Memorandum of Law

The Validity of Federal Indictments

United States district court for Arizonaa
Any indictment charges that certain persons have committed a crime or crimes at or
within a certain place. Federal indictments must be signed, so that the accused can
determine if the requirements of the Constitution and the Amendments to the Constitution
have been met. The indictment under examination has not been signed and for that
reason is not a copy of a true bill of indictment. For the purposes of this memorandum, a
valid true bill will be assumed.
There can be no valid federal indictments because the United tates district court districts
ascertained by law are comprised of the federal territory in the counties on !anuary ",
"#$% and the county registrars supply the names of all voters and electors to federal &ury
commissioners.
The indictment brought in this case is defective because the grand &ury that brought it was
improperly constituted. 'ost if not all of the grand &urors have never resided in the
&udicial district. This court(s &udicial district is comprised of the federal territories in
)ila, 'ohave, 'aricopa, *inal, *ima and Cochise counties, Ari+ona and all the federal
territory in those counties. ,nly the registered voters of that federal territory are
qualified to be grand and petit &urors, but the county voter registrars of those counties
have supplied the names of all registered voters to this federal district court(s &ury
commissioner. ,nly persons who qualify to act as grand and petit &urors are those
persons who are citi+ens of the United tates and residents of the federal &udicial district
for one year. A )rand &ury without a sufficient number of qualified members is invalid.
The districts and divisions of the United tates district courts are comprised of the federal
territory within the counties on !anuary ", "#$%. The district court &udges, court cler-s
and &ury commissioners should have been aware of the law, since it has been the law
since "./#.
ection "01 Title 2/ U..C. is being incorrectly read and interpreted to create a federal
&udicial district that includes all the territory in )ila, 'ohave, 'aricopa, *inal, *ima and
Cochise county, Ari+ona. The county voter registrars of those counties supply the &ury
officers of the United tates district courts with unqualified federal &urors. 3egistrars do
not remove the names of unqualified state voters before submitting the names of potential
&urors to federal &ury officers and they are not told to do so by federal &ury officials. The
court(s &ury selection plan does not accurately describe the court(s &udicial district.
4gnorance of the law is not an excuse, but ignorance of the law is the basis of the
constitution of the districts and divisions that comprise the United tates district courts.
The absence of section number, title, label or catchline appended to first sentence in
Chapter % of Title 2/ U..C. doesn(t mean that a whole sentence of Title 2/ U..C. can
be completely ignored, but this is exactly what the federal government does when it
refuses to ac-nowledge the sentence5 6ections /"7"1" of this chapter show the territorial
composition of districts and divisions by counties as of !anuary ", "#$%.8
The universal belief that the United tates district courts in all the states of the Union are
ordained and established pursuant to Article 444 of the Constitution has no basis in law.
The statement of that fact should be sufficient to invalidate any argument that all federal
courts are ordained and established pursuant to Article 444, but the idea of a national
federal government is held together by the perceived power of the federal courts that now
propels it by inertia. United tates district court &udges will continue to ma-e the claim
that they are Article 444 without a shred of evidence to support the claim, because they
have to, not because it(s true. ince no one has been able to locate any specific
invocation of Article 444 to create a single &udicial court before "#%#, other parts of the
government have begun to fabricate evidence to prove that Article 444 courts really exist
in the several states.
The complete absence of law creating Article 444 court pursuant to Article 444 has pushed
the ,ffice of the Federal 3egister and the 9ational Archives and 3ecords Administration
of the federal government to print a blatant fabrication in one of the federal government(s
premier publications. 4n comparing the territorial courts established pursuant to Article
4:, ection 1, the U.. )overnment 'anual has claimed for many years that the United
tates district court for *uerto 3ico, 6by contrast, is established under Article 444, is
classified li-e other ;district courts,( and is called a ;court of the United tates( <Title 2/
U..C. $%"=.8 9ot only is there no law ordaining and establishing such a court in *uerto
3ico, a decision of the United tates upreme Court states flatly that before such a court
can exist in *uerto 3ico that island nation must be incorporated into the Union. Balzac v.
People of Porto Rico, 2%/ U.. 2#/ <"#22=. As Congress has neither ordained and
established such a court nor incorporated *uerto 3ico into the Union, the United tates
district court in *uerto 3ico remains an Article 4:, ection 1 territorial court and *uerto
3ico is still not a state of the Union.
