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. )

---------------------------------) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

United States ) OF MOVANT’S INTERVENTION

ex relatione ) OF RIGHT:

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

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

Movant. ) FRCP Rule 24(a)(1), (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 (“Relator”) to move this honorable Court to reconsider Movant’s MOTION 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 3:2:1 in the U.S. Constitution.

REASONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

This Court’s reliance upon FRCP Rule 24(a)(2) is misplaced and entirely inappropriate. By alleging to deny Movant’s MOTION FOR INTERVENTION OF RIGHT, and by citing FRCP Rule 24(a)(2) in support of its denial, instead of Rule 24(c) as previously cited by Movant, this Court has committed a plain error that should be reversed without further delay, and without prejudice to any proper parties. Confer at “Plain error rule” in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition; U.S. v. McCord, 509 F.2d 334, 341. Rule 24(a)(1) now controls (not (a)(2)).

The United States of America are not proper parties in the instant cases, because they have never made proper appearances of any kind whatsoever.

The proposed intervenor is not Lonnie G. Schmidt (“Relator”), but the United States (federal government). 28 U.S.C. 2403(a) undeniably confers an unconditional right upon the United States to intervene. The United States can proceed ex rel. a private Citizen. See United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11 (1955).

Moreover, FRCP Rule 24(a)(1) states clearly that anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action ... “(1) when a statute of the United States confers an unconditional right to intervene”. The term “shall” as used therein is mandatory, allowing for no discretion whatsoever on the part of this Court.

28 U.S.C. 2403 is a statute of the United States.

Specifically, said statute confers an unconditional right upon the United States to intervene whenever the constitutionality of any Act of Congress affecting the public interest is drawn in question. Such is, in fact, now the situation that obtains in these cases.

Movant has timely disclosed newly found evidence of vagueness and ambiguity in the Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 869. To the extent that proven vagueness is discovered also to be deliberate, it would thereby constitute fraud, and fraud vitiates even the most solemn of promises and contracts ab initio.

The Court’s explicit reliance upon FRCP Rule 24(b)(2) is likewise misplaced, and further evidence of plain error. The principle of “permissive intervention” -- as implied by the term “may” -– is diametrically opposite the principle of mandatory intervention, justified by Movant’s unconditional right to intervene. Said right leaves absolutely no room for discretion on the part of this honorable Court; it is unconditional.

Further along a road leading entirely in the wrong direction, this Court fabricates a “straw man.” It does this, first, by considering whether the requested intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties, and then by concluding that the burden of an additional party will likely cause such undue delay and prejudice. Not so!

This Court should categorically avoid any inference that it has superior knowledge of the future, when fundamental questions of jurisdiction and standing have now been properly raised about the official and verifiable record of past proceedings, both here and at the Circuit level.

The most serious prejudice can only result from abridging Movant’s unconditional right to intervene, given the unique and even historic conditions that have now crossed the bar. This Court has no authority to abrogate Movant’s unconditional statutory rights.

It is precisely because the original Plaintiffs (plural) -– the United States of America –- never had standing to sue as such, that Movant must intervene.

The continued health of America’s technology sectors should not be compromised by summary legislative rules, merely because certain government actors and their agents stand to acquire huge sums of money, by short-changing the requisite constitutional guarantees.

True government powers can be exercised in America only pursuant to constitutional Laws. 28 U.S.C. 2403 is a constitutional Law.

An habitual practice of instituting civil and criminal cases, so as to guarantee summary legislative proceedings, like “silent judicial notice,” is a damaging deception that must cease and desist. The American People, as Sovereigns, will no longer tolerate such deception on the part of the federal government, its employees, or any of its agencies, assigns, instrumentalities, or creditors.

Clearly, if Defendant has already been denied the judicial Power of the United States; and, if Defendant has already been forced to endure a court proceeding in legislative mode, without full disclosure; and, if the original Plaintiffs never had standing to sue (as such), in the first instance; and, if the attorneys for the government never had any power(s) of attorney to represent those Plaintiffs; then, Defendant’s rights now embrace the prosecution of a timely cross‑complaint for willful misrepresentation by those attorneys, and tortious conduct by the judge who presided upon the first trial action.

The law of jurisdiction is fundamental law, not allowing dubious intrusions of any kind. Motions to courts are petitions to government that warrant a sanctity and a sanction of obvious constitutional preeminence. Article III is not a trifle, to be discarded at the whim of ambitious players in a clay court of masks and mirrors.

That would not be a court of law, but a masquerade.

The phrase “Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party” is clearly controlling in the instant cases. It was to the well established meaning of this phrase that Congress could only have been referring when the Sherman Act granted original jurisdiction to the District Courts of the United States.

Statutes granting original jurisdiction must be strictly construed [numerous cites omitted here]. Similarly, Movant now submits that statutes granting appellate jurisdiction must be strictly construed, as well.

Movant also argues that Judge Jackson’s expertly proven bias cannot be limited to only one segment of these cases, and then overlooked or discounted in other segments. Such a conclusion is, at best, an arbitrary and capricious deprivation of due process, and of the guarantees implicit in Article III. For this reason, the Circuit Court has also erred –- by upholding a partial “judgment” that is entirely void on its face. D.C. is a judicial district.

