I had heard the story, followed it on the evening news, read about it in The Jubilee, commented on it with my husband, and therefore thought I had exhausted the topic.

Until I picked up this 115 page book The Montana Freemen: The Untold Story by J. Patrick Shannan. I was immediately drawn into the story by Shannan's easy writing and subtle sense of humor. The book reads like a novel but the many footnotes and references are a chilling reminder that this is not a work of fiction. This is a real story, and yes this did happen in America. Once I got started, I did not put it down until the last word had been gobbled up by my eager brain. I was left satisfied, although I must admit, Shannan has aroused a curiosity for Common Law knowledge I have never before felt. In it's introduction, The Montana Freemen takes us from the very beginning of the Common Law to the position the United States now finds itself. In a way, this book is an introduction to the particulars of Common Law, but this information, which tends to be tedious, is presented in such a way a child could explain it and even enjoy it. The introduction to Common Law gives us a basis to understand who the Montana Freemen are and what they are trying to do. If you're already familiar with Common Law, you will still find this book to be a great review and description of the Freemen's particular circumstances.

If you ever wanted to know why the Justus Township was targeted by federal agencies to be next in line for extermination, your questions will soon be answered. What you may begin to wonder is how the township made it as far as they did. There certainly seems to have been some divine intervention. Even their township name [Justus] is, unbeknownst to them, Biblical. (Justus is a surname of Jesus, Col. 4:11 KJV).

The book details the media black out, the "circular filing" of most of the Freemen's paperwork, the mislabeling and misconstruing of terms and names by ignorant press and the lack of support from many "patriots" due to misunderstandings and/or possible coercion by federal forces. There really is only one way to find out what really happened, and that is to hear it from the victims themselves. Shannan interviewed all 23 Freemen in order to accurately report the development of circumstances that led most of them into jail for charges seemingly, and in some cases admittedly, trumped up.

The Montana Freemen - describes just what it was Leroy Schweitzer discovered that got the officials so stirred up, and why. Even now, they are doing everything in their power to keep this knowledge from being released to the public. They are caught in their own trap and they know it! Leroy Schweitzer shares the atrocities committed to him by prison officials; you will cringe at the obvious abuse of this peaceful man. But a few short sentences later, you will rejoice with him as he succeeds to make a tumult out of the court. He has prosecutors thumbing through law books unable to keep up with him as he recites law from memory. Shannan also addresses the militia, who, having received a lot of negative coverage in the past couple of years, vigilantly kept watch during the siege, should the worst of events materialize. After learning what our fellow countrymen have suffered to redeem and secure our God-given rights, how can we not feel supportive of our fellow patriots?

The patriot community has a tendency toward pessimism, however, and few believe as the Freemen do, that their cause will ultimately succeed and bring to light to the American public the lies they have been told since at least 1913. I'd like to believe, with divine assistance, it may come true.

"Now you see when I get done, everything I have done will be a supreme court report, and it will go into the Superintendent of Documents in Washington, DC on a mandate published. And that will be making it public lawfully...Then we will tie it into our Congressional Reference case, and at that point we will start to run the country lawfully and it's been authorized by their Appellate branch," said Leroy Schweitzer, "The ramifications are endless," Shannan remarked.

"Yes, they are..."

The Montana Freemen: The Untold Story is available from The Jubilee.

Send $15.00 Ppd. to:

The Jubilee Newspaper

P.O. Box 310

Midpines, CA 95345

(209) 742-NEWS

One buck of each order will be donated to the Freemen Center legal headquarters for the Freemen defense. team - No lawyers!

Ken; You will find the information about "The Montana Freemen" on http://www.alaska.net/~winter/jefferson.html

Scroll down to it.

Clarence;  Patriot

From brentj@webt.com Sat Mar 21 15:09:03 1998

Subject: Freemen trial

Hello, I would greatly appreciate any reports or Information on the Monkey-court Trial's of the Freemen. It will be good learning material and something else to show people as proof of a Tyrannical fed gov.

Thanks, Brent

From tsew@geocities.com

Sun Mar 22 00:34:01 1998

KEN

Good luck in the jury being able to see anything in the Freeman's trial except what the government wants them to. When I had a federal law suit aginst the DA here he even had me kidnapped form the VA hospital so I couldn't testify as a witness at my own case, and I was not allowed a hearing for their kidnapping nor charged with anything for 40 days. They used this extortion and obstruction of justice baltantly. I have no faith in juries which are guided and coached and restricted by the government.

ER

EMAIL ER Tsew at tsew@geocities.com

SEE MY WEB SITES http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3528/

and http://members.tripod.com/~TsewE/

==========================================================

Montana Freemen Face New Indictments

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Roger Roots

Jubilee Correspondent

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 24 common law lawyers and Constitutionalists charged in the Montana Freemen case now face new federal indictments.

On November 22, 1996, the government issued a superseding indictment against many of the main Freemen justices including LeRoy Schweitzer, Daniel Petersen, Rodney Skurdal, Dale Jacobi and Richard Clark. The new indictment was supposedly drafted in response to materials seized after the 81-day standoff at Justus, Montana during the Spring and Summer of 1996.

