Donald E. Wishart, Sui Juris
Citizen of California State,
Federal Witness and Victim
c/o 5150 Graves Avenue, Suite 12-C
San Jose [ZIP code exempt]
CALIFORNIA, USA
In Propria Persona
All Rights Reserved
without Prejudice
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
NORTHERN JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Donald E. Wishart, )
Docket No. CR-00-20227-JF
)
Cross-Plaintiff, ) NOTICE AND DEMAND TO CLERK OF COURT
v. ) THAT
SUMMONSES ISSUE FORTHWITH
)
United States, ) Article I, Section
9, Clause 3;
Billy Brown, ) Article III, Section
1;
Paul Camacho, ) Article III,
Section 2, Clause 1;
Don Hallenbeck, ) Article IV,
Section 3, Clause 2;
Mel Steiner, ) Petition
Clause, First Amendment.
Dan Sutherland, )
Colbert Tang, )
Brian Watson, )
Ken Whitmore, )
Bay View Federal Bank, )
Internal Revenue Service, )
and Does 2 thru 100, )
)
Cross-Defendants. )
COMES NOW Donald
E. Wishart, Sui Juris, Citizen of California State, expressly not a
“citizen of the United States” [sic], and Cross-Plaintiff in the above
entitled matter (“Cross-Plaintiff”), to make this formal DEMAND upon the Clerk
of this Court, to issue forthwith the summonses which Cross-Plaintiff
has previously transmitted to said Clerk, to be conformed, file-stamped, and
returned to Cross-Plaintiff, for purposes of proper service via Registered U.S.
Mail.
DISCUSSION
The blank SUMMONS form currently available at the Office of the Clerk, Northern District of California, 280 South First Street, Room 2112, San Jose, California State, is currently captioned incorrectly for displaying the nomenclature “United States District Court” prominently on the first page.
The United States District Court (“USDC”) is decidedly not the Court which Cross-Plaintiff has petitioned for declaratory and injunctive relief, and damages, in the instant case.
The District Court of the United States (“DCUS”) is the Court which Cross-Plaintiff has petitioned for declaratory and injunctive relief, and damages, in the instant case.
See Attachment “A” which is hereby incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein. Attachment “A” itemizes just a few of the many court authorities which have established a clear and unmistakable distinction between the USDC and the DCUS, under American Law.
See also Topic “E” of the OPENING BRIEF in U.S.A. v. Gilbertson, as filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, St. Louis, Missouri State. For the convenience of this honorable Court, and of all Proper Parties, a fully linked copy of said OPENING BRIEF is available at Internet URL:
http://www.supremelaw.com/cc/gilberts/opening.htm#topic-e
Statutes granting original jurisdiction to the federal district courts must be strictly construed. This rule has been repeated so many times, in related cases to which Cross-Plaintiff is, or has been, a Proper Party, that all Defendants are hereby estopped from raising any objections to it. See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B), for example.
Congress is also barred from enacting legislation ex post facto. See Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 (“1:9:3”).
To illustrate the application of this bar, the Bretton Woods Agreement expressly grants original jurisdiction to the DCUS, to adjudicate controversies which arise under said Agreement.
The Bretton Woods Agreement was enacted prior to the Act of June 25, 1948 -- the Act which allegedly extended the USDC into every State of the Union. See 28 U.S.C. 132, a statute which is supremely deceptive for creating the false impression that the DCUS was thereby effectively abolished.
Nothing could be further from the truth. See 28 U.S.C. 84, which created a judicial district for California. The USDC cannot exercise judicial power. See American Insurance v. 356 Bales of Cotton infra.
The USDC is a legislative (territorial) tribunal with original authority emanating from Article IV, Section 3, Clause, 2, in the U.S. Constitution (“4:3:2”). See Balzac v. Porto Rico [sic] infra.
There is nothing in the Act of June 25, 1948, as lawfully amended, which could have changed the meaning of the term “district court of the United States” retroactively as that term is used in the Bretton Woods Agreement. See 1:9:3; Mookini et al. v. U.S. infra.
