USA v. Trump, et al. Document 392: Motion to File Amicus Brief

Florida Southern District Court
Case No. 9:23-cr-80101-AMC
Filed March 11, 2024

MOTION Leave to File Amicus Curiea Briefing of Motion to Challenge Grand Jury and to Dismiss Indictment(s) Pursuant to F.R. Crim.p. 6(b)(1) and 6(b)(2) by Non Party Responses due by 3/25/2024. (cds)

BackBack to USA v. Trump, et al.

Tags No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.

  Formatted Text Tab Overlap Raw Text Right End
Page 1 Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 392 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2024 Page 1 of
UNITED STATES DISIR ICT COURT
r
==H
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLOIUDAED BY- cpu
.
I
wES'rPXLM Dlvlslox '
-
UNITED STATES 0F AM ERICA
D.C.
.
:
-/1,)g 11 2222t
ANGjLAE.NOBLE
CLERu
J
I...
jSL
.
a
.
=.SD
-z
-...I
.S
ZT.
.
,
0CB
,
h'J'D'
. -uu
CA SE N O : 23-80101-CR-CM NON
M OTION TO CHA LLEN GE
GM ND JURY AND TO
VS
DISV SSINDICTM ENTIS)
D ON A LD J.TRU M P
PUR SU AN T TO
F,K CRIM .P.
/
)
6(b)(1)yklfll6(b)(2)
LEAVE TO FILEAM ICUS CURIEA BRIEFING OFA
M OTION TO CH A I,LEN GE GR AND JURY A N D TO D ISM ISS
INDICTMENTIS)PURSUANTT0 F.R.CX M .P.6(b)(1)AND 60942)
INTRODUCTtON:
COM ESNOW ,FRANK EDW IN PATE,REQUESTING LEAVE forthefollowingmotion to
be GRANTED. The FirstAm endm entand Suprem acy Clause supportsa citizensright dç...to petition
thegovernmentforaredressofgrievances''FirstAmendment;ArticleV1cl.3j.Therefore,PATE
respectfully enters this m otion requesting leave to file am icus briefing on the outlined motion to
challengetheGrand Jury andDismissthelndictmentts)asprovidedbyF.R.Crim.P.Rule6(b)(1)and
Rule6(b)(2)baseduponthefollowinggrotmds:
Asan initialmatter,thisCourtis Constitm ionally and statutorily established,pursuantto Artic.
lIIsec.2,c1.1andActsofCongress.Any and allactionstaken - by any federalcottrt- are limited by
Congressional Act's govem ing the functions of al1 crim inal process.Further,Article IIl provides
Judicial Pow er w hich - by w ay of stam tory grants - which lim its anv Plaintiffs accessibility to
judicialpowers.reliance'sand relief. And so, judicialaccessibility shallonly beforthepurposesof
obtaining redress- a repairto som e actual
Page 2 Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 392 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2024 Page 2 of
Injury incurred by Plaintiff; tllisisthe wholereason ofany ArticleI1lcour.
t.RedressoflegalInjury
causedbyadefendant.lnjurycaused-against-theUnitedStatesGovernment.
Rule 18 ofF.R.Crim.P.Rules,relies'on Article 111,sec.2 cl.3 by governing Constitutional
adherenceto venueprotectionl.Thisisrequiredfora1lGrand Jtlry tandTrialJurylfunctions.4n.'5thand
6*Amendmentprotectionsaddressthe snm e concem s. W ithoutrigid adherencetoArticle111,18 U SC
3041,and The BillofRightsprotections,then any Grand Jury isillegally drawn. To presentcriminally
.
charged allegations to a Jury (Grand/petit),the United States mustpresent a Rule 3 Complaint,
revealing an oflknsets)againstthe Government- orspecifically in thismatter,oneofit'sgoveming
agencies,withlegislativeauthority- which wasinjtlred bythealleged criminalconducts. Lacldngin
such concreteclaims,thePlaintif lacksGlstandinf', asrequired tmdertheU.S.Constitution,and the
Gtcase''ortGcontroversy''doctrine ofArticle111,sec.2,cl.1.
Gtstanding''
necessary to file an Article II1 authorized, crim inal lawsuit - is only
'
.
constitm ionally permissible when theplaintiffhasestablishedjusticiablehnrm,directly cpnnected to
criminally prohibited conducts.In other-words,acriminally prohibited tioflknse'',or- injuryinfact-.
W hen comm encing federalCriminalsuits,18 U.S.C.3041 is the GG atekeeper''.Congressionally,this
protectsthe uninform ed from exposureto overreach,by federalgovernm entox cials.Congress- under
Article 11Ilimitations- was/is granted the authodty to t&ordain and establish''the çGinferiorcourts''and
requirethatlegislative/constimtionallimitationsin the exercise ofArticle lI1and Articlelpowers, be
strictly adhered to. Such design by the fotm ders prevents usurpation's of Judicial and Legislative
authority, protecting againstseparation ofpowersviolations.And therefor: *'Federalcourts are courts
oflimitediurisdiction.''(Kokkonen.v.GuardianLifeIns.Co.ofAmerica,511U.S.375,377,
.114 S.Ct.
1673,128L.Ed.2d391(1994)).
Judicialpower shallonly be accessed upon a valid legalcomplatntclaiming that a....anv
offense against the United States-.'' (3041 opening Iinelpwas committed; and the defendant
Page 3 Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 392 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2024 Page 3 of
committed itwith criminalintent,(mensrea requirementSee:4thAmend.Guarantees). Laclcing such
claimts),theA/USA - in violation ofArticleIIIandArticle11limitations- tGranared lighf',into this
courtforum,resulting in a Fatally Flawed Indictmentts)VOID ofArticle l11authority. The United
States - by record - lacks the Gtstanding''necessary to bring suit againstDonald J.Tnzmp. ltwas
completely unlawfulfortheA/USA to bring criminalaccusationsagainstTRUM P,forconductwhich
the D.O.J.lacked any regulation orPolice powersover.W hy? Any PresidentsDutyO ghtto aassure
tkelawsqfthe United Statesarefaithfullvexecuted'' (Art.11sec. ),isSupremeLaw tmderArticle
Vl'sSupremacy Clause.In no way,wasany such righteverexceeded by TRUM P,thru hisactions.In
fact such Comm and from Article 11 is a lifetim e obligation,for any President ofthe Urlited States.
