NOTICE OF PROBABLE FRAUD AND OF FORMAL REFUSAL, BY AFFIDAVIT

NOTICE OF PROBABLE FRAUD AND

OF FORMAL REFUSAL, BY AFFIDAVIT

TO: Mr. Dwight Holton

dba Assistant United States Attorney

1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite 600

Portland 97204-2902

OREGON, USA

FROM: Mr. and Mrs. Louis Leroy Sutton

DATE: October 27, 2008 A.D.

SUBJECT: defective SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY BEFORE GRAND JURY (2x)

Hello Mr. Holton:

Once again, we have received but not accepted two (2) nearly identical documents falsely claiming to be a proper and lawful SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY BEFORE GRAND JURY. We hereby formally refuse same for fraud, and return both to the Clerk of the United States District Court in Portland, Oregon. Without belaboring the many reasons why both of these documents are fraudulent, we will endeavor to itemize each of the major fatal errors with an adequate explanation, as follows:

(1) A currently seated panel of federal citizens is neither a duly convened nor lawful Federal Grand Jury.

The Federal Jury Selection and Service Act at 28 U.S.C. 1865(b)(1) expressly disqualifies anyone who is not a federal citizen from serving on a Federal jury. There are two (2) classes of citizens under American laws never repealed, not one (1) class. This fatal defect is very similar to the situation that would occur if all Democrats, or all members of the black race, or all women were disqualified from serving solely because of their membership in those classes of People. The U.S. Supreme Court has already held that class discrimination in jury selection invalidates the entire panel, even if each individual juror is otherwise qualified to serve. This fatal defect has already been fully documented with supporting authorities in several Federal court cases: see in particular this OPENING BRIEF to the Eighth Circuit, at Topic “A” here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/opening.htm#topic-a

(2) No lawful application of the United States of America can be or has been produced after we requested same.

In our letter to your office dated October 13, 2008 A.D., we politely and respectfully requested your office to produce a true and correct copy of said “application”, but no such application has been forthcoming. We now believe that is the case because no such application can be produced, and no such application has been filed by your office, to request the Clerk of Court to issue a proper SUBPOENA. Our letter of October 13 also goes on to explain that the term “United States of America” has a very specific meaning in Law: it refers to the 50 States of the Union and ONLY to the 50 States of the Union. See, for example, the Federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 1746, where that term is used in correct contradistinction to “United States”. The latter term, as you know or should know, is the proper legal term for the Federal government. You are presently employed by the Office of the United States Attorney, not by any non-existent Office of the United States of America Attorney.

(3) The Office of the United States Attorney has no powers of attorney legally to represent the 50 States of the Union.

On an even more important level, your office has never been delegated any powers of attorney by Congress to represent the 50 States of the Union as such. Each State of the Union is already quite adequately represented legally by its own State Attorney General. Moreover, Congress has never conferred legal standing upon the “United States of America” to appear as such in any Federal courts. Compare here the Federal statutes at 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1346, which confer legal standing upon the “United States” (Federal government) to sue and be sued, respectively. Accordingly, insofar as your office claims to have legally represented the “United States of America” on some non-existent “application” by those 50 States for a SUBPOENA, those claims amount to willful misrepresentation in violation of the McDade Act at 28 U.S.C. 530B. Your powers of attorney were conferred by the Federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 547, which clearly refers to the “United States” and its agencies. The word “America” does not occur anywhere in the latter statute!

(4) A proper SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE is now PAST DUE for the APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS and OATHS OF OFFICE of all Federal Justices, Judges, Magistrates, Clerks and Deputy Clerks.

Speaking of SUBPOENAs, attached please find documentary proof that the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (“AO”) is now in contempt of a proper and lawful SUBPOENA for said credentials that are required by Law of all Federal Justices, Judges, Magistrates, Clerks and Deputy Clerks. We are correctly informed that Federal Clerks of Court routinely refer requests for such credentials to that AO, even though that AO is not the designated legal custodian of any such credentials. As a matter of Law, the United States Department of Justice has been designated the legal custodian of all PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSIONS by the Federal statute at 5 U.S.C. 2902, and the Clerk of Court has been designated the legal custodian of all APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS by the Federal statute at 5 U.S.C. 2906. All such statutes cited herein are rendered supreme Law of the Land, pursuant to the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution for the United States of America. Accordingly, until such time as we have received certified copies of the OATH OF OFFICE and APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVIT required of you, of Melody Berkheiser and of Sheryl S. McConnell, the PAST DUE SUBPOENA to the AO will serve as competent and sufficient proof that none of the latter personnel has the requisite credentials in question. As you know or should know, impersonating an officer of the United States (Federal government) is a serious felony Federal offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. 912. Such felony impersonation also implicates the suspect(s) in other serious felonies, such as mail fraud, falsifying court records, obstruction of justice, witness retaliation, extortion, deprivation of Rights secured by the Constitution and conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activities (to name a few).

(5) The defective “SUBPOENA” is not signed by the “Clerk” as required by 28 U.S.C. 1691 if no Clerks or Deputy Clerks possess the requisite credentials!

We were frankly delighted to confirm that some effort has been made to conform your defective “SUBPOENAs” to the clear requirements stated in the Federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 1691: all such “process” must exhibit the Clerk’s signature and the Court’s seal. Nevertheless, the absence of required credentials necessarily invalidates both the signature (which is not totally legible) and the name “Sheryl S. McConnell”. We also took special note of the fact that each defective “process” was transmitted to us via United Parcel Service (“UPS”) and not via U.S. Mail. Even though the resort to transmission via UPS might obviate a mail fraud violation, the other fatal defects remain outstanding regardless of the mode of delivery or method of service.

In conclusion, we are taking the liberty of serving copies of this NOTICE OF PROBABLE FRAUD AND OF FORMAL REFUSAL, BY AFFIDAVIT, upon the individual now claiming to be the “Foreperson” of the panel of federal citizens currently impersonating a duly convened Federal Grand Jury in downtown Portland, Oregon. Additional copies are being served upon other appropriate law enforcement agencies, including but not limited to a Private Attorney General, U.S. Marshals, County Sheriff, and staff of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.

NOTICE OF INTENT TO INVOKE 18 U.S.C. 1504

Please be informed also of our intent to serve said “Foreperson” with a formal request to appear in writing before a duly convened Federal Grand Jury -- one that has been selected from candidate jurors who also include State Citizens aka Citizens of ONE OF the United States of America (50 States). Such appearances can be made in writing without the need for either of us to step foot into a building whose occupants are presently under formal investigation on suspicion of extortion and racketeering. The last sentence of the Federal statute at 18 U.S.C. 1504 makes it very clear that nothing in that statute can be construed to prohibit a request to appear before a “grand jury”:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the communication of a request to appear before the grand jury.

VERIFICATION

We, the Undersigned, 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 our current information, knowledge, and belief, so help us God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1) (Constitution, Laws and Treaties of the United States are supreme Law of the Land, notwithstanding anything in the Constitutions or Laws of Oregon to the contrary. See Supremacy Clause.)

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Signed: /s/ Louis L. Sutton

____________________________________________________

Printed: Louis L. Sutton, Sui Juris

Signed: /s/ Donna J. Sutton

____________________________________________________

Printed: Donna J. Sutton, Sui Juris

U.S. Mail:

Mr. and Mrs. Louis L. Sutton

c/o 50571 Maple Avenue

Scappoose 97056-4323

OREGON, USA

[Please see USPS Publication #221 for “foreign” address formatting.]

Copy: Melody Berkheiser dba Paralegal, OUSA, Portland

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a), Rotella v. Wood

Office of the Postmaster, U.S. Post Office, Portland 97204

Office of the U.S. Marshals, Portland 97204

Office of the County Sheriff, St. Helens, Oregon

Office of the Clerk of Court, USDC, Portland, Oregon

“Foreperson”, panel of federal citizens dba “grand jury”

Attachments