# Appendix — In re Davis > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385019_2188%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1988 - **Citation:** 488 U.S. 814 ## Text ad ¢ en ce, a 1: oupreme Coun, IS “. 88-260 FILED > 10 1988 No.. AUG 10 198 JOSEPH F. SPANIOL, JR, CLERK IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA October Term, i988 IN RE EUGENE H. DAVIS; PETITIONER IN PROPRIA PERSONA on a Writ of Prohibition to the United States District Court of the District of Arizona, Tucson, Judge Alfredo C. Marquez presiding; Ninth Circuit Judges, Kilkenny, Sneed and O'Scannlain; Respondents APPENDIX TO THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION AND WRIT OF ERROR Eugene H. Davis 7447 N. Camino De Oeste Tucson, County of Pima ist Judicial District (1909) Republic of Arizona 10. 11. TABLE OF CONTENTS Appendix A Minute Entry and Order Four Pages Appendix B Memorandum and Order Ninth Circuit Six Pages Appendix C Order rehearing Rejecting rehearing Two Pages Appendix D Order rehearing Denied One Page Appendix E Article III U.S. Constitution One Page Appendix F Declaration of Independence One Page Appendix G Appellant Brief Excerpts Eignt Pages Appendix H Definition of De Novo One page Appendix I Excerpts Trial Transcripts Six Pages Appendix J Amendment Article V One Page Appendix K UNITED STATES VidikiCl CUURI VISItRIC! UF ARIZUNA No. CK-GoO-2Z2U/-1UC-AUM DEFENVANIT: EUGENE H. DAVIS WITH CUUNSEL: Eugene H. Vavis, Pro Per GUILTY: Counts 1-3 Detendant has been convicted as charged ot the offenses of violating litie 26, United States Code, Section 7/7201, attempt to evade and defeat tax, as charged in Counts 1-3 of the Indictment filed herein. SENTENCE OR PROBATIUN ORDER: The court asked whether detendant' had anything to say why judgment should not be pronounced. Because no sufficient cause to the contrary was shown, or appeared to the court, the court adjudged the detendant guilty as charged and convicted and ordered that: Ihe Vetendant 15 hereby Appendix A page 1 committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his authorized representative tor imprisonment tor a period of two years on Count 1. Imposition of the sentence is hereby suspended and the detendant is placed on probation tor a period of tive (5) years on each ofr Counts Zz and 3. Probationary terms imposed to run or be served concurrently with each other and to commence immediately. SPECIAL CONDITIUNS UF PRUBATIUN: It 1S FURTHER URDERED that a_ special assessment otf $5U0.UU is hereby imposed on Counts 1,2 & 3. Total Assessment: $150. UU. Additional conditions of probation 1s tnat the defendant comply with all! the filing requirements past and tuture of the Internal kKevenue Service; special condition of probation is that the detendant investigate the possiblility of Appendix A page z going back to work tor the southern Pacitic Raiiroad or with any other empioyer and to compiete the proper documents. ADDITIUNAL CUNDITIUNS OF PROBATION: in addition to the special conditions of probation imposed above, it is hereby ordered that the general conditions of probation set out on the reverse side of this judgment be imposed. The Court may change the conditions of probation, reduce or extend the period of probation, and at any time during the probation period or within a@ maximum probation period of tive years permitted by law, may issue a Warrant and revoke probation tor 3 violation occurring during the probation period. CUMMILTMENIT RECUMMENDAT IUN: ihe court orders commitment to the custody of the Attorney General and recommends, that the sentence imposed is Appendix A page < stayed pending the outcome ot any appeal in this case. Vetendant is to be supervised by probation ofticer pending and appeal and to obey ail requirements of the probation officer in this case. SIGNED BY:A.C. Marquez U.S. District Judge Appendix A page 4 eg, ee SS ee, ee NUT FUR PUBLIVCAILIUN UNITED STATES CUURT UF APFEALS FUR THE NINTH CIRCUII UNITED SIATES UF AMERICA, ) Plaintift - Apppellee, ) C.A.NoO.8/-1056 Vv. ) EUGENE H. DAVIS, ) D.C. No. 86- Defendant - Appellant. ) 207-TUC-ACM ) MEMORANDUM * —— oe er i Oe re OO OO rr OO Oe Om eH eH er er re Appeal trom the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Honorable Alfredo C. Marquis, Presiding Submitted November 27, 19687 #* Betore: KILKENNY, SNEED and U'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges. Davis appeals pro se his’ conviction under 26 U.S.C. Section 7201 ot three counts of income tax evasion. We attfirm. Davis first contends that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over Appendix B page 1 yp eer age ae him because (1) he is a sovereign individual by birth; (2) the tourteenth amendment is unconstitutional; and (3) the district court failed to meet its burden of showing that it had jurisdiction over him. We review de novo. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. British-American Ins. Oss 828 F.2d 1439, 1441 (CAY 1987). ee eee eee eee a ee a ae ea eae ree er OO HO OO Om Kr er er Kr er wm Or em wm wr Ke * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this Circuit except as provided by CAS Rule 36-34. *» The panel unanimously agrees that this case is appropriate for submission without Oral argument per FRAP 34(a) and CAQ Rule 34-4, A “sovereign individual" is subject to the provisions of the Interna! Revenue Code. See United States Ve Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 93/7 (CAQ 1986). Moreover, Davis's contention that the tourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States 1s unconstitutional is ludicrous) on its face. Finally, tederal district courts have original and exclusive jurisdiction Appendix B page 2 over "all ottenses against the laws of the United Statest,jJ" 16 U.S.C. Section 3231; this includes violations ot the Internal Revenue Code. Studley, 783 F2d at ¥3/7. Davis also argues that the prosecutor lied to the grand jury by falsely stating that Davis was a "taxpayer" and not a "sovereign individual by birth.” We review : de novo allegations of prosecutorial misconduct before a_- grand jury. United States v. De Kosa, 783 F.2d 1401, 1404 (CAS), cert. denied, U.S. » 106 S.Ct. 3282 (1986). Davis's argument is frivo!ous. Because Davis is subject to the provisions ot the Internal Revenue Code, see Studley, ‘83 F2d at ¥3Y, the prosecutor's remarks were correct. The appellee has asked tor two things on this appeal: that part otf Davis's opening brief be stricken as scurrilous; and that sanctions be imposed tor tiling a Appendix B page 3 trivolous appeal. The argument beginning at the bottom ot page 13 of Vavis’'’s opening brief and continuing through to the top of page zl is not only rambling and irrelevant to the legal issues raised in the first half of his brief, but its extremely radical theories with respect to religion also are entirely inappropriate in a torma! pleading. As to the request for sanctions, we do not tind this to be an appropriate case for the imposition oft damages for filing a trivolous appeal. Accordingly, appellee's motion to strike that portion of Vavis's opening briet beginning at the bottom ot page 13 and continuing through to the top ot page 21 is GRANTED. The request for sanctions is DENIED. The judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED. Appendix B page 4 a. (s) NUT SIGNED --a UNITED STATES CUURT UF APPEALS For the Ninth Circuit UNITED STATES UF AMERICA, ? Plaintitf-Appelee, ) CA NU.8/7-1056 Vv. IDE NU. CR-Sb EUGENE H. DAVIS, ) bDetendant-Appel lant. ) APPEAL tom the United States District Court for the District ot Arizona (lucson). THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the Transcript ot the kKecord trem the United Sstses Vistrict Court tor the District of Arizona, and was duly submitted. Appendix B page 5 UN CUNDSIVERAILIUN WHEREUF, it as now here ordered and adjudged by this Court, that the judgment of the said vistrict Court in this Cause be, and hereby is atfirmed. Filed and entered February 1VU, 1986 Appendix B&B page 6 UNITED SIATES UF AMERILA FUR IHE NINIM CIRCUIT UNITED STAIES UF AMERICA, )?) Apppel lee, ) &.A.NO.8/-1056 Vv. ) EUGENE H. DAVIS, ») D.C. No. 86- Appellant. » 20/-TUC-ACM ) URDER Betore: KILKENNY, SNEED and U'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges. The panel as constituted in the above case has voted to deny the petition tor rehearing. Judge U'Scanniain has voted to reject the suggestion tor rehearing in banc, and Judges Kilkenny and Sneed have recommended rejection oft tne suggestion tor rehearing in banc. The full court has been advised of the Suggestion for in banc rehearing, and no judge of the court has requested a vote on the suggestion tor rehearing in banc. Appendix C page 1 The petition for rehearing 1s denied and the suggestion tor rehearing i1n_- banc is rejected. Appendix C page 2 UNITED SIATES CUURT UF APPEALS FUR THE NINIH CIRCUIT UNITED SI!ATES UF AMERICA, ) Apppellee, ») C.A.NO.87-1056 Vv. ) EUGENE H. DAVIS, ) D.C. No. 86- Appellant. ») 207-TUC-ACM ) URDER Before: KILKENNY, SNEED and U'SUANNLAIN, Circuit Judges. This matter is now betore the Court on the appellant's petition for rehearing "to be reopened" with suggestion tor rehearing in banc, as well as a motion to recall and/or stay the mandate. The petition tor rehearing and Suggestion tor rehearing in banc have already been denied and rejected by previous Urder of this Court tiled April 18, 1988. The motion to recall! and/or Stay the mandate is DENIED. Appendix D page 1 la J. BS « CONS Ti rut i UN ARTICLE I11 Section 1. the Judicial Power of the Ubited States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both ot the supreme and intericr Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated limes, receive tor their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. section dz. The judicial Power shal! extend to al! Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and lreaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shai} be a Party3--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a state and Citizens ot another State;--between Citizens ot ditterent Sstates;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants ot ditterent States, and between a btate, or the Citizens or Subjects. Appendix E page 1 THR VDUECLARAT IUN Wk INDEPENDENCE SECUND PARAGRAPH Sentences 1 and 2 we hold these truths to be seit-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Lite, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. [hat to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers trom the consent of the governed. Appendix - page l United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth circuit EUGENE H. DAVIS, ) In Propria Persona, ) Accused/Appe! lant, ) Vv. ) No.&/-1U056 United States of America, ) By the American Bar Assoc., ?) Accuser/Appel lee. ) IN THE UNITED SIATES DISTRIC CUURT FUR THE DISTRICT UF AKIZUNA TUCSUN --—— — eH Om nm mm Mm mn Hm er wr wr rer Hr HO Oe HO er Or er Or er em ew -—— ww ww Mw e— wm Ow Ow er Mm wr nw ere OO wm Oe er Kr ewe wer we EUGENE H. DAVIS IN PRUPRIA FERSUNA /44/ No. Camino de VUeste fucson, Arizona 85/41 Appendix G page 1 1. The United states wovernment and the tower Court taiied to prove that a NEXUS (juriasdiction’ did exist between its seit and tugene HH. UVavis, a Sovereign Inhabitant by Birth of this great nation. 2. The IRS and the U. bs. Attorney did illegaily lie and entrap the Accused before the Grand Jury. Un or about 11/24/86 the United States court for the district of Arizona at Tucson did illegaily assume jurisdiction by arraignment of the Accused. Un or about 1/6/8/ the United States court tor the district of Arizona at Tucson did assume jurisdiction and the court did proceed with a trial. i. The Accused did present to the United States both tne Justice and the IRS a statutory waiver pursuant to the United States Uniform Commerciai code at Section l1-10/ delivered according to Section 1-2U1(14). pursuant to <6 Am Jur dd. Appendix & pagea Section 1oy. (See Attacnment (1)) An inhabitant by birth Elector/Legislator, not subject to government's NEXUS. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no Courts are bound to enforce it. The 14th Amendment breached the Sovereign wWights of the People of the United States ot America, a Kepublic, and by its very existance, voided the Constitution in part or in whole removing the Feopie trom their Original and Superior Jurisdiction of the Keal Froperty Law otf Nature to citizens subject to the jurisdiction thereotr. (the 14th Amendment) rhe Accused did Lhallenge the government (IRS) and the tower Court twenty two (422) times at six (6) nearings (see the toilowing transcripts); Nov. lJ, lydo, before Magistrate Kaymond 71. Terlizzi: Page 1 line 11 thru 13 and tine 16 Appendix G page 3 thru 19 Page thru 24 rage Nov. 14, Marquez: Page Nov. 24, Marquez: Page Page Page Page Page Page Page bec. 22, Marquez: Page Page Page rage 2 Line 11 thru 14 and 3 Line 196, / thru 1 U 3 Line & thru 12 1986, NS 8 Line Line Line Line Line Line Line 1986, Appendix G Line Line Line Line ig thru Zs 1 2 thru 25 i; taru 16 iz thru 24 23 thru 25 i Haru <@ betore so tnfu. 20 1 thru i5 24 thu 25 : tAntyu 3 page 4 line 22 betore Judge Altredo LU. betore Judge Alfredo C. Judge Altredo LU. - we = seed Page 10 Line 4 thru & Jan. 6, 1Y8/7, Marquez: Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Feb. 23, Marquez: Page Page Page Page Page 6 Line Page Page Page in all of the lower Court ey) 8 1 3 4 4 S Line 6 thru Z5 Line 1 thru 25 Line 1 thru 5 Line 22 thru Zb Line 1 thru Z5 Line 1 thru 13 Line /” thru 19 berore Judge Alfredo C. 98/, before Judge Alfredo C. Line 17 line 1 thru 6 Line 15 thru 1Y thru z5 Line 1 thru 6 10 Line 1 thru ai Line 1 thru 19 Line 1Z thru 19Y the above Appendix G > thru i5 Die Zo ( instant challenges continued page to Sc assume an illegal jurisdiction wrthout any-— given authority but I got it. This Accused did intorm the lower Court each time that it could not proceed without proof otf a NEXUS, and that as a servants court it could never have jurisdiction over the Sovereignty of this great country. This Court, in United States Vv. Studley, did not entertain the material which is being presented in this brief. 6 Appendix G page United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit EUGENE H. DAVIS, ) In Propria Fersona, ) Accused/Appei lant, ) Vv. ) No.