13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Richard N. Urias; WE THE PEOPLE as amicus curiae 2137 Pepper Tree Pl. Escondido, CA 92026 760- 738-6199 IN PRO SE FILE031 l'iflR 'iti 10:56tlSDC·ORP court of the UNITED STATES for DISTRICT OF OREGON RICHARD N. URIAS; WE THE PEOPLE as amicus curiae. vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 5 '. } 6- &\J - 65 b - f K REDRESS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION Article III§ 2; Amendment!; Petition for HABEAS CORPUS Article I Section 9 cl 2; DUE PROCESS OF LAW Amendment VandX I Richard N. Urias, the undersigned unrepresented citizen of the several State of California, citizen of the United States representing WE THE PROPLE in this particular matter swear under penalty of pe1jury on the laws of the United States, the several State of Oregon and California, that the following was thoroughly researched and believes it to be true, herein petitions under oath alleging that the Hammonds and those presently persecuted by agents of the federal government are illegally imprisone or restrained of their liberty in violation of this Constitution and laws of the United States. t)/2J 6/ tU II L Case 3:16-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 13

3:16-W-556-PK Urias vs USA

  • Upload
    jm

  • View
    480

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Urias vs USA

Citation preview

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Richard N. Urias; WE THE PEOPLE as amicus curiae 2137 Pepper Tree Pl. Escondido, CA 92026 760- 738-6199 IN PRO SE

FILE031 l'iflR 'iti 10:56tlSDC·ORP

court of the UNITED STATES for DISTRICT OF OREGON

RICHARD N. URIAS; WE THE PEOPLE as amicus curiae.

vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case No. 5 '. } 6- &\J - 65 b - f K REDRESS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION Article III§ 2; Amendment!; Petition for HABEAS CORPUS Article I Section 9 cl 2; DUE PROCESS OF LAW Amendment VandX

I Richard N. Urias, the undersigned unrepresented citizen of the several State of

California, citizen of the United States representing WE THE PROPLE in this

particular matter swear under penalty of pe1jury on the laws of the United States, the

several State of Oregon and California, that the following was thoroughly researched

and believes it to be true, herein petitions under oath alleging that the Hammonds and

those presently persecuted by agents of the federal government are illegally imprisone

or restrained of their liberty in violation of this Constitution and laws of the United

States.

t)/2J 6/ tU II L

Case 3:16-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 13

1 THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT on this particular matter is as follows:

2 Article Ill, Section 2. Cl. 1 The judicial Power shall extend to all cases, in Law and

3

4 Equity, arising under the Constitution, the Laws of the United States, ...

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This particular controversy falls under authority of "arising under" clause of

Article Ill of the CONSTITUTION for the United States of America and its correct

decision depends upon construction of either the Constitution or law of the United

States. Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U.S. 257, 25 L.Ed 648; Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 90

L.Ed 939, 66 S.Ct 773, 13 ALR 2d 383.

THIS HABEAS CORPUS IS DIRECTED EXCLUSIVELY TO THE JUDGE WHO SAT AND

DECIDED THE CRllNAL CASE AGAINST THE HAMMONDS WHO ARE PRESENTLY

INCARCERATED IN FEDERAL PRISON.

PARTIES

Plaintiff Richard N. Urias, is a Citizen of the several State of California, residing

in the City of Escondido, County of San Diego.

THIRD PARTY, WE THE PEOPLE as a friend of this particular Court, Citizens of the

several States classified in same status and situs.

[i]n several cases, this Court has allowed standing to litigate the rights of third parties when enforcement of the challenged restriction against the litigant would result indirectly in the violation of third parties' rights." Warth v. Seldin, supra, at 510 (emphasis added) (citing Doe v. Bolton, 410 U. S. 179 (1973); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U.S. 249.

2

Case 3:16-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 03/31/16 Page 2 of 13

1 See also Amendment X.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

OPENING STATEMENT

[§ 2.] The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

. [emphasis added]

This is a constitutional matter before this Article III Court competent to rule

whether the laws of the United States were violated, and if so violated has the

authority to act in the interest of justice. This Court has also sworn to uphold the

Constitution for the United States of America.

There exists no "federal Question" in this particular criminal matter!; the laws o

the United States mentioned in this Writ are paced herein to clarify their arbitrary and

capricious use against the incarcerated and persecuted.

