Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Christian Gilbert Tony Nadal, Petitioner v. United States
Supreme Court briefFeb 8, 2023
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
u
\
0
s.
•s.
7.Z-
No. 20-
/
IN THE
r"
11
/
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
- r '
CHRISTIAN GILEBRT TONY NADAL )
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
’ No. 22-55262
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
CHRISTIAN G.T. NADAL
PRO SE
3566 South 1550 West
St. George, Utah 84790
(435) 659-7605
May 15,2023
„■?
!
v QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Are catalogues given to Petitioner ie: Global
■ Sales Limited and Shotgun News firauduleritly
• • advertising for sale illegal macHihegun arid si• ’ lencer kits to Petitioner and the public? Cata
logues that state “No Federal Registration or
■ License is-Required to purchase these items for
sale, NO FFL REQUIRED TO PURCHASE?
The lower courts should have answered the
question per Title 28 U.S.C.A.'- ’Section 1331 • Federal Question'and Title 28 U.S.C.A. Section
2201 - Creation of Remedy — Chapter 151 Decla
-ratory Judgment.
Are the machinegun and silencer kits advertis
-ed for sale in the catalogues given to Petition
er listed in the Coram Nobis / Title 28 U.S.C.
1331 of the Petition listed at pages 20 to 59,
Machine guns and silencers Regulated under
Title 18 and 26 U.S.C.A.?
2. Does the United States Department of Justice
knowingly giving and distributing catalogues ad
-vertising through a fraud scheme and selling il
legal machineguns and silencers to Petitioner
and the public violate the 2nd Constitutional Amendment Rights of the persons illegally convict
-ed of purchasing those machineguns and silen
cers?
3. Does Heck v. Humphrey. 512 U.S. 477 (1994)
violate Petitioner’s 5th and 14th Constitutional
Amendment Rights when used by Federal Courts
and the United States Attorney’s office to stop his
civil complaints. Complaints that have
l
shown the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged
crime in his criminal case?
4. Is the Petitioner a vexatious litigant by filing his
Habeas Corpus appeals and adding new evidence
showing his actual innocence while the Courts
continuously refuse to answer any legal question
raised on the motions for habeas corpus and ap
peals?
5. Petitioner’s Coram Nobis should be Granted due
to the facts of federal law show Petitioner's actual
innocence?
11
f
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS
All parties to the proceedings are identified in the
caption.
RELATED PROCEEDINGS
US District Court of Arizona-Phoenix
Christian Nadal v. Sarco Incorporated,
CIV-96-0630-PHX-CAM (MS), March 11 1996,
April 01,1996, May 15, 1996, Aug 07,1996,
Aug 16,1996, Aug 26,1996.
US District Court of Arizona-Phoenix,
Christian Nadal v. Sarco Incorporated,
CIV- 96-630 PHX CAM, Sep. 27, 1996.
US District Court of Arizona-Phoenix
Christian Nadal v. Sarco Incorporated,
CIV 96-630 PHX EHC (MS), Nov 01 1996, Jan 29,
1997, Feb 11,1997, Feb 24, 1997.
US District Court Central District of California-Los
Angeles
United States, v. Christian Nadal,
CV-96-8061-RSWL; CR-93-698-RSWL, 2255
Motion, Nov 18, 1996, Jan 1,1997, April 11, 1997.
US Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit
United States v. Christian Nadal,
US Court of Appeals Docket Number: 97-55531;
No. 99-71649; Lower Court Docket Number: CV96-8061-RSWL; CR-93-698-RSWL, June 21,1999,
Aug 12,19999, Nov 18, 1999,188 F.3d 516 (9th
m
Cir. 19-99).
US Supreme Court
United States v. Christian Nadal, No. 00-5940,
US Court of Appeals Docket Number: 97-55531;
Lower Court Docket Number: CV-96-8061-RSWL;
CR-93-698-RSWL, Nov 23, 1999, Dec 6, 1999,
June 20, 2000, Aug 28, 2000, Sep 27,2000.
US District Court Central District of California-Los
Angeles
United States v. Christian Nadal, CV-98-2986RSWL(MAN); CR-93-698-RSWL, 2nd Successive
2255 Motion, April 21,1998, April 24, 1998, Sep 10,
1998, Nov 4, 1998, April 14, 2000.
US Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit
United States v. Christian Nadal, US Court of
Appeals Docket Number: 99-71649; Lower Court
Docket Number: CV-98-2986-RSWL(MAN); CR-93
-698-RSWL, Dec 21,1999, Mar 27, 2000.
US Supreme Court
United States v. Christian Nadal, June 15, 2000,
June 20, 2000, cert. Denied.
US District Court Central District of California-Los
Angeles
Christian Nadal v. Sarco Incorporated, Civil No.
CV 97-2102-ABC(Mc), Apr 08,1997, Jun 03,1997.
US District Court Central District of California-Los
Angeles
Christian Nadal v. Sarco, Incorporated, Case No.
CV 97-2102-ABC(MAN), Aug 14,1997, Sep 02, 19
IV
i
97, Sep 22,1997, Sep 16,1998.
US District Court Central District of California-Los
Angeles
Christian Nadal v. R.P.B.; Shooters Equipment
Company; Sarco, Inc., Case No. CV 97-5717 ABC;
CV 97-5718 ABC; CV 97-2102 ABC, Oct 27, 1998.’
US Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit
Christian Gilbert Nadal v. R.P.B. Committed
Fraud, US Court of Appeals Docket Number: 9856994; Lower Court Docket Number: CV-97-05717
-ABC-1, Dec 28, 1998.
US District Court Central District of California-Los
Angeles
Christian Nadal v. R.P.B.; Shooters Equipment
Company; and Sarco, Inc., CV-97-5718 ABC; CV
97-2102 ABC, Dec 31, 1998, Dec 31, 1998.
US Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit
Christian Gilbert Nadal v. R.P.B.; Shooters Equip
-ment Co.; and Sarco, Inc., No. 98-56994, D.C. Nos.
CV-97-05717-ABC; CV-97-05718-ABC; CV-9702102-ABC, Jun 02,2000.
US District Court Central District of California-Los
Angeles
Christian Nadal v. Sarco, Inc., CV 01-1301 ABC
(MANx), July 24, 2001.
US Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit
Christian Nadal v. R.P.B. Committed Fraud, No.
56-994, CT/AG#: CV-97-05717-ABC-1 (MAN), July
27, 2000.
US District Court Central District of California-Los
Angeles
Christian Nadal v. Sarco Incorporated, CV 01-1301
GAF(MANx), April 09, 2001, April 20,2001, May
17, 2001.
US District Court of Arizona
Christian Nadal v. Global Sales Limited, CIV 962234-PHX-ROS, Nov 26, 1996. Nov 29, 1996, Jun
26, 1997.
US District Court of Arizona-Phoenix
Christian Nadal v. Global Sales Limited, AA-OK,
Incorporated, CIV 96-2234-PHX-ROS, Aug 21,
1998.
US Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit
Christian Gilbert Tony Nadal v. United States
District Court for the District of Arizona, District
Court for the District of Arizona, No. 98-80519,
DC# CV-96-2234-ROS Arizona, Aug 27,1998.
US District Court of Arizona-Phoenix
Christian Nadal v. Global Sales Limited, CIV 962234-PHX-ROS(MS), Sep 27, 1999. Sep 29, 2000,
Nov 28, 2000.
US Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit
Christian Gilbert Nadal v. Global Sales Limited;
AA^OK Incorporated, No. 00-17070, CT/AG#: CV96-02234-ROS, Jun 04, 2001, Jan 12, 2001, Mar
19, 2001.
vi
US District Court of Arizona-Tucson
Christian Nadal v. Bureau of Prisons, CIV 97-053
-TUC-RTT Nov 17,1997, Jan 5, 1999, Jan 29
1999, Mar 11, 1998, Apr 06, 1998, Apr 13, 1998.
9-
US Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit
Christian Gilbert Tony Nadal v. United States
Bureau of Prisons; Mike Adams; Blake Davis; Tom
Corner: Jackie White; Ivan 0. White; Ed Crosley,
US Court of Appeals Docket Number: 99-15228,
Lower Court Docket Number; CV-97-00053-JMR,
Bivens Action, Feb 17,1999, Dec i.7, 1999.
US District Court of Arizona-Phoenix
Christian Gilbert Tony Nadal, CIV- 97-1096-PHX
-ROS (MS) 2241 Motion, May 20,1997, Jun 17,
1997, Oct 30, 1997, Aug 28,1998.
US Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit
Christian Gilbert Nadal v. Mike Adams, US Court
of Appeals Docket Number: 98-15120; Lower
Court Docket Number: CV-97-01096-ROS Jan 23,
1998; Aug 24,1998, Jan 15, 1999; Feb 04,1999.
US District Court Central District of California-Los
Angeles
Christian Nadal v. Shooters Equipment Company,
CV 97-5718 LGB (CTx), CV 97-5717 JSL (JGx),
CV 97-5718 ABC (E), CV 97-5718-ABC(MAN) Jul
29, 1997, Aug 0i; 1997, Aug 25,1997, Sep 04 1997,
Oct 07, 1997, Dec 05,1997, Dec 31, 1997, Jan 30,
1998, J^uly 07,1998, July 18, 2000.
US District Court Central District of California-Los
Angeles
yn
Christian Nadal v. R.P.B. Industries, CV 97-5717
JSL (JGx); CV 97-5718 LGB (CTx); CV 97-5717ABC(MANx), CV 97-5717-ABC(VAP), CV 97-5717
ABC; CV 97-5718 ABC; CV 97-2102 ABC July 29,
1997, Aug 01,1997, Oct 15,1997, Sep 16,1998,
Oct 27, 1998, July 18, 2000.
US District Court Central District of California-Los
Angeles ,
Christian Nadal v. R.P.B. Industries; Shooters
Equipment Company; and Sarco, Inc., CV 97-5717
ABC; CV 97-5718 ABC; CV 97- 2102 ABC Dec 31,
1998.
United States Supreme Court
Christian Nadal v. R.P.B. et al., US Supreme
Court Docket Number NO. 00-6337 Aug 28, 2000,
Oct 02, 2000, Oct 29, 2000 “brief in opposition”,
Nov 27, 2000 Writ Denied.
US District Court Central District of California-Los
Angeles
Christian Nadal v. Cobray Firearms, Incorporated,
CV 97-7021 IFP(WMB); CV 97-2101 (MAN) Sep 23,
1997, Oct 10, 1997, Oct 30, 1997.
US Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit
Christian Gilbert Nadal v. Cobray Firearms, Incor
-porated, US Court of Appeals Docket Number: 97
-56717; Lower Court Docket Number: CV-9707021-WMB Dec 16, 1997, Feb 19, 1998, Aug 21,
1998, Sep 23, 1998.
US District Court Eastern District of CaliforniaFresno
vm
Christian Nadal v. Raymond Andrews, CV F 99
6070 REC LJO P, 2241 Motion “Violent Crime
Control Act classification issue” July 11,1999, Nov
17, 1999, May 11, 2000, June 20, 2000, June 21,
2000.
US District Court Eastern District of CaliforniaFresno
(
Christian Gilbert Tony Nadal, CIV F-99-6784
OWW HGB-P; CV-01-02580-RSWL(MAN)
“Federal Question are kits firearms” Dec 21, 1999,
Mar 9, 2001, Mar 20,2001, Apr 02, 2001, Sep 13,
2001:
US District Court Central District of California-Los
Angeles
Doris Nadal, Christian Nadal v. Gregory Jessner,
CV 04-10494-ABC(MAN) “Bivens Complaint” Dec
27, 2004, Jan 03, 2005, Apr 26, 2005, Jun 01
2005, Jun 02, 2005, Jun 06, 2005, Aug 30, 2005,
Sep 12, 2005, Sep 13, 2005, Sep 22, 2005, Oct 28,
2005, Jan 06, 2006, Feb 16, 2007.
• IX
TABLE OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - Order in the District Court
Central District of California
(January 14, 2021.....App. 1
APPENDIX B -
Order in the District Court
Central District of California
(December 15, 2021...App. 8.
APPENDIX C -
Order in the District Court
Central District of California
(March 2, 2022......... App. 15.
APPENDIX D -
Order in the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals
(November 22, 2022..App. 23.
x
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Firearms cases machineguns / silencers:
United States v. Bishop,
926 F.3d 621 (10th Cir. 2019)
18, 27
United States v. Roh,
Case no. SACR14-167 (JWS)(D.CA.13,17,18, 21
United States v. Jimenez,
191 F.Supp.3d 1038 (D.CA. 2016).13,17,18, 24, 27
United States v. Palmieri,
21 F.3d 1265 @ 1272 (3rd Cir. 1994), 93-5134
United States v. Palmieri.................................
United States v. Was,
684 F.Supp. 350 @ 353 (D.Conn. 1998)
United States v. Bradley,
892 F.2d 634 @ 635 (7th Cir. 1990)
18
18, 25
..... 10, 18
F.J. Vollmer Co. V. Higgens,
23 F.3d 448 @ 449 (D.C. 1994)
18
United States v. Kindred,
931 F.2d 609 @ 610 (9th Cir. 1991)
18
United States v. Kelly, .
548 F.Supp. 1130® 1136 (4th Cir. 1997)
18
United States v. Campbell,
xi
18
427 F.2d 893 (5th Cir. 1970)
United States v. Smith,
477 F.2d 399 @ 400 (8th Cir. 1973)
18
United States v. Catanzaro,
368 F.Supp. 450 @ 453 (D.Conn. 1973)
18
United States v. Luce,
726 F.2d 47 @ 48, 49 (1st Cir. 1984)
18
United States v. Evans,
712 F.Supp. 1435 (D.Mont. 1989)
18
United States v. Evans,
928 F.2d 858 (9th Cir. 1991)
.18
United States v. Bascue,
5 F.Supp. 2d 1139 (D.Or. 1998)
United States v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477 (1994)...........
13, 14,27
11, 20,22,23,26
United States v. Bernhardt,
840 F.2d 1441, 1448 (9th Cir. 1988)
21
Grayned v. City of Rockford,
408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972)....
21
Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside Hoffman
Estates, Inc.
455 U.S. 489, 498-99 (1982).............................
21
McCormack v. Herzon,
788 F.3d 1017, 1031 (9th Cir. 2015)
21
xn
McQuiggin v. Perkins,
133 S.Ct. 1924 (2013).
14, 27
United States v. Shortt Accountancy,
785 F.2d 1448, 1452 (9th Cir. 1986)
xm
24
■==3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUESTIONS PRESENTED.