The Freemen lawyers face numerous federal charges including conspiracy, bank fraud, threatening federal judges and possession of firearms while under felony indictment. The new indictment does not add additional charges as much as it rewords the same charges that were filed previously. This is an attempt by the Justice Department to remedy the grave errors it has already made in prosecuting and arraigning the accused. Comments made on the record by visiting federal judge James Burns in July of 1996 which apparently recognized LeRoy Schweitzer and others as justices of their common law court (Vol.8 No.6 Jubilee) may also have contributed to the need for the feds to start over from scratch.

This violation of due process is merely one example of how the Justice Department and the judiciary are waging a no-holds-barred, Constitution-be-damned war against the exploding Constitutionalist movement. Yet ironically the new indictment represents a startling admission by the government that the former indictment, and its resultant multi-million dollar siege and propaganda efforts were ill-founded. The former indictment contained nearly 60 counts, while the superseding indictment contains only 40. It can thus be said that the feds have already DROPPED nearly 1/3 of the charges against the Freemen leaders by default. The mainstream press has said nothing of this silent but obvious capitulation.

A RETURN TO NUREMBERG?

Evidently the U.S. government will try to present the Freemen case in the format of a gigantic show trial reminiscent of the infamous Nuremberg Tribunals following WWII in Germany. All 14 of the main alleged conspirators will likely be boxed together in a single courtroom for trial. Apparently the 8 others charged with relieving, comforting, and assisting will be lumped together in a separate trial. Legal scholars have long criticized such mass trials as a bane on due process of law and a way prosecutors can get around holes in individual cases by flooding a trial with propaganda of a collective nature; most jurors tend to convict out of difficulty in sorting out the evidence in relation to each individual.

In addition to the Nuremberg tribunals, this same technique has been used by the Jewish world government against patriots in several monumental cases during the 20th Century. Perhaps the most infamous American case was the Great Sedition Trial of 1944 in which some 26 patriotic isolationists were tried during the height of the Second World War for conspiring to overthrow the government. Just as in the Freemen case, the ADL and other Jewish organizations exuberantly pushed the prosecution. Also similarly, the feds tried several grand jury indictments before they could get one that would withstand event the most modest legal challenge. Thousands of pieces of evidence including allegedly seditious writings (those opposing FDR's deceitful tactics to bring about American entry into the war) and testimony of questionable authority were seen and heard by a Washington, D.C. jury. After months of trial the judge died in his sleep and the case was finally dismissed at war's end.

This same surreal scenario was played out again in Fort Smith, Arkansas by an ADL-spurred federal prosecution again for sedition. (See Vol. 2 No. 1 Jubilee) After mountains of outrageous testimony and conflicting evidence of so-called sedition was spewed out in the federal courthouse, a jury could only conclude that the allegations of the accused seditionists (i.e., that the federal government itself is seditious and cannot be trusted) were 100 percent correct. A verdict of not guilty was returned for all defendants. (One of the 14 defendants was Louis Ray Beam, Jr., who writes for The Jubilee Newspaper on occasion.)

With the prosecution of the Montana Freemen characters, the Zionist occupation government is again targeting what it percieves as the most serious threat to its power: law without lawyers and courts without legislative or executive sanction. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has urged the Justice Department to establish a task force to concentrate on Freemen activities just as it did against the skinhead movement in the 1980s. The ADL has also drafted a model statute against common law courts that several states are in the process of enacting.

BAR-LICENSED STAND-INS?

It has occurred to some supporters that the federal court may go so far as to boot the accused men and women out of the courtroom during trial and replace them with government-licensed bar association attorneys. This will of course be done under the pretense that the accused are disruptive after one or more of them objects to the proceedings (which they must do to preserve an issue for appeal). This practice has been developing since the earliest court hearings involving the Freemen patriots. Several of the men have lasted only 10 minutes or less before being dragged away for attempting to place their objections into the record.

Both the prosecutors and the judiciary have repeatedly hinted that the Freemen trial will be conducted using stand-in agents of the public defenders office. These public pretenders are said to be preparing themselves for just that purpose. On cue, they will render a pre-packaged defense that can be counted on to stay within the boundaries framed by the government.

Even during the 1996 stand-off at Justus, Montana, U.S. Attorney Matteucci was expressing hope that the men would all surrender and accept government-licensed lawyers. (Isn't it odd that U.S. prosecutors desire their opponents to be represented by bar attorneys?) Later, only those who accepted bar-lawyers were granted bail.

During a September, 1996 misdemeanor trial of Freeman supreme court justice LeRoy Schweitzer (for willful failure to file) a federal judge was even more brazen. Schweitzer had no business in the courtroom unless he is taped and chained, said U.S. Judge Charles Lovell. The judge overruled every objection of Schweitzer, even for not allowing Schweitzer to read the very statute that he was accused of violating. After the jury voted guilty, the judge even told them he agreed with their verdict.

As of this writing no exact date for trial has been set.