Should this particular Court on this particular matter lack the Power to decide

Constitutional matters or reverse its previous decision, it is requested this Court

transfer this case, under the Constitution at Article III, to a Court of Competent

jurisdiction.

"As men, whose intentions require no concealment, generally employ the words which most directly and aptly express the ideas they intend to convey the enlightened patriots who framed our constitution and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense and to have intended what they have said." Marshall, C.J., Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, often quoted direct by courts.

In Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1166 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1778 (1992), the court observed that the Supreme Court has "recognized

3

Case 3:16-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 03/31/16 Page 3 of 13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the fact that' [ t ]he writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.'

Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290-91 (1969). "Therefore, the writ must be "administered with the initiative and flexibility essential to insure that miscarriages of justice within its reach are surfaced and cmTected." Harris, 394 U.S. at 291.

The predominant inquiry on habeas is a legal one: whether the "petitioner's

custody simpliciter" is valid as measured by the Constitution. Coleman v. Thompson,

501 U.S. 722, 730 (1991). The purpose of the great writ is not to relitigate state trials.

Dismissal of habeas petition under the "total exhaustion" rule of Rose v. Lundy,

455 U.S. 509, 520 (1982) (each claim raised by petitioner must be exhausted before

district court may reach the merits of any claim in habeas petition).

Jury exposure to facts not in evidence deprives a defendant of the rights to confrontation, cross-examination and assistance of counsel embodied in the Sixth Amendment. Dickson v. Sullivan, 849 F.2d 403, 406 (9th Cir. 1988)

Writ of Habeas Corpus support (Mc Clain, Constitutional Law in the United States):

A legal remedy against unlawful deprivation of personal liberty which is

peculiarly to criminal prosecutions, although it is not expressly limited to such cases,

is the writ of habeas corpus, which is granted by a court or judge on an application

under oath alleging that some person named is illegally imprisoned or restrained of his

libe1ty, and asking that the person exercising such or restraint be required to come

before the comt or judge to show under what authority his power is being exercised. If

4

Case 3:16-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 03/31/16 Page 4 of 13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the person against whom the proceeding is brought can show lawful authority, as

where a parent is restraining his child, or a guardian his ward, or where an officer is

imprisoning one accused or convicted of crime under legal process of arrest or by way

of punishment lawfully imposed, then the proceeding will be dismissed ; but if no

lawful authority can be for the imprisonment or restraint, the court or judge hearing the

case may order the person found to be illegally restrained set at liberty.

The proof below proves the Hammonds and those persecuted for occupying the

land are illegally restrained set at liberty.

This writ is filed for the sole purpose of demonstrating the agencies of the

federal government lacked the criminal jurisdiction authority under the Constitution

and laws of the United States to act against the incarcerated and persecuted citizens

located upon Malheur wildlife refuge.

As applicable to criminal prosecutions, the proceeding, by habeas corpus

enables the court or judge before whom it is brought to inquire into the legality of the

arrest of a person complaining of unlawful detention. If the accused has been refused

bail, a proper method of securing the release on bail, ifthe offence is a bailable one, is

by use of this writ. But the proceeding is not a method for revising or reviewing the

action of the court which has jurisdiction to hold the accused for trial, or for freeing

him from restraint under arrest or commitment for an offence charged so long as the

court is proceeding lawfully and without violation of constitutional guaranties.

5

Case 3:16-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 03/31/16 Page 5 of 13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

As a general rule one comt will not by writ of habeas corpus interfere with

restraint or imprisonment by virtue of the authority of another court ; and the fact that

the federal courts while acting within the scope of their authority are superior to the

state comts, and are given ultimate power to determine the extent of their authority,

renders it impossible for a state court to exercise jurisdiction by writ of habeas corpus

to dete1mine the legality of imprisonment or restraint under the authority of a federal

comt (Tarble's Case (1871, 13 Wallace, 397; McClain's Cases, 43; Thayer's Cases,

2299).

In 1884, the Supreme Court stated:

"A State court of original jurisdiction ... may, consistently with existing Federa legislation, determine cases at law or equity, arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or involving rights dependent upon such constitution or laws. Upon the State courts, equally with the courts of the Union, rests the obligation to guard, enforce and protect every right granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States, and the laws made in pursuance thereof, whenever those rights are involved in any suit or proceeding before them."

