William Michael Kemp, Sui Juris
c/o General Delivery
Gadsden, Alabama state
zip code exempt
In Propria Persona
Under Protest, Necessity,
and by Special Visitation
all rights reserved
[ D R A F T]
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA STATE
STATE OF ALABAMA, ) Case No. ______________________
) Circuit Case No. CC-95-1083-DWS
Plaintiff, ) Appellate Case No. ____________
)
v. ) NOTICE OF TREATY VIOLATIONS:
) Tenth Amendment; Universal
WILLIAM MICHAEL KEMP [sic], ) Declaration of Human Rights;
) International Covenant on Civil
Defendant. ) and Political Rights; and
) Supremacy Clause:
________________________________) de novo
COMES NOW William Michael, Kemp, Sui Juris, Citizen of Alabama
state and Defendant in the above entitled action (hereinafter
"Defendant"), to provide formal Notice to all interested
party(s), and to demand mandatory judicial by this honorable
Court, pursuant to the Tenth Amendment in the Constitution for
the United States of America, as lawfully amended (hereinafter
"U.S. Constitution"), of United States (federal government)
treaty violations in the instant case. Said treaty violations
must be addressed by Alabama state, pursuant to the explicit
Reservation of legal Rights which Congress specifically attached
to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Said
treaties are rendered supreme Law of this Land, pursuant to the
Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution.
Notice of Treaty Violations: Page 1 of 9
Defendant asserts His fundamental Rights, both substantive
and procedural, to Notice and Hearing in a federal court of
competent jurisdiction to adjudicate the role of United States
(federal government) officers, employees, and agents in providing
financial and other assistance to the Etowah County Drug Task
Force. Defendant herein alleges systematic violations of
fundamental Rights by said Task Force, under color of
unconstitutional federal practices and procedures.
To this end, Defendant attempted to remove the instant case
into the District Court of the United States ("DCUS"), in order
to obtain appropriate relief specifically including, but not
limited to, ORDERS compelling the production of documents
properly requested under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA")
and enjoining the improper withholding of same. The federal
court of original jurisdiction to issue said ORDERS is the DCUS.
See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B); American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales
of Cotton, 1 Pet. 511 (1828), 7 L.Ed 242; Balzac v. Porto Rico
[sic], 42 S.Ct. 343, 258 U.S. 298 at 312, 66 L.Ed 627 (1921).
Compare also 18 U.S.C. 1964(a) with 1964(c).
Two international human rights treaties have been enacted by
Congress, pursuant to the Supremacy Clause and the Tenth
Amendment, specifically to guarantee the enforcement of
fundamental human Rights on behalf of Defendant, who is a Citizen
of Alabama state and not also a citizen of the United States
("federal citizen"). See Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160
Ala. 155, 48 S. 788, 791 (1909). For purposes of the instant
case, the most salient of these fundamental Rights is Defendant's
unalienable guarantee to due process of law in courts of
competent jurisdiction.
Notice of Treaty Violations: Page 2 of 9
Said treaties are unique, in many ways, for having been
enacted with explicit reservations of Rights by Congress. The
most salient of these reserved Rights grants legal standing to
localities to compel United States (federal government) obedience
to said treaties, in the event that the United States (federal
government) should fail to perform its legal and moral
obligations under same. Given the express legislative intent of
the reservation of legal standing for localities, there is no
question but that Congress meant to embrace the several States of
the Union in its definition of the term "locality." Alabama
state is such a member of the Union of several States, united by
and under the U.S. Constitution.
Defendant sought to obtain judicial review of the historical
role of the United States (federal government) in the provision
of financial and other assistance to Etowah County, Alabama
state, which is a political subdivision of Alabama state (a
"locality"). Defendant's plan to obtain such review included,
among other things, one or more FOIA requests to obtain the
financial records of the Etowah County Drug Task Force, which is
a local administrative agency responsible to receive and disperse
financial and other assistance provided by the United States
(federal government), under auspices of the United States Drug
Enforcement Administration ("DEA").
Notice of Treaty Violations: Page 3 of 9
The federal court of original jurisdiction to compel
production of documents properly requested under FOIA is the
District Court of the United States ("DCUS"), a court of
competent jurisdiction within the territorial boundaries of the
several states of the Union, pursuant to Article III in the U.S.
Constitution. However, when Defendant applied to said DCUS for a
Warrant of Removal of the instant case, for the purposes
discussed above, Defendant was denied a hearing by a federal
judge who was competent and qualified to preside in said court.
See 28 U.S.C. 1441 et seq.
More to the point, Article III guarantees that the
compensation of federal judges shall not be diminished during
their term in office. See Article III, Section 1. The term
"shall" as used therein has a mandatory meaning. Said provision
has also been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to mean that
the compensation of federal judges cannot be diminished by
federal income taxes, notwithstanding the so-called 16th
amendment to the U.S. Constitution. See also 28 U.S.C. 461(b).
The basis for this guarantee was more fully explained by the
Supreme Court in Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920):
[T]he primary purpose of the prohibition against diminution
was ... to attract good and competent men to the bench and
to promote that independence of action and judgment which is
essential to the maintenance of the guaranties, limitations
and pervading principles of the Constitution.
In Miles v. Graham, 268 U.S. 501 (1925), the high Court explained
which amount of compensation is protected against diminution:
The words and history of the clause indicate that the
purpose was to impose upon Congress the duty definitely to
declare what sum shall be received by each judge out of the
public funds and the times for payment. When this duty has
been complied with the amount specified becomes the
compensation which is protected against diminution during
his continuance in office.
Notice of Treaty Violations: Page 4 of 9
However,
Evans and Miles were not the last words that the Court was
to express on the issue of taxation of judicial incomes. In
O'Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939), the Court
repudiated both Evans and Miles and held that a non-
discriminatory general income tax may be applied to federal
judges without diminishing judicial compensation within the
meaning of the compensation clause.
["The Constitutional Guaranty Against]
[Diminution of Judicial Compensation,"]
[UCLA Law Review, Vol. 24, pgs. 308-350]
After reviewing O'Malley v. Woodrough supra, Defendant submits
that the holding in that case is based on a faulty premise,
namely, that there is only one (1) class of citizenship in
America. O'Malley should be overturned: in light of the
preponderance of cases which demonstrate two (2) classes of
citizenship; in light of newly found evidence; and in light of
the notable and demonstrable decline in the American judiciary
since 1939, the year the Public Salary Tax Act was first enacted.
The basis for the O'Malley decision is the high Court's
mistaken belief that a federal judge can be taxed in his (her)
capacity as a citizen, without violating Article III, Section 1,
and without compromising the judge's competence and independence.
However, there is nothing in O'Malley to indicate that the high
Court adequately understood how two classes of citizenship bear
on this question (taxing the pay of federal judges). Moreover,
there is no law requiring federal judges to be either citizens of
the United States, or Citizens of the several states. Therefore,
the O'Malley decision is founded on a false premise, namely, that
all federal judges are necessarily citizens of either class.
The uncontroverted evidence establishing the failed
ratification of the so-called Sixteenth Amendment casts this
entire debate in an entirely new light. See People v. Boxer,
California Supreme Court, Case Number S-030016, December 1992;
Full Faith and Credit Clause. The fundamental guarantees against
Notice of Treaty Violations: Page 5 of 9
direct taxation of all citizens without apportionment, and
against diminution of the compensation of federal judges, remain
as operative today as they were on the day the U.S. Constitution
was first adopted. See 1:2:3, 1:9:4, and 3:1 in the U.S.
Constitution, which have never been repealed. Repeals by
implication are not favored.
Defendant submits that the only logical basis on which these
guarantees can now be avoided 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 the term "federal zone" 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:
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]
Notice of Treaty Violations: Page 6 of 9
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 for 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 U.S. 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]
Defendant submits, for the careful consideration of this
honorable Court, an offer to prove that all Union states have
unlawfully subordinated themselves to the municipal jurisdiction
of the United States (federal government), so as to invoke the
Downes Doctrine against Citizens of Alabama state who are not
also citizens of the United States. Compare 31 CFR 51.2 and
Notice of Treaty Violations: Page 7 of 9
52.2, and the Executive Order(s) removing said regulations from
federal depository libraries. This has had the unconstitutional
effect of rendering the corporate State of Alabama a municipal
subdivision of the District of Columbia, permitting said
corporate State completely to ignore the U.S. Constitution and
all of the fundamental guarantees expressed therein, and to
impose municipal codes upon Defendant in a manner which
constitutes unlawful dominion over the Person and Property of the
Defendant.
It is evident now that the United States (federal
government) cannot locate a single federal judge anywhere in the
federal judiciary whose compensation is currently not being
diminished by federal income taxes. In and of itself, this
evidence is proof that the United States (federal government)
cannot and will not provide Defendant with due process of law,
because relief cannot be obtained from any court in America,
state or federal, without a qualified and competent judge to
issue said relief.
At a class sponsored by the Law School of the University of
Arizona in January of 1997, William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice
of the U.S. Supreme Court, was heard to admit that all federal
judges are currently paying federal income taxes on their
judicial compensation, without exception. See the essay entitled
"The Lawless Rehnquist" commemorating that historical event.
Said essay is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if
set forth fully herein.
Notice of Treaty Violations: Page 8 of 9
Moreover, recent research has also proven that the federal
judiciary has sabotaged the U.S. Constitution and corrupted laws
governing the conduct of the federal courts. This has been done
in part by creating the false impression that the United States
District Court ("USDC") has territorial and subject matter
jurisdiction within the several states of the Union, particularly
over criminal prosecutions, when it does not.
The truth is that the USDC is designed to adjudicate matters
that arise within the federal zone, and the District Court of the
United States ("DCUS") is designed to adjudicate matters that
arise within the state zone. This honorable Court will please
take formal judicial notice of the fact that the USDC is named on
the ORDER of United States District Judge James H. Hancock,
allegedly remanding the instant case back to the Circuit Court
for Etowah County. The same is true of the ORDER by Circuit
Court Judge Donald W. Stewart, allegedly ordering the
incarceration of Defendant. This is a fraud upon Defendant, and
upon all American People, who enjoy the fundamental guarantee of
due process of law. Sedition by syntax is not due process of
law. See Title 28, United States Code, in toto; see also Act of
June 25, 1948: "... [P]rovisions of this title [28 U.S.C.] ...
with respect to the organization of the court, shall be construed
as a continuation of existing law ..." [emphasis added].
[M O R E T O F O L L O W]
Notice of Treaty Violations: Page 9 of 9
# # #
Return to the Table of Contents for
Alabama v. Kemp