Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris
c/o General Delivery
Arivaca [zip code exempt]
ARIZONA STATE
In Propria Persona
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Sheila Terese, Wallen, ) Case No. 95-484-TUC
)
Plaintiff, ) NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR
) TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT OF A
v. ) JUDGE OF THE COURT OF
) INTERNATIONAL TRADE
United States, ) TO PRESIDE OVER THIS
and Does 1-99, ) DISTRICT COURT
) OF THE UNITED STATES:
Defendants. ) 28 U.S.C. 293, 296, 297,
________________________________) 461(b)
Greetings to You:
Judge Alex Kozinski
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
125 South Grand Avenue, Suite 200
Pasadena [zip code exempt]
CALIFORNIA STATE
Formal NOTICE AND DEMAND are hereby respectfully made of
You, Judge Kozinski, by Me, Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris,
Citizen of Arizona state, expressly not a citizen of the United
States ("federal citizen"), and Plaintiff in the above entitled
matter (hereinafter "Plaintiff"), to present to the Chief Justice
of the United States a certificate of necessity that the Chief
Justice designate and assign temporarily a competent and
qualified judge from the Court of International Trade to perform
judicial duties in this honorable District Court of the United
States. See 28 U.S.C. 293, 296, 297, 461(b); also Evans v.
Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920) (never overturned).
Notice & Demand for Temporary Assignment of Article III Judge:
Page 1 of 7
The authority in Evans is particularly poignant. It is
apparent to Plaintiff, because of exhaustive research which Her
Counsel of Record has shared with Her, that all sitting United
States District Judges in America are appointed to serve in
either an Article I or in an Article IV capacity at the present
time. In this capacity, said Judges do not enjoy the explicit
immunity which is found in Article III, Section 1 ("3:1") of the
Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully
amended (hereinafter "U.S. Constitution"), to wit:
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall
hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at
stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation,
which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in
Office.
[U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 1]
[emphasis added]
Plaintiff submits that one of the major reasons why said
Judges do not enjoy the explicit immunity at 3:1 is the doctrine
of territorial heterogeneity. Confer in The Federal Zone:
Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue, Fourth Edition, available
on the Internet via the Alta Vista search engine; see also U.S.
v. Lopez, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995):
Each of these [schools] now has an invisible federal zone
[sic] extending 1,000 feet beyond the (often irregular)
boundaries of the school property.
[emphasis added]
Here, the U.S. Supreme Court utilized this term as a common noun,
without any citations or footnotes. The doctrine of territorial
heterogeneity, as such, is summarized as follows in the
Conclusions of The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal
Revenue, to wit:
Notice & Demand for Temporary Assignment of Article III Judge:
Page 2 of 7
In exercising its exclusive authority over the federal zone,
Congress is not subject to the same constitutional
limitations that exist inside the 50 States. For this
reason, the areas that are inside and outside the federal
zone are heterogeneous with respect to each other. This
difference results in a principle of territorial
heterogeneity: the areas within the federal zone are
subject to one set of rules; the areas without (or outside)
the federal zone are subject to a different set of rules.
The Constitution rules outside the zone and inside the 50
States. The Congress rules inside the zone and outside the
50 States. The 50 States are, therefore, in one general
class, because all constitutional restraints upon Congress
are in force throughout the 50 States, without prejudice to
any one State. The areas within the federal zone are in a
different general class, because these same constitutional
restraints simply do not limit Congress inside that zone.
[The Federal Zone, electronic Fifth Edition, Conclusions]
In the pivotal case of Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244
(1901), which is discussed at several places in the book The
Federal Zone supra, the U.S. Supreme Court established a doctrine
whereby the Constitution of the "United States", as such, does
not extend beyond the limits of the States which are united by
and under it. This doctrine of territorial heterogeneity is now
commonly identified as the "Downes Doctrine."
This doctrine has been reinforced by subsequent decisions of
the U.S. Supreme Court, notably, the case of Hooven & Allison v.
Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945), in which the high Court ruled that
the guarantees of the Constitution extend to the federal zone
only as Congress has made those guarantees applicable. The
United States District Courts are currently established by
Congress as territorial (federal zone) courts, with
constitutional authority emanating from Article IV, Section 3,
Clause 2, to wit:
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all
needed Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or
other Property belonging to the United States; ....