N ationalSecudty Intelligence,mustalw aysbe keptin confdence by any President;incum bentorEx.
President.
And so,a11processtaken by SpecialprosecutorJack Smith,-in avoidance ofthethreshold to
courtpowers-(18 U.S.C.3041),pastthePointoftheIndictmentts),caused DonaldJ.TRUM Pto be
illegallyarrested/releasedpendingtrial(which 18USC 3041et.seq.ClearlyGoverns), in violation of
theUnited StatesConstitution.
ln sum m ary: AlIprocessisthereforVOID.A Legalnullity from
the inception.
HISTORY TO THE CHALLENGE
W hile this courthas likely review ed many motions for the errency of the process,the 11*
Circtlit has yetto hold that the Indictm ent and charges are lawful, tmder 28 U .S.C. 1291 ddFinal
Decision''standards.Thiscourt- northe 11th- haveyetmeettitisjudsdictionalchallenge,forithas
neverbeforebeenpresented.N eitherbyprosecution,defendantscotm sel,northecourtsthem selves.
Underthetimetested Glcase''orGtontroversy''doctrine,(govemingthetesting ofany matterof
1aw in controversy).Federalcourtsare only authorized to resolve matterswhich aflkctlegalrights,
belonging to the Plaintiffstanding before the court,Donald J.Tnzmp,held docum entswhich belonged
Page 4 Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 392 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2024 Page 4 of
to FederalGovernm entagencies,ofwho,PRESENTED them to PresidentDonald J.Tnzmp.Those
Agency Heads,stillHold fullauthority and responsibility forthosedocllmentswhereabouts.
TheUnited States GovernmentExecutive'slegalrightto Police any Presidentisnotestablished
within the Constitution,Yetltistory reveals thatPresidentDonald J.Trump,as 45th Presidentofthe
United States,wasunconstitutionally tand continuously)subjectedto such Policeactionsdtlring (and
post) his Presidential Office. By fact, why is this prosecution most preferred now? Because
Impeachm enttheakics are notavailable to the W ashington,D.C.,&r eep State''. History shows that
past Presidents have subjected this country to war without the Attom ey Generals Oftke ever
intervening.For such authority isany Presidentsright.W hy? A Presidentholds knowledge,ofwhich
DOJoffcialswillneverhave;tnzthfully tlzisdrivesmen/women - who seek poweroverothers- crazy
with envy.This fact is proven by history of civilizations past,not excluding the United States of
Am erica.
ln orderfortheUnited StatesGovernm entto presenta concretelegally protected right- before
the court,foradjudication pupose- would require actual,cogrlizable legalevidence ofa ûErightto
police'', the m atters ofPresidentDonald J.Trum p.His responsibility towards the 45t
h Presidential
term of oftice....tand beyond,for State secrets must be kept by him untilhis naturaldemiselis
unimpeachable. None ofTrumpsExecutive actions noted,are witllin the Police powersofthe DOJ.
And accordingly,protectionsafforded to him whilein the ox ce- overArticle 11duties-do notvanish
when he leavesthe oY ce.He isby Constim tionalOath,botmd to protectthe Urlited States security
secrets(heknows)forhisentirelife. Donald J.Trump wllilein offke,held the authority to decide
Fhat is a m atter ofnationalsecurity and whatis not.Thatdecision capability cannotcease when he
leavesoffice. And sotherewasneveraltcase''to bem adeto thisDistrictCourt.
DONALD J.'
TRUM P as President and Comm ander in Chief over the Uzlited States,
exercised tttothebestofhisabilitf',hisExecutivejudgmentoverday-to-day matters,which theDOJ
Page 5 Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 392 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2024 Page 5 of
neitherregulated,norConstitutionally heldlegalpoliceinterestovertsee28CFR 0.34).Remember,the
D .O .J.w orks-prthePresidentialoffice,(orperhaps,forsomeoneelse?).
ln otherwords,theUzlited
States Governm ent- northe çnublic nationalsecuri;v interest'-were evernegatively aflkcted in the
manégement,adm inistrative,ornationalsectlrityprecautions,taken by Donald J.Trump.
Jack Sm ith,by the Indictm entconcedesthisfact. Accordingly,theUnited States Governm entlacked
any legalbasisto bring any suitfor Grelief'.TheDOJ in reality,sitsbelow the oë ce ofPresident.The
duty to the enforcing allRule ofLaw,isthe Presidentialox cesduty.Any copies ofmatedalsheld by
Trump, arè still in original folnn, within their respective Departm ent OG cials Offices. For such
docum entsoriginated from theExecutiveOx ces,below thePresidentialOffice,held by TRUM P.
In orderto arrestTRUM P,thegovernm entm ustbring a legally sufficientcomplaint,pursuantto
FederalRulesofCriminalProcedureRule3. A M agistrateJudge,then could have alawfulGrand Jury
drawn againstTRUM P (which isto occtlronly awhen tltepublic interestso requires''.pursuantto
FederalRulesofCriminalProcedure Rule (6)(a)(1)&(2)). The governmentwasrequired toproveto
this courtthat a NationalSecurity violation .actually occurred as an aoffense atainst tlte United
States''.thismandate isnecessary pursuantto Article I1I's GGcase''requirem ent.HypotheticalN ational
Secudty Concem s, dem onstrate a hypothetical tGcase''. For the governm ent to present - an active
ûicase''or GGcontroversy'',the governm entmustgrip a lawfulrightto exercise police poweroverthe
PresidentoftheUnited States.DonaldJ.Trllmp,prom ised hisprotection ofthe Urlited Statespeople,in
relianceon hisConstitutionalOath ofOx ce(ArticleVIc1.3). Simply stated,anyExecutiveAttomey
lackedjusticiable- constitutional- basisforprobablecause(Gtstandinf'),tobringthesemattersbefore
a
nyArticle1Ilcourt.lnfact,JackSmithhasjeopardizedNationalSecuritylnterestsintheprocess.The
I
I
.
Attorney General's Office, held neither Constimtional (nor Statutory) authority to police the
adm inistrative ornationalsecurity actionsofDonald J.Tnzmp,...Am erica's,45thPresident.Even after
his tenn of office. The President and Comm ander in Chief was legally exempt from the Attorney
Page 6 Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 392 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2024 Page 6 of
General's intrusion into his N ational Security concerns, over the safety of Am erica people and
A m ericasassets.
So,in the fam ous words of Suprem e CourtJustice,Antonin Scalia,GGWhat:
v itto vt?z/'57 The
governmentlacksjusticiablebasis,to bring the necessaly judicialcomplaiilt(Ru1e3) (much lessan
indictment),againstDonald J.Trtunp.Tothepoint,begsthequestion:GtW hywastheAttorney General
-
really - seeking acontroversy in the Executive afairsofapast-president,(instead ofthe Current
JosephR.Biden)revealingcleareFortstocriminalizeTRUM Pandhisactions?
W hen TRUM P held onto the docllm ents in question,he was authorized to do so.In fact,such
documents were presented to PresidentTRUM P,by hisAgency Departm entheads.Those vczrv same
department heads failed to retrieve the documents which thev dispensed to FAUAV and wcrc
responsible for the documentssqfep.vetno otherExecutive qf/zc/tzl,&are charged in these matters?
Those Departm ent heads failed in their continued duty to seclzre these very docllm ents of concern?
j
#
Thisis very telling;very.To be noted:PresidentTlump,also leftthe W hite House with many other
docum ented facts,wllich ttpotentially'' endanger the United Sàtes National Security......and tltose
documents ex//inside /19 mind.to tkis vcrp dqv.(The same holds true for Obama and Bush and
Carter).So the realimportantquestion is::1Do we actually trustany Presidentafter he leaves the
PresidentialOflke?''AnyPresident,...includingJosephR.Biden?tThisprosecutorialethos,borderson,
nay..,reeksofparanoia.Thisistellingofaverytroubledmind)
Jack Sm ith intendsto crim inalizeDonald J.Tnmp ,the 45thPresident,and Comm anderin Cllief
ofthe United StatesofAmerica,forTRUM P protecting docttm entswhich were never retrieved bv the
Dcpcrrvlcnfheads.who delivered thosevcrpdocumentsto him .DONALD J.TRUM PS dutiesto sectlre
nationalsecurity did not cease the mom enthe left office.He - as do al1 prior presidents - holds
information inside hismind,wllich ifexerted maliciously,could bring greatharm to nationalsecurity.
(Look atcurrentafrairs under Joe Biden,with his son Hunter Biden's Chineser kraine business
Page 7 Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 392 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2024 Page 7 of
dealings? Docum ents in the Garage in Delaware,behind the Corvette;Docmnents atUniversity of
Pennsylvania;athisAttorneysoffice.Yetno form alchargesarebeing m adeagalstBIDEN becausehis
M indisbrokenbeyondrepair?..sosaysthesameD.O.J.)
The U.S.Attorney's oo ce exceeded constimtional and stattltory authority,and efectively
weaponized the limited jtlrisdiction of allArticle I1I court,in violation ofArticle 11 ofthe U.S.
Constitution. TheU .S.A'
ttorney'sclaim sin theIndictm enttellall.
Allegedly,TRUM P,acting in his capacity as President and Ex-president,possiblytmaybe)
comm itted crime's againstthe United States wltile effectively accusing Donald J.Trump of a non-
offense azainst//le United Statesi but an allezed offense azainst the United States. This begs
incredulity.
ISSU ES OF LAW
Article III federal courts are only imbued w ith the limited authority vested to them by
Congressional legislature,em powered by and under Article 111, sec.2, cl. 1 of the United States
Constimtion.Thedesignto avoid Judicialtransgressionsinspiredthe ContinentalCongressto lim itthe
ExecutiveBranch'saccesstojudicialauthority.Since June 25,1948, theExecutivebranch hasbeen
strictly lim ited in accessing such Judicial Power, by way of 18 U.S.C.3041. This governs the
beginning(arrestandpetainingpendingtriallofCriminalDueProcess,possibly leadingany Defendant
intoaJurytrialprocess.(see:Rules2-5.1ofFed.Cr.RulesltsupervisoryandPreliminaryRules)
Yet,this Districtcourtproceeded with Grand Jury investigations,in directavoidance ofthese
limited Judicialpowers,govem ed by statutory lim itations.Since 18 U SC 3001 requires Rules that
GoverntheCriminalprocess;Since18U.S.C.3041tandRule3) restridsthecourt'sabilityto extend
judicialpowers only to a sworn complaintltY'or anv offense aeainstthe United States...''(3041 in
part,opening sentence),then magically,dcharges'were taken before a Grand Jury,in violation of
Page 8 Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 392 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2024 Page 8 of
ArticleI1I'sConstitutionalilcase orControversy''requirem ents.And thus,United StatesAttom ey Jack
Sm ith,som ehow did obtain an indictm entin directnon-com pliance ofArticle II1principles,as lim ited
in the governance's by the Rules of Criminal Procedtlre - backed by Congressional legislatures approved by the Suprem e Court.Remarkable to say the least.Criminally Com zpt, to tellthe truth.