Two Freemen Plead Guilty

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/twofreemen.htm

Posted April 5, 2010

*************************************************

Schweitzer and Montana Freeman

Public Notice for the Freemen

Footprints

LeRoy Schweitzer has broken the banking system of the United States and now he has broken the USC. There will be more revelations as the days pass. LeRoy Schwietzer and Dan Petersen have found the common law courts, which is The United States Court of International Trade. LeRoy Schweitzer has laid out a road map of how to use the positive law in Title 28. A must read is his Memorandum of Law and the Certified Question. More links will be added to both of these documents at time permits. We in the patriot and common law have been looking for the answers and the rules of court. Well, here is it. It will require work as LeRoy might say,"the cunning hirelings have been very busy".
• Charges
• Affidavit of LeRoy Schweitzer's daughter -
• Dan Petersen's Stepson's Affidavit _ April 15, 1996
• April 30, 1996 - Affidavit of Long Time Friend Of LeRoy - not allowed access in Missouri
• April 30, 1996 - Affidavit of Lenoard - Brother of LeRoy
• Dan Petersen Documents

• Dan Petersen Document - Filing in Court
• Dan Petersen Document - Order to Dismiss and Release - Document 1
• Dan Petersen Document - Order to Dismiss and Release - Document 2
• Dan Petersen Document - Federal Mandates Act - Document 1
• Dan Petersen Document - Federal Mandates Act - Document 2
• Dan Petersen Document - Affidavit of Mailing of "Writ of Mandamus"
• Dan Petersen Document - Comments Document

LeRoy Letter

• Letter from LeRoy Schweitzer on May 08, 1996 while in Springfield, Missouri

Warren Stone Documents

May 13, 1996

• Writ of Habeas Corpus - Supreme Court of the United States
• Writ of Habeas Corpus - Affidavit in Support of Writ of Habeas Corpus Affidavit
• Writ of Habeas Corpus - Praecipe
• LeRoy Schweitzer & Dan Petersen Hearings Transcripts

• March 26, 1996 Hearing Transcripts - gif
• March 28, 1996 Hearing Transcripts - gif
• March 29, 1996 Hearing Transcripts -gif
• May 30, 1996 Hearing Transcripts - text
• Freedom Center Info Release issued June 24, 1996

Billings or Beijing? June 29 - By J. Patrick Shannan. Subject the Montana Freemen. Preview!

ARTICLE III COURTS

USC Documents

• ARTICLE III COURTS found by LeRoy Schweitzer and Dan Petersen

Court of International Trade

Common Law Courts

• Common Law in Billings Montana Federal Court Room !!!!!!! July 17, 1996The Republic has at last took a breath of air!!! Freedom Center statement.

Documents Filed

[Editor - these documents have been transcribed from copies

of the handwritten documents of LeRoy Micheal]

Added on 7/19/96

• Memorandum of Law from LeRoy Schweitzer. Here is part of the road map to Common Law!
• Certified Question document from LeRoy Schweitzer. Here is another part of the road map to Common Law!
• Added on 7/23/96
• Protective Order of Release - filed into the court in Billings. One of several filed.
• Added on 7/27/96
• Habeas Corpus - trial by Justices' of Ralph Edwin
• Habeas Corpus subpoena of Ralph Edwin
• Letter Rogatory from stand committee
• Removal for Cause
• Subpeona duces tecum
• Letter Rogatory - Common Law Abatement
• Added on 8/3/95

• Hearing on July 17 - 9:00 a.m. - VERY IMPORTANT - This was scanned from the official copy from the Court Reporter. My comments on the "Division of the Courts" and why this hearing process is so important.

  Hearing on July 17 - 2:10 p.m.

  Hearing on July 18, - 10:00 a.m. Dan Petersen brought up a peace bond and the hearing recessed and never came back into session. The others that were scheduled , were returned to the detention center. Se the Division of the Courts for more a brief overview.

  Added on 8/7/96

  Added many more links to the Certified Question. Our "trial by jury" and much more. Added all the rules of the Court of International Trade We must read and learn how to use the common law courts and step totally outside the legislative courts! There are some rulings by the Judge and writs by LeRoy that are very close to expiring. A thought - Footprints

  Added on 8/12/96

  Added the True Bill from the Grand Jury. Important reading here also.

  Added on 8/14/96

  Here is the Peace Bond posted by Dan Petersen. If you will remember on the July 18 hearing, Dan Petersen mentioned the Peace Bond and Judge Burns did a recess and has forgotten to continue that hearing, not to mention the other Freemen that were in the holding area and were returned to the detention center. I just bet the Judge is just being nice to the Freemen as the new media would have you believe, or could there be something to a Peace Bond?

  Here is the Private Collections Precedure. Ye politicians, banks and other folks - rejoice, the peasants are coming! Ha. I couldn't resist.

  Added on 8/29/96

  More collection info on "special private collections"from LeRoy Micheal.

  A poem from the Yellowstone County Detention Center - anonymous.

  NEWS RELEASE

  Please Help

  Freedom Center can use financial donations!

  Please Call and Protest.

  September 10, 1996

  NEWS RELEASE

  LeRoy Schweitzer is being tried at the very last minute on a old IRS charge.

  See the Update section of my homepage for a bit more on this.