[U.S. Constitution, Art. 4, Sec. 3, Cl. 2, emphasis added]
Notice & Demand for Temporary Assignment of Article III Judge:
Page 3 of 7
Plaintiff wishes to litigate Her civil case against the
United States, and against Does 1 thru 99, in an Article III
Court of competent jurisdiction. In particular, She wishes to
invoke the judicial power of the United States of America, among
several reasons, in order to enjoin the Defendant(s) from
withholding the agency records which Plaintiff has requested in
lawful and proper requests under the Freedom of Information Act,
and to order the production of any agency records improperly
withheld from Plaintiff. See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B), to wit:
On complaint, the district court of the United States ...
has jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from withholding
agency records and to order the production of any agency
records improperly withheld from the complainant.
[5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B)]
[emphasis added]
For the convenience of Judge Kozinski, Plaintiff attaches Her
previous NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE:
Federal Rules of Evidence 201(d), and incorporates it by
reference as if set forth fully herein. Said NOTICE AND DEMAND
summarizes some of the outstanding FOIA requests in this case.
In order for this case to proceed forward, and it is
Plaintiff's fundamental Right under the Fifth Amendment that it
do so, this honorable Court must be seated with a competent and
qualified Judge who is not subject to any outside executive
controls whatsoever. This means, among other things, that an
Article III judge must be designated and temporarily appointed to
preside over the instant case, who is not a "taxpayer" and whose
integrity and independence from all other governments and all
other government branches are unassailable and beyond question.
Notice & Demand for Temporary Assignment of Article III Judge:
Page 4 of 7
Plaintiff hereby objects strenuously to the existence of any
contract, either verbal or written, either expressed or implied
in fact, between any currently seated United States District
Judge and the "Internal Revenue Service" [sic] or any other
controlling interests, on grounds of conflicts of interest. A
completed "IRS" Form 1040 is an expressed, written contract.
Plaintiff is guaranteed the fundamental right to an
independent and unbiased judiciary. See Evans v. Gore supra.
The existence of a contract between the presiding Judge and any
other branch of the federal government, or any of its agencies,
assigns, or instrumentalities, is evidence of a conflict of
interest and proof of a dependent and biased judiciary. See Lord
v. Kelley, 240 F.Supp. 167, 169 (1965) and compare with Evans v.
Gore supra, to measure how far our civilization has degenerated
under the Downes Doctrine. This honorable Court will please take
formal judicial notice of the holding and the dicta in Evans,
which case proves that American courts have an obligation to rule
on matters which properly come before them. Plaintiff's NOTICE
AND DEMAND, as made herein, now comes properly before You, Sir.
REMEDY REQUESTED
Wherefore, Plaintiff hereby makes this formal Demand upon
You, Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals:
(1) to prepare and present to the Chief Justice of the
United States a certificate of necessity that the Chief Justice
designate and assign temporarily a competent and qualified judge
from the Court of International Trade to perform judicial duties
in this honorable District Court of the United States;
(2) to file said certificate in the official Court record of
the instant case; and
(3) to serve said certificate on all interested parties.
See PROOF OF SERVICE infra.
Notice & Demand for Temporary Assignment of Article III Judge:
Page 5 of 7
NOTICE OF DEADLINE
Plaintiff hereby demands that the above requested remedy be
granted no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 11, 1996.
Time is of the essence.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
That is all for now.
Executed on August 28, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris
Citizen of Arizona state
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness,
Counselor at Law and Counsel of Record
Notice & Demand for Temporary Assignment of Article III Judge:
Page 6 of 7
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 AND DEMAND FOR TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT
OF A JUDGE OF THE COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
TO PRESIDE OVER THIS DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES:
28 U.S.C. 293, 296, 297, 461(b)
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 U.S. Attorney Chief Judge
110 South Church, Suite 8310 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
Tucson [zip code exempt] P.O. Box 193939
ARIZONA STATE San Francisco, California
William D. Browning, Doe No. 1 JOELYN D. MARLOWE [sic]
44 East Broadway 110 South Church, Suite 8310
Tucson [zip code exempt] Tucson [zip code exempt]
ARIZONA STATE ARIZONA STATE
Attorney General Chief Justice
Department of Justice United States Supreme Court
10th and Constitution, N.W. 1 First Street, N.E.
Washington [zip code exempt] Washington [zip code exempt]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Solicitor General Judge Alex Kozinski
Department of Justice 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
10th and Constitution, N.W. 125 South Grand Ave., Ste. 200
Washington [zip code exempt] Pasadena [zip code exempt]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CALIFORNIA STATE
Executed on August 28, 1996
/s/ Sheila Wallen
__________________________________________
Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris
Citizen of Arizona state
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Notice & Demand for Temporary Assignment of Article III Judge:
Page 7 of 7
# # #
Return to Table of Contents for
U.S.A. v. Wallen