The ability of a state comt to issue habeas corpus, said the Supreme Comt,

"cannot be denied merely because the proceedings involve the determination of rights,

privileges or immunities derived from the nation or require a construction of the

Constitution or laws of the United States." The court concluded:

"Subject, then, to the exclusive and paramount authority of the national government, by its own judicial tribunals, to determine whether persons held in custody by authority of the courts of the United States, or by the commissioners of such courts, or by officers of the general government, acting under its laws, are so held in conformity with law, the States have the right, by their own courts or by the judges thereof, to inquire into the grounds upon which any person,

6

Case 3:16-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 03/31/16 Page 6 of 13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

within their respective territorial limits, is restrained of his liberty, and to discharge him, if it be ascertained that such restraint is illegal, and this, notwithstanding such illegality may arise from a violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States." Robb v Connolly (1884) 111 US 624, 637, 28 L Ed 542, 4 S Ct US 624, 639, 28 L Ed 542, 4 SCt 544.

The Attorney General of Oregon and Sheriff Ward of Harney County were

noticed of the lack of exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the land on Feb1uary 6,

2016 via an ADMINISTRATIVE NOTICE, no action has been taken to protect the

citizens under their care; Portland Special agent Gregory T. Bretzing of the FBI was

noticed on February 8, 2016, he fails to act; and the Attorney General of the United

States was noticed on Febmaty 5, 2016, NO action has been taken or a reply submitted

by any of the patties noticed!

The ADMNISTRA TIVE NOTICE sent to the above is herein attached as a patt of this

Habeas Corpus.

"Petitioner invites us to enter into a purely speculative inquiry for the purpose of condemning statutory provisions which have not been tried out and the effect of which cannot now be definitely perceived. We must decline that invitation and adhere to the fundamental principle which governs our dete1mination of constitutional questions." The Supreme Court now interprets the habeas corpus act to authorize federal comts to grant the writ to a prisoner confined under an uncontested sentence when he desires to challenge the validity of another sentence already imposed upon him which he is due to serve in the future." However the comt of late has been liberalizin its habeas co us rules and there is some indication that the federal comts are now prepared to use habeas corpus whenever there is a deprivation of liberty by an unconstitutional sentence, even when the applicant is in jail under an admittedly-valid commitment.' Anniston Mfg. Co. v Davis (1937) 301 US 337, 355, 81 L Ed 1143, 57 S Ct 816, reh den 302 US 772, 82 L Ed 599, 58 S Ct 3. [emphasis added]

7

Case 3:16-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 03/31/16 Page 7 of 13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Any violation of the rights of citizens (WE THE PEOPLE), decided by this Court, a

court of the United States, affects WE THE PEOPLE, all citizens in the same status and

situs of those prosecuted and persecuted by an agency of the Executive in this

particular matter; We seek redress under this Constitution for ourselves and those

incarcerated and persecuted ..

WE THE PEOPLE, whom ordained and established this Constitution for the

United States of America expressly delegated to Congress the Power to make law at

Article I section I pursuant to the procedures enjoined in Article I Section 7 cl 2;

WE THE PEOPLE delegated to Congress expressly where and upon who the enacted

laws are to be enforced at Article I Section 8 clauses 17 and 18; WE THE PEOPLE

delegated to the President of the United States the Power to see that the laws are

faithfully executed at Article II.

WE THE PEOPLE at Article IV SECTION. 2. [cl I.] The Citizens of each State

shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States; and

WE THE PEOPLE delegated to the judiciary which court has the authority to decide

particular cases at Article III, et seq.

The test of jurisdiction is the right to decide, not right decision. Judgments of courts , which at the time the judgments were rendered had no jurisdiction to consider or to determine the issues in the respective cases, and whose records at such time disclosed such lack of jurisdiction, are absolutely void, and may be attacked and defeated collaterally. On the other hand, judgments of courts empowered to hear and dete1mine issues relative to the subject matters and persons to the suits affected by their respective decisions, although such judgments may be illegal and wrong, are simply voidable [by appeal] and are not open to collateral attack. Phebus v. Search, 264 F. 407, quoted by Rice, J., in U.S. v. United States F. & G. Co., 24 F. Supp. 961, 1938.

8

Case 3:16-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 03/31/16 Page 8 of 13

1 WE THE PEOPLE made clear what is the supreme Law of the Land at Article VI

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

sections 1 and 2; and who shall be bound!