  Many more posts from Freedom Center are here and will be up soon hopely.

  Say a prayer for a brother in battle.

  September 11, 1996

  Well, the lynching is complete in Billings. LeRoy was not allowed to get any questions answered, not even what is the statute that I have purportedly broken. Always the same. I OBJECT, IRRELEVANT and then the SUSTAINED from Judge Charles C. Lovell. The object is to be get LeRoy to appeal and get this overturned. But in process, LeRoy will have to step over to the other side [ corporation side ] and give them jurisdiction. We have other lawful processes in the mill. They will lose! I would not want to be Judge Charles C. Lovell.

  It seems that people that could incriminate higher ups have a fatality rate of suicide extremely high compared to the national average in the current administration. He fears nothing from the patriots, but his corporation folks may deem him expendable some day. I hope he stays very safe, as we peaceful and lawful people want him someday in a common law court healthy and alert! Mortmain Corporation folks, please keep all of these law breakers safe and no tricks with blowing up buildings, airplanes crashing or suicideswith no

  fingerprints on the weapon! My comments sent to different newsgroups on the internet

  September 14, 1996

  Update one , two and three from Freedom Center in Billings. The march of tyranny in Billings is alive and well. I think Hitler would have had better a "performances" of a trial that this. Unbelievable. What a joke!.

  September 16, 1996

  There is to be a "sessions" for the next few days. This is common law type of judical meeting that lasts one day a at a time. This is to be for several days. This is an unsigned fax from Judge Burns.

  September 17, 1996

  My comments on Sessions today and an update from Freedom Center at 1 PM Alaska time.

  Brief results of the day one of the Sessions today in Billings, Montana state

  September 26, 1996

  Update will be provided by the Freedom Center via e-mail and much more. Call and support them. This service has been discontinued. It was started by one Paul Andrew Mitchell and was not followed through with. Sorry. Freedom Center is extremely busy with processes. All Freemen are still being held unlawfully.

  I will posting the new indictments against the Montana Freemen in January when I get a copy.

  January 17, 1997

  E-mail from Freedom Center on unlawfully taking of fingerprints on January 16, 1997.

******************************************

Memorandum

of

Law

In the name and by the authority of the People, I, LeRoy Michael hereby attest and acknowledge in Common Law venue, original, exclusive jurisdiction in our division of the Courts' by this memorandum in Law via affidavit duly presented by our one supreme Court for the special, express and explicit purpose of re-establishing our full faith and credit clause of our national Constitution at Article IV, section I thereby perceiving to our people of the Posterity our guaranteed Republican form of government in our Nation of North America.

Restrictions upon government findings are now presented as my right and my duty to prevent the violent overthrow of our one supreme Court as guaranteed under Article III of our national Constitution.

The United States officers are bound by their own United States Code Title 18 and Title 28 presented herein, as proven by their public oaths of office and by delegation of authority.

18 U.S.C. §§ 5, 8, and 7 explain the fact the United States is restricted to territorial geographical limits which relates only to ceded land. It does not mean all of the geographical land of the several States in the continental United States of America. Section 11 defines the term "foreign government" with limited exceptions.

18 U.S.C. § 112 [c] relates to section 1116 [b] at [2] says "Foreign government" means the government of a foreign country, irrespective of recognition by the United States. MCA 1-1-107 identifies the country of Montana as Common Law. §112 [c] lists a foreign official and under [a] is described a ten year jail term for anyone using arms against our foreign government.

In the footnotes of § 112 under heading "Memorandum in Law" Congressional Findings and Declaration of Policy, at Section 2 of Pub. L. 92-539 provided that:

"The Congress recognizes that from the beginning of our history as a nation, the police power to investigate, prosecute, and punish common crimes such as murder, kidnapping, and assault has resided in the several States, and that such power should remain with the States."

Cross References of the above refer to 28 U.S.C. § 1251. At § 1251[a] is found both original and exclusive jurisdiction in our one supreme Court. Under Historical and Revision Notes is quoted in part "Said section 341 provided that the Supreme Court should have original jurisdiction of controversies between a State and citizens of other States or aliens, whereas the 11th Amendment prohibits an action in any Federal Court against a State by citizens of another State or aliens.

Under these same footnotes is listed Rules of the Supreme Court procedure in original actions, see Rule 17, Appendix to this Title. Rule 17 under Rules of the Supreme Court Part II OTHER JURISDICTION at Rule 17.1 says "This Rule applies only to an action within the Court's original jurisdiction under Article II of the Constitution of the United States. See also 28 U.S.C. § 1251 and the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States." And at Rule 17.6 is quotes, "A summons issuing our of this Court in our original action shall be served on the defendant 60 days before the return day set out therein. If the defendant does not respond by the return day, the plaintiff may proceed ex parte." And Rule 17.7 is quoted "Process against a State issued from the Court in an original action shall be served on both Governor and the Attorney general of that state."

The cross references say "Issues of fact in Supreme Court, trial by jury, see section 1872 of this title." U.S.C. Title 28, section 1872 is quoted "In all original sections at law in the Supreme Court against citizens of the United States, issues of fact shall be tried by a jury."