.1, 11
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS
.m
RELATED PROCEEDINGS......iii, iv, v, vi, vii, viii, ix
TABLE OF APPENDICES
,x
TABLE OF CONTENTS
XIV, XV
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
XI, Xll, Xlll
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
1
DECISION BELOW
1
JURISDICTION.
1
STATUTORY PROVISION
1
FEDERAL RULE INVOLVED,
.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
,8
1. Case history
8
2. Statement of Facts of Law,
17
REASON FOR GRANTING WRIT
,27
As In Jimenez And Bishop Where Each Defendant
Were Convicted For Just Possessing One Part Only
xiv
Of A Machinegun, The Kits Stated Above Only Had
One Missing Part Or Needing A Part To Be Bent Into
Shape. Clearly These Kits Are Illegal. Petitioner Can’t
Even Purchase Them To Introduce Them As Evidence
In This Very Court Due To Their Illegality.
CONCLUSION
.28
XV
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Petitioner Christian Gilbert Tony Nadal respect
-fully request the issuance of a writ of certiorari to
review the judgement of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
DECISION BELOW
The decision of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit is NOT FOR PUBLICATION
and was filed on November 22, 2022 as Case No. 22
-55262; D.C. Nos. 2:21-cv-07590-RWSL; 2:93-cr
-000698-RWSL-1.
JURISDICTION
The Ninth Circuit entered judgment on November
22, 2022. This Court’s jurisdiction is invoked under
28 U.S.C. Sec. 1254.
STATUTORY PROVISION
Writ of Coram Nobis, Title 28 U.S.C A. Section
1331 Federal Question, 2nd Constitutional Amend
-ment, Title 28 U.S.C.A. Section 2201 Creation of
Remedy, Declaratory Judgment - Chapter 151,
Title 18 U.S.C.A. Section 1001 Statements or En
-tries Generally, Title 26 U.S.C.A. Section 5845(b),
Machinegun, Title 26 U.S.C.A. Section 5841 Re
gistration, Title 26 U.S.C.A. Section Transfer Tax,
Title 26 U.S.C .A. Section 5812 Transfers, Title 18
U.S.C.A. Section 924(a)(25) “firearm silencer”
1
/"
Federal Rule Involved
Federal Case Law
United States v. Bradley. 892 F.2d 634 @ 635
(7th Cir. 1990):
“(asserting that parts may be machineguns with
out a frame or receiver),” “United States v. Camp
-bell, 427 F.2d 892, 893(5<* Cir. 1990)(implicitly
holding that parts may be machineguns without
a frame or receiver)”
United States v. Was. 684 F.Supp. 350 @353(D.
Conn. 1998):
“The second clause regulates any combination of
parts of any kind, where the combination is “inten
-ded to be used to convert a weapon into a machine
-gun.” “Defendant concedes that the AR-15 auto
sear is physically made up of more than one part.4
The auto-sear thus can not be excluded from the
ambit of the “combination of parts” portion of the
second clause section 5845(b).” @ 354” “in addition,
the government produces two technical reports
from the Firearms Technology of ATF, stating that
the auto-sears functioned to convert a semiautoma
-tic AR-15 receiver to a machinegun.”
F.J. Vollmer Co. v. Higgens. 23 F.3d 448 @ 449
(D.C. 1994):
“machinegun conversion kits are, according to the
bureau, “used to convert semiautomatic weapons
into automatic weapons without the use of a ma
chinegun receiver.” Brief for Appellee at 2. Such
a conversion kit is itself a “machinegun” under 18
U.S.C. Section 921(a)(23), which incorporates the
^ National Firearms Act definition of the term in
26 U.S.C. Section 5845(b):”
2
United States v. Kindred. 931 F.2d 609 @ 610
(9th Cir. 1991):
“inoperable World War I machinegun lacking inter
nal parts qualified as a machinegun because the
gun could be converted into a fully automatic weapon.”
Christian Nadal v. Bureau of Prisons CV-97053-TUT-RTT (U.S. Attorney, Daniel G. Knauss,
Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings filed April
9th, 1998 © page 3 & 4:
“Exhibit C, the pre-sentence report, shows also
that Nadal gave a number of machinegun kits
to his coconspirator, Christopher Berwick, for
Assembly which he then sold to the agents.
These also qualify as transfers under 18 U.S.C.
Section 922(o)(l). Cf., United States v. Bradkx 822 F.2d 634 (7th Cir, 1990), Cert. Den.
495 U.S. 909(1990), (transfer of parts sufficient
to convert a weapon to a machinegun was a
“transfer in gross” sufficient to qualify as a ma
-chinegun in violation of 26 U.S.C. Section 5845).”
United States v. Kelly. 548 F.Supp. 1130 @ 1136
(4th Cir. 1977)
“The government also introduced testimony of
a Firearms Enforcement officer Who stated
that in his opinion the modified bolt trigger
housing constituted a combination of parts
designed and intended for use in converting a
weapon into a machinegun as defined in 26
U.S.C. Section 5845(b).”
United States v. Campbell. 427 F.2d 893(5th Cir.
1970):
“firearms as defined in U.S.C. 5845(b), that is
six M-2 conversion kits assembled on M-l car
bine trigger housings, which had not been re
gistered to them in the National Firearms Re
gistration and Transfer records maintained
3
under 26 U.S.C. 5841, all in violation of U.S.C.
A. 5861(d) and for willfully and knowingly
transferring “firearms as defined in 26 U.S.C.
5845(a)(b) that is, six M-2 conversion kits as
sembled on M-l carbine trigger housings, with
-out having paid the transfer tax required in
U.S.C. 5861(e), 5871.”
United States v. Smith. 477 F.2d 399 @ 400
United States v. Catanzaro. 368 F.Supp. 450 @
453
United States v. Luce, 726 F.2d 47 @ 48, 49
United States v. Evans. 712 F.Supp. 1435(D.
Mont. 1989
United States v. Evans. 928 F.2d 858(9th Cir.
1991)
United States v. Bascue. 5 F.Supp.2nd 1139(D.
OR 1998)
United States v. Roh, Case No. SACR 14-167
(JWS)
United States v. Jimenez. 191 F.Supp.Sd 1038
(2016)
United States v. Bishop. 926 F.3d 621(2019)
Federal Statute Law
Title 26 U.S.C.A, Section 5845(b):
“Machinegun.—The term “machinegun”
4
means any weapon which shoots, is de
signed to shoot, or can be readily restored
to shoot, automatically more than one shot,
without reloading, by a single function of
the trigger. The term shall also include the
frame or receiver of any such weapon, any
part designed and intended solely and ex
clusively, or combination of parts designed
and intended, for use in converting a wea
pon into a machinegun, and any combina
tion of parts from which a machinegun can
be assembled if such parts are in the posses
-sion or under the control of a person.”
Title 18 U.S.OA. Section 921(aK25):
“The terms “firearm silencer” and “firearm
muffler” mean any device for silencing, muf
fling, or diminishing the report of a firearm,
including any combination of parts, designed
or redesigned, and intended for use in assem
-bling or fabricating a firearm silencer or fire
-arm muffler, and any part intended only for
use in such assembly or fabrication.”
