Another "R4C" with the USDC / DCUS that seems to cause consternation.
The question remains that if the R4C is refused by the courts and they proceed I show this?
"
Upon offense by hostile presentment after the inevitable default by Respondent (including all agents,
principals and any and all offensive presentments), after fair notice by refusal for cause like the above
clerk instruction a certificate of exigent circumstances will be issued pursuant to Rule C(3)(a)(ii)(B)
Arrest Warrant and the clerk will immediately issue an arrest warrant for Respondent or named agent or
principal to be taken into custody for the violations of law. Presentments of any kind from Respondent
or any agent acting for the bankruptcy of the United States through the District may be considered
hostile threat of seizure."
Then I try to have the US Marshall arrest someone? This is the same US Marshal that blocks due process at every turn. At that point I hit a brick wall and say yes your honor the US Marshall is in default, can we wait a bit to see if the Marshall does his duty.
Note: I am not an adjacent provocateur nor do I represent any enterprise other than the man, myself.
R.G the son of J.S.
Note: See R4C below
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"),
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.
Notice of Refusal for Cause:
Page 2 of 6
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;
...
Shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more
than five years, or both.
[18 U.S.C. 1506]
Notice of Refusal for Cause:
Page 3 of 6
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.