SincetheUnited Stateswas/isbound to invokethe courtsauthority lawfully,then therecordsreveal
thatthisGrand Jury wasillegally convened.W hy?TheUnited Sites, neveralleged any injury to a
U.S.legalright. Instead Jack Smith allegesGpotentialfutureâlrzzlx
ç'(hypotheticalstanding)ifsuch
documentswereto fallintothewrong hands.(ThesnmecouldbesaidaboutDonald J.Tnlmp'smind
and Joseph R.Bidens forsure) In summary,the United States- norany ofit's agencies- ever
lresentedalegalclaim,asrequiredbytherigidruleoflaw.Thisreeksofactivistjudging.
The Grand Jury ttdrawn''againstTRUM P,islacking any justiciablebasisto bring forward a
federalsuitby theUnited States.How and why Grand Jury'sweredrawn overmultiplem onthswithout
justiciability,points clearly to abuse ofpower. (1) Hnrm isthe required basis,forwlzich to seek
redress/relieffor. (2)Connection to criminally prohibited actions- causing the alleged,identitied
concreteharm -providesthenextavailableelement:(3),theredress.These(3)requirementsmakeup
theelementtesfofGûstandinf',asnecessaryinany federalcourtoflaw. Suchprinclpleisasoldasthe
Biblez/.
j'ef/J Rule6(b)(1)and (2)allowsforthechallenge(by defendant)anddisposalauthoritytbythe
Courtl.Thishasneverbeen challengedbefore.Article111,sec.,2.cl,1,isthesotlrceof Competepcy
for any District Court. The Executive Branch of Governm ent,underA/USA Jack Sm ith, clearly
violatedthelaw.And thiscourtisratifying such actions.
W hile Rule 6 isthe Indictmentrule,Rule's 1- 5.1 govem the aceessto the FederalCourtand
itsjudicialpower. Rule3 requiresthattheGovernmentagentseekingto arrestany individual,make
complaint(legalclaim)ofiGAny offense Iinjury to legalrightlagainsttheUnited States...''(3041's
opening linerbracketed textaddedj).Rulesoflaw are designed to protectadefendantsDue Process
Page 9 Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 392 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2024 Page 9 of
rights.(18U.S.C.3001and Mirandaconfirm this,along with Rules1-2 oftheFederalCriminalRules
of Procedure). Go ecency.Security and Libertv alike demarld that Govenamentoffcials shallbe
subiected to the snme (384 US 480) rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a
Oovernmentoflawsthe existence ofthe Governm entwillbe im periled ifitfailsto observe the Laws
-
scrupulouslv''and Gllfthe Governmentbecomes a 1aw breaker,itbreeds contemptfor law ;itinvites
everymantobecomeà.1aw tmto himself;itinvitesanarchy'',(citingJusticeBrandeis). A federalsuit
in 1aw muststartwith an actual,concrete injury to a ionstitutionally,legally created and protected
right(overthesecuritvofnationaldoctlments).No such injtuy waseverclaimedby thegovernment.
This Courtlacks in Jurisdiction atthe indic% ent stage - and a1lstages thereafter.Accordingly,the
indictmentshouldbedismissedtmderthebasisofjtlrisdictionalabsence.Anylndictmentts),oiders,or
J
ludgments issued on such an Indictment are in fact, légally null.VOID f'
rom inception. The
g
1overnmentalso could/did notestablish theelementsofmensreato bring aRule 3 complaint(much
lessanindictment)againstDonaldJ.Tnzmp.ThegovernmentsefortstocdminalizeTRUM P,is itplain
I
.
Error''andRule52(b)appliestl8USC 3041and28USC 2111govens.Herethegovernmentexceeded
1tsconstitutionalauthorityandbastardizedthelimitedjudsdiction oftheFederalCourtsin violationof
ArticleIllandArticleVIlçsupremacy''and lGoath ofOffice''Protections''.
M oreover,the governm entheld no legalrightto exercise Meneralpolicepoweroverthe actions
-
of PresidentialDiscretion aForded to TRUM P or any President.Even Joseph R.Biden. This fact
completelynegatesanyjusticiablestandingthegovernmentprosecutionbelievestheymighthave.
RU LE OF LAW
!
.
18 U.S.C.3001 legislature (driven by Rules 1-2 ofF.R.CI'
M .P.)requiresthatthe Rulesof
frocedure shallgovern the process.Asnoted above,Rule 3 isnecessary to thecorrectand lawfully
procured reliance on Federal Judicialpower. 18 U .S.C.3041 by way of invocation,allows for the
arrestand detention,pendingtdal,SlF'
orany offenseagainsttheUnitedStates..''(3041).Yetinthissuit,
Page 10 Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 392 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2024 Page 10 of
there is no invocation of such authority.In factt in the indictm entand arreststages,there is never
mention ofany claim -(injury)-bytheU.S.Govt.,tobringforward alawsuit.Thereisnotonelegal
basisnoted which allowsforgovernmentRedressto be awarded.W ithoutharmts),whatdnmage is
being rem edied? Suprem acy oflaw within Article VI,cl.2,furtherassuresthatprotected rightsare to
be supreme.Thiscourtfailed to uphold clause 2,and its Oath ofOffice underclause 3.YourHonor,
thiscourtis'Duty boundto ds...supportthisConstitution..''tArt.VIGoath Clause'') Recordsreveal
the court's faillzre to provide Donald J.Tnlm p,such suprem e asstlrances. These caused Donald J.
Trump,,substantiverightsviolations,and illegalarresting.