Title 26 U.S.CA. Section 5841 Registration
of firearms.:
“(b) By whom registered.—Each manufac
-turer, importer, and maker shall register
each firearm he manufactures, imports, or
makes. Each firearm transferred shall be
registered to the transferee by the transferor.”
“© How registered.— Each manufacturer
shall notify the Secretary of the manufacture
of a firearm in such manner as may by regu
lations be prescribed and such notification
shall effect the registration of the firearm re
-quired by this section. Each importer, maker,
and transferor of a firearm shall, prior to im
porting, making, or transferring a firearm,
obtain authorization in such manner as requi
red by this chapter or regulations issued there
5
-under to import, make, or transfer the firearm,
and such authorization shall effect the regis
tration of the firearm required by this section,”
Title 26 U.S.C.A. Section 5811 - Transfer tax:
“(b) By whom paid.—The tax imposed by sub
-section (a) of this section shall be paid by the
transferor.”
Title 26 U.S.CA. Section 5812 - Transfers:
“(a) Application.—A firearm shall not be trans
-ferred unless (1) the transferor of the firearm
has filed with the Secretary a written application,
in duplicate, for the transfer and registration of
the firearm to the transferee on the application
form prescribed by the Secretary; (2) any tax pay
-able on the transfer is paid as evidenced by the
proper stamp affixed to the original application
form; (3) the transferee is identified in the appli
-cation form in such manner as the Secretary
may by regulations prescribe, except that, if such
person is an individual, the identification must
include his fingerprints and his photograph; (4)
the transferor of the firearm is identified in the
application form in such manner as the Secretary
may by regulations prescribe; (5) the firearm is
identified in the application form is such manner
as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe;
and (6) the application form shows that the Secre
-tary has approved the transfer and the registra
tion of the firearm to the transferee. Applications
shall be denied if the transfer, receipt, or posses
sion of the firearm would place the transferee in
violation of law.”
2nd Constitutional Amendment Right - The Right
to Bear Arms
5th Constitutional Amendment Right - Due
Process of Law
14th Constitutional Amendment Right - Equal Pro6
tections of the Law
Title 28 U.S.C.A. Section 1331 — Federal Question
Title 28 U.S.C.A. Section 2201 - Creation of Reme
-dy - Chapter 151 - Declaratory Judgment
‘ 7
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
? V f«":;
• Between January' 28,‘1992 and July 14,1993
the United States Department of Justice (USDJ) ‘
through its subagencies, the United States Federal
District Court of Central District of California, the
United States Attorney’s Office (USAO),’ - the Fede
-ral Bureau of Investigation,’(FBI) and the1 Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) gave to
Petitioner, Christian Nadal several weapons cata
logues ie:’ Global Sales’"Limited and Shotgun News.’
FBI 302 Report, See Ex. 1, p. 15 of'Petition.' At ‘ ‘!i
trial; the government 'objected to petitioner intro
ducing the catalogues' as evidence.
1. Case history *
. (x)FBI Agent, Michael; German (fired from the
FBI’ in 2004) and his ^informant, Gary Peacock
(felon for armed' robbery) purchased about half of
the Sten machineguns from Sarco, Inc. and Global
Sales Ltd. that Petitioner was convicted of. Gary'
Peacock was paid $150,000 to set Petitioner up on
these firearms violations. All of the Sten machine- .
guns purchased by Petitioner were paid for on his ’
credit card.
''
51
'
■*' ’
*• At trial the Court and ‘the ‘ U S. Attorney Tited
Title 26 'U.S.C. Section 5845(b) Machinegun,‘Title1
18‘ U.S.G: ' 922(o)(l) ‘Machineguns possessed ‘after
the 1986 bah; The U.S. Attorney,* Gregory Jessrier
stated to the jury at-trial that'the machihegufi kits
were legal to purchase. PTease see, Trial Transcript
Volume II, page 11. i
8
v
The Court refused to address the legality of the
machinegun kits advertised for sale in the catalo
gues that were given to Petitioner. Whether the
machinegun and silencer kits were machineguns
and silencers per Federal Statute Law and Federal
Case Law regulated under Title 18 and 26. The
Court of Appeals reversed Petitioner’s wife's conviction stating that “No reasonable jury could have
convicted Doris.” United States v. Nadal. No. 93
-50849, No. 93-50851 (9th Cir. 1995), also United
States v« Nadal. 64 F.3d 667 (9th Cir. 1995). A
Writ of Certiorari was filed by Petitioner with the
United States Supreme Court which was Denied on
Nadal v. United States. 512 US 1122 (1996).
On March 11,1996 Petitioner filed Christian
Nadal v. Sarco. Incorporated. CIV-96-0630-PHX
-CAM (MS) whom along with Global Sales Limit
ed, CIV-96-2234-PHX-ROS were the primary seller,
distributor of the machineguns and silencers sold
to (x)FBI Agent, Michael German and the Petition
er. Sarco, Inc. was called in by the government to
testify, but, when the Petitioner stated to the Court
that he purchased the majority of the weapons from
Sarco and paid by credit card the government never
called Sarco to the stand.
On October 18,1996, Petitioner filed his 2255 Mo
-tion to Vacate his Conviction. Judge, Ronald S.W.
Lew denied the 2255 petition and refused to addres
-s the legality of the machinegun and silencer kits
advertised in the catalogues given to Petitioner by
the FBI/BATF. The Ninth Circuit .Court of Appeals
l Vol II, p 11. Exhibit 4-E.This machinegun was made from a
9
denied, the appeal United States • v. Nadal. 188
F.3d516 (9th Cir. 1999). . ,
After April 9th 1998, Petitioner filed a “Judicial
Notice to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals while
his 2255 Motion was pending before the Court,
United States of America v. Christian Nadal,
No. 97-55531, DC. No. CV-96-08061-RSWL. In
Petitioners’ other case Christian Nadal v. Bu
-Reau of Prisons. CV-97-053-TUT-RTT, the Uni
ted States Attorneys’Office of Tucson,. AZ; US At
torney, Daniel Knauss, stated in his. Motion For
Judgment on the Pleadings filed on April 9th, 1998
@,page 3'&4: .2,
• 1 .
,
,
w
.
<
.,
•
’:
■:
t
'
:
^
■-
.
Sten machmegun kits sold to the (x)FBI Agent,
Michael German and to Petitioner and at that time
to 14,000 other citizens by Sarco alone.
. ,
.
J
■
4
■-
- I
■
*
.
-
w*.
1
p
..
t
r1
>'
•»
•
,
On November 26th, 1996 petitioner filed Chris
-tian Nadal v. Global Sales Limited, CIV-962234-PHX-ROS. The Court ordered the United
States Marshalls Office to serve Global Sales
Limited in Reno, Nevada then again the Court
Ordered the United States Marshall’s to now serve
AA-OK. Incorporated the complaint since
7
’ 4 •
kit. You may be surprised, perhaps even astonished, to learn
that these kits are readily available’. They can be purchased
-1
*
legally.
2 “Exhibit C, the pre-sentence report, shows also that Nadal
gave a number of machinegun kits to his co-conspirator,
Christopher Berwick, for assembly which he then sold to the
agents. These also qualifyas transfers under 18 U.S.C. Sec
tion 922(o)(l). Cf., United States v. Bradley. 822F.2d 634
10
Global shutdown operations in Reno, NV after
being served and restarted under AA-OK. Inc.
which again refused to answer the complaint and
defaulted.