Similarly, the court of original jurisdiction to enforce production of documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act is also the DCUS. See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B).
Last but not least, the Table of Repeals in the Act of June 25, 1948, clearly proves that numerous prior statutes, granting original jurisdiction to the DCUS, were never repealed. Repeals by implication are not favored. See U.S. v. Hicks, [cite omitted] (9th Cir. 1991).
Having demonstrated justifications which are more than adequate to the matter at hand, Cross-Plaintiff hereby respectfully demands the Clerk of this honorable Court to conform, file-stamp, and transmit, with no further delays, the SUMMONSES captioned “District Court of the United States” and heretofore transmitted to said Clerk by this Cross-Plaintiff, so that He may properly serve same on all named Parties via Registered United States Mail, and commence judicial review of all matters which arise under His amended COMPLAINT, to be filed shortly.
I, Donald E. Wishart, 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 in pari materia with all provisions of Title 28, U.S.C. (Constitution, Laws and Treaties of the United States).
Dated: October 4, 2000 A.D.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Donald E. Wishart
Donald E. Wishart, Sui Juris
Citizen of California State,
Federal Witness and Victim (18 U.S.C. 1512, 1513)
(expressly not a “citizen of the United States” [sic])
See Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914; 42 USCS 1983;
and Wadleigh v. Newhall, 136 F. 941 (CC Cal, 1905)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
I, Donald E. Wishart, 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):
THAT SUMMONSES
ISSUE FORTHWITH:
Article I, Section
9, Clause 3;
Article III,
Section 2, Clause 1;
Article IV,
Section 3, Clause 2;
Petition Clause, First Amendment.
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 Office of the U.S. Attorney
280 South First St., Suite 371 312 North Spring Street
San Jose [ZIP code exempt] Los Angeles [ZIP code exempt]
CALIFORNIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA
Department of Justice, Tax Div. Department of Justice, Tax Div.
West. Criminal Enforcement Sec. West. Criminal Enforcement Sec.
600 “E” St., N.W., Room 5712 600 “E” St., N.W., Room 5712
Washington [ZIP code exempt] Washington [ZIP code exempt]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA
Federal Public Defender’s Office Internal Revenue Service
160 W. Santa Clara St., Ste. 575 55 South Market Street
San Jose [ZIP code exempt] San Jose [ZIP code exempt]
CALIFORNIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA
Paul Camacho Don Hallenbeck
Internal Revenue Service Internal Revenue Service
55 South Market Street 55 South Market Street
San Jose [ZIP code exempt] San Jose [ZIP code exempt]
CALIFORNIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA
Mel Steiner Colbert Tang
Internal Revenue Service Internal Revenue Service
55 South Market Street 55 South Market Street
San Jose [ZIP code exempt] San Jose [ZIP code exempt]
CALIFORNIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA
Brian
Watson Ken
Whitmore
Internal Revenue Service Internal Revenue Service
55 South Market Street 55 South Market Street
San Jose [ZIP code exempt] San Jose [ZIP code exempt]
CALIFORNIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA
Dan Sutherland Solicitor General
Internal Revenue Service U.S. Dept. of Justice
55 South Market Street 10th & Constitution, N.W.
San Jose [ZIP code exempt] Washington [ZIP code exempt]
CALIFORNIA, USA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA
Bay View
Federal Bank Chief
Counsel
Attention: Legal Department Internal Revenue Service
2121 South El Camino Real 1111 Constitution Ave., N.W.
San Mateo [ZIP code exempt] Washington [ZIP code exempt]
CALIFORNIA,
USA DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, USA
Executed on October 4, 2000 A.D.
/s/ Donald E. Wishart
Donald E. Wishart, Sui Juris
Citizen of California State,
Federal Witness and Victim (18 U.S.C. 1512, 1513)
(expressly not a “citizen of the United States” [sic])
See Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914; 42 USCS 1983;
and Wadleigh v. Newhall, 136 F. 941 (CC Cal, 1905)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Attachment “A”:
“A Collection of Court Authorities
in re the
District Court of the United States”