AstheGrandjury,(anArticle1Ilfunction)wasneverlawfullydrawn,thenthelndictmentitself
lacks the Constitutionalauthority necessary tmder due processprotections.M oreover,ptlrsuantto the
5thAmend,due process and 14thAmendm entcovenantof equalprotection tmderthe law,the Grand
Jury,prosecution,and thiscourtaresubjectto a challengewith respectto whetherstanding,factually
hasbeen detennined. Given the civilpublic interestnature ofthe Grand Jury,CivilLawsand nzles
apply in asm uch ascrim inallawsand rulesin regardsto the establishmentofstanding.Therefore,the
SupremeCourtsprecedentialrulingson standing apply.Even in cdminalprocess.(see:FrnnkAmodeo,
v.U nited States,11thCir
AsFederalDistrictCourts are courts oflimited judsdiction, botmds)by federalstamte. See,e.g.,Kokkonen v.Guardian Life lns.Co.ofAmerica,511U.S.377, 114 State Court 1673, 128 I.Ed.2d 391 (1994) Badgerow v.W alters,212 L.Ed.2d 355,
US
than the constdctions of those botm daries shall rem ain concretely and constitm ionally
àuprem e in nattzre, for the Character ofany suitatlaw involvesthe m ostbasic prem ise of legalharm ,
l
I
tGthecharacterofthecontroversiesoverwhichfederaljudicialauthoritymay extend''. InstlranceCorp.
of lreland v.Com paenie desB auxites de Guinee,456 U .S.694,701,102 C .Ct.2099,72 L.Ed.2d
(1982)(citing Home DepotofU.S.A.v.Jackson,204 L.Ed.2d 34 (2021) shallbe lim ited by the
Page 11 Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 392 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2024 Page 11 of
legislatureitself.Thepurposeofsucàlimitation,istoavoidNationalpolicepowers.AsChiefJustice
M arshallexplained,tçthe governm entm ay,legitim ately,punish any violation ofitslaw s''as a necessary
and propermeansforcarrying into execution Congress'enum erated power. ltM ccullock v.M aryland,
4 W heat,316 416 4 L.Ed.57941819),yetitmay only do so,when such police action isprotecting
another governmentright,which hasbeen trnm pled upon. Forifthese Gtlim itationsare notrespected,
Concresswillaccumulatethe ceneralpolice powerthatthe Constimtion withholds''. Taylorv.United
States,195 L.Ed.217456.ForGt-l-he Constimtion'',in short,ûtwithholdsfrom Conzressaplenarvpolice
Dow er''. See Lopez,supra at566,115 S.Ct.1624,131 L.Ed.217 626;see Article 1,section
8;Amdt.
j(),,1:
The Constitution haslong expressly delegated to Congresstheauthority overonly t&fottrspecific
c'dmes:counterfeiting sectlritiesand coin ofthe United States, Article 1,section 8,c1.6;piraciesand
f
ch seas'
.Article1'.
section 8 c1.10:
ofensesa-cainstthe law ofnations.'' ibid;
2eloi escomm itted on thehi'
''
.
and treason,ArticleIIL section 3,cl.3. Given these limited grantsoffederalpower.itisclearthat
conMress cannot punish felonies generallv''. Cohens v.Virginia, 6 W heat264,428,5 L.Ed.
(1821)(Marshall,C.J.)Asclearly seen,unlesstheUnited StàtesfederalDOJ, hasalegitimate,legally
grotmded right(toprotect)in the Constitution,itholdsno standing - orbasis- on which to 1ay any
claim ofçGinjttryinfact''warrantingofacriminalremedy.ûGWehavealwaysrejectedreadings(529US
61% ofthegland thescopeoffederalpowerthatwouldpennitCongresstoexerciseapolicepower''.
596-597,andn 6,131L.Ed.217626,151S.Ct.1624 (notingthatthefrstCongressesdid'notenact
nationwideptmishmentsforcriminalconducttmderthe gj)''.(asrelied onin UnitedStatesv.Monison,
529USat619)
ln sllmm aty,national police powers are not the historical tradition of the United States of
America.ln fact,such concem sw ere the prim ary catalystforthe fonnation ofthe very Urlion itself.
N ationaltyrants,belong in othercountries,notgoverned by lGw e the people''.
Page 12 Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 392 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2024 Page 12 of
DefendantTRUM P wastargeted by Indictment,in whatshowsto be a schem e to defraud the
courtj,and GEW ethePeople ofthe United States'';this,perpetrated by Jack Sm ith oftheAG'sOffkes.
Notwithin one single document,does the United Statesallege thatTRUM P was in fact,culpable for
committing t&...a crim eroffensel azainstthe United States of America...''as required to investigate
tmder28 U.S.C.533(1)limiting legislamres.Smith doesclaim RoffensesagainstlawsoftheUnited
' Stateso,tl8 USC 3231) however. Further in the fling of indictm ent,A/USA Jack Smith clearly
violated his lim iting governance, which restrains his oG ce to an Obligatory Duty to ONLY
'
t&
prosecute fora1loffensesagainstthe United States...''(547(1) ofsame Title). Accordingly,the
...
ùnited States prosecution is evidenced to have engaged in unauthorized - and whatshowsto be
malicious- prosecutorialm isconductsand abusesofExecutiveand Judicialpower.
'
.
l
Rule 6(e)(7) ironically provides forpunishing any A/USA for ddcontempt ofcourt''in the
i
uu
jj
(
L
.
.
k
n
o
wi
n
g
v
i
o
l
at
i
o
n
o
f
Ru
l
e
6'
'
.
W
h
y
i
s
t
h
i
s
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
?