For matters concerning the voir dire of jurymen certain relevant aspects of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1861 through 1878 are now presented. For those who have eyes to see read on, For those who have ears to hear listen up! 28 U.S.C. § 1861 declares the policy describing litigants in Federal courts. Quotes in part only "trial by jury shall have the right to grand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross section of the community in the district or Division where in the court convenes. It is further the policy of the United States that all citizens shall have the opportunity to be considered for service on grand and petit juries in the district courts of the United States, and shall have an obligation to serve as jurors when summoned for that purpose. Under Historical and Revision Notes is quoted, "The last paragraph is added to exclude jurors incompetent to serve as jurors in State courts."

For those who cannot sit on the jury see 28 U.S.C. § 1863[b][g][c] quoted in part only, "[G] Specify that the following persons are barred from jury service on the ground that they are exempt: [C] public officers in the executive, legislative, or judicial branches of the United States, or of any State, the District of Columbia, any territory or possession of the United States, or any subdivision of a State, the District of Columbia, or such, territory or possession, who are actively engaged in the performance of official duties."

The plan for random jury selection is covered by 28 U.S.C. § 1863 [b] [1] quoted in part, "Among other things, such plan shall -- [1] either establish a jury commission, or authorize the clerk of court, to manage the jury selection process. If the plans establishes a jury commission, the district court shall appoint one citizen to serve with the clerk of court as the jury commission: Provided, however, that the plan for the District of Columbia may establish a jury commission consisting of three citizens."

Under [2] of the above is quoted in part, "[2] specify whether the names of prospective jurors shall be selected from the voter registration lists or the actual voters of the political subdivisions within the district or division. The plan shall prescribe some other source or sources of names in addition to voter lists to foster the policy and protect the rights secured by sections 1861 and 1862 of this title."

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1869 is found definitions at "[a] and any other person authorized by the court to assist the clerk in the performance of functions under this chapter," and under "[c] or, in the case of a State or political subdivision thereof that does not require registration as a prerequisite to voting, other official lists of persons qualified to vote in such election.:

Under the same section at "[c] division" shall mean: [1] one or more statutory divisions of a judicial district; or [2] in statutory divisions that contain more than one place of holding court, or in judicial districts where there are no statutory divisions, such counties, parishes, or similar political subdivisions surrounding the places where court is held as the district court plan shall determine: Provided, That each county, parish, or similar political subdivision shall be included in some such division."

Under same section 1869 at "[ ] "public officer" shall mean a person who is either elected to public office or w ho is directly appointed by a person elected to public office;"

The newest revelation is found at 28 U.S.C. § 1878 by heading Optional use of one step summoning and qualification procedure. Quoted in pertinent part, "However, no challenge under section 1867 of this title shall lie solely on the basis that a jury was selected in accordance with a one-step summoning and qualification procedure authorized by this section." The footnotes explain the above as 1992-Pub.L. 102-572 substituted "Optional" for "Experimental" and, "[a] The Juridical Conference of the United States is hereby authorized to develop and conduct an experiment in which jurors in a limited number of United States district courts shall be qualified and summoned in a single procedure otherwise provided for by this chapter. The Judicial Conference shall designate the district courts to participate in this experiment, but in no event shall the number of courts participating exceed ten."

A footnote for § 1866 explains the reason and purpose of 1949 Act. "This section amends section 1866 of title 28 U.S.C. by restoring provision of original law that special juries be impaneled in accordance with laws of the respective States."

In keeping with compliance by Magna Charta ch. 39 trial by jury under supreme law of the land the jury men must be peers. 28 U.S.C. § 1867 explains this concept at "[a] In criminal cases, before the voir dire examination begins, or within seven days after the defendant discovered or could have discovered, by the exercise of diligence, the grounds therefore, whichever is earlier, the defendant may move to dismiss the indictment or stay the proceedings against him on the ground of substantial failure to comply with the provisions of this title in selecting grand or petit juries." [b] Is the same as above for the Attorney General of the United States. This above provision is in harmony and compliance with Article V, Section 26 of our organic Constitution of Montana.

The provisions for dismissal are found in [d] same section 1867. Quoted in total, "[d] Upon motion filed under subsection [a], [b], or [c] of this section, containing a sworn statement of facts which, if true, would constitute a substantial failure to comply with the provisions of this title, the moving party shall be entitled to present in support of such motion the testimony of the jury commission or clerk, if available, any relevant records and papers not public or otherwise available used by the jury commissioner or clerk, and any other relevant evidence. If the court determines that there has been a substantial failure to comply with the provisions of this title in selecting the grand jury, the court shall stay the proceedings pending the selection of a grand jury in conformity with this title or dismiss the indictments, whichever is appropriate. If the court determines that there has been a substantial failure to comply with the provisions of this title in selecting the petite jury, the court shall stay the proceedings pending the selection of a petit jury in conformity with this title." "[c] The procedures prescribed by this section shall be the exclusive means by which a person accused of a Federal crime, the Attorney General of the United States or a party in a civil case may challenge any jury on the ground that such jury was not selected in conformity with the provisions of this title."

