therefore, is to construct the statute granting this Court appellate jurisdiction of interlocutory orders. That statute is 28 U.S.C. 1292.
Appellant argues that this United States Court of Appeals is created and convened under Article III, even though the United States District Court is not.
Appellant hereby submits that
statutes granting appellate jurisdiction to the United States Court of
Appeals must be strictly construed, just like statutes granting original
jurisdiction to federal district courts.
Appellant argues that justice requires that He be allowed to brief this Court fully, in a proper OPENING BRIEF, to dispose of this question once and for all.
If Appellant’s MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL INTERLOCUTORY ORDER should ultimately be denied by this Court, such a holding can only be founded on a strict construction of 28 U.S.C. 1292.
Such a decision should be grounded on Law and not on misguided, misleading or unresponsive pleadings. See the Guarantee Clause. A Republican Form of government is one that is governed by Law, and not by arbitrary bureaucrats, and not by vague or ambiguous statutes.
Permission to appeal an interlocutory order can only be granted if this Court enjoys appellate jurisdiction to do so, in the first instance (read ab initio).
Granting permission to appeal an interlocutory order is pointless, if appellate jurisdiction does not exist in the first instance; such a grant would necessarily be ultra vires. Granting such permission is simply not possible, if such permission is not within this Court’s power to grant. Lex non cogit impossibilia.
Similarly, denying permission for the wrong reason(s) would also be pointless, evasive and misleading, in light of all the above (read fraud). If such permission is not within this Court’s power to grant, denying permission is required, and fully disclosing the correct reasons for doing so is also required.
Appellant now frames The Controversy squarely as follows:
The statute at 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1) authorizes this Court to entertain interlocutory appeals from orders issued by the district courts of the United States, but not by United States District Courts.
The GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION is likewise unresponsive on this obviously pivotal question. Silence activates estoppel.
Appellant is using the term “district court of the United States” in its historic and proper sense, not in the vague and ambiguous sense imposed retroactively upon 159 years of American jurisprudence, and upon all subsequent litigation, by the Act of June 25, 1948.
Appellant is appealing orders issued ultra vires by a United States District Court. The orders in question were not issued de jure by any district court of the United States.
For that matter, neither was the alleged indictment issued under lawful authority of any district court of the United States. See 18 U.S.C. 3231. This statute likewise must be strictly construed.
The alleged indictment was also issued by a panel of federal citizens, convened under a Jury Selection and Service Act which expressly discriminates against Citizens of ONE OF the United States of America. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1861, 1865(b)(1), 1869(f); Genocide Treaty.
Federal citizens were not even contemplated when Article III was being drafted. See Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914; Eleventh Amendment (“one of”, “Citizens of another State”); Qualifications Clauses. The “United States” in the Qualifications Clauses means “States united”. See 1:2:2; 1:3:3; 2:1:5; People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 337 (1870); Northwest Ordinance; 7 Words and Phrases 281.
The “United States District Court” and the “district court of the United States” are not one and the same. Nevada is not a United States District; it is a single judicial district. 28 U.S.C. 108. California is not a United States District; it is divided into four judicial districts. 28 U.S.C. 84.
Accordingly, Appellant is entirely correct, timely, and on point, to request a published opinion affirming that:
(1) this United States Court of Appeals is authorized by 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1) to entertain appellate review of interlocutory orders issued by district courts of the United States within the Ninth Circuit;
(2) this United States Court of Appeals is not authorized by 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1) to entertain appellate review of interlocutory orders issued by United States District Courts within the Ninth Circuit.
Appellant hereby also
respectfully requests that this Court henceforth hold that statutes granting appellate
jurisdiction to the United States Court of Appeals must be strictly
construed as well.
Lastly, to allege that Appellant is a “fugitive” [sic] is to assume facts not in evidence. Appellant was never properly served with a SUMMONS or COMPLAINT. Lawful service was never effected.
A SUMMONS to answer a criminal complaint cannot be issued by the United States District Court because it lacks criminal jurisdiction in the first instance. Its criminal authority is limited to jurisdiction over criminal contempt proceedings.
The government’s attorneys are now estopped on this question, because they have failed to produce, or to cite, any evidence of properly effected service of SUMMONS or COMPLAINT in the certified record now before this Court. Even if both had ever been properly served, both are ultra vires ab initio.
In closing, Appellant wishes respectfully to remind the government’s attorneys that this Court’s ORDER dated September 14, 2001 A.D. clearly states:
If appellant does not comply with this order, the Court will consider appellant’s motion for permission to appeal an interlocutory order.
To repeat, Appellant has opted against complying with said ORDER, without prejudice to any of His substantive or procedural rights, and with the obvious expectation that this Court will now consider Appellant’s MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL INTERLOCUTORY ORDER. See “All Rights Reserved without Prejudice” on caption page supra.
INCORPORATION OF
ATTACHMENTS
Pursuant to Rule 201(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FREv”), Appellant respectfully demands mandatory judicial notice of Attachments “A” and “B”, and incorporates same by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
Attachment “A” is a true and correct copy of Appellant’s proper FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST, dated September 7, 2001 A.D., for certified copies of the Appointment Letters (if any) delegating power(s) of attorney to Messrs. Alejandro N. Mayorkas, John S. Gordon and Julien A. Adams to represent the United States of America in federal courts (“Three Gentlemen of Los Angeles”). Uncertified evidence is not admissible.
Attachment “B” is a true and correct copy of Appellant’s proper FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL, dated September 24, 2001 A.D., appealing the Disclosure Officer’s failure to produce certified copies of the documents requested by Attachment “A” supra.
Administrative remedies will be exhausted in the matter of this FOIA Appeal on October 24, 2001 A.D. (i.e. ~20 federal working days after September 24). 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(C)(i).
Statutes granting original jurisdiction to federal district courts must be strictly construed. The only federal court with original jurisdiction competent to adjudicate claims arising under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) is the Article III constitutional district court of the United States. See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B).
RELIEF SOUGHT
In conclusion, Appellant moves this honorable Court to strike the GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION, for all the reasons stated, and to proceed forthwith to a deliberate consideration of Appellant’s MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL INTERLOCUTORY ORDER.
Appellant also requests that this Court lift the stay on the briefing schedule and to update same, so as to afford Appellant ample opportunity to prepare and submit a proper and comprehensive OPENING BRIEF on all major questions outstanding.
Finally, this Court will please acknowledge that it has taken formal judicial notice of Appellant’s FOIA Request, and FOIA Appeal, for certified and admissible copies of any power(s) of attorney for Three Gentlemen of Los Angeles to represent the United States of America in federal courts.
VERIFICATION
I, Vazrik A. Makarian, hereby verify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (federal government), that the above statement of facts and laws is true and correct, according to the best of My current information, knowledge, and belief, so help me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1) supra. See Supremacy Clause.
Dated: October 10, 2001 A.D.
Signed: /s/ Vazrik A. Makarian
______________________________________________
Printed: Vazrik A. Makarian
I, Alan Wu, Sui Juris, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (federal government), 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):
28 U.S.C. §§ 530B, 1292, 1746, 1861, 1865, 1869(f)(?);
5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B);
FREv Rule 201(d).
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
Attention: Miriam A. Krinsky Attention: Kathy A. Catterson
United States Courthouse United States Court of Appeals
312 North Spring Street P.O. Box 193939
Los Angeles 90012 San Francisco 94119-3939
CALIFORNIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA
Hon. John Ashcroft Office of the Solicitor General
Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice
U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
10th and Constitution, N.W. Room 5614
Washington 20530 Washington 20530-0001
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA
Courtesy copies:
Hon.
