William Michael, Kemp, Sui Juris
c/o General Delivery
Gadsden, Alabama state
non-domestic zip code exempt

In Propria Persona

All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice







               DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

              NORTHERN JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

                         MIDDLE DIVISION


STATE OF ALABAMA [sic],      )  Case No. #CV-97-H-0022-M
                             )
          Plaintiff [sic],   )  16th Cir. Case #CC-95-1083-DWS
                             )
     v.                      )  NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR TEMPORARY
                             )  ASSIGNMENT OF 3 JUDGES FROM THE
WILLIAM MICHAEL KEMP  [sic], )  U.S. COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
                             )  TO PRESIDE OVER THIS DCUS:
          Defendant [sic]    )  28 U.S.C. 251, 293, 296, 297,
_____________________________)  461(b), 2284


Greetings to You:

     Chief Judge
     United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
     c/o 56 Forsyth Street, N.W.
     Atlanta, Georgia state

     Formal NOTICE  AND DEMAND  are hereby respectfully made upon

You, the  Chief Judge,  by Me,  William Michael, Kemp, Sui Juris,

Citizen of  Alabama state,  expressly not a citizen of the United

States ("federal  citizen"), and  Defendant in the above entitled

matter (hereinafter "Defendant"), to present to the Chief Justice

of the  United States  a certificate  of necessity that the Chief

Justice designate  and assign temporarily three (3) competent and

qualified judges  from the  Court of  International Trade, and/or

other court of competent jurisdiction, to perform judicial duties

in this  honorable District  Court of the United States ("DCUS").

See 28  U.S.C. 251,  293, 296,  297, 461(b);  also Evans v. Gore,

253 U.S. 245 (1920) (never overturned).


Notice & Demand for Temporary Assignment of 3 Article III Judges:
                           Page 1 of 7


     The authority  in Evans  is particularly  poignant.   It  is

apparent to  Defendant, because  of exhaustive research which His

Counsel has  shared with  Him, 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]

     Defendant 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, previously

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 3 Article III Judges:
                           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 ("USDC") 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 3 Article III Judges:
                           Page 3 of 7


     Defendant wishes  to litigate  His civil  case  against  the

State of  Alabama, and against agents of the State of Alabama and

of the  United States  as yet unnamed, in an Article III Court of

competent jurisdiction.    In  particular,  Defendant  wishes  to

invoke the  judicial power of the United States of America, among

several reasons:

     (1)  in order  to challenge  the  constitutionality  of  the

apportionment of Alabama's congressional districts, and

     (2)  to  enjoin  United  States  agencies  from  withholding

records which  Defendant intends to discover in lawful and proper

requests submitted under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"),

and to  order the  production of  any agency  records  improperly

withheld from Defendant.  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]

     In order  for this  case  to  proceed  forward,  and  it  is

Defendant's  fundamental   Rights  under   the  Fifth  and  Sixth

Amendments that  it do  so, this  honorable Court  must be seated

with three (3) competent and qualified Judges who are not subject

to any outside executive controls whatsoever.

     This means, among other things, that Article III judges must

be designated  and temporarily  appointed  to  preside  over  the

instant case,  whose compensations  are not  being diminished  by

federal income  taxes, and  whose integrity and independence from

all other  governments, and  from all  other government branches,

are unassailable and beyond question.


Notice & Demand for Temporary Assignment of 3 Article III Judges:
                           Page 4 of 7


     Defendant 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 "Internal  Revenue Service"  Form 1040 is an expressed,

written contract.   The  "Internal Revenue  Service" [sic] is not

listed among  the bureaus  and other  departments of  the  United

States Department  of the  Treasury.  See Title 31, United States

Code, which  has been enacted into positive law, unlike Title 26.

See also Internal Revenue Code section 7851(a)(6)(A).

     Defendant  is   guaranteed  the   fundamental  right  to  an

independent and  unbiased judiciary.   See  Evans v.  Gore supra.

The existence  of a  contract between  presiding Judges  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.   Defendant's  NOTICE AND  DEMAND, as

made herein, now come properly before You, Sir.


Notice & Demand for Temporary Assignment of 3 Article III Judges:
                           Page 5 of 7


                        REMEDY REQUESTED

     Wherefore, Defendant  hereby makes  this formal  Demand upon

the Chief Judge of the Eleventh Circuit:

     (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   three  (3)  competent  and

qualified judges  from the Court of International Trade, or other

court of  competent jurisdiction,  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 OF DEADLINE

     Defendant hereby  demands that the above requested remedy be

granted no  later than  5:00 p.m.  on Friday,  January 31,  1997.

Time is of the essence.

     Thank you very much for your consideration.


Executed on ____________________________________

/s/ Mike Kemp

William Michael, Kemp, Sui Juris
Citizen of Alabama state


Executed on January 16, 1997:

/s/ Paul Mitchell

Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness,
Counselor at Law, and Counsel to Defendant


Notice & Demand for Temporary Assignment of 3 Article III Judges:
                           Page 6 of 7


                        PROOF OF SERVICE

I, William  Michael,  Kemp,  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 3 JUDGES FROM THE U.S. COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
    TO PRESIDE OVER THIS DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES:
           28 U.S.C. 251, 293, 296, 297, 461(b), 2284

by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first

class U.S.  Mail, with  postage prepaid and properly addressed to

the following:

James E. Hedgspeth, Jr.       Clerk of Court
Etowah County Offices         Circuit Court of Etowah County
c/o 800 Forrest Avenue        c/o 800 Forrest Avenue
Gadsden [zip code exempt]     Gadsden [zip code exempt]
ALABAMA                       ALABAMA

Solicitor General             Clerk of Court
Department of Justice         Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
10th and Constitution, N.W.   c/o P.O. Box 301555
Washington [zip code exempt]  Montgomery [zip code exempt]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA          ALABAMA

Attorney General              Clerk of Court
Department of Justice         District Court of the United States
10th and Constitution, N.W.   c/o 1729 Fifth Avenue North
Washington [zip code exempt]  Birmingham [zip code exempt]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA          ALABAMA

Chief Judge                   William H. Rehnquist, C.J.
11th Circuit Court of Appeals Supreme Court of the United States
c/o 56 Forsyth Street, N.W.   1 First Street, N.E.
Atlanta [zip code exempt]     Washington [zip code exempt]
GEORGIA                       DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


Executed on ____________________________________

/s/ Mike Kemp

William Michael, Kemp, Sui Juris
Citizen of Alabama state


Notice & Demand for Temporary Assignment of 3 Article III Judges:
                           Page 7 of 7


                             #  #  #


Return to the Table of Contents for

Alabama v. Kemp