The United tates district courts preceding Title 2/ U..C. ection ""#. *uerto 3ico and
those following are also Article 4:, ection 1 courts. These courts and the courts that
have preceded them have never possess any &udicial power of the United tates >of
America?. ,n the date of enactment of the !udiciary Act of "./#, eptember 2$, "./#,
eleven of the thirteen original states had ratified the Constitution. 4n section 2 of the
!udiciary Act of "./# provision was made for thirteen districts named after the eleven
ratifying states and 'aine and @entuc-y. After 9orth Carolina ratified the Constitution
on 9ovember 2", "./# there was effort made to invo-e Article 444 in the creation of a
district court for that state and the same is true for our smallest state, 3hode 4sland, when
it ratified on 'ay 2#, ".#0. There is no record of any attempt by Congress to create an
Article 444 court in any state of the Union until "#%#, the admission of Aawaii.
All federal law creating a &udiciary and &udicial procedure has consistently treated the
United tates district courts in the states of the Union as territorial courts created pursuant
to authority vested in Congress by Article 4:, ection 1 of the Constitution. The
sentence5 6ections /"7"1" of this chapter show the territorial composition of districts
and divisions by counties as of !anuary ", "#$%,8 was added to Title 2/ U..C. as a
Aistorical and 3evision 9ote in order to conform Title 2/ U..C. to existing law. That
sentence, which now appears at the beginning of Chapter % ma-es the law clear, provided
that it is considered. The history of this country and the law is that sentence is now
completely ignored. Although the sentence that explains that the territorial composition
of the districts and divisions of the United tates district courts is now ignored, such
ignorance does not change the territorial composition of the United tates district courts.
The federal territorial composition of the United tates district courts was not changed
when Congress enacted Title 2/ as positive law by ection " of the act !une 2%, "#$/,ch.
B$B, B2 tat. /B#, which provided in part5 6That title 2/ of the United tates Code,
entitled ;!udicial Code and !udiciary( is hereby revised, codified, and enacted into law,
and may be cited as ;Title 2/, United tates Code, sectionCCCCC.(8 Aowever, that
enactment did not completely reflect existing law, so Congress made provision in another
part of the act, ection 2<b= that5 6The provisions of Title 2/, !udiciary and !udicial
*rocedure, of the United tates Code, set out in section " of this Act, with respect to the
organi+ation of each of the several courts therein provided for and of the Administrative
,ffice of the United tates Courts, shall be construed as continuations of existing lawD8

ection "0% Title 2/ U..C. is being incorrectly read and interpreted to create a federal
&udicial district that includes all the territory in )ila, 'ohave, 'aricopa, *inal, *ima and
Cochise counties, Ari+ona. The county voter registrars of those counties supply the &ury
officers of the United tates district courts with unqualified federal &urors.
The ixth Amendment of the United tates Constitution requires that 6in all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the riht to a speedy and pu!lic trial, !y an
impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall ha"e !een
committed# which district shall ha"e !een pre"iously ascertained !y law$% The
&udicial district that conforms to the requirements of the ixth Amendment is a district
that is comprised of the federal territory within the districts and divisions in the named
counties. A district ascertained by uninformed county registrars, federal court cler-s and
&ury commissioners does not satisfy the ixth Amendment.
Title 2/ U..C. <Exhibit A= was enacted into law on !une 2%, "#$/, ch. B$B, F ", B2 tat.
/B#. Gefore it could be prepared for publication, it had to be revised by the predecessor
to the present Aouse of 3epresentatives ,ffice of the Haw 3evision Counsel so it could
be considered positive law.
SUMMA&'
Today the territorial composition of every district and division of every United tates
district court in every state of the Union is believed to be all the territory of the counties
that are listed in ections /"7 "1" of Chapter % of Title 2/ U..C. That territorial
composition is wrong because of the failure to account for and consider the sentence that
immediately follows ections /"7"1". The character of territory common to the list of
places found in ections /"7"1" on !anuary ", "#$% is determinative of the territory that
comprises the districts and divisions of all the United tates district courts. The territory
that is common to all those places on !anuary ", "#$% is federal territory and because
such territory cannot receive a grant of Article 444 &udicial power the federal courts there
must be and are territorial federal courts.
The printed text of Title 2/ U..C. found in volume "B of U..C. 2000 ed. is legal
evidence of the laws contained therein and recourse to the numerous volumes of the
United tates tatutes at Harge is no longer necessary. 4t is axiomatic that all American
laws must be written in the English language. The section numbers and catchlines
Attention must be given to every sentence contained in the code so that it can be given it
full weight and value.
Title () *udiciary and *udicial +rocedure United States ,ode
CAA*TE3 % 7 I4T34CT C,U3T
ec.
/". Alabama.
/"A. Alas-a.
/2. Ari+ona.
/1. Ar-ansas.
/$. California.
/%. Colorado.
/B. Connecticut.
/.. Ielaware.
//. Iistrict of Columbia.
/#. Florida.
#0. )eorgia.
#". Aawaii.
#2. 4daho.
#1. 4llinois.
#$. 4ndiana.
#%. 4owa.
#B. @ansas.
#.. @entuc-y.
#/. Houisiana.
##. 'aine.
"00. 'aryland.
"0". 'assachusetts.
"02. 'ichigan.
"01. 'innesota.
"0$. 'ississippi.
"0%. 'issouri.
"0B. 'ontana.
"0.. 9ebras-a.
"0/. 9evada.
"0#. 9ew Aampshire.
""0. 9ew !ersey.
""". 9ew 'exico.
""2. 9ew Jor-.
""1. 9orth Carolina.
""$. 9orth Ia-ota.
""%. ,hio.
""B. ,-lahoma.
"".. ,regon.
""/. *ennsylvania.
""#. *uerto 3ico.
"20. 3hode 4sland.
"2". outh Carolina.
"22. outh Ia-ota.
"21. Tennessee.
"2$. Texas.
"2%. Utah.
"2B. :ermont.
"2.. :irginia.
"2/. Kashington.
"2#. Kest :irginia.
"10. Kisconsin.
"1". Kyoming.
"12. Creation and composition of district courts.
"11. Appointment and number of district &udges.
"1$. Tenure and residence of district &udges.
"1%. alaries of district &udges.
"1B. Chief &udgesL precedence of district &udges.
"1.. Iivision of business among district &udges.
"1/. Terms abolished.
"1#. Times for holding regular sessions.
"$0. Ad&ournment.
"$". pecial sessionsL placesL notice.
<"$2. 3epealed.=
"$1. :acant &udgeship as affecting proceedings.
"$$. Gias or pre&udice of &udge.
A4T,34CAH A9I 3E:44,9 9,TE
ections /"7"1" of this chapter show the territorial composition
of districts and divisions by counties as of !anuary ", "#$%. All
references to dates were omitted as unnecessary.
The sentence that follows the list of geographical names of the sections /" through "1"
begins what ought to be the correct legal interpretation of Chapter % of Title 2/ U..C. 4t
states very simply that ections /"7"1" 6show8 the territorial composition of the districts
and divisions that follow. The sentence shows that on !anuary ", "#$% Alas-a and
Aawaii were territories, the Iistrict of Columbia was the seat of government, and *uerto
3ico was a possession. ,n !anuary ", "#$% in all of the territory of Alas-a and Aawaii
there was not one square foot of soil that was not federal. ,n that same day all of *uerto
3ico was territory of the United tates and remains so today.
The correct territorial composition of the districts and divisions of ections /"7"1" is the
federal territory on !anuary ", "#$%. This must be the territorial composition of the
districts and divisions because that lead sentence was added so that Title 2/ would
conform to United tates tatute Haw. ,mission of the very sentence that brings the act
of !une 2%, "#$/ in conformity with statute law defeats the revision, codification and
enactment of Title 2/ U..C. into positive law.
The proper inclusion, in Chapter %, of the sentence5 6ections /"7"1" of this chapter
show the territorial composition of districts and divisions by counties as of !anuary ",
"#$%,8 confirms the correctness of the designation United tates district courts for the
federal territory in the districts and divisions. Balzac v. People of Porto Rico, 2%/ U..
2#/ <"#22=L Mookini v. United States, 101 U.. 20" <"#1/=.