In Propria Persona

without Prejudice

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al., ) Civil Actions #98-1232 (CKK)

) #98-1233 (CKK)

Plaintiffs, )

) (in legislative mode)

v. )

)

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, )

)

Defendant. )

---------------------------------) NOTICE OF MOTION AND

United States ) MOTION FOR INTERVENTION

ex relatione ) OF RIGHT:

Lonnie G. Schmidt, ) 3:2:1 (in judicial mode);

) 28 U.S.C. 530B, 2403;

Movant. ) FRCP 24(a), (c)

_________________________________) (United States not a party).

COMES NOW the United States (hereinafter “Movant”) ex relatione Lonnie G. Schmidt, Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America, decorated combat veteran and Private Attorney General (hereinafter “Relator”) to move this honorable Court for intervention of right, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2403(a), and to provide timely Notice to all interested parties of same, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) Rule 24(c) (United States not yet a party); and Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 (“3:2:1”) in the Constitution for the United States of America (hereinafter “U.S. Constitution”).

NOTICE OF CHALLENGE TO CONSTITUTIONALITY

OF THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 869

Pursuant to the duties imposed upon it by virtue of 28 U.S.C. 2403(a), this Court will please certify to the Office of the Attorney General that the constitutionality of an Act of Congress affecting the public interest is herein drawn in question.

Likewise, this Court will please certify Movant’s intervention for presentation of all evidence admissible in the above entitled cases, and for argument(s) on the question of the constitutionality of the Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 869.

RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

Subject to all applicable provisions of Law, Movant hereby expressly reserves all rights of a party and shall be subject to all liabilities of a party as to court costs, to the extent necessary for a proper presentation of the facts and laws relating to the question of the constitutionality of said Act.

See Article II, Articles of Confederation (“United States, in Congress Assembled”); 28 U.S.C. 530B (willful misrepresentation); Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553 (1933) (United States as plaintiff); United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11 (1955); Sherman Act (1890) (Article III constitutional court has original jurisdiction); 3:2:1 (“Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;”).

The “United States” and the “United States of America” are not one and the same. Congress is expressly prohibited from re‑defining any terms found in the U.S. Constitution. See Preamble (“Constitution for the United States of America”); Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 (“2:1:1”) (“President of the United States of America”); Article VII (“Independence of the United States of America”); Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920):

Congress ... cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations that power can be lawfully exercised.

The U.S. Department of Justice does not enjoy general power(s) of attorney to represent the United States of America. Compare 28 U.S.C. 547(1), (2) (Duties). Willful misrepresentation by officers employed by that Department is actionable under the McDade Act, 28 U.S.C. 530B (Ethical standards for attorneys for the Government).

Whenever the United States proceeds as party plaintiff, an Article III constitutional court, exercising the judicial power of the United States, is a prerequisite under 3:2:1 (“The judicial Power shall extend ... to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party”). See 28 U.S.C. 1345 (United States as plaintiff).

Whenever the United States proceeds as a party defendant, the sovereign must grant permission to be sued. See 28 U.S.C. 1346 (United States as defendant). In this mode, a legislative court is permitted. See Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553, 577 (1933):

... [C]ontroversies to which the United States may by statute be made a party defendant, at least as a general rule, lie wholly outside the scope of the judicial power vested by article 3 in the constitutional courts. See United States v. Texas, 143 U.S. 621, 645, 646 S., 12 S.Ct. 488.

A private Citizen may move a federal court on behalf of the United States ex relatione. United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11 (1955).

The Sherman Act (1890) vests original jurisdiction in the several district courts of the United States (“DCUS”). These courts are Article III constitutional courts proceeding in judicial mode. Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209 (1890), 36 Stat. 1167 (1911), 62 Stat. 909 (1948). See also Mookini v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201, 205 (1938) (term DCUS in its historic and proper sense); General Investment Co. v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co., 260 U.S. 261 (1922) (antitrust injunctions brought by the United States in the public interest).

The United States District Courts (“USDC”) are legislative courts typically proceeding in legislative mode. See American Insurance v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 1 Pet. 511, 7 L.Ed. 242 (1828) (C.J. Marshall’s seminal ruling); and Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 312 (1922) (The USDC is not a true United States court established under Article III.) See 28 U.S.C. §§ 88, 91, 132, 152, 171, 251, 458, 461, 1367.

Legislative courts are not required to exercise the Article III guarantees required of constitutional courts. See Keller v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 261 U.S. 428 (1923); Federal Trade Commission v. Klesner, 274 U.S. 145 (1927); Swift v. United States, 276 U.S. 311 (1928); Ex parte Bakelite Corporation, 279 U.S. 438 (1929); Federal Radio Commission v. General Electric Co., 281 U.S. 464 (1930); Claiborne-Annapolis Ferry Co. v. United States, 285 U.S. 382 (1932); O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516 (1933); Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962); Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982); 49 Stat. 1921.

All guarantees of the U.S. Constitution were expressly extended into the District of Columbia in 1871, and into all federal Territories in 1873. See 16 Stat. 419, 426, Sec. 34; 18 Stat. 325, 333, Sec. 1891, respectively. Hooven & Allison v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) (only as Congress has made those guaranties [sic] applicable).

REMEDY REQUESTED

All premises having been duly considered, Relator now moves this honorable Court, on behalf of the United States:

(1) to certify to the Office of the Attorney General that the constitutionality of the Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 869, has been drawn into question; and,

(2) to certify Movant’s intervention for presentation of all evidence admissible in the above entitled cases, and for argument(s) on the question of the constitutionality of said Act.

Thank you for your professional consideration.

VERIFICATION

I, Lonnie G. Schmidt, Sui Juris, 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). See Supremacy Clause (Constitution, Laws and Treaties are the supreme Law of the Land).

Dated: September 27, 2001 A.D.

Signed: /s/ Lonnie G. Schmidt

______________________________________________

Printed: Lonnie G. Schmidt, Sui Juris

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Lonnie G. Schmidt, 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):

NOTICE OF MOTION AND

MOTION FOR INTERVENTION OF RIGHT:

3:2:1 (in judicial mode);

28 U.S.C. 530B, 2403; FRCP 24(a), (c)

(United States not a party).

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:

Sullivan & Cromwell U.S. Department of Justice

Attention: John L. Warden Antitrust Division

125 Broad Street 901 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

New York City 10004 Washington 20530

NEW YORK STATE, USA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA

State of New York State of Wisconsin

Antitrust Bureau Office of Attorney General

120 Broadway P.O. Box 7857, Ste. 114 East

New York City 10271 Madison 53707-7857

NEW YORK STATE, USA WISCONSIN, 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

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 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.

10^th and Constitution, N.W. Room 5614

Washington 20530 Washington 20530-0001

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA

Paul Andrew Mitchell Alex Kozinski (supervising)

Private Attorney General Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

350 – 30^th Street, Suite 444 P.O. Box 91510

Oakland 94609-3426 Pasadena 91109-1510

CALIFORNIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA

Bill Gates

Chairman and Chief Software Architect

Microsoft Corporation

One Microsoft Way

Redmond 98052-6388

WASHINGTON, USA

[See USPS Publication #221 for addressing instructions.]

Dated: September 27, 2001 A.D.

Signed: /s/ Lonnie G. Schmidt

______________________________________________

Printed: Lonnie G. Schmidt, Sui Juris