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1359 is presented the fact a district court shall not have jurisdiction of a civil action concerning foreign bills of exchange. The footnotes explain the Federal court cannot gain jurisdiction under diversity of citizenship.

The next series of 28 U.S.C. sections proves our supreme Court in our national venue as opposed to the other jurisdiction United States.

28 U.S.C. § 609 is quoted "The authority of the courts to appoint their own administrative or clerical personnel shall not be limited by any provisions of this chapter. Section 608 provides for our Seal.

28 U.S.C. § 456 [f] relates to section 374 of this title. The official station for a retired judge is where he maintains his place of abode. Our justices' oath of office is substantially different from the Federal judges who keep their oaths of office on record by Federal form 61. Our oath is found at 28 U.S.C. § 453.

To prove our justices' are under Article III judicial branch of government we find evidence in 28 U.S.C. § 461 [b] quoted, "Subsection [a] shall not apply to the extent it would reduce the salary of any individual whose compensation may not, under Section 1 of Article III of the Constitution of the United States, be diminished during such individual's continuance in office."

28 U.S.C. § 593 explains who is a independent prosecutor under our division of the Court. Under [2] is quoted in part, "The division of the court may not appoint as an independent counsel any person who holds any office of profit or trust under the United States." This is in compliance with the national prohibition against titles of nobility.

28 U.S.C. § 594 is Authority and duties of an independent counsel. Quoted in part, "Such investigative and prosecutorial functions and powers shall include ----

[1] conducting proceedings before grand juries and other investigations;

[2] participating in court proceedings and engaging in any litigation; including civil and criminal matters, that such independent counsel considers necessary;

[4] reviewing all documentary evidence available from any sources;

[9] initiating and conducting prosecutions in any court of competent jurisdiction, framing and signing indictments, filing information, and handling all aspects of the case, in the name of the United States.

28 U.S.C. § 331 in Judicial Conference of the United States. Quoted in part, "Special sessions of the Conference may be called by the Chief Justice at such times and places as he may designate." "The Conference or the standing committee may hold hearings, take sworn testimony, issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum, and make necessary and appropriate orders in the exercise of its authority." This standing committee can then order the United States officers to obey their commands.

28 U.S.C. § 372 [cc][1] allows for any one to file a complaint on a justice, judge or magistrate or it can be filed by the circuit justice himself. Said justice can take corrective action in the form of change of venue now more commonly called recusal for cause. The Judicial Conference of the United States can then move for impeachment if a judge continues to perjure his public oath of office. Then reference back to § 331 standing committee which is our one supreme Court original, exclusive jurisdiction.

28 U.S.C. § 136 Chief judges @ [a][1][c] quoted "have not served previously as chief judge." Historical and Revision Notes quoted "Subsection [c] is from the provisio in the second paragraph of section 375 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 Ed. which applied only in cases of appointment of court officers. Here it is made applicable to all district judges."

28 U.S.C. § 294 explains assignment of retired Justices. There must be a roster as found in [d] quoted in part, "Such designation and assignments to a court of appeals or district court shall be made upon the presentation of a certificate of necessity by the chief judge or circuit justice of the circuit wherein the need arises and to any other court of the United States upon the presentation of a certificate of necessity by the chief judge of such court. No such designation or assignment shall be made to the Supreme Court.

[e] No retired justice or judge shall perform judicial duties except when designated and assigned."

Amendments

Quoted in pertinent part, ", while retaining their commissions, rather than merely to those who ask to be placed on the Chief Justice's roster, to lodge solely in the chief judge and judicial council of the circuit concerned the intracircuit assignment power, and in the Chief Justice the power to assign retired judges beyond their circuits or special courts."

28 U.S.C. § 295 presents the conditions upon assignment and designation in our one supreme Court followed by section 296 which explains the judicial powers of our designated justices'. To prove the "division" see the pertinent § 296 quote, "Such justice or judge shall have all the powers of a judge of the court, circuit or district to which he is designated and assigned, except the power to appoint any person to a statutory position or to designate permanently a depository of funds or a newspaper for publication of legal notices."

28 U.S.C. § 293 titled Judges of the Court of International Trade. Quote "[a] The Chief Justice of the United States may designate and assign temporarily a judge of the Court of International Trade to perform judicial duties in any circuit, either in a court of appeals or district court, upon presentation of a certificate of necessity by the chief judge or circuit justice of the circuit in which the need arises."

"This section transfers from the President to the Chief Justice of the United States the authority to designate and assign which is in conformity with sections 209 and 292 of this title."

"The words 'he is willing to undertake' were added to make clear that such service is voluntary." this is in harmony with Magna Charta ch. 30 and Constitution of Montana Article III, section 6.

Amendments

9182 - Pub.L. 97-164, § 110[b], substituted "the Court of International Trade" for "other courts" in section catchline.

28 U.S.C. § 253 is quoted in part, "[a] the chief judge of the Court of International Trade, with the approval of the court, shall supervise the fiscal affairs and clerical force of the court. [b] The chief judge shall promulgate the dockets. [c] The chief judge, under rules of the court, may designate any judge or judges of the court to try any case and, when the circumstances so warrant, reassign the case to another judge or judges."