&7-1056 Unitea States of America, ) By the American Bar Assoc., )? Accuser/Appel lee. ) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC COURT FOR THE DISTRICT UF ARIZONA TUCSUN ACCUSED/APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF EUGENE H. DAVIS IN PRUPRIA PERSONA 7447 No. Camino de Ueste Tucson, Arizona 65/41 Appendix G page 7 1. The United States Government and the lower Court failed to prove that a NEXUS (jurisdiction) did exist between its selt and Eugene H. Davis, a Sovereign Inhabitant by Birth of this great nation. 2. The IRS and the U. 5S. Attorney did illegally lie and entrap the hnalaaael before the Grand Jury. On or about 11/24/86 the United States court for the district of Arizona at Tucson did illegally assume jurisdiction by arraignment of the Accused. On or about 1/6/87 the United States court tor the district of Arizona at lucson did assume jurisdiction andthe court did proceed with a trial. 1. The Accused did present to the United States both the Justice and the IkKS a statutory waiver pursuant to the United States Unitorm Commercial code at section 1-1U0/ delivered according to section 1-201(14), pursuant to 26 Am Jur 2d. Appendix G pageg BLACK’ S LAW bMicliuUuUNARY FikrirH e&bDi1i')T1ON HEARING NUVU: Generally, a new hearing or a hearing tor the second time, contemplating an entire trial in same manner in which matter was originally heard and a review of previous hearing. Un hearing "de novo” court hears matter as court of original and not appellate jurisdiction. Colier & Wallis v. Astor, Y Cal.zd 2U2Z, ‘Oo F.2d 4171, 173. Appendix H page i TRIiAL %‘TrTRANSCR i &'l February 1V, 1ys¢ Betore Judge Aitredo ct. Marquez No. CR-86-20/-1UC-ALCM THE CUURT: This is the time set tor the trial in United States versus Eugene H. Davis. Mr. Davis would you come torward and take a seat at the defense counsel's table. MR. DAVIS: Your Honor, | am present in the courtroom today because as a condition to remaining tree instead of being caged the Court compelled me to sign a _ promise to appear at each scheduled appearance. | nave kept that promise taithtfully tor the sole purpose of challenging the in persona Appendix | page 1 arene eee jurisdiction of the Court because I am convinced that my status as a preamble citizen rather that a 14th Amendment citizen prevents my person from being subjected to the laws and jurisdiction of the maritime, law of nations, kKoman civil law court unless my accuser can _- provide proot that a required relationship nexus when the allegation oft itself implies a charge of failed specific pertormance necessitating a initial agreement to s0 perform in return tor receipt of certain privileges or franchises. ] have asked repeately for the prosecution to provide this proor. I have asked repeatedly for the Court to assert and prove jurisdiction on the record by showing wherein tne authority lies for even Congress to create a relationship from a non-retationsnip through acts of legisiation without” my knowing and willing consent. Appendix !| page 2 These requests have gone unanswered, Your Honor. Indeed the record clearly shows that the question of status, which torms the basis of the jurisdictional challenge, has been resolutely avoided in past proceedings. Today, this court, of its own admission, intends to - proceed to sr ial. This act will completely negate my jurisdictional chalienge for the remainder ot the proceedings before this court and compel me to endure the rigors of a trial and possible incarceration, and to be branded as a criminal pending a lengthy appeal process to resolve the very question which should have been answered in this court. een eees|6 UR CAN SCR IPT February 23, 198/ Ketore Judge Alfredo C. Marquez Appendix 1! page 3 No. Ck-8#6-20/7-TUC-ACM PFROCE ED ING S THE DEFENDANT: ] have written up some of my objections here. Can you hear me all right? THE COURT: Sure. THE DEFENDANT: Un page 1, under citizenship, the defendant was born a citizen of Arizona and therefore is a preamble citizen of the United States by virtue of inheritance of his birthright as a member of posterity, and not one whose rights emanate trom or through the Fourteenth Amendment. 1 believe, you know, just putting down U.S. citizen, is not quite claritying enough. And on the matter of the social security number, Your Honor, the detendant has revoked and resicinded his social Appendix ! page 4 ARN Pocus e aaa RE security number contract and number because of constructive traud used against him. This is based upon but not limited to violation ot my rights as shown in the case Tyler v. Stcretary of State and the El Paso Natural Gas Company v. Kaiser Insurance Company. Un the matter of piea, Your honor, the defendant did not refuse to plead, but told the Court it did not have personam (ph) jurisdiction to ask tor a plea. The Court then entered a plea of not guilty over the defendant's objection. Now, if you will turn to page 3, Your Honor, on paragraph 1, the detendant does deny his role in the instant ottrense as enumerated by the |.R.5. report as shown in the