Time: Mon Aug 11 12:23:23 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA07639;
Mon, 11 Aug 1997 12:24:12 -0700 (MST)
by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA04678;
Mon, 11 Aug 1997 12:20:17 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 12:19:11 -0700
To: <jldortch@telalink.net>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: more authorities on the "Right of Election"
[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris
c/o general delivery
Battle Lake [zip code exempt]
MINNESOTA STATE
In Propria Persona
Under Protest and
by Special Visitation
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic], ) Case No. 97-2099-MNST
Plaintiff [sic]/ )
Appellees, ) USDC Minneapolis #CR-4-96-65
v. )
)
EVERETT C. GILBERTSON [sic], )
Defendant [sic]/ )
Appellant. )
________________________________)
)
Everett C. Gilbertson, ) DCUS Minneapolis #4-96-65
Plaintiff/Appellant, )
v. ) NOTICE OF MOTION,
) MOTION FOR DISCRETIONARY
United States, ) JUDICIAL NOTICE, AND
James M. Rosenbaum, ) APPLICATION FOR LEAVE
and Does 2-99, ) TO FILE ENLARGED BRIEF:
Respondents. ) FRAP Local Rule 28A(e),(j);
) Rule 201(c), Federal Rules
________________________________) of Evidence
COMES NOW Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris, Citizen of Minnesota
state, expressly not a citizen of the United States ("federal
citizen"), and Appellant in the above entitled matter
(hereinafter "Appellant"), to provide formal Notice to all
interested party(s), to move this honorable Court for
discretionary judicial notice, pursuant to Rule 201(c) of the
Federal Rules of Evidence, and to apply for leave to file an
enlarged REPLY BRIEF, pursuant to Local Rules 28A(e) and (j) of
the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure ("FRAP").
Requests for Judicial Notice/Leave to File Enlarged Brief: Page
1 of 6
Appellant respectfully requests judicial notice by this
honorable Court of the pleading entitled DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
AND DEMAND TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING FINAL REVIEW OF FORMAL
CHALLENGE TO JUROR AND VOTER REGISTRANT QUALIFICATIONS, as filed
July 8, 1997, in Mitchell v. Nordbrock, Pima County Consolidated
Justice Court, Tucson, Arizona, case number #CV-97-3438. Said
pleading (hereinafter "Arizona Pleading") is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein. Arizona
state is in the Ninth Circuit.
The two exhibits attached to the Arizona Pleading are nearly
identical in form, and substance, to the corresponding MOTION TO
STAY PROCEEDINGS and the VERIFIED STATEMENT, as previously filed
by Appellant, more than once, in the trial court below.
The Complaint of Judicial Misconduct which follows the
VERIFIED STATEMENT infra was filed by Paul Andrew Mitchell,
Counselor at Law, against U.S. District Judge William D.
Browning, who presided over the trial of Sheila T. Wallen in
U.S.A. v. Wallen, USDC, Arizona, case number #95-484-WDB.
Appellant requests discretionary judicial notice of said
Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, in part to demonstrate the
consistent lack of professionalism which the federal judiciary
has exhibited, when presented with the uncontested facts and laws
previously documented, under penalty of perjury and outside the
United States, in Appellant's MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS and
requisite VERIFIED STATEMENT. See 28 U.S.C. 1746(1) in chief.
Appellant hereby directs the attention of this honorable
Court to the following key points of law which are elaborated in
some detail in the Arizona Pleading, to wit:
Requests for Judicial Notice/Leave to File Enlarged Brief: Page
2 of 6
(1) The "Right of Election" is established and recognized
by the Maine Supreme Court, Appleton concurring at 44
Maine 528-529 (1859). The Maine Legislature had
requested that court's judicial opinion, in response to
the holding in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393
(1856).
(2) The existence of two (2) classes of citizenship under
American law, never repealed, is also recognized by
numerous authorities infra, both state and federal.
(3) The proper construction and common understanding of the
Qualifications Clauses are also explored thoroughly,
with pertinent citations dating back to the California
Constitution of 1849, and subsequently in People v. De
La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870).
(4) The cases recognize that one may be a citizen of the
United States ("federal citizen") without also being a
Citizen of any particular Union state. See e.g. Hough
v. Societe Electrique Westinghouse de Russie, 231 F.
341, (USDC, NY, 1916).
(5) The cases also recognize that Americans may be Citizens
of a Union state without also being federal citizens.
See McDonel v. State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883); Crosse v.
Board of Supervisors of Elections, 221 A.2d 431 (1966);
11 C.J., Section 3, page 777 and cases cited therein
(Harding, McDonel, Fowler).
