Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery Arivaca [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Sheila Terese, Wallen, ) Case No. 95-484-TUC ) Plaintiff, ) NOTICE OF REFUSAL FOR CAUSE: ) v. ) FRCP Rules 9(a); 9(b); ) 12(b)(1),(2),(4),(5) United States, ) and Does 1-99, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________) COMES NOW Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris, Citizen of Arizona state and Plaintiff in the above entitled matter (hereinafter "Plaintiff"), to provide formal Notice to all interested parties that She has refused William D. Browning's ORDER dated August 15, 1996, for the following causes (refused copy attached). Her previous NOTICE OF REMOVAL AND PETITION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE [cites omitted] JURY TRIAL DEMANDED (hereinafter "NOTICE OF REMOVAL") was filed with the Clerk of the "DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES", not with the "CLERK U S DISTRICT COURT", as shown by the Clerk's file stamp dated "AUG 13 1996" on said NOTICE OF REMOVAL (see copy attached). The Clerk of Court erred by stamping Plaintiff's NOTICE OF REMOVAL in this manner. See FRCP Rule 9(b). Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 1 of 6 Furthermore, Mr. Browning is not presiding over the action now proceeding in the District Court of the United States ("DCUS"), nor has Mr. Browning demonstrated that he has any jurisdiction in said DCUS over the subject matter, or over the Person of the Plaintiff, in the above entitled action. See FRCP Rules 12(b)(1),(2),(4), and (5). Accordingly, without the requisite jurisdiction having been demonstrated as a matter of record, he has no authority to deny any of Plaintiff's pleadings, motions, or demands as filed in the DCUS or in the USDC, except to dismiss the alleged criminal action for want of jurisdiction, as required by Law. Mr. Browning, as an Article IV judge, is a "taxpayer" whose compensation is diminished during his continuance in office. See Internal Revenue Code, Section 7701(a). As such, Mr. Browning cannot preside over any proceeding in a District Court of the United States ("DCUS"), because to do so violates Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended (hereinafter "U.S. Constitution"), to wit: The Judges ... shall ... receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. [Art. III, Sec. 1, U.S. Constitution, emphasis added] The United States has never demonstrated jurisdiction, as a matter of record, to bring any criminal case against the Plaintiff in the United States District Court ("USDC"). On the contrary, Plaintiff's NOTICE AND DEMAND TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION (hereinafter "NOTICE AND DEMAND") and Her MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF CHALLENGE TO CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT (hereinafter "MEMORANDUM OF LAW"), Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 2 of 6 i.e. the USDC, plainly prove that the USDC, as distinct and different from the DCUS, has no criminal jurisdiction whatsoever to prosecute Plaintiff, unless the alleged crime was committed within the federal zone. See cites in Plaintiff's NOTICE AND DEMAND and MEMORANDUM OF LAW. Mr. Browning also claims to have "denied" two (2) separate NOTICE's AND DEMAND's FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE, filed pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 201(d), to wit: (d) When mandatory. A court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information. [Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 201(d)] [emphasis added] Said Rule leaves no room for any judicial discretion in the matter of the evidence submitted thereby. The language of the terms "when mandatory" and "a court shall take judicial notice" is indicative of their imperative meaning. Mr. Browning has no authority whatsoever to "deny" mandatory judicial notice when invoked pursuant to Rule 201(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Furthermore, as a matter of evidence, Plaintiff enjoys the fundamental Right to incorporate by reference all prior pleadings filed or lodged in the USDC, no matter who filed them, as if those pleadings were set forth fully in Her NOTICE OF REMOVAL. Plaintiff argues that, for Mr. Browning to deny this essential evidentiary material in the above entitled action is to obstruct justice, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1506 , to wit: 1506. Theft or alteration of record or process; false bail Whoever feloniously steals, takes away, alters, falsifies, or otherwise avoids any record, writ, process, or other proceeding, in any court of the United States, whereby any judgment is reversed, made void, or does not take effect; ... [continued on next page] Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 3 of 6 Shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. [18 U.S.C. 1506] Moreover, the alleged United States Attorneys who attempted to bring a criminal action against Plaintiff in the USDC have failed to demonstrate on record any power of attorney to represent the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic] in said action; the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA have not been shown on record to have any standing to bring a criminal action before the USDC; and the USDC has not been shown to have any criminal jurisdiction over a crime alleged to have been committed inside the state zone (the Arizona Republic) and outside the federal zone. Lastly, Mr. Browning's ORDER was improperly served upon Plaintiff via United States Mail, because it was addressed to: Sheila Terese Wallen [sic] PO Box 335 [sic] Arivaca, AZ 85601 [sic] Plaintiff has previously notified all interested parties that She will refuse all mail unless it is directed to the mailing location as shown on the face page of this pleading. Plaintiff hereby reiterates Her intent to refuse all U.S. Mail which exhibits "AZ" or unqualified zip codes and which fails to exhibit her proper mailing location as shown supra, and of Her intent to receive (but not necessarily accept) all U.S. Mail which is directed to Her proper mailing location. Notice to agents is notice to principals. Notice to principals is notice to agents. [Please see next page et seq.] Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 4 of 6 SUMMARY Wherefore, Plaintiff refuses Mr. William D. Browning's ORDER dated August 15, 1996, for all the reasons stated above. Executed on August 20,1996 /s/ Sheila Wallen Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state /s/ Paul Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness Counselor at Law, and Counsel of Record Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 5 of 6 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, a Citizen of one of the United States of America, and that I personally served the following document(s): NOTICE OF REFUSAL FOR CAUSE: FRCP Rules 9(a); 9(b); 12(b)(1),(2),(4),(5) 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 United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE William D. Browning, Doe No. 1 44 East Broadway Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Executed on August 20, 1996 /s/ Sheila Wallen __________________________________________ Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state all rights reserved without prejudice Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 6 of 6 # # #
Return to the Table of Contents for
U.S.A. v. Wallen