[§ 2] This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

[§ 3.] The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Article IV section 3 cl. 2- The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Citizens of Oregon and citizens of other several States in this particular matter,

(who allegedly damaged and occupied Malheur Wildlife Refuge) under criminal laws

of the United States have been incarcerated or are presently being prosecuted by

agencies of the Executive Department of the Federal government in this a court of

the United States, it matters not which agencies; however, it does matter which Court

is deciding this constitutional matter, a Court under Article Ill constitutional Court or

an Article IV regulatory Court; decided by an article Ill Judge or a Magistrate

respectively!

Legal arguments, against arbitrary and capricious United States action who

complained, summoned, arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned the Hammonds by

use of the laws of the United States, with NO authority in this particular matter!

9

Case 3:16-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 03/31/16 Page 9 of 13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

It is a well-settled rule of law both in this and other states that a court will not lend its jurisdiction to a plaintiff where the service upon a defendant has been obtained by inveigling a person to be served into the tetritorial jurisdiction of the court by means of fraud and deceit, actual or legal, or by trick or device or illegal act; and it makes no difference whether the device is used to obtain jurisdiction of the person or the prope1ty of a person. Oklahoma Industrial Finance C01p. v. Wallace, 69 Pac. 2d 362.

The Constitution for the United States of America, and the laws of the United

States made in pursuance thereof is the supreme law of the land. Article VI Sections 2

and 3, supra.

It is to be noted that the laws of the United States are equal in supremacy ONLY

when made in pursuance of the Constitution; it is also noted that the agents of the

Federal gove1nment and the Judges involved in this matter are under Oath or

Affirmation to support this Constitution and the laws of the United States!

"The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words: "I do solemnly swear, that I will administer justice, without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as , according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States." Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States, ifthat Constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him? If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime. It is also not entirely unw01thy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States, generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank. Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as

JO

Case 3:16-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 03/31/16 Page 10 of 13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

well as other departments, are bound by that inst1ument." Marshall, C.J., Marbury v. Madison, I Cranch 137, 1803.

Due process of law as a constitutional matter

The Hammonds were charged with violations of law of the United States

A jury sitting in Pendleton, Oregon found the Hammonds guilty of violating the laws

of the United States after a two-week trial in June 2012. The trial involved allegations

that the Hammonds, owners of Hammond Ranches, Inc., ignited a series of fires on

lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), on which the

Hammonds had grazing rights leased to them for their cattle operation.

For the United States to have exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the land it

must own it and upon ownership must have retained exclusive legislative jurisdiction;

Oregon ceded to the United States "concurrent' jurisdiction. The property in question

is known as Malheur National Wildlife Refuge under the control of Bureau of Land

Management .

CONCLUSION

JUDICIAL NOTICE:

Only the Attorney General of Oregon and Sheriff Ward were sent the

ADMINISTRATIVE NOTICE via certified mail; the others were noticed via E-mail 01

U.S. Postal service.

11

Case 3:16-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 03/31/16 Page 11 of 13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

"Criminal jurisdiction" and "jurisdiction over federal areas within the States" is

clearly explained in the attached ADMINISTRATIVE NOTICE sent to the parties

above named!

The agents of the United States lacked the authority to enforce criminal law of

the United States in an area without the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the United

States, this matter a lack of jurisdiction alone must suffice to release the Hammonds.

There are three jurisdictional essentials necessary to the validity of every judgment, to wit, jurisdiction of parties, jurisdiction of the subject matter, and power or authority to decide the particular matters presented ....... and the lack of either is fatal to the judgment. In re Field's Estate, 40 N. Mex. 423, quoted by Brice, J, in State v. Chavez, 44 N. Mex. 260, lOi P. 2d 389, 1940. "Should Congress, in the execution of its powers, adopt measures which are prohibited by the Constitution; or should Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not intrusted to the government, it would become the painful duty of this tribunal, should a case requiring such a decision come before it, to say, that such an act was not th law of the land." Marshall, C.J., McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, quoted by Roberts, J., in U. S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1.

RELIEF

The Agents of government noticed of"exclusive legislative jurisdiction" failed

to act; this Comt has a duty to protect the rights of citizens of the several States from

encroachment by government upon land which "concurrent" legislative jurisdiction is

retained.

12

Case 3:16-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 03/31/16 Page 12 of 13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In the interest of Justice and obedience to the Constitution and laws of the

several States and United States, release those citizens incarcerated and free those

citizens persecuted by the federal government from further prosecution.

Respectfully submitted,

March 16, 2016 at Escondido, California,

13

Case 3:16-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 03/31/16 Page 13 of 13