Ac
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
t
o
Ru
l
e
(
a
)
(
)
W
he
n
t
h
e
p
u
b
o
I
,, pj
lnterestsoreuuires,thecourtmustorderthatoneormoregrandjtuiesbesllmmoned.
xjngoonald
J.Tnlmp'sactions,beforeagrandjuryforum,isaknowingviolationofthisruleduetotheabove.This
isptmishableby Gtcontemptofcoulf',(Ru1e 6(e)(7).(W hich happensto be Glany offense againstthe
I
Unitedstates..''ascomml
.ttedby Smith)
'
Butforthe avoidance'sto Rule ofLaw,PresidentDonald J.Tnzmp,would notbe defending his
tnnocence againstchargesof ''crimes'',when theUnited StateshasneverrevealedtheExecutiveheld
â
ny cognizablelegalrightts)tobring suit- onbehalfofWethePeople- intheflrstinstance.In other
I
words,hadA/USA Jack Smith,simply followed Rule's2-5.1(PreliminaryProcedure)than theUnited
I
juteswouldbeheldtoprovideproofofarrestingauthority:t'Foranv offenseagainsttheUnited States!
'
the offender m ayy...be arrested and imorisoned,orreleased,as the case m ay be fortrialbefore such
j
'
c
'ourtofthe U rlited States hascoanizmw e ofthe offense.''Prosecution ofaûûcrime''
tcausingofinjury),
against the United States,is condition precedential to filing of facts alleging culpability GtFor any
Z
.

.
Page 13 Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 392 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2024 Page 13 of
oFenseacainsttheUnitedStates...''(3041inpart). Thefataltlaw to thefoundationalchargesarethat
the Urlited States stood upon the very f'
ragile basis of ççpotentialnational security harm s''. H ow ever,
thisdoes notprovide any legally cognizable rightto bring suit.Instead,the Attorney forthe United
States, Jack sm ith took upon himself what am ounted to a plenaly police right,which is Federal
Nationaloverreach.Unconstim tional,and crim inally illegalitself
Therefor,since no such constitutionalPlenary Police Power exists within the United States
Constimtion,thissuitshouldbeDISM ISSED forlackofjurisdiction.18USC 3231doesnotbootstrap
the D O Jinto A N Y court.
Rulesofprocedurearem eantto befollowed.W hy elsewould Congressand the Suprem eCourt
write them ? &t-l-he Suprem e Courtshallhave the powerto prescribe generalrules of practice and
procedureand rulesofevidenceforcasesin the United Statesdistrictcourts(including proceedings
beforemagistratesgmagistratejudges)thereog andcourtsofappeals.''(28U.S.C.2072(a)).
In accordance with Congress'legislature,FederalRulesof Criminalprocedure are active and
govern ALL rule oflaw. W hen the SpecialProsecutors ox ces avoid Ruleswhich aforded D oxiald J.
Trump,historical,Constitutionally based protections- DueProcessidentifying Eçtlkule 3)actualharm
to the United States governments Gtrighttsl''protected under 1aw - an egregious event occurred:
TRUM PS rightswere abridged/modified illegally--tttb)Such rulesshallnotabridce.enlarze ormodifv
any substntivericht.''(Ru1e2inpart).TRUM P,holdsConstitutionallyprotectedrights,tmderRule3.
And since 18 USC 3044 drivesFederalRule 3 ofCriminalProcedure,(asapprovedandprescribeby
the Supreme CourtoftheUnited States)underCongressionalauthority,with 18U.S.C 3001directing
itsadherence; the Prosecutorsoffcesignored such nlle oflaw,avoiding this duty to present- by the
l
record - any justifiable and constitutionally protected right actually hnnned by TRUM P,and his
actions. lnstead, the conviction m acllinery w as started against Donald J. Trum p,lacking: tlFor anv
Page 14 Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 392 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2024 Page 14 of
oflknse (crime! againstihe Uited States...''(18 USC 3041) ,with Congressional 1aw limiting
prosecution of.tseeattached2019W hitePaperoutliningthisexactpointoflaw;ExhibitA).
AsFederalDistrictCourtsareçGcourtsoflimitedjmisdiction tGdefined''(within limited
Constitutionalboundaries)by theCongress'legislature powers;(jeee.g.,Kokkonenv.Guardiân Life
lns.Co.ofAmerica,511U.S.375-377,114 S.Ct1673,128 L.Ed.217391(1994),establishmentofan
Article II1 Constimtionally authorized court- for criminalprocess- begins with invocations of U .S.C.3041.W hyj
. Forifthe Governm entignoresConstitutionallim itations,than itapproached- and
has sadly achieved - plenary Police powers. To be clear,Gûthe governm entmay,legitim ately,punish
any violation of its laws''as a necessary and proper means for carrying into execution Ccongress'
enllm erated power''. However,no enumerated FederalPolice powerexistswith directConstitutional
grant:
For tû-f'
he Constitutiom ''in short,ççwithholds f'
rom Conless a plenary police powen'' See
I
.
.
iooez,at566,115S.Cg.1624,131L.Ed.21762 6;seealsoAl't11,Art.VIcl2 and 3 tç-rhge)(federalq
jovernmentisacknowledged by a1lto be one ofenllmerated powers. The principle.that itcan
exercise only the pow ers granted to it..is now universally adm itted-'' A j Chief Justice M arshall
*
j
1tated in M ccullock v.M aw land,4 W heat316,4 L.Ed 57? (1819) ..TO uphold the Government%
'
-
'
I
'
.
c
lbntentionsItere,wewouldhavetopileinferenceuponinferenceinazzllaaerthatwouldbidfairto
-
c-onvertcongressionalJIl//l/W/J underthe GeneralWelfareClauseto ageneratpolicepowerof the
sortretained by the States''.
'
Police power is necessary federally, only when a federally upheld ûtright''has been
!
i
(
mpeded;ignored;bypassed;subverted;evaded;ormnnipulated. Then(andonlythen)theUnited
.
