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
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.
Motion to Dismiss for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:
Page 2 of 7
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
bereft of any representation or Counsel whatsoever. The Court
was denied jurisdiction to proceed with that status conference,
and yet it did so anyway.
Motion to Dismiss for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:
Page 3 of 7
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
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).
Motion to Dismiss for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:
Page 4 of 7
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.
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 Andrew 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 Table of Contents for
U.S.A. v. Wallen