In the Global Sales Limited case the Court Or
dered Petitioner to file Motion for Default Judg
ment.
On February 25th, 1998 per Judge Silver’s DE
FAULT JUDGMENT PROCEDURE LIST. Petition
-er sent Motion’s for Default Judgment to both
Global Sales limited and AA-OK, Incorporated.
These motions for Default Judgment sat in front of
Judge, Roslyn Silver for two years.
On January 23rd, 1997 Petitioner filed Christian
Nadal v. Bureau of Prisons. CV-97-053-TUTRTT, case No. 99-15228 (9th Cir.). On January 5,
1999, Judge, John Roll applied Heck v.Humnhrev
a 512 U.S. 477 (1994) on Petitioners’ Christian Na
dal v. Bureau of Prisons case after the US Attor
ney’s office, US Attorney, Daniel G. Knauss in Tuc
son, AZ stated on April 9, 1998 that the machinegun kits sold by Sarco and Global Sales in Petition
ers’ case were machineguns per Title 26 U.S.C. Sec.
5845.
On May 20, 1997 Petitioner filed Christian
Nadal v. Mike Adams. CIV-97-1096-PHX-ROS
(MS), Case No. 98-15120 (9th Cir. 1998). Habeas
(7* Cir. 1990), Cert. Den. 495 U.S: 909 (1990), (transfer of
parts sufficient to convert a weapon to a machinegun was a
“transfer in gross” sufficient to qualify as a machinegun in
violation of 26 U.S.C. Section 5845.)”
11
Corpus 2241 Motion because Judge Lew denied his
2255 Motion..
i
\
* t
On July 30, 1997 Petitioner filed Christian
Nadal v, R.P.B. Industries. . CV-97-7517-JSL(JGX),-; GY-97-5717-ABC (MAN) and Christian,/
Nadal v, Shooters Equipment Company, C V-97
-5718t(LGB)(CTx),, CV.^y-SyiS-ABCCMAN).
’Ml
On September 12,1997 Petitioner filed Christian
Nadal v. Cobrav- Firearms, CV-97-7021 (WMB),
Case No. 97-56717 (9th ,Cir. 1998).
• h
1-
rl ,
t j
On September 2, 1999 Petitioner filed Christian
Nadal v. Raymond Andrews, CV-F-99-6070-REC
-LJO-P a Habeas Corpus Motion Section 2241 on
the Violent Crime .Control and- Law Enforcement
Act of 1994 application to petitioner.
1
■
1
11
1
"■■■'
■
■
■'
’
'
**
■
*
n
:4.‘
i
11
.
•
:
'
■
i
.
in
i.i
:
.
*
; V.
.
1
"...
.
■.■■■■;
.i
:
. On December 21, 1999 Petitioner filed Christian
Nadal v. Raymond Andrews, CIV-F-99-6784j
OWW-HGB-P demanding the Court to identify thej
machinegun and silencer kits, involved in Petitioner
-s’ case. On March 9, 2001 the case was transferred
“IN, THE INTEREST , OF JUSTICE” .back .to,the
trial Judge, Ronald; Lew .which, denied the Petition. •
On December 27, 2004 ^Petitioner filed Doris Na
-dal and Christian Nadal v, Gregory Jessner,
CV-04-10494-ABC(MAN after Petitioner received
the December' 9, 2003 ietter from. the Attorney,
Mary H. Seuttinger, of the Bureau of Alcohol, To
bacco,'Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) office sta
ting that machinegun kits are machineguns regula
-ted under Title 26 U.S.C.A. Section 5845(b).
12
See Ex. 5, p. 19 of Petition. 3
Contradicting what the U.S. Attorney stated to the
jury at trial.
In late 2017 Petitioner was told about United
States v. Roh. Case No. SACK 14-167 JVS, Cen
-tral District of California, Santa Ana, CA which
cited United States v. Jimenez. 191 F.Supp.3d
1038 which ruled that the trigger housing of the
M-16 was a part of a machinegun, therefore a ma
-chineg-un. This M-16 trigger housing is identical
to the Sten machinegun trigger housing, MAC 9/10
/II trigger housing etc. Sold by Sarco, Inc., R.P.B.
Industries, Global Sales Limited and Cobray Fire
arms Company.
On March 1, 2018 Petitioner filed Christian
Nadal and Robbie BaiscUe v. United States of
America. Case No. 4:18-cv-00001-DN under 28
U;S.C.A. Section 1331 Federal Question asking the
Court to identify the firearms advertised and sold
in the catalogues given to Petitioner. The case was
dismissed without prejudice.
On October 16, 2018 Petitioner filed Christian
Nadal. Robbie Bascue v. United States'"of Am
3 ‘To clarify my letter of November 21, 2003, please be aware
that a machine gun parts kit is also prohibited under the
definition of a machine gurias defined in 26 U.S.C. Section
5845(b). Section 5845(b) not only includes machine guns as
defined above, but, also, “any part designed and intended
solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and
intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun,
and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can
be assembled if such parts are in possession or under the con
trol of a person.”
13
♦erica. Case No.4:18 cv-00069-ND under 28 USCA
Section 1331 Federal Question. The case was dis
missed due to Jurisdiction. The United States At
torney, John Huber and Todd Hilbig stated in his
RESPONDENT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
’S MOTION TO DISMISS dated December 19, 2018
The United States Attorneys’ office confirmed that
the machinegun and silencer kits advertised and
sold through the catalogues that the government
gave to Petitioner were machineguns and silencers
regulated under Title 18 and 26. Thus confirming
that the Los Angeles US Attorneys’ Office perjured
themselves at Petitioners’ trial.
The United States Attorney in their RESPON
DENT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S REPLY
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
DISMISS cited McQuiggin v„ Perkins. 133 S.Ct.
1924(2013): 6
Under Title 28 U.S.C.A. Section 2255(h): e
4 ‘This request for declaratory judgment, however, contains
no “actual controversy.” 82 This Court is not faced with “a
case... within its jurisdiction.”
5 “McQuiggin held that the “actual innocence” gateway to ha
beas review survived the passage of the AEDPA statute of
limitations.” etc.
S3T~
6 "a prisoner can bring a second successive petition based on
-ly on facts that clearly demonstrate actual innocence or a
new rule of constitutional law that the Supreme Court has
made retroactive. There is no provision for new rules of statu
-tory interpretation, ”
14
I
In Christian Nadal v. Sarco Incorporated,
Judge, Nagles’, October 27,1998 Order at page 5: i
Catalogues given to Petitioner stated: See Ex. 7A,
7B, p. 21, 22 of Petition.
ie: Global Sales Limited, that stated: 8
Or for their Auto-Sears , M-16 trigger sets, MAC 9/
10/11, Sten machinegun kits and silencer kits, both
catalogues Global Sales Limited and Shotgun News
stated: (as shown in the petition Exhibits). 9
7 “Nadal claims that the Federal government, through know
-ingly false advertising, intended to induce people to purchase
weapons that the government knew to be illegal. If Nadal were
permitted to bring a section 1983 action against the govern
ment based on this belief, any judgment in his favor would ne
cessarily undermine the prior finding that Nadal had the re
quisite intent to commit fraud. In other words, if the govern
ment had Convinced Nadal through its advertisements that the
weapons were not Illegal to possess. Nadal Could not properly
be said to have knowingly used the mail to commit ah illegal
act. The government’s fraudulent misrepresentation would, ne
gate the element required to convict Nadal of fraud."
