Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris
c/o General Delivery
Arivaca [zip code exempt]
ARIZONA STATE
In Propria Persona
Under Protest, Necessity, and
by Special Visitation Only
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Case No. 95-484-WDB
)
Plaintiff, ) NOTICE OF MOTION AND
) MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
v. ) FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH
) GRAND JURY SELECTION POLICY,
Sheila Terese, Wallen, ) AND NOTICE OF CHALLENGE AND
) CHALLENGE TO
Defendant. ) CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTE
) 28 U.S.C. 297, 517, 518,
) 1861, 1865, and 1867(d),(e),
________________________________) F.R.Cr.P. Rule 6(b)(2)
COMES NOW Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris, Citizen of Arizona
state and Defendant in the above entitled matter (hereinafter
"Defendant"), 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 review of the Defendant's challenge to
the constitutionality of 28 U.S.C. 1865, to wit:
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]
Motion to Stay Proceedings:
Page 1 of 8
In stark contrast, it is the policy of the United States
that all citizens shall have the opportunity to be considered
for service on grand 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]
Defendant hereby provides notice to all interested parties
of Her 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
Title 28, United States Code, Section 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 Arizona state. See
Dyett v. Turner and State v. Phillips infra; Right of Election;
voter registration affidavits.
Motion to Stay Proceedings:
Page 2 of 8
By way of introduction to the crucial matters of fact and
law which are discussed at length in Defendant'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:
Page 3 of 8
As a Party to the instant case, the Defendant 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 Arizona 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 Arizona state
who choose not also to be citizens of the United States (a/k/a
federal citizens):
citizen of Citizen of Qualified
United States Arizona state to serve
Yes Yes Yes
Yes No Yes
No No No
No Yes No **
This result ("**") violates the Tenth Amendment by disqualifying
Citizens of Arizona state from serving on federal grand juries
when they are not also federal citizens, thus denying to accused
Citizens of Arizona state a grand jury of Their Peers when a
grand 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:
Page 4 of 8
Discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, as
prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, means an intentional,
systematic noninclusion 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. Expressio 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]
Once a prima facie case for the existence of purposeful
discrimination is made out, the burden shifts to the prosecution
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.
Motion to Stay Proceedings:
Page 5 of 8
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
Defendant'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)]
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:
Motion to Stay Proceedings:
Page 6 of 8
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, Defendant 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
Defendant's sworn (verified) statement which is attached hereto
and incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein.
Executed on: _________________________
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Sheila Wallen
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris
Citizen of Arizona state
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Motion to Stay Proceedings:
Page 7 of 8
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Sheila Terese, Wallen, 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 MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH GRAND 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)
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:
Office of the United States Attorney
110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310
Tucson [85701]
ARIZONA STATE
Attorney General
Department of Justice
10th and Constitution, N.W.
Washington
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Solicitor General
Department of Justice
10th and Constitution, N.W.
Washington
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Executed on: _____________________________
/s/ Sheila Wallen
__________________________________________
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris
Citizen of Arizona state
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Motion to Stay Proceedings:
Page 8 of 8
# # #
Return to Table of Contents for
U.S.A. v. Wallen