July 30th 2000

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Mark D. Martin

Associate Justice

Justice Building

Raleigh 27602

North Carolina, USA

Re: Request for Judicial Notice 

Dear Justice Martin, 

Mr. Tom Brown of North Raleigh whom you are acquainted with, after reviewing the material presented herein, suggested for me to present it for your consideration. It is my duty as a law abiding Citizen of North Carolina, to present you with, the unconstitutional acts perpetrated upon the Citizens of our State by the Federal Government and the Federal Judiciary. Herein is a brief overview of the conclusive documented evidence, of my eight year research of federal laws and the federal courts. My research uncovered the fraudulent enforcement of federal laws contrary to the “Arising Under Clause” Article III, Sec. 2, cl. 1., and the fraudulent operation of the federal judiciary without authority or jurisdiction, contrary to Article VI, Clause 2, of the Constitution of the United States, within North Carolina one of the 50 States of the Union. The maxim’s of law most applicable are as follows:

  (1) The laws serve the vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights;

  (2) Truth fears nothing but concealment; and

  (3) It is a fraud to conceal a fraud.

In support of this Request for Judicial Notice, I rely upon my personal Affidavit, argument and authorities contained in the Memorandum in support of Motion to Vacate Judgment (prepared for Dr. Steven A. Roebuck – an innocent man - of Raleigh, North Carolina currently illegally incarcerated in a federal institution), enclosed herewith for your review, in the form of Motions to the constitutional “district courts of the United States” with judicial powers to Vacate a “VOID” Judgment. The findings are as follows:

 The United States District Courts within our State are operating without any statutory, regulatory, or constitutional authority which grants  jurisdiction to a “United States District Court” (legislative mode), as opposed to an Article III constitutional “district court of the United  States” (judicial mode), to hear a civil or criminal case against a Citizen of North Carolina State.

 There is no statutory, regulatory or constitutional authority which grants legal standing to the “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” to  bring a civil or criminal action before a “United States District Court” against a Citizen of North Carolina State.

 There is no Lawful Powers of Attorney for the United States Attorney(s) of record to represent the “UNITED STATES OF &nbspAMERICA” ;in civil or criminal proceedings against a Citizen of North Carolina State.

 There is no statutory, regulatory or constitutional authority, authorizing the United States Marshals Service to execute lawful writs,  process, and orders “issued under the authority of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.”

 [Pursuant to the above, the constitutionality of the Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 869, were drawn into  question in three (3) United States Courts of Appeal, for the Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits, and the USDC D.C. as follows:

 (1) MOTION FOR INTERVENTION OF RIGHT by United States ex rel. Lonnie G. Schmidt, in United States of America v.  Ramona Holcombe, Fourth Circuit Case No. 01-4101, October 23, 2001 A.D.;

 (2) NOTICE OF CHALLENGE TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS AND REQUEST FOR  APPROPRIATE PROCEDURAL RELIEF, in United States of America v. Vazrik Makarian, Ninth Circuit Case No. 01- 50422, September 20, 2001 A.D.;

 (3) MOTION TO STRIKE GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION, in United States of America v. Vazrik Makarian, Ninth Circuit  Case No. 01‑50422, October 10, 2001 A.D.;

 (4) MOTION FOR INTERVENTION OF RIGHT by United States ex rel. Lonnie G. Schmidt, in United States of America et  al. v. Microsoft Corporation, USDC D.C. Case Nos. 98‑1232 and 98‑1233;

 (5) BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS, Lawrence J. Warfield v. David Edwards et al., Fifth Circuit Case No. 01‑10973, October 17,  2001 A.D.

 The federal government reversed its policy in the case against the Microsoft Corporation, and pushed for equitable settlements across the  board.]

 The U.S. Department of Justice and the offices of the United States Attorney are aiding and abetting the Internal Revenue Service,  fraudulently enforcing provisions and applicability of Subtitle A and provisions in Subtitle F relating to such taxes, of the Internal Revenue  Code of 1954, which were abolished on August 16, 1954, pursuant to Public Law 591, against the detriment of Citizens of North  Carolina. The Constitution of North Carolina Article I, Section 19, mandates that No person shall be taken, imprisoned or disseized of his  freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the Law of the &nbspLand.

 There are “NO” substantive rules of general applicability adopted as authorized by law, applicable to the Citizens of the 50 States of the  Union, published in the Federal Register imposing an obligation pursuant to provisions under Subtitle A, and Subtitle F relating to such  taxes, of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 Public Law 591, 83d Congress, having force and affect, that would affect any Citizen of  his/her rights under the North Carolina State Constitution.

 All federal indictments are issued without lawful authority within the 50 States of the Union.

I have practiced due diligence, by researching the Statutes at Large going back to 1789, the Congressional Record, United States Code, Code of Federal Regulations, Federal Register, Constitution of the United States, Supreme Court findings, United States Attorney Manual for authority and jurisdiction, Chapter V titled “Criminal Jurisdiction” from the publication entitled Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States, April 1956 (Volume I) and June 1957 (Volume II) from a detailed study of a committee assembled by Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Jr., and I can support my findings with conclusive documentary evidence and authorities.

;The Article III constitutional “district courts of the United States” (judicial mode), courts of record where one can expect independent, impartial and qualified judicial officers presiding upon courts of competent jurisdiction, are currently vacant. However, they have not been abolished by the Act of June 25, 1948.

As stated in the legislative intent of the Act to wit: “The provisions of title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, of the United States set out in section 1 of this Act… shall be construed as continuation of existing law… Moreover, no loss of rights, interruption of jurisdiction … shall result from its enactment.”

;The Fifth Amendment mandates “due process” of law, which is also embodied in numerous provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a United States treaty rendered supreme Law by the Supremacy Clause. The thrust of that Covenant is to guarantee independent, impartial and qualified judicial officers presiding upon courts of competent jurisdiction (and not Star Chambers or other tribunals where summary proceedings are the norm, and where due process is not a fundamental Right but a privilege granted at the discretion of those tribunals). Citizens of North Carolina enjoy a fundamental Immunity from summary proceedings.

Clearly, these findings expose the United States District Courts as not a true United States Court established under Article III of the Constitution, to administer the judicial powers of the United States therein conveyed within the judicial districts of the 50 States of the Union. The United States District Courts are summary tribunals that compel criminal defendants to endure lengthy trials, conviction and sentencing before any U.S. Court of Appeals can take jurisdiction under the Final Judgments Act at 28 U.S.C. 1291.

;The efforts by employees in the U.S. Department of Justice are considered fraudulent and clearly contrary to law. It is now painfully apparent, that the U.S. Department of Justice is pretending to represent the “United States of America” in all civil and criminal cases, intentionally to avoid exercising the judicial power of the United States. Virtually every Federal initiative in the Union of several States in both civil and criminal actions is defective by virtue of being without lawful authority. The Guarantee Clause guarantees that the several States shall be governed by law, and not by arbitrary or capricious bureaucrats.

The law of jurisdiction is fundamental law, not allowing dubious intrusions of any kind. Motions to courts are petitions to government that warrant a sanctity and a sanction of obvious constitutional preeminence. Article III is not a trifle, to be discarded at the whim of ambitious players.

 Seeing that Article VI, Clause 2, mandates that Judges in every State shall be bound by the Law of the Land, you are my last resort regarding this matter in creating a remedy to protect the constitutional rights of the Citizens of this State.

 This material is also being presented to certain members of the North Carolina House and Senate, U.S. Senators and U.S. House of Representatives for immediate review, for due consideration in creating a remedy, as it is their duty to protect their constituents, given that they have taken an oath to uphold the North Carolina Constitution. This material is also being posted on the Internet.

 Thank you for taking your time to read the enclosed material. I would like to meet and discuss this matter with you at your earliest convenience.

 

Respectfully yours,

Laszlo I. Horvath

 

 Cc:

I. Beverly Lake, Jr. Chief Justice	Howard Coble (R) 6th District
Sarah Parker, Justice	Robin Hayes (R) 8th District
Robert F. Orr, Justice	Sue Myrick (R) 9th District
George L. Wainwright, Jr. Justice	Cass Ballenger (R) 10th District
Robert H. Edmunds, Jr. Justice	Charles H. Taylor (R) 11th District
G. K. Butterfield, Jr. Justice	Senator John H. Carrington (Rep)
Senator Jesse Helms (R)	Senator Jeanne Hopkins Lucas (Dem)
David E. Price (D) 4th District	4th District Representative Art Pope (Rep)
Walter B. Jones (R) 3rd District	Representative J. Russell Capps (Rep)
Richard Burr (R) 5th District	Representative David M. Miner (Rep)
Representative J. Sam Ellis (Rep)	Representative Rick L. Eddins (Rep)
Representative Jim Gulley (Rep)	Representative Mia Morris (Rep)
Representative Donald S. Davis (Rep)	Representative Jean R. Preston (Rep)
Representative Arlie F. Culp (Rep)	Senator Dan Robinson (Dem)
Representative Larry T. Justus (Rep)	Representative Trudi Walend (Rep)
Senator Robert C. Carpenter (Rep)	Representative Mark F. Crawford (Rep)
Representative Wilma M. Sherrill (Rep)	Representative Billy J. Creech (Rep)
Senator Virginia Foxx (Rep)	Senator Robert G. Shaw (Rep)
Representative Harold J. Brubaker (Rep)	Representative Michael P. Decker (Rep)
Representative William S. Hiatt (Rep)	Representative James B. Black (Dem) Speaker