8 'To our knowledge none of the items for sale by us requires
any special Federal or State license to purchase or possess. Un
-der Current Federal law no restrictions are placed on inter
state / intrastate purchases and shipping of the gun parts,
parts sets, or accessories currently offered for sale in this cata
log. These items can be sold & shipped to anyone, any age,
any address. However., some State and local laws MAY apply!
It is your responsibility to check this before ordering!”
Auto-Sears
9 “Global Sales Ltd.
“No Federal License or Registration is necessary for purchase
or ownership! Other NFA rules may apply! DROP-IN AUTO
SEARS made after Nov 1, 1981 have been ruled to be a ma
chinegun in and of themselves by ATF (Ruling 81-4)”
“NO FFL REQUIRED"
TPF & Shotgun News Auto-sears
15
SEC .
Silencers
RPB
•
MAC kits
Sten kits w/without receivers
“ITS SIMPLE ITS LEGAL ”
“BATF APPROVED”
‘NO REGISTRATION OR
' LICENSE NEEDED TO
’ ‘ PURCHASE OR POSSESS”
I
United 'States v. Jessner. V-04-10494 PSG
(ABC)(MAN) on September 13, 2005 Hearing, As*
sistant United States Attorney, Robert Lester sta
-ted (Please see) Exhibit 45 at page 82 of the Origi
nal Petition: 10
.i i *
; "*
.
-».
■
. i
The United States Judiciary and, the. United
States Attorney’s office in Jessner above confirmed
that the United States Department of Justice
through its. FBI and BATF Agencies distributed to
the public and to ,the Petitioner Catalogs that they
10 “MR. LESTER:
It’s a big “if.” But I will assume for the sake of this discussion
that the gun company is advertising in a mdgazine to sell item
-s that are illegal to sell/or illegal to buy.- Til assume that for
the sake of this discussion.. Then of course I would encouragemy friends in the criminal division to consider and the FBI ‘ The COURT: Go after the gun company as well as the purcha
4 "
-sers.
1
MR. LESTER:
.
- L.V ■
(
.>
• '
.
i ...
i
v
\
■
i
.
’
»
• •
,
That’s right.-t I would certainly recommend that to that extent
that my recommendation would serve of any interest to any of
+•
•'t
.V *
those people.
THE COURT: And you would also assert.that the fact that the
gun company was engaging in an illegal conduct does not excu
se the purchaser from the gun company. If it was 'illegal., iopo ssess or purchase such weapons? Yes? *
'
' ’
*
■
‘i
MR. LESTER: Precisely.”
1
16
knew were actively engaged in a Consumer Fraud
Scheme of fraudulently advertising illegal weapons
for sale and selling illegal weapons to the public
and the Petitioner. The Court and the US AttorNeys’ Office confirm that the US Department of
Justice knew that it was giving to Petitioner ca
talogues that would sell illegal weapons that would
thereby place the public and the Petitioner in vio
lation of the Law.
On September 21, 2021, Petitioner filed this in
stant Petition Christian Nadal v. United States
States of America. 2:21-CV-7590-RSWL-l under
2nd
28 U.S.C.A. Section 1331 Federal Question,
Constitutional Amendment, Case No. 22-55262 (9th
Cir. 2022), the court then converted the Petition in
-to a Coram Nobis Petition.
The Court again denied the Petition and refused
to answer the legality of the machineguns and silen
cers even after two other California Federal Courts
in United States v. Roh. Case No. SACR 14-167
JVS citing United States v. Jimenez. 191 F.Sup
-p.3d 1038 (Dis. ND. Calif. 2016) and the BATF let
-ter stated that the exact same trigger housing sold
by Sarco, Inc., Cobray Firearms, R.P.B. Industries
and Global Sales Limited were machineguns.
2. Statement of facts of law
Petitioner states that per Federal Statute Law
and federal Case Law that the machineguns and
silencer kits are regulated under Title 18 & 26. The
kits can be purchased with or without the receiver
tubes. The government at trial did not state that!
■ 17
The following case law confirms that just one part
or a combination of parts of a machinegun/silencer.
is a weapon regulated under Title'18 &.26.:n ' ’
4*
f
Federal'Statute Law 12
, l :
’
•
*)
1 ■ >. t: ■*? *
‘
.■' * r v-
'
»•,
QUESTIONS.PRESENTED. ,
* s
1. . Are the catalogues.given, to petitioner ie:
Global Sales Limited and Shotgun News fraud
-ulentiy, advertising' for sale illegal machineguns and silencers .kits machineguns and si
lencers to the petitioner and the public when
those catalogues explicitly, state that NO Fed
11 United States v. Roh. Case No. 14-167 JVS , (Dist. C.D.
Calif.) citing United States v. 'Jimenez. '191F.Supp.3d 1038
1038 (D.CA\ 2016); United States v! Bradley,1 892 F.2d 634®635 <7* Cir.1990) citine United States u -Campbell! 427 F,2d
892.® 893 (5th Cir. 1970): , United States v.- Was. 684 F.Supp.
350 @ 353 {D.Conn. 1998): F.J. Vollmer v. Hissens. 23 F.3d
448 @449 (D.C. 1994); United States v. Kindred. 931 F. 2d
609 @610 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Bradley. 548 F.
Supp. 1130 ® 1136 (4th Cir. 1977); United States v. Palmieri.
21 F.3d 1265 @1272 (3«* Cir. 1994), 93-5134 United States v.
Palmieri: United States v.-Smith. 477 F.2d 399, 400 (8th Cir.
1973); United States v. Catanzaro. 368 F.Supp. 450 @ 453 (D.
Conn. 1973); United States v. Luce. 726 F.2d 47 @ 48 (1st Cir!
1984): United States v. Evans. 712 F.Sudd.1435 (D.Mont. 1989); United States v. Evans. 928 F.2d 858 (9th Cir. 1991); Un->
ited States v. Bishop, 926 F.3d 621 (10th Cir. 2019). t United ,
States v. Kelly. 548 F,.Supp. 1130 ® 1136 (fh (Cir. 1997), ,
12 “Title 26 U.S:C. 'Section 5845(b) ' “Machinegun"; :Title 18 '
U.S.C, Section 921(a)(25) “Firearms silencer’’; Title 18 U.S.C.
Section 921(a)(24) “Machinegun”; Title 26 U.S:C.(d); “Receive
a firearm illegally”; Title 26 U.S.C. 5861(e) “transfer a firearm
illegally; Title 26 U.S.C. Section 5841 “Registration of firearm
*?; Title 26 U:S.C.• Section'5811 “Transfer tax”; Title 26 (J.S.
C. Section 5812 “Transfers”.- T'4'
- 1 •
18
-eral Registration or License is Required to
Purchase these items for sale, NO FFL is Re
quired to purchase? The Lower Courts should
have answered the questions per Title 28 U.S,
CA Section 1331 - Federal Question and Title
28 U.S.CA. Section 2201 - Creation of Remedy
- Chapter 151 - Declaratory Judgment
Are the machinegun kits and silencer kits
advertised for sale in the catalogues given to
Petitioner listed in the Coram Nobis / Title 28
U.S.C. Section 1331 of the Petition listed at
pages 20 to 59 machineguns and silencers re
gulated under Title 18 and 26 U.S.C.?