The Defendant cannot be found to have violated the Sherman Act when a pervasive fraud upon this Court was ever present, but mostly invisible, by legislative intent. The real parties of interest must be disclosed now, particularly if the “United States of America” are frequently substituted (read “mask”) for foreign banks, or some other foreign principal(s) still undisclosed, and their unregistered foreign agents. See Proverbs 12:22; “persona ficta” in Black’s Seventh.

Judicial immunity is decidedly not available to a presiding judge if the court upon which s/he presided lacked original jurisdiction in the first instance. The Sherman Act requires that the United States [sic] be the Party Plaintiff in a constitutional court exercising the judicial Power of the United States. In a nation founded on the principle that the rule of law shall be supreme, these are the only criteria that really matter:

(1) The United States must have been the original complainant, and it was not.

(2) The judicial Power of the United States must have been exercised, and it was not.

(3) A court proceeding in constitutional mode must have been convened, and it was not.

This Court’s attention to the criteria enumerated in FRCP Rule 24(a)(2) proves that such comparatively minor criteria are also entirely irrelevant and immaterial. Obsta principiis.

The United States must intervene to clarify the full extent, and exact nature and causes, of all liabilities that arise from the indisputable facts of these cases. See Seventh Amendment.

The United States of America cannot do so, because they (and not it) never had standing to sue as such, in the first instance, and the attorneys for the government never enjoyed any powers of attorney to represent the 50 States of the Union, in the first instance. To argue otherwise is to demolish the Framers’ well planned and well built walls separating our State and federal functions; such illogic would explode a structure the Constitution was expressly instituted to erect, maintain and occupy, in perpetual Union. Reductio ad absurdum.

Thus, Defendant is entirely justified in bringing a proper cross‑complaint for willful violations of the McDade Act, 28 U.S.C. 530B, at the very least, not to mention a host of other due process violations. To “attorn” is to transfer an estate from the old lord to the new lord; it is a notion for feudal and not technological times.

NOTICE OF RELATED CASES AND

INCORPORATION OF PLEADINGS

Movant hereby informs all interested parties that the constitutionality of the Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 869, has now been drawn into question in three (3) United States Courts of Appeal, for the Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits, in addition to this honorable Court.

Movant now enumerates all Attachments, and incorporates same by reference, as if set forth fully herein, to wit:

(1) MOTION FOR INTERVENTION OF RIGHT by United States ex rel. Lonnie G. Schmidt, in United States of America v. Ramona Holcombe, Fourth Circuit Case No. 01-4101, October 23, 2001 A.D.;

(2) NOTICE OF CHALLENGE TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS AND REQUEST FOR APPROPRIATE PROCEDURAL RELIEF, in United States of America v. Vazrik Makarian, Ninth Circuit Case No. 01-50422, September 20, 2001 A.D.;

(3) MOTION TO STRIKE GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION, in United States of America v. Vazrik Makarian, Ninth Circuit Case No. 01‑50422, October 10, 2001 A.D.;

(4) MOTION FOR INTERVENTION OF RIGHT by United States ex rel. Lonnie G. Schmidt, in United States of America et al. v. Microsoft Corporation, USDC D.C. Case Nos. 98‑1232 and 98‑1233 [the instant cases];

(5) BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS, Lawrence J. Warfield v. David Edwards et al., Fifth Circuit Case No. 01‑10973, October 17, 2001 A.D.

See all Attachments infra.

REMEDY REQUESTED

All premises having been duly considered, Relator now reminds this honorable Court of its mandatory duties:

(1) to certify to the Office of the Attorney General that the constitutionality of the Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 869, has now 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.

This honorable Court must perform its statutory duties as enumerated above. It has no power to refrain from those duties. It has absolutely no discretion whatsoever in the matters now before it.

Thank you, in advance, for upholding the Law.

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: October 26, 2001 A.D.

Signed: /s/ Lonnie G. Schmidt

______________________________________________

Printed: Lonnie G. Schmidt, Sui Juris

PROOF OF SERVICE

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):

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

OF MOVANT’S INTERVENTION OF RIGHT:

3:2:1 (in judicial mode);

28 U.S.C. 530B, 2403; FRCP Rule 24(a)(1), (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:

Microsoft Corporation U.S. Department of Justice

Attn: William H. Neukom Attn: Philip Beck

One Microsoft Way 601 “D” St., N.W., Ste. 1200

Redmond 98052 Washington 20530

WASHINGTON STATE, USA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA

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

Sullivan & Cromwell U.S. Department of Justice

Attn: Steven L. Holley Attn: Phillip R. Malone

125 Broad Street 450 Golden Gate Avenue

New York City 10004 San Francisco 94102

NEW YORK STATE, USA CALIFORNIA, USA

State of New York State of Wisconsin

Attn: Alan R. Kusinitz Attn: Kevin J. O’Connor

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

Carl Lundgren Roy A. Day

5305 S. 25th Street P.O. Box 33

Arlington 22206 Tarpon Springs 34688-0033

VIRGINIA, USA FLORIDA, USA

David L. Whitehead

1101 Westfield Drive

Oxon Hill 20745

MARYLAND, 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: October 26, 2001 A.D.

Signed: /s/ Alan Wu

______________________________________________

Printed: Alan Wu, Sui Juris

Attachments

infra