(6) The cases also recognize that, both before and after
the so-called Fourteenth amendment [sic], it has not
been necessary for one to be a federal citizen in order
to be a Citizen of a Union state.
(7) The failure to capitalize the "C" in "Citizen", as that
term is used in the Qualifications Clauses, has created
an immense, nearly immeasurable, amount of confusion
among references to state and federal citizenship in
all federal and state laws which utilize the phrase
"citizen of the United States" [sic].
(8) It is also clear that this confusion was intentional,
in order to co-opt the American People into associating
with a political jurisdiction which is not protected by
the Guarantee Clause. The United States (federal
government) is not required to guarantee a Republican
Form of Government to the federal zone, only to the
state zone [sic]. See Guarantee Clause.
(9) Congress cannot by legislation alter the Constitution,
from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and
within whose limitations alone that power can be
lawfully exercised. See Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S.
189 (1919) (holding predicated on ratification of the
16th amendment [sic] as applied to the term "income").
Requests for Judicial Notice/Leave to File Enlarged Brief: Page
3 of 6
(10) The Qualifications Clauses have never been amended,
despite recent efforts to impose limits on the terms of
federal Representatives and/or Senators. Appellant
agrees that limits upon the terms of federal lawmakers
would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
See U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 115 S.Ct. 1842,
131 L.Ed.2d 881 (1995).
(11) It is a cardinal rule in dealing with written
instruments that they are to receive an unvarying
interpretation, and that their practical construction
is to be uniform. See Cory et al. v. Carter, 48 Ind.
327, 335 (1874); Qualifications Clauses, 3:2:1, 4:2:1.
(12) Citizenship is a term of municipal law. Prior to the
1866 Civil Rights Act, which legislated federal
citizenship into existence as a municipal franchise,
one and only one class of citizenship was recognized by
the U.S. Constitution. Thus, prior to 1866, all
constitutional references to "Citizen of the United
States" and "citizen of the United States" were
identical in all respects. See Roa v. Collector of
Customs, 23 Philippine 315, 332 (1912); Murphy v.
Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 (1885); People v. De La Guerra, 40
Cal. 311, 342 (1870).
REMEDY REQUESTED
Appellant respectfully requests this honorable Court to take
formal judicial Notice of all authorities cited herein, pursuant
to Rule 201(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and to grant
Appellant leave to file an enlarged REPLY BRIEF, pursuant to FRAP
Local Rules 28A(e) and (j). Appellant also requests leave to
incorporate the instant application into Appellant's REPLY BRIEF,
now in preparation, as if set forth fully therein.
VERIFICATION
I, Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris, hereby verify, under penalty
of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America,
without the "United States", that the above statement of facts is
true and correct, to the best of My current information,
knowledge, and belief, so help Me God, per 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
[Please see next page et seq.]
Requests for Judicial Notice/Leave to File Enlarged Brief: Page
4 of 6
Dated: ______________________________
Respectfully submitted,
______________________________________________
Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris
Citizen of Minnesota state, federal witness
(expressly not a citizen of the United States)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Requests for Judicial Notice/Leave to File Enlarged Brief: Page
5 of 6
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Everett C. Gilbertson, 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 MOTION, MOTION FOR DISCRETIONARY JUDICIAL NOTICE,
AND APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ENLARGED BRIEF:
FRAP Local Rules 28A(e), (j);
Rule 201(c), Federal Rules of Evidence
by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first
class U.S. Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed to:
Attorney General James M. Rosenbaum
Department of Justice United States District Court
10th & Constitution, N.W. 110 South Fourth Street
Washington [zip code exempt] Minneapolis [zip code exempt]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MINNESOTA STATE
Solicitor General Henry Shea
Department of Justice United States Attorneys
10th & Constitution, N.W. 110 South Fourth Street
Washington [zip code exempt] Minneapolis [zip code exempt]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MINNESOTA STATE
Courtesy copies to:
William H. Rehnquist, C.J. Clarence Thomas, J.
U.S. Supreme Court U.S. Supreme Court
One First Street N.E. One First Street N.E.
Washington [zip code exempt] Washington [zip code exempt]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Paul Andrew Mitchell Alex Kozinski (supervising)
Counselor at Law, federal witness Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
c/o 2509 N. Campbell Ave., #1776 125 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 200
Tucson [zip code exempt] Pasadena [zip code exempt]
ARIZONA STATE CALIFORNIA STATE
[See USPS Publication 221 for addressing instructions.]
Dated: ______________________________________
______________________________________________
Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris
Citizen of Minnesota state, federal witness
(expressly not a citizen of the United States)
Requests for Judicial Notice/Leave to File Enlarged Brief: Page
6 of 6
# # #
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail