IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
)
Officers of the United States of America )
)
Case No. CR‑99‑157‑L
vs.
) Indictment and conviction Under
)
18 U.S.C. � 922 (o)
John Lee Haney )
)
)
This court is hereby petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under Title 28 Section 2241 of the U.S. code. There is no constitutional authority giving jurisdiction of a state to federal courts.
I am in my own custody, that of Brian M. Detamore of the U.S. probation office, and every hired enforcer of unconstitutional law, by color of the authority of the United States.
I am in custody for an act done or omitted in defiance of an unconstitutional Act of Congress.
I am in custody in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States. I am illegally attainted.
=========================
To Tim Leonard, United States District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma.
Dear Mr. Tim Leonard:
A distinction has been made between a form of government that is supposed to be ours, in which officers are under the law, and a police state, where officers are the law. In 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for the court in Marbury v. Madison, wrote, "The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right." There is no "due process" to violate the law.
My right to keep arms has been denied, and infringed. I have been imprisoned without the Constitutional judgment of a jury, for an offence against a civil statute that is in violation of the plain meaning of the Constitution of the United States. My arms are stolen property, held under your order. It doesn't matter how much time Congress allows for an appeal. It is a new offense each day you pretend to be a judge, but do not give judgment. Each day my right is infringed. It might not be your offense; your orders are without jurisdiction., but let it be agreed between you and me, if you fail to object, knowing men who use force and violence will carry out your orders as if they were law, and as if they were constitutional, and as if you had authority to give such orders, you will be a principle in the crimes committed against me by both state and United States officers. You are a ministerial officer of the United States and therefore the Supreme Court of the United States shall have original jurisdiction of all cases affecting you, by Article III of the Constitution of the United States.
It is reported that on Monday, June 10, 2002, The Supreme Court passed up a chance to rule on the Bush administration's assertion that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to bear firearms. Actually the Second Amendment does not give the right. It merely commands that the pre-existing right be honored. Dred Scott, and U.S. v. Cruikshank are good cases in which the Supreme Court recognized this. Today, Tuesday June 10, 2003, I require that you answer the honest constitutional challenges you have not given judgment on, in case number CR-00157-001-L.
Writ of Habeas Corpus
I, John Lee Haney, one of the people, within the meaning of the written Constitution of the United States am under illegal restraint of my rights, and liberty within the Western District of Oklahoma. Although the orders of a United States District Judge are void, for lack of any kind of honest, constitutional jurisdiction within Oklahoma, hired state and federal gunmen, trained to kill, will no doubt go as far as killing me to enforce your illegal orders. If you, Mr. Tim Leonard, have authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus then invite me into your special maritime and territorial jurisdiction to give the judgment you have not yet given. My address is, John Haney, Rt. 5 Box 603, Duncan, Oklahoma zip code 73533. Phone number (580) 470-8051. Daytime work phone (405) 255-2395 If you do not have authority to issue such an order then say so. Do not attempt to end appellate process by suggesting I file under section 2255. Your orders are void for being illegal and without constitutional jurisdiction; They will be no more valid under 2255.
It is not a new writ that is the creation of Congress, which may be suspended for failure to go by rules or meet a deadline that I speak of, but the writ that shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it.
The law on this subject is Article I, Section 9, paragraph 2, of the Constitution of the United States.
"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." Article I, Section 9, paragraph 2, US Constitution
This is certainly the ruling law on the subject, as Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the United States declares,
"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 States, 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." Article VI, paragraph 2, US Constitution.
Granted, a United States District Judge might not qualify as one of the "Judges in Every State", referred to in paragraph two, but paragraph three of Article VI. Requires judicial officers of the United States, not merely to swear an oath, but to be bound by oath to support "this" Constitution, not a pretend "living constitution".
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and 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;" ... Article VI, paragraph 3, (in part) US Constitution
It's true, there are a number of reasons you may not exercise jurisdiction. The Constitution of the United States gives no jurisdiction of any kind, original or appellate to an inferior court of the United States, and inferior courts of the United States are the only kind of tribunals, or courts Congress is authorized, by the Constitution, to constitute, ordain, or establish. You have personally given the order to violate my right, which might require you to disqualify yourself to give judgment. You might have accepted a title of nobility and disqualified yourself, as a judicial officer of the United States, by the bill of attainder of the first thirteenth Amendment, if it really was ratified. If not, you have certainly disqualified yourself to hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, for having violated the bill of attainder of the Fourteenth Amendment. Or is Section 3, of the Fourteenth Amendment only to apply, expost facto, to those who had engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the constitution in the so-called, "Civil" war? If so, in that criminal police action, who was it that engaged in insurrection and rebellion against the Constitution? Who levied war against "them" within the meaning of Article III, Section 3, and who attempted to protect each of them from invasion as required by Article IV, Section 4?
You might believe your oaths are not binding for having recited an oath or prayer of "KOL NIDRE". Not being bound by oath to support the Constitution would leave you legally incompetent as a judicial officer. Whether or not you are actually bound would depend on the judgment, not of the god you swore to, but of the One who heard you.
Do I understand correctly that the basis for the prayer that nullifies oaths is scripture that forbids swearing oaths? If so, you should know, swearing a false oath, one has no intention of performing, is precisely the thing forbidden. Performing a ritual annually does not nullify oaths, it only makes the false swearing premeditated. Oaths that ones word is true are what is spoken against in scripture. Oaths to perform a duty are not forbidden. As it is written in Numbers 30: 1 & 2, "And Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes concerning the children of Israel, saying, This is the thing which the LORD hath commanded. If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth."
The Administrative office of the United States Courts informs me that an Honorable Tim Leonard took the oath of office prescribed by 28 U.S.C. �453 and 5 U.S.C. �3331, August 21, 1992. These are good, and constitutional oaths. You cannot be partial to officials of the United States or preserve and protect an unconstitutional government and perform these oaths. These lawful oaths cannot be nullified by contrary unconstitutional oaths. Review your own instructions on the effect of oaths.
But I don't ask you to exercise jurisdiction, I only ask you to exercise judicial power, in declaring the truth about the violations of law you have already committed. You said, in court, and on the record, you would judge the law. As Chief Justice Marshall of the US Supreme Court explained in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 178 (1803):
"So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution, or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law, the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty." As for which law governs the case, the court said, "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 well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
The full judicial power of the United States is vested in inferior courts of the United States by the same sentence that vests one Supreme Court with it. Congress was only authorized to make exceptions to, and regulate the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It was not constitutionally authorized, necessary, or proper for Congress to make exceptions to, or regulate the judicial power. That is vested directly in the courts, by the Constitution. How would there be a balance of power if congress held the judicial power too? Understand, judicial power, and jurisdiction are two separate things. Although jurisdiction is related to the cases and controversies the judicial power extends to, jurisdiction is delegated, by the Constitution, separate from judicial power, and only to the Supreme Court. If you are not vested with the judicial power of the United States, by Article III, Section I, of the US Constitution, please say so, and say why. Failure to give judgment is dereliction of duty, and an overt act which prevents appellate courts from giving anything but an illusion of judgment.
Even though no authorization is needed from Congress, for a judicial officer to exercise judicial power, Congress has given such authorization, I think. Title 28, Part I, Chapter 5, Section 132, seems to be the statute, which creates United States District Courts.
Sec. 132. - Creation and composition of district courts
(a) There shall be in each judicial district a district court which shall be a court of record known as the United States District Court for the district.
(b) Each district court shall consist of the district judge or judges for the district in regular active service. Justices or judges designated or assigned shall be competent to sit as judges of the court.
"Shall be competent to sit as judges of the court". Did Congress mean, only statutorily qualified, according to specified requirements, or do judges also have to be mentally and morally competent, and in possession of judicial power, to judge the law? The U.S. Supreme Court needed no authorization from congress to judge the law. They thought their oath and the Constitution sufficient authorization. If you are not competent to sit as a judge of the court please say so and state the reasons. Failure to do so leaves you impersonating a judicial officer of the United States.
Let there be no doubt, I, John Lee Haney, one of the people of Oklahoma, and of the United States did in truth, knowingly, willfully, and with premeditation keep, or possess, arms, in the nature of, machineguns, which I made myself. I did it without malice toward anyone, and without any feeling of guilt. I am, even now proud that I have served my country in defying treasonous color of law and doing time in prison, for the purpose of getting a court ruling on the Second Amendment. I have not committed a crime within the meaning of the Constitution. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant or a liar. Crime as now defined by State and U.S. statutes, or dictionaries is a new creation using an old label. It could have just as well been legislatively labeled as a banana. It would have been less misleading to say any offense for which there are legislated pains, penalties, and attainder is a banana. People would have realized that the other kind of banana still exists. Likewise the other kind of crime still exists, and is the only thing for which a person may be placed in involuntary servitude for. Or does the word "crime" used in the Thirteenth Amendment, mean an offense against a civil statute for which there are prescribed pains and penalties? If that is the case, say it is, so ignorance of the law may be corrected.
Ignorance of criminal law is inexcusable. This does not apply to unconstitutional statutes' they are not law. Nor does it rightly apply to unreasonable or vague statutes that might be in compliance with a constitution. It applies to common, common sense law, that men can know in their heart, without government terrorism. It must also apply to the supreme law of the land, which is published, and quite concise. Ignorance of the simple law one must be bound by oath to support can not be excused.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State", although it is true, requires nothing. The well regulated militia spoken of does not include state or federal troops. Nor does it include a contract army of soldiers for hire. But that too is irrelevant to the case before the court. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." That is the supreme law of our land. Although State and Federal courts have created dicta to the effect that only a right to keep weapons of a military character exists, I don't know of a proper precedent where weapons of a military character were involved. As current US Supreme Court Chief justice said, dissenting, in Secretary of State of Maryland v. Joseph H. Munson Co., Inc. No. 82-766, "through the "case or controversy" requirement of Art. III, all federal courts are restricted to the resolution of concrete disputes between the parties before them. Musings as to possible applications of a statute to third parties in hypothetical situations may be fitting for the classroom and the statehouse, but they are neither wise nor permissible in the courtroom." Yet musings as to possible applications of the Second Amendment to third parties in hypothetical situations is all there is from federal courts to guide you, if you are really ignorant of what "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means.
The holdings of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals are, besides being without jurisdiction, nothing but deception. They are only answering constitutional challenges to statutes, de-novo, and by color of authority they created themselves. There was no case involving a state controlled militia member, and an M-16, the only weapon carried by National Guardsmen, for the court to judge. There was no final decision of the court of original action on an M-16 kept by a Guardsman, to be reviewed. Nor was there a judgment on the application of the second Amendment in my case. "Defendant's prosecution pursuant to 18 U.S.C. �922(o) has not been shown to be unconstitutional." Is judgment of a debate, not a judgment of the law. Am I, John Lee Haney, one of the people, within the meaning of the Second Amendment? Are the two firearms I possessed, "arms", within the meaning of the Constitution? Is my right to keep and bear arms infringed by Congress or the BATF by direct taxation of my making my own arms or by restricting me to arms made before 1988? Is Congress or the president and his appointees delegated power, by the Constitution to regulate what people possess? Finding that I am guilty is nothing. I am indeed guilty of exercising the constitutional right of keeping arms. Precisely the kind used by soldiers. It doesn't matter that I am the militia, within the meaning of the Constitution, or that I am labeled by Congress as one of the unorganized militia. It only matters that I am one of the people, within the meaning of the written Constitution of the United States.
The Constitution of the United States including all its provisions is not the new kind of contract "criminal" law. It does not specify pains and penalties for knowing and willful violation of its requirements. Some commandments of the Constitution, the Second Amendment being one of them, are in themselves a mandamus. They are orders, not of men, but of the law itself. Pains and penalties for violations of constitutional law are to be the judgment of a jury. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. Do you recognize that these are requirements of the currently published Constitution of the United States?
Each of the orders given by you, Mr. Timothy D. Leonard, was given without constitutional jurisdiction, are illegal, and are a crime to enforce. They are unconstitutional in the sense that they violate the written Constitution of the United States, and they are unconstitutional in the sense that they are unwise and inconsistent with moral principles. The right to bear arms is a human right. It is the right to resist theft and murder. All human beings have this right no matter what they have done. When only crimes punishable by death were felonies, and only felons were attainted, all bills of attainder were outlawed. In England by 33 and 34 Vict., c. 23, wherein it was provided that henceforth no confession, verdict, inquest, conviction, or judgment of or for any treason or felony, or felo-de-se shall cause any attainder or corruption of blood or any forfeiture or escheat; In the United States, by Article I, Section 9, of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that, "No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed." And in each of the several United States by Article I, Section 10, of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that, No state shall ... pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
Is it constitutional to classify those who commit civil offenses as felons so legislated attainders may apply? It is impossible to bear arms without having them, so the right to keep arms exists as well. Groups of people, whether they call themselves gangs or government have no right to rob or murder an individual human being no matter how big or strong the group is. I think you are well aware of this, as I think you are well aware of the intent and purpose of the Second Amendment. You did not lie and say I did not have the right to keep arms. Failing to give judgment in the form of the truth, error, or even a lie leaves you derelict in your duty. Congress cannot relieve you of your constitutionally sworn duty to support and defend the Constitution by writing a statute which allows you to decline a case. You do not need an authorization from Congress to decline to exercise jurisdiction not given by the Constitution, and you cannot decline to exercise judicial power to support and defend the Constitution as you have sworn before God to do; against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Review your order of April 7, 2000 in case number CR-00157-001-L. See that it is a bill of pains penalties and attainder, and not the judgment of a jury. It is a judgment in a case of a violation of a civil statute that is in defiance of the U.S. Constitution. It cannot be a crime to possess what is rightfully mine. It cannot be a crime to keep arms. It cannot be a crime to not pay a direct tax on making a machinegun. Neither the indictment, nor the jury, nor the law, says it is a crime to possess untaxed machine guns. The grand jury found only that I did possess machineguns. The jury said I was guilty in relation to two particular firearms; Guilty of what? They did not say. The combinations of statutes say that a person who possesses machineguns without certain taxes, and government approval shall be subject to certain pains, penalties, and attainder. Even the Gun control act defines crime punishable by a year in prison in such a way as to remove the word "crime" from its meaning.
If you have the authority, order that my arms and all other property be returned to me immediately. And declare that I have been unconstitutionally imprisoned and attainted. America has been too long without law. The men who now command official armed force in this country see dropping bombs in the general area of reported bad leaders as due process of law. They see gassing and burning American men, women, and children as proper direct tax collection. Are Americans better than the Germans who voted Hitler into power? Will America fare better than Germany when Hitler disarmed the people.
If you remain derelict in your duty by failing to exercise judicial power, or declare your lack of authority in this case, it is likely the kind direct tax enforcements that occurred at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and Waco Texas will be repeated, with you as an accessory before the fact, if not a principle. Without judgment it is as if there is not law.
It is written in Isaiah 10: 1-3
Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed;
To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless!
And what will ye do in the day of visitation, and in the desolation which shall come from far? to whom will ye flee for help? and where will ye leave your glory?
It is also written in Psalms 37: 28-34
For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off.
The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever.
The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment.
The law of his God is in his heart; none of his steps shall slide.
The wicked watcheth the righteous, and seeketh to slay him.
The LORD will not leave him in his hand, nor condemn him when he is judged.
Wait on the LORD, and keep his way, and he shall exalt thee to inherit the land: when the wicked are cut off, thou shalt see it.
Will you now give judgment?
Sincerely, John L. Haney
Rt. 5, Box 603
Duncan, Oklahoma
Zip Code: 73533
There is an additional honest claim in my case. I had neither counsel nor attorney. William P. Earley was a puppet of the court. He would not raise the proper objections, nor would he give compelling arguments. His mouth was controlled by the court. He accepted the non judgments of the court without vigorous objection, or exception. He would not, and he said he could not file process in state courts which are the only courts that have original jurisdiction of all cases affecting the common people of Oklahoma. Title 80 Section 2 of the Oklahoma Statutes cannot give jurisdiction of the state to federal courts. It is contrary to the Tenth Amendment, and therefore void. Title 18 Section 3231 of the U.S. Code does not give any jurisdiction of a state to a United States District Court. The second clause of that statute says so.