George W. Bush
President of the United States of America (2:1:1)
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington 20500
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA
Lonnie G. Schmidt Prof. Emeritus Kenneth L. Karst
Private Attorney General UCLA School of Law
11230 Gold Express Dr., #310-188 P.O. Box 951476
Gold River 95670 Los Angeles 90095-1476
CALIFORNIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA
Paul
Andrew Mitchell
Private Attorney General
c/o Forwarding Agent
350 – 30th Street, Suite 444
Oakland 94609-3426
CALIFORNIA, USA
Dated: October 10, 2001 A.D.
Signed: /s/ Alan Wu
______________________________________________
Printed: Alan Wu, Sui Juris
Attachment “A”:
FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST
September 7, 2001 A.D.
September 7, 2001
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST
Disclosure Officer
Office of the U.S. Attorney
1200 U.S. Courthouse
312 North Spring Street
Los Angeles 90012-4708
CALIFORNIA, USA
Subject: Appointment Letters delegating Powers of Attorney
Dear Disclosure Officer:
This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq., and regulations thereunder. This is My firm promise to pay fees and costs for locating, duplicating, and mailing to Me certified copies of the records requested below.
If some of this request is exempt from release, please furnish Me with those portions reasonably segregable. I am requiring certified copies of the documents requested, in lieu of personal inspection of same.
Admissible document(s) requested:
1. Certified copy of
the Appointment Letter appointing Mr. Alejandro N. Mayorkas
to the position of United States Attorney and delegating power of attorney to
Mr. Alejandro N. Mayorkas to represent the United
States of America [sic] in federal courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 530B.
2. Certified copy of
the Appointment Letter appointing Mr. John S. Gordon to the position of
Assistant United States Attorney and delegating power of attorney to Mr. John
S. Gordon to represent the United States of America [sic] in federal
courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 530B.
3. Certified copy of
the Appointment Letter appointing Ms. Julien A. Adams
to the position of Assistant United States Attorney and delegating power of
attorney to Ms. Julien A. Adams to represent the
United States of America [sic] in federal courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 530B.
The requested records are not exempt from disclosure because they:
(A) could not reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings;
(B) would not deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
(C) could not reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal property;
(D) could not reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source;
(E) would not disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, and would not disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions;
(F) could not reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.
[see Exemption 7 in FOIA]
If you are not the correct person to whom this Freedom of Information Act Request should be directed, kindly forward it to the correct person.
Time is of the essence. If you have any questions about your rights and obligations under 5 U.S.C. § 552, may we recommend that you contact the offices of the Attorney General, and/or the Solicitor General, in Washington, D.C., for immediate assistance.
For your convenience and to expedite delivery, please return the requested document(s), properly certified, in My self-addressed and stamped envelope (“SASE”) enclosed herewith.
Thank you very much for your consideration, and for your timely obedience to the controlling laws in this matter, specifically the Freedom of Information Act and the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Vazrik A. Makarian
Vazrik A. Makarian
C/o Forwarding Agent
8617 Raindrop Canyon Avenue
Las Vegas 89129
NEVADA, USA
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
enclosure: SASE
Attachment “B”:
FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL
September 24, 2001 A.D.
September 24, 2001 A.D.
Disclosure Officer
Office of the U.S. Attorney
1200 U.S. Courthouse
312 North Spring Street
Los Angeles 90012-4708
CALIFORNIA, USA
Subject: Appointment Letters delegating Powers of Attorney
(if any)
Dear Disclosure Officer:
This is an appeal under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).
On September 7, 2001 A.D., I requested documents under the FOIA.
For your convenience, I attach a copy of My original FOIA request.
To date, I have not received the requested documents.
Thank you for your consideration of this FOIA appeal.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Vazrik A. Makarian
Vazrik A. Makarian
c/o Forwarding Agent
8617 Raindrop Canyon Avenue
Las Vegas 89129
NEVADA, USA
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Attachment: copy of original FOIA request