Statesgovem ment,holdsa legally protected m ight,which isthe key tothecourthousedoors:GûForany
.
t
oFenseagainsttheUrlited States''(3041),ifsuch an offenseacmally even occurred Then- and only
.
Page 15 Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 392 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2024 Page 15 of
then - the U SA isproperto redress it. N o such rightwas eitherinfringed,noralleged to have been
infringed,by DON ALD J.TRU M P. A gain,thisbegs incredulity.
AR GU M EN T
Rule 3 (CriminalRules),mandatescompliancewith 18U.S.C.3041.(Instructed in Advisory
committeecommentalyjUnderRule18,criminalvenueismandatedtoassurecompliancewithArticle
111. This proves conclusively that Article I11 judicial power, is to ddve a Criminal Process.
Accordingly,a Etcase''in the constitutionalsense,requires (3)elements So supportEGstanding''.The
GGirreducible constitutionalminimum ''ofstandinz requires thata ''p/tzfnfff/--z/-çfhave (1).suffered an
iniurv in fact (2) thatis fairlv traceable to the challenzed conductt?fthe defendant.and (3) thatis
likelv to be redressedjbv a favorable iudicialdecision.''Spokeo.1nc v.Robbins,578 U.S.330, -
S.Ct.1540,1547,194 L.Ed.2d 635 (2016). Asthe record reveals,thiscourtneverexerted power
legally. To the contrary,itwms illegally ceded. Accordingly,the indictmentnever lawfully entered
before tlzis court. EG-l-he plaintiff. as the partv invokùw federal ituisdiction. bears the btlrden of
establishing these elem ents.''Spokeo,136 S.Ct.At 1547. AJUSA Jack Smith abused K d disregarded
c
omplianceby hisfailtlreto obey theruleoflaw,designed to protectagainstjustsuch usup ation..To
I
abuse and manipulateafederalGrandjury and federalmagistrateprocess,to bringabouta
'n unlawful
Indictm ent,targeting for the criminalcharging,an othem ise law abiding Presidenvcitizen upholding
i
hisOathofOffice(whichHoldsforalifetimeq defiesnotonlylaw,butreasonitself.
I
I
C
oncretenessofinjuryhaslongbeenheldthebulwarkwhichmustbemet.Inordertogopast
such threshold,a plaintiffmusthave suFered an injury in fact,and it mustbe particularized and
concrete.Luianv.DefendersofW ildlife,504U.S.555,560,112 S.Ct.2130,119L.Ed.2d 351(1992).
Atlinjuryin fact,isan tGinvasionofalecallvorotectedinterestwhichis(a1concreteandoarticularizedand(b)actualorimminent.notconjecturalorhvootheti

Page 16 Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 392 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2024 Page 16 of
çt-f'
he federalcourts are tmderindependent oblication to exam ine their own itlrisdiction,and
i
standinz isoerhapsthe mostim portantofdoctrines.'''FW /PBS.Inc.v.Citv ofDallas,493 U .S.215,
231,110S.Ct.596,107L.ECI.2d 603(1990)(citationdeleted).
And so,theUnited Statesprosecution cleady trespassed upon thiscourts forum ,fortheUnited
States lacked any identifed injury.The United States Attorney Generalis fully culpable for this
egregious miscarriage ofjustice (28 USC 519).The totalabandonmentof fundamentalprinciples
occurred:justiciabilitywastrespassed;nolegalhnnnoccurred;noremedy wasdue.M ootnessdoctrine
applies.DismissalofIndictmentisproper,underRule6(b)(1)and 6(b)(2).
GGl'
he nlaintiffas plrfp invokinz federaliurisdiction.bears the burden of establishinz these
elem ents.''W arth v.Seldin.422 U.S.490.518-95 S.Ct.2197.45L.Ed.2d 343 (1975)(Cited in Spokeo.
136 S.Ct.At 1547) ln thismatter,theUnited Statesneveronce,established any basisforit'sstanding,
j
'
âllowing the llnlawful access to a United States Grand Jury.As such,the Grand Jury was illegally
dyawn againstDONALD J.TRUO .
N ow how did such action occur? The United States -willingly and knowingly - sim ply laid
allegationsofçcrime'byDONALD J.TRUM P.Thenecessaryfoundationofthecourtsjudicialpower,
lsnotevident:çGrolnlv thoseplaintiffswho havebeen concretely hnrmed by thedefendantsstatutory
!
I
kiolation''and only then m ay the governm entçGsuethatprivatedefendantover'thatviolation in federal
c
oult''Sookeo,at1548.
'
i
'
Furthermore,ttw United statesprosecution (asevidencedjviolatedseparationofpowers
1 hwiples.The cotu'tis forwarding this by providing a trialtesting of m erits, withoutassuring the
pr
(
'
Plaintiffwas in fact,an injured party.Thus,committing plain errontsee Rule 52(b)) When this
i
!
'
g
rroneously occurs itGiwould allow a federalcotzrtto issue what is an advisory opinion withoutthe
ability ofany judicialrelief.''Califom ia v.Texas,141 S.Ct.2104,2116,210 L.Ed.2d 230,(2021)
(quotingLosAngelesv.Lvons,461U.S.95(1983)(M arshal1,J.dissenting).
Page 17 Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 392 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2024 Page 17 of
AI',L Federal courts have unflagging obligations to Gnconflrm that the l'
urisdictional
requirements ofArticle I11standing are metbefore proceedinz to the merits ofthe case.''SteelCo.v.
CitizensforaBetterEnv.,523U.S.83,94-95,118 S.Ct.1003,140L.Ed.2d,(1998).In failingtotake
such reserve,a fundnmentalmiscarriage ofjustice is occuning.This courthas allowed for the
ExecutiveBranchto useitasattsuper-legislature''.Adjudicatingpoliticalcontroversyisnotthedomain
ofthejudicialbranch,yetinstead lieswiththelegislaturebyMstoricaldesign.11rF?haveJ/wœa taken
thisto mean casesand controversies ofthesorttraditionallvamenableto.and resolved bv.the iudicial
process.''M uslcratv.United States,supra,356-57,55 Led 46,31 S.Ct.250.(1911).By the plain
m enning,theprosecution failed to even make an Executive Gcase'.W hy?