Global Sales Limited now AA-OK, Incorporated
again refused to answer the Court Order to answer
the complaint and defaulted! Shotgun News shut
down in 2015 and stopped allowing weapons compa
-nies advertising machineguns and silencers kits
for sale to the public.
After Petitioner had StormFront, a European
American website place Petitioners warning to the
public about this Federal Government Weapons
Scam next to the BATFEs’ website. The BATFE
started placing pictures of the Auto-Sears, and ma
chinegun kits and silencer kits on their webpage to
warn the public about their illegality. You can no
longer find Auto-Sears for sale to the public.
(Please see) this instant Coram Nobis Petition.
Exhibit 46 @ page 85 - 88.
Immediately after trying to serve R.P.B. Indus
tries and Shooters Equipment Company, these
19
two weapons companies stopped advertisings, their
illegal MAC Machinegun kits, Silencer kits to the
public in Shotgun News.
i ■.
» .
<../
!
. -i.
Sarco Incorporated.'answered the complaint
arid stated that they had sold 14,000 Sten machine
-gun kits to the public; Sarco also sells .50 and .30
Caliber machinegun kits among many others as
shown in Exhibit 25 to 44 of the Coram Nobis Peti
tion.1 The Federal Court applied Heck v.' Humph
rey, on Sarco, Inc.1 Thereby allowing Sarco/ Inc.
and R.P.B. Industries to continue to this day on sel
-ling illegal machinegun arid silencer kits to the pu
*
-blic.
• ’i
<*! 1
\
.
'
•
’
'
i
'•
Petitioner asked the Lower Courts to state and
make a Declaratory Judgment on whether ,these
machinegun and silencer kits were fraudulently ad
-vertised for sale to the public arid regulated under
Title 18 and 26 U.S:C.! The Petitioner requested
under Title' 28, U.S.C.A. Section 1331 - Federal
Question, Title 28 U.S.C.A. 2201 - Creation of re
medy -Chapter 151-Declaratory Judgment to
state the legality of these kits. The Courts repea
tedly refused to answer the Motions for a Declara
tory Judgment and state'the issue of the kits. ; 2 Did the United States Department of Just
•-ice knowingly by'giving and distributing ca
talogues Advertising through a fraud scheme
arid selling illegal weapons to. Petitioner and
the public - violate the . 2nd . Constitutional Amendment Rights of those > persons illegally
convicted of purchasing those" machirieguris
and silencers.
20
United States v. Roh.. Case No. SACR 14-167
JVS@page2&3: 13
Petitioner claims that the Federal Government
giving him catalogues that advertise for sale and
state that the machinegun and silencer kits, AutoSears are legal to purchase is a Consumer Fraud
Scheme.
Petitioner also claims that selling to him illegal
machinegun and silencer kits through weapons co
mpanies that the Government licensed that by sta
tute law was required to register and pay the $200
transfer tax prior to transferring them to Petition
er and (x)FBI Agent, Michael German is illegal.
13 “The court, after reviewing the evidence in the light most
Favorably to the government, must determine whether the
jury could reasonably find the defendant guilty beyond a rea
-sonable doubt.” United States v. Bernhardt. 840 F.2d
1441, 1448 (9th Cir. 1988).
Criminal statutes must give fair
notice of their scope: It is a basic principle of due process that
an enactment is void for vaeueness if its prohibitions are not
clearly defined. Vague laws offend several important values.
First, because we assume that man is free to steer between
Lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws eive the
person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to
know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly.
Vague laws may trap the innocently by not providing fair
warning. Second, I f arbitrary and discriminatory enforce
ment is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards
for those who apply them. ” “Gravned v. City of Rockford.
408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972) (emphasis supplied). More stringent
standards are applied where the vagueness challenge involves
a criminal statute or the exercise of constitutional rights.
Villaee of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside Hoffman Estates
. Inc.. 455 U.S. 489-99(1982); Mc-ormac.k v. Herznn. 788
FM 1017, 1031 (9th Cir. 2015).”
21
Petitioner claims that the Federal Government
knew that these companies were Violating the law
arid knew that it would cause Petitioner and the
persons who purchased these kits to be in violation
of the law as confirmed by Judge, Nagle and AUSA,
Robert Lester in Nadal v. Jessner, See Ex: 45, p.
82 of Petition. Petitioner claims that Judge, Ronald
S.W. Lew should have addressed this issue in the
instant Coram Nobis/Petition 1331. •
Petitioner claims that the Federal Government
is operating a Consumer Fraud Scheme through
the US'Attorneys’ Office; FBI and BATFE by dis
tributing and having these catalogues that adver
tise arid illegally sell machinegun arid silericer kits
\machineguns arid silencers to both Petitioner and
the public.
For the sole purpose to illegally convict, steal the
properties,' illegally intern persons in the Federal*
Concentration Camp System also known as the
Bureau of Prisons and make them a felon so that
the people can no longer own firearms in violation
of their 2nd Constitutional Amendment Rights.
3 Does Heck V. Humphrey, violate Petition
er’s Rights to due Process of the law, 5th and
14th Constitutional Amendment Rights when
used by the Federal Courts and the United
States Attorney’s Office to stop a civil com
plaint that shows that the Petitioner is inno
cent of the alleged'crime itt his Criminal case?
22
Petitioner claims that applying Heck v. Humph
rey to his civil cases does violate his 5th and 14th
Constitutional Amendment Rights. As stated abo
ve in this instant Petition and Brief, when the Fe
deral Courts applied Heck v, Humphrey on Na
-dal v. Jessner, Nadal v. Sarco. Nadal v. Glob
-al Sales Limited and Nadal v. Bureau of Pri
sons. it knew that it would stop all of Petitioners’
civil complaints.
Thereby protecting the government, its weapons
companies that operate as informants for the gov
ernment ie: Sarco Incorporated and R.P.B. Indus
tries who were called in as witnesses for the gover
-nment at Petitioners’ and Robbie Bascues trials.
Petitioner claims that his 5th and 14th Constitu
tional Amendment Rights were violated when the
Court refused to answer his issues raised in his Pe
-titions and this instant Coram/Nobis /1331 Peti
tion.
•.
The Court in the interest of justice is required to
answer Petitioners’ issues raised in his Petitions
and this instant Coram Nobis/1331 Petition.
4 Is Petitioner a Vexatious Litigant by filing
his Habeas Corpus 2255, 2241 and Coram No
bis Motions allowed by law?
Petitioner claims that he is not a vexatious liti
gant by rightfully filing his 2255,2241 and Coram
Nobis Motions.
Petitioner claims that the Court, Judge, Ronald
S.W. Lew continuously and repeatedly refused to
23
answer any legal questions on the kits issue rais
ed in the Habeas Corpus motions and in this in
stant motion.
Petitioner stated in his Response to Court Order
filed January 31, 2022, that he filed his 2255 mo
tion with new evidence from the. Federal Govern
ment itself ie: Nadal v. Bureau of Prisons.
when Tucson, AZ, US Attorneys’ office stated that
the machinegun kits were machineguns under 5845(b). In this instant Coram Nobis/1331 Petition,
the BATF letter stating machinegun kits, parts etc.
are machineguns regulated under Title 18 & 26.