28 U.S.C. § 254. Single-judge trials. Quoted "Except as otherwise provided in section 255 of this title, the judicial power of the Court of International Trade with respect to any action, suit or proceeding shall be exercised by a single judge, who may preside alone and hold a regular or special session of court at the same time other sessions are held by other judges."

1949 Act

"This amendment clarifies section 254 of title 28, U.S.C., by restoring language of the original law."

Amendments

1970 Pub.L. 91-271 substituted in section catchline "Single-judge trials" for "Divisions; power and assignments" ----.

28 U.S.C. § 255 allows for three judge trials for reasons of Constitutionality of Acts of Congress, executive orders.

28 U.S.C. § 256 in pertinent part, "[b] Upon application of a party or upon his own initiative, and upon a showing that the interests of economy, efficiency, and justice will be served, the chief judge may issue an order authorizing a judge of the court to preside in an evidentiary hearing in a foreign country whose laws do not prohibit such a hearing."

Amendments

1980-Pub.L. 96-417 redesignated the Customs Court as the Court of International Trade.

28 U.S.C. § 372 is a provision for our standing committee of justices to remove any judges who are holding an office of profit or trust within the United States by reason of affidavit of bias under conflict of interest. This section provides for impeachment proceedings against the infidels. Our standing committee under 28 U.S.C. § 331 is our one supreme Court.

28 U.S.C. § 374 is quoted in part, "The place where a retired judge maintains the actual abode in which he customarily lives shall be deemed to be his official station for the purposes of Section 456 of this Title."

In 28 U.S.C. § 3505 concerning foreign records is quoted in part, "[2] 'foreign certification' means a written declaration made and signed in a foreign country by the custodian of a foreign record of regularly conducted activity or another qualified person that, if falsely made, would subject the maker to criminal penalty under the laws of that country; and"

Found in the next section 3506 is service of papers in opposition to United States for criminal evidence quoted in part, "[c] As used in this section, the term 'official request' means a letter rogatory, a request under a treaty or convention, or any other request for evidence made by a court of the United States or an authority of the United States having criminal law enforcement responsibility, to a court or other authority of a foreign country."

All the presentments in this Memorandum in law are to be freely entered into any Court as exculpatory evidence by the United States own Rule of Evidence 44.1 under Judicial Notice of Foreign Law certified by our notary as found in their own Rule of Evidence 902.3 [A] [B] 8 and 9 to satisfy any presumptions under their Rules of Evidence 301 and 302. We will invoke State Privilege as found in their Rule of Evidence 501 supported by their own Miscellaneous Rule 1101.

Under their title 28 Supreme Court Rules, "other jurisdiction" we invoke Rule 17.1, exclusive jurisdiction further supported by Rule 17.6, whereby the defendant must answer within 60 days or we move ex parte against them with our law and evidence.

This Memorandum in law will support all our writs, pleadings, presentments of any manner whatsoever as being true, correct and certain; and James 5:12 and Matthew 5:33-37.

Teste meipso this ______ day of the seventh month in the year of our Redeemer Imanuel, nineteen hundred ninety six, Anno Domini.

*** [Editor - names are not included]

*********************************

CERTIFIED QUESTION

In the district court of the united States of America sitting with the power of a national circuit Court in and for Garfield county, Justus township, in and for Garfield county, Yellowstone county, country of Montana, united States of America

Montana ex ref., Ralph Edwin          )   Common Law venue
Daniel E., Peterson, Richard Emmett   )   original, exclusive
Emmett Bryan, William Stanton,,       )   jurisdiction
Edwin Fred, Casey Martin,             )
Russell Dean, Dale Martin,            )   docket Number
Casey Veldhuizen, Steve Hance,        )   CL-0096-JT-07-13
James Hance, John Hance,              )   CL-0096-JT-03
Rodney Owen, LeRoy Michael            )
Ebert Stanton, e al., Justices"       )  "certified question"
)
vs.                             )   by:  Quoram of Justices
)
Janet Reno,                           )
United States (a federal corporation  )   Article III judicial power
Sherry Scheel Matteucci,              )
James E. Seykora,                     )   via "standing committee"
George Z. Toscas, Mark Banner,        )
Tim Cavan, Keith Haynes,              )
Tommie R. Canady, Richard W. Anderson,)
James M. Burns, Robert Holter,        )   Case No. CR-95-51-BLG
Jane & John Doe one through one       )
thousand                              )   CR-95-117-BLG
Defendants
by:  special proceeding Affidavit

I, LeRoy Michael chief Justice in original jurisdiction hereby attest and acknowledge under our one supreme Court Seal by Courts' appointive power unaffected this Common Law writ of certiorari through "certified question" presented of necessity by reason of unlawful detainer in Yellowstone County Detention Facility, 3165 King Ave. East, Billings, Montana state.

