COMPLAINT FORM JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OR DISABILITY MAIL THIS FORM TO THE CLERK, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, 10th AND MAIN STREETS, RICHMOND, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, POSTAL ZONE 23219/tdc. MARK THE ENVELOPE "JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT" OR "JUDICIAL DISABILITY COMPLAINT". DO NOT PUT THE NAME OF THE JUDGE OR MAGISTRATE ON THE ENVELOPE. 1. Complainant's name: Floyd Raymond, Looker, Sui Juris (currently in federal custody) Address: c/o NRJ, Jail Side, B4-4 RD 2, Box 1 Moundsville WEST VIRGINIA Daytime telephone: none (contact Northern Regional Jail) 2. Judge or magistrate complained about: Name: James E. Seibert [sic] United States Magistrate Judge [sic] Court: United States District Court Wheeling, West Virginia state 3. Does this complaint concern the behavior of the judge or magistrate in a particular lawsuit or lawsuits? ( X ) Yes ( ) No If "yes" give the following information about each lawsuit (use the reverse side if there is more than one): Court: United States District Court Docket Numbers: 5:96-CR-40 1:96-CR-41 1:96-CR-42 1:96-CR-43 Are (were) you a party or lawyer in the lawsuit? ( X ) Party ( ) Counsel ( ) Neither If party, give the name, address, and telephone number of your Counsel: Judicial Complaint Against James E. Seibert: Page 1 of 4 Retained by Defendant: Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Counselor at Law and federal witness c/o 2509 North Campbell Avenue, #1776 Tucson, Arizona state (520) 320-1514 Appointed by Court: Stephen D. Herndon Attorney at Law 76 Fifteenth Street Wheeling, West Virginia state Docket numbers of any appeals to the Fourth Circuit: n/a 4. Have you filed any lawsuits against the judge or magistrate? ( ) Yes ( X ) No (not yet) If yes, give the following information about each lawsuit (use the reverse side if there is more than one): Court: n/a Present status of suit: n/a Name, address, and telephone number of your Counsel: n/a Court to which any appeal has been taken: n/a Docket number of appeal: n/a Present status of appeal: Defendant Looker is contemplating a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to compel the United States District Court to rule on His PLEA IN ABATEMENT AND MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS, filed in court at the arraignment. Judicial Complaint Against James E. Seibert: Page 2 of 4 5. On separate sheets of paper, no larger than the paper this form is printed on, describe the conduct or the evidence of disability that is the subject of this complaint. Do not use more than 5 pages (5 sides). Most complaints do not require that much. see attached GROUNDS FOR COMPLAINT 6. You should either: (1) check the first box below and sign this form in the presence of a notary public; or (2) check the second box and sign the form. You do not need a notary public if you check the second box. ( ) I swear (affirm) that -- (X) I declare under penalty of perjury -- I have read the Rules of the Judicial Council of the Fourth Circuit Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct or Disability, and the statement made in this complaint is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed on: __________________________________ /s/ Ray Looker ________________________________________________ Floyd Raymond, Looker, Sui Juris Citizen of West Virginia state All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice copies: Chief Judge, Fourth Circuit, Richmond, Virginia U.S. Marshals, Wheeling, West Virginia FBI, Clarksburg, West Virginia Attorney General, State of West Virginia Governor, State of West Virginia Speaker, West Virginia House of Delegates President, West Virginia State Senate Judicial Complaint Against James E. Seibert: Page 3 of 4 GROUNDS FOR COMPLAINT On Monday, December 2, 1996, at the arraignment(s) scheduled for the criminal case(s) described above, Defendant Floyd Raymond Looker (hereinafter "Looker") properly filed, in court, his PLEA IN ABATEMENT AND MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS. Looker filed this plea, instead of any other standard pleas, such as "Guilty," "Not Guilty," or "Nolo contendere." See Hudson v. U.S., 272 U.S. 451. According to the authority in U.S. v. Griffith, 2 F.2d 925 (1924), which Looker cited, a Plea in Abatement is the correct procedure to invoke when a criminal defendant chooses to challenge the legality of any federal grand jury's action(s). Furthermore, the cases cited in Looker's PLEA IN ABATEMENT AND MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS show that Looker was required to make a prima facie case for the existence of purposeful discrimination in the selection of the federal grand jury which indicted Him. This prima facie case was amply demonstrated in His VERIFIED STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF CHALLENGE TO GRAND JURY SELECTION POLICY AND ITS FEDERAL STATUTE, also filed in court at the scheduled arraignment(s). This statement has the force and effect of an affidavit, since it was verified pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1). The case of Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 545, held that the burden of proof shifted to the prosecution, once Looker carried his burden of making a prima facie case for challenging the constitutionality of the Jury Selection and Service Act as applied in the instant case, because of purposeful and unlawful class discrimination which is exhibited by said Act. Specifically, compare 28 U.S.C. 1861 and 28 U.S.C. 1865. Despite a properly executed and properly filed Plea in Abatement, of which Mr. Seibert took formal judicial notice, Mr. Seibert then entered a plea of "Not Guilty" on Looker's behalf. This action by Mr. Seibert constituted the practice of law, in direct contradiction to Looker's Plea in Abatement and in direct violation of the prohibition against such conduct which Congress enacted at 28 U.S.C. 454. For this reason, Looker herein charges Magistrate Seibert with a high misdemeanor, in violation of said statute. Judicial Complaint Against James E. Seibert: Page 4 of 4 # # #
Return to the Table of Contents for
U.S.A. v. Looker