See Ex. 5, p. 19 of Petition. The very same BATF
and FBI Office that gave Petitioner the weapons
catalogues stating that these weapons were legal
tp purchase and possess.
Petitioner claims that he has a legal right to file
these 2255,2241 and Coram Nobis/1331 Petitions.
That the Court should by law have answered the
questions raised in these motions. Had the Court
Raised or answered these issues prior to trial, the
Petitioner would not have had to file all of these
motions. United States v. Jimenez. 191 F.Supp.
3d @1040: H
14 "A pretrial motion to dismiss a criminal case is appropria
-te “if it involves questions of law rather than fact. ” United
States v. Shortt Accountancy Coro.. 785 F.2d 1448. 1452
(9th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). A district court “may make
preliminary findings of fact necessary to decide the questions
of law presented by pretrial motions so long as the court’s find
-ings on the motion do not violate the province of the ultimate
finder of fact. ”
24
The Court arid the US Attorneys’ Office cited to
the jury Title 26 U.S.C. Section 5845(b). The Court
and the US Attorneys’ Office cannot state that they
did not know the law that the machinegun and sil
encer kits were not machineguns and silencers reg
-ulated under Title 18 & 26 and sold illegally to the
Petitioner, (x)FBI Agent, Michael German and the
public. The jury was unreasonable as confirmed by
the Q111 Circuit Court of Appeals on Petitioners’ Di
rect Appeal as the jury clearly could not read or un
-derstand the law.
5 Petitioner’s Coram Nobis should be Grant
ed due to the facts of law that clearly show
the Petitioners’ actual innocence.
The fact of law, contrary to what the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals stated in their Opinion of this in
stant case, clearly states that the Auto-Sears ad
vertised in the catalogues given to Petitioner were
machineguns per federal statute law and as ruled
in United States v. Was. These Auto-Sears im
mediately stopped being sold by Global Sales.
Ltd, after they were served by the US Marshalls
Office. No thanks to the US Attorneys’ Office and
the Court.
The Sten and MAC machinegun kits advertised
and sold by Sarco Incorporated. Global Sales
Limited and R.P.B. Industries are also machineguns regulated under Title 18 & 26. These Sten
and MAC machineguns stopped being advertised
and sold by Global and R.P.B. immediately after
being served the complaint against them as well as
the silencer kits sold by Global. R.P.B. and Shoot
25
ers Equipment. Co. Thanks to Heck v. Humph
rey and protected by the US Department of Justice,
the Courts and the US Attorneys’ Office, Sarco and
R.P.B.. today continue to sell their illegal machinegun with / without the upper receiver and silencer
kits.
. While these companies named'above have continu
-ed.to sell their illegal machineguns and silencers to
the public, Petitioner lost his job flying Boeing 747s
for Continental Airlines, his income,’ his pension
and was separated from his wife while interned in
the Federal Concentration Camp System for 6 %
years. ..■ •
.
V- .
His wife was illegally interned for 2 years until her
illegal conviction was reversed.
•
The Coram Nobis here clearly shows an error of
fact that is distinguished from law.
The (x)FBI Agent, Michael German at trial testi
fied that Petitioner told them that once they had as
sembled the machinegun and silencer kits together
that they should register them. Both Petitioner and
Michael German had purchased the majority of the
weapons on their credit card and shipped to their
homes in their names letting the BATFE and all
Law Enforcement Agencies know that they had
these weapons. See Ex. 6, p. 20 of Petition.
At trial the silencers showed that they had been da
-maged when test fired by the government since
they were bent to make them inoperative. •
At Chino, CA Airport where Petitioner had his 1942 Lockeed Lodestar parked next to the Memphis
26
Bell B-17 Bomber which carried about 10, .50 / .30
Caliber machineguns, Petitioner showed (x)FBI Agent, Michael German the weapons. None of which
are registered since they were kept somewhat non
functional, but, still illegal.
Petitioner claims that this Writ of Coram Nobis as
stated by the US Attorneys’ Office in Salt Lake City,
UT in Christian Nadal v. United States. Case No.
4:18-cv-00069-DN is his only remedy left to cor >it
the error and have his illegal conviction revere
Petitioner claims that it was a legal impossibility
for him to register the weapons that he and the ag-ents purchased from Sarco, Inc., Global Sales, Ltd.
and R.P.B. Industries.
Petitioner claims that a Coram Nobis has no time
limit of when to file the motion when actual inno
cence is shown McGuiggin v. Perkins. 133 S.Ct.
1924(2013).
Petitioner claims that Judge, Ronald S.W. Lew
would not have granted this Coram Nobis even if
filed after his probation was over.
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT
As in Jimenez and Bishop where each defen
dant were convicted for just possessing one part on
-ly of a machinegun, the kits stated above only had
one missing part or needing a part to be bent into
shape. Clearly these kits are illegal. Petitioner
can’t even purchase them to introduce them as evi
-dence in this very Court due to their illegality.
27
CONCLUSION
•
.1
The issue presented before this Court concerns
the lives of hundreds of thousands of American Ci
tizens that have purchased these illegal machinegun and silencer kits Nation Wide which should be
addressed by this United States Supreme Court. ■
The District Court in its Order dated December
15, 2021 and March 2, 2022 bn the 2nd page of both
Orders states: The allegations against Petitioner
concerned the manufacturer and sale of illegal fire
arms and their parts:’ Not once did the 'Courts ’
ever answer or address the issue of whether the ma
-chinegun / silencer kits, parts kits! or parts were
a firearm regulated under Title 18 Or 26. Yet, the
Court convicted Petitioner of the Auto-Sears (4
parts) ruled by United States v. Was after it gave
through the FBI and BATFE catalogues that stated
they were legal to purchase “NO FFL REQUIRED
TO PURCHASE OR POSSESS”. The Court also con
-victed Petitioner of the machineguns that were al
ready manufactured by Sarco, R.P.B. and Global as
a machinegun when the kits contained the exact
same trigger housing as in United States v. Roh
and United States v. Jimenez. The same applies to
silencer kits sold to both Petitioner and the agents.
The Court states that Petitioner’s arguments are
baseless and meritless, yet other Courts found me
rit in his claims and Ordered the United States Mar
-shalls’ to serve the complaints against several
weapons companies that Judge, Ronald SW Lew is
28
I
protecting. Judge Lew and the Ninth Circuit never
once answered any of the Federal Case Law cited in
any of Petitioner’s Petitions concerning the kits.
It is a legal impossibility for the Petitioner, Chris
tian Nadal to register and pay the $200 Transfer
Tax per Title 26 U.S.C.A. Section 5841, 5811, 5812
for the machineguns and silencers that he and Mi
chael German purchased from the catalogues given
to him by the FBI and BATFE.
Based on the foregoing, Petitioner respectfully re
quest that his Petition for a Writ of Certiorari and
his Coram Nobis and a full reversal of his illegal
conviction and a dismissal of all charges be
GRANTED.
Respectfully submitted
\9 ‘
Dated: May 15, 2023.
By:
Christian Gilbert Tony Nadal - pro se
3566 South 1550 West .
St. George, UT 84790
(435) 659-7605
christheflverl@aol.com
29
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.