Congressprovideslegislattlre,which iffollowed,strictly lim itsExecutive action.28U .S.C.assm esthisIcase'wasto besupervisedby theAttorney General'soG ce:*G...theAttorney Generalshall
i
s
;unervise alllitization to which the United States is a pcrfp, ...... and shalldirect ajj unitod statos
I
At
I tornevk..in the discharzeoftheirresnective duties.,,W asjtthough?
28U.S.C.530(C)(b)(4)only authorizesinvestigation funding,(totheFB1) *ê...forthedetection.
investization.andprosecution ofcrimesagainstthe United States..''tin part).No such crimewasever
alleged in TRUM P'S Indictments.Thism eans,U.S.Treasury fundsw erespentwithouttheauthority.
;
I
Furthermo.re,28 U.S.C.53341) limitsthe Attorney General's r.
ightto investigation and
'
prosecution of crim es only when against the United States. ççThe Attornev General mav qnnoint
o//zcftz/uç-(1)todetectandprosecutecrimesagainsttheUnitedStates.''
And lastly,28 U.S.C.547(1)furtherdriveshomethepointGGExceptasotherwiseprovided bv
law.each United StatesAttorneu within his district shall--(1)prosecute foralloffenses azainstthe
-
United States:''Offenses and Crim es are notsynonymous.No such ofense againstthe United States
was ever claim ed to have occurred.Therefore, redress w as given to a party lacking in the right to
Page 18 Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 392 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2024 Page 18 of
receive any redress for non-existent legal harm . No ttexception as Provided by law''was ever
introduced,overriding these clearly defm ed detection,investigation and prosecution lim itations.
CON CLU SION
W hen theConstitm ion isavoided,Rulesofprocedure are ignored,and a Grand Jury isillegally
accessed withoutMagistrâte screenings (as Congress rules shallhave occurred),the Grand jtlry is
weapozlized tand criminally)to mnnipulate the rule oflaw asa toolto take down any politicalor
economic opponent resulting in a miscaniage ofjustice,bringing about the very despotism otlr
Fotmding Fathersfeared.
Asthe records in thism atterreveal,the Defendantwasnever accused ofharm ing the United
Sttesin any mnnnerofriahtprotected tmderthelaw.Instead,theGovernment(asPlainti/ failedto
adhere to their Constitutionaland Statutory mandates (and comply with FederalRulesof Criminal
Procedtlre),and did abuse and manipulate a FederalGrand Jtuy and FederalCourtto introduce an
lm lawfuland ill-gotten indictm entinto an ArticleII1docket.Allin theeflbrtto weaponizethecourtto
criminalize an otherwise 1aw abiding citizen and imperilhis lawfulbusiness. The Executive Branch
brokethe1aw and theJudicialBranch hasenabled it.
RELIEF REOUESTED
12) AMICUS FRANK EDW IN PATE requeststhiscourtGRANT him leave,forafullbriefingto be
'
subm itted which willrecomm end thiscotlrtDISM ISS the Indic% entagainstD ONALD J.TRUM P for
thepup osesofrectifyingthisongoingmiscaniageofjustice.W hileAMICUS isnotapartytothissuit,
heisequally interested in theseissuesoflaw,duetohisown miscaniageofjustice,inhisunresolved
and unafsrm ed,evidencelacldng,trialconvictions.(ExhibitB).E1A party may moveto dismissthe
Page 19 :
Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 392 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2024 Page 19 of
Indictmentbasedonthegroundthatitwasnotlawfully drawn,summoned,orselected.''(Ru1e6(b)(1))
Further,çtW partvmavmove to dismissthe indictmentbased on an obiection to the xvwn# iurv....unless
the courthaspreviouslvruledon thesameobiection underRule 6@ 3(13.''
A11fa aetnlean
the
s
'
bmitted underpenalty ofperjury this28t
hday of February 2024 tmder
nited Statesof erica.(28U.S.C.17.
64)
.
l
ED
PATE
3 430-ederalPriso Cnmp -LaTuna
P.O .Box Anthony,T
CC : W. Palm Beach 7000 1670 0009 4589 Supreme .coukt 7000 1670 0009 4589 Sen . Grassley 7000 1670 0009 4589 Sen . Durbin
7000 1670 0009 4589
Mr . Jordan '
7000 1670 0009 4589 I
Page 20 Tpzwz
z /9:23-cr-80101-AMC
pl/, .%:645ô* :
Case
éLLIZ
'
.
L--LIL.
I
LT=% C!
).
Uof
-(?r
IZLLL-L
ILLLI
.
I
Document 392 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/Page
,
pzv4zw/A h- J'vpzrs x
l1Ill
#
lt
1ll!lllt
l
l
tl!
ll
/?' /v' > & '
71ù2 1L7ù 1Eù' qlë'
.
.'
y.
'
*
'
$..1.
(L
y
I
/I
J
9$
z
.
kki
è..
w
,.'r'
z
v
Y<&t*
u
.m
v
, ..
..
A'
6h
-,
4Jb
t /jQJ
.
.> v. .J*>
g
>'
,.
'
30zl3 Paul Rogers US District (
701 C1 a
.,'
;t.
-t.is G'
u
r'
L'r ee L
Room 4OiIes'
L Palm Lte acf
'1,
33 âJ0
Space
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
 

Non-Government Works Copyright © 2001-2024 Think Computer Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

About   Privacy   Security   Contact Us

PlainSite
Sign Up
Need Password Help?