Judicial Authority

Article III judicial power, national Constitution Supreme Court Rules "other jurisdiction" in 28 USC. 17.1., 17.6., 17.7., 19.2., 19.3., 20.1., 20.2., 20.3., 20.6., 22.1., 22.2., 22.3., 22.5., 22.6., 23.1., 23.2., 23.3., 23.4., 26.7., 29.2., 29.5., 36.1., 36.2., 36.3., 36.4., 37.1., 37.3., 38.1., 39.2., 39.3., 39.4., 39.5., 39.7., 41., 47.

Related United States Codes Title 28

Chapter 97 - Where applicable

Chapter 95 - Exclusive jurisdiction

Chapter 15 - Quoad hoc committee

Chapter 23 - "Early Implementation District Courts"

Section 503 - Attorney General - civil action - § 2284

Section 2284 - Congressional Mandate - three justice panel

Section 604 - [a] [2] [3] [6] [24] [d] [3] [c]

Section 604 - [c] [f] - publish in Federal Register

Section 1784 - [a] [b] [c] [d] $100,000.00 contempt

Supplemental United States Codes

18 U.S.C. §§ 7, 5, 11, 112, 3505, 3506.

28 U.S.C. §§ 136 [a] [3] [A] - Seven year term; 138 no formal terms; 137 division of business; 141 special sessions, places; 144 Bias;

Chapter 11 - Court of International Trade § 255

Chapter 13 - Other Courts § 291 in the public interest

§ 293 [a]; - Voluntary service

§ 294 - Voluntary service

§ 331 - Original, exclusive jurisdiction in the several States;

28 U.S.C. § 49 - Creates our division of the Courts;

§ 286 - Appointments are Common Law -- not statutory;

§ 332 - Public notice by our Judicial Council

§ 333 - Court of quarter sessions - Common Law;

§ 335 - Consular Courts - exclusive jurisdiction;

§ 372 - Bias of corporation commissioners - certified complaint by chief Justice LeRoy Michael;

§ 373 [c] [9] [A] subpoena power; quo warranto;

§ 374 - Venue at Common law;

Chapter 21 - General provisions - Courts;

§ 452 - Our Courts' -- always open;

§ 453 - Common Law oath;

§ 455 - See Federal Form 61 - dual oath;

§ 462 - Our Courts in Common Law venue;

§ 519 - Independent prosecutors;

§ 528 - Conflict of interest - U.S. Attorney General;

§ 593 - Duties of division of the Court;

§ 594 - Special investigation -- foreign country;

§ 604 - Duties of chief Justice;

§ 612 - Special Fund - Treasury fees taxed as costs;

Chapter 42 - Recognition of our division of the Courts;

Chapter 43 - Common Law special appointments;

§ 671 - Supreme Court clerk, paid by fees taxed as costs;

§ 671 - Reporter - paid by fees taxed as costs;

Chapter 49 - Common Law appointments;

§ 1251 - Original and exclusive jurisdiction;

§ 1253 - Direct appeals to King's Bench -- full bench;

§ 1254 - "Certified question," Constitutional question;

§ 1257 - Common Law review;

§§ 1330, 1331, 1332 - Division diversity;

§ 1406 - Cure of venue - division of Courts';

§ 1631 - Transfer to Common Law venue;

§ 1691 - Our one supreme Court Seal;

§ 1738 - Full faith and credit clause;

§ 1740 - Country of Montana;

§ 1740 - Consular Courts' docket;

§ 1743 - Demand on Post Master, G.A.O.;

§ 1746 - Two separate jurisdictions;

Chapter 117 - Letter Rogatory - full faith and credit;

Chapter 121 - Jurymen of peers - Venue;

Chapter 123 - Ch. 40 Magna Charta;

Chapter 125 - Common Law warrant of attachment;

Chapter 129 - Special deposit Rule 67.1 - peace bond; special supreme Court rules, oral testimony;

§ 2243 - Three day return on a habeas corpus;

Constitution of Montana

Article V, sec. 26 - 1889 original;

National Constitution Article I, sec. 6, clause 2.

Cause of Action

Our Justices' in our foreign country of Montana have been aggrieved and damaged by actions of Attorney General of the United States on grounds said Attorney General Janet Reno having been appointed and continuing in office repugnant to the Constitution for these united States of America as guaranteed by our protection under Article I, sec. 6, clause 2.

Remedy

Upon failure of the Attorney General Janet Reno to make timely answer to this quo warranto declaratory judgment will be entered by our three justice panel based upon our American national special character in our foreign jurisdiction relative to United States.

The declaratory judgment will then become our basis in law for our habeas corpus with three day return in our one supreme Court.

Damages against our Justices' are in excess of one hundred million current credit money dollars.

This Affidavit is true, correct and certain; and, "But before all, my brethren, do not swear, neither by the heavens, nor by the earth, nor any other kind of oath; but let your yes be yes; and your no, no; so that you may not fall under a sentence."

teste meipso this tenth day of the seventh month, nineteen hundred ninety six, Anno Dominio.

LeRoy Michael chief Justice
Richard Emmett                  Ralph Edwin
Daniel E., Petersen             Rodney Owen
Russell Dean                    Dale Martin
Emmett Bryan	                  Edwin Fred
Randall Parsons                 Keven Entzel
Steve Hance

www.apfn.org/apfn/montana.htm