Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris
c/o General Delivery
Arivaca [zip code exempt]
ARIZONA STATE

In Propria Persona

Under Protest, Necessity, and
by Special Visitation Only






                  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                  JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,       )  Case No. 95-484-WDB
                                )
     Plaintiff,                 )  MOTION TO DISMISS
                                )  WITH PREJUDICE
     v.                         )  FOR INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE
                                )  OF COUNSEL
Sheila Terese, Wallen,          )
                                )
     Defendant.                 )
________________________________)


COMES NOW  Sheila Terese,  Wallen, Sui  Juris, Citizen of Arizona

state and  Defendant in  the above  entitled matter  (hereinafter

"Defendant"), to move this honorable Court to dismiss the instant

action with  prejudice on  grounds of  ineffective assistance  of

Counsel, i.e.  the licensed  bar member appointed by the Court to

represent the Defendant (hereinafter the "Bar Member").

     Defendant hereby incorporates by reference to two previously

filed briefs  entitled:  (1) NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR RIGHT TO ENJOY

THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL OF CHOICE and  (2) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS

AND  AUTHORITIES   IN  SUPPORT   OF  DEFENDANT'S   CHALLENGE   TO

JURISDICTION FOR VIOLATING THE FUNDAMENTAL GUARANTEE OF EFFECTIVE

ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: Sixth Amendment, as if they were set forth

fully herein.  See Haynes v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519.


Motion to Dismiss for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:  Page 1
                              of 7


     This Court  will please  take formal  judicial notice of the

fact that  the Bar  Member failed to appear on Defendant's behalf

during a  scheduled status  conference.   The U.S.  Supreme Court

authority in  Johnson v.  Zerbst, 304  U.S. 458,  468 (1938), has

made it  very clear  that it  is the  obligation of this Court to

ensure that  effective assistance  of Counsel  is available  to a

criminal defendant  at every  point of  all criminal proceedings.

In  the  event  that  effective  assistance  of  Counsel  is  not

available to  a criminal  defendant at  every point of a criminal

proceeding, even  if only  for a moment, then the Court is ousted

of jurisdiction to proceed.  Quoting, "If this requirement of the

Sixth Amendment  is not  complied with,  the court  no longer has

jurisdiction to  proceed."  Johnson v. Zerbst supra.  See Exhibit

"A" attached hereto (Status Conference).

     Furthermore, during  the evidentiary  hearing  to  determine

whether or  not the  search and  seizure in the instant case were

lawful in  the  first  instance,  the  Prosecutor  questioned  an

alleged government  agent as  to why  no search  warrant had been

obtained.   The alleged government agent responded by saying that

he  (the   government  agent)  had  petitioned  a  United  States

Magistrate for  a lawful  search  warrant,  and  said  Magistrate

refused  to  issue  a  lawful  search  warrant  because,  in  the

Magistrate's opinion,  there was not probable cause to issue said

warrant because  there was insufficient evidence to support same.

See  attached   Exhibit  "B,"   attached  hereto  (Transcript  of

Evidentiary Hearing).  Nevertheless, the alleged government agent

did proceed,  with several  accomplices, to  conduct an  unlawful

search and  seizure,  without  any  lawful  warrant  having  been


Motion to Dismiss for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:  Page 2
                              of 7


obtained by  any of  these alleged  government agents.   See also

Defendant's  AFFIDAVIT   DOCUMENTING  CIRCUMSTANCES   SURROUNDING

ARREST: 28 U.S.C. 1746(1), already lodged,  but not filed, in the

instant case, pursuant to this Court's Order dated July 17, 1996.

Defendant hereby  formally objects to said Order, for the reasons

stated herein.

     The Bar  Member failed  diligently to  pursue  this  blatant

violation  of  a  fundamental  Right  guaranteed  by  the  Fourth

Amendment in  the Constitution  for the United States of America,

as lawfully amended (hereinafter "U.S. Constitution").  Under the

International Covenant  on Civil  and Political Rights, and under

the Universal  Declaration of  Human Rights,  the  United  States

(federal   government)   is   a   signatory   under   affirmative

obligations, both  legal and moral, to provide effective judicial

remedies for  violations of  fundamental Rights,  even when those

violations were  committed by  persons acting  in their  official

capacities, and  also to  develop the  possibilities of effective

judicial remedies.   These  treaties are  supreme Law pursuant to

the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution.

     The Bar  Member is an officer of this Court and, as such, is

legally bound  by these  two  treaties,  because  they  bind  all

branches of  the federal  government, specifically  including the

federal judiciary.     See 42 U.S.C. 1986.  His failure to assert

Defendant's fundamental  Immunity against unreasonable search and

seizure constitutes  ineffective assistance of Counsel, and clear

and present  violation of  said treaties.   Couple  this with the

fact that neither the Bar Member nor the Defendant was present at

the status  conference in  question, leaving  Defendant  entirely


Motion to Dismiss for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:  Page 3
                              of 7


bereft of  any representation  or Counsel  whatsoever.  The Court

was denied  jurisdiction to  proceed with that status conference,

and yet it did so anyway.

     In the  event that  this  Court  should  refuse  Defendant's

NOTICE AND  DEMAND FOR  THE RIGHT  TO  ENJOY  THE  ASSISTANCE  OF

COUNSEL OF  CHOICE and  accompanying documents,  Defendant hereby

places all  interested parties  on formal notice of Her intent to

appeal this  case immediately  to  the  United  States  Court  of

Appeals for  the Ninth  Circuit, on  grounds of  Fourth and Sixth

Amendment violations,  on grounds  of  arbitrary  and  capricious

judgments issued  by this Court in the instant case, specifically

the Order dated July 17, 1996, in which the presiding Judge ruled

that there  was nothing  of any  legal significance  which  would

support an  attack on  the constitutional  infirmity of 28 U.S.C.

1865(b)(1), and on other grounds not mentioned herein but already

raised in the formal Court record.

     Moreover, said  Order held  that an Affidavit is hearsay not

subject to  cross-examination.   On the  contrary, it  is a basic

maxim of  commercial law that an affidavit is the highest form of

truth  and   must  be  answered  by  affidavit,  point-for-point.

Furthermore, said  Order fails  the test of reductio ad absurdum.

Defendant's challenge  to the  federal jury selection statute was

supported by  a  separate  affidavit  which  contained  numerous,

standing  decisions   of  the   United  States   Supreme   Court.

Evidently, this  Court has ruled that the decisions cited therein

are also  hearsay, and  have no  legal significance.   This is an

absurd result,  which  places  the  Defendant  in  an  impossible

situation (lex  non cogit  impossibilia), because  that very same


Motion to Dismiss for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:  Page 4
                              of 7


U.S. Supreme  Court has  ruled that no one should be punished for

relying upon  their decisions.   See U.S. v. Mason, 412 U.S. 391,

399-400 (1973).

     If the  doctrine of stare decisis has any meaning at all, it

requires that  People in  their everyday  affairs be able to rely

upon decisions  of the  U.S. Supreme  Court and not be needlessly

penalized for  such reliance.   See U.S. v. Mason supra.  It will

be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government

outside of  the supreme  Law of  the Land  finds lodgment  in our

constitutional jurisprudence.   "No  higher duty  rests upon this

Court than  to exert  its full authority to prevent all violation

of the  principles of the U.S. Constitution."  Downes v. Bidwell,

182 U.S. 244 (1901), Harlan dissenting.

     Finally, Defendant  cannot  proceed  to  trial  without  the

benefit of  Her discovery  efforts, including  but not limited to

several Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") requests already made

but not  received, and without the benefit of final review of Her

challenge to  the federal  jury selection  statutes.  The problem

which She  raised with  the federal  grand jury  that issued  the

indictment against Her also exists with the federal procedure for

selecting petit  (trial) jury candidates.  Specifically, there is

class discrimination  in  all  jury  selection  processes,  which

discrimination constitutes  a violation of the fundamental Rights

of the  Defendant.   Moreover, said  grand jury  was not lawfully

convened, and it was denied facts which now show that the alleged

government agents proceeded without any lawful warrants to search

and seize Defendant's private property.


                 [Please see next page et seq.]


Motion to Dismiss for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:  Page 5
                              of 7


                          RELIEF SOUGHT

     Wherefore, Defendant  moves  this  honorable  Court  for  an

immediate dismissal  with prejudice,  on grounds of violating the

Fourth, Sixth, and Tenth Amendments in the U.S. Constitution.  In

the alternative,  Defendant  places  all  interested  parties  on

formal notice  of Her immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeals  on grounds  of violations  of Her fundamental Rights,

contrary to  the Bill  of Rights  and two  international treaties

which are all supreme Law pursuant to the Supremacy Clause.


Executed on July 22, 1996


/s/ Sheila Wallen

Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris
Citizen of Arizona state
all rights reserved without prejudice


/s/ Paul Mitchell

Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state and
Counselor at Law and federal witness
all rights reserved without prejudice


Motion to Dismiss for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:  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  and a Citizen of one of the United States of America, and

that I personally served the following document:

                MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE
              FOR INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

by placing  said document  in first class U.S. Mail, with postage

prepaid and properly addressed to the following individuals:

Office of the United States Attorney  [hand-delivered]
110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310
Tucson [85701]
ARIZONA STATE

Attorney General
Department of Justice
10th and Constitution, N.W.
Washington
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Solicitor General
Department of Justice
10th and Constitution, N.W.
Washington
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


Dated:  July 22, 1996

/s/ Sheila Wallen
________________________________________
Sheila Terese, Wallen,
Citizen of Arizona state
all rights reserved without prejudice


Motion to Dismiss for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:  Page 7
                              of 7


                             #  #  #


Return to the Table of Contents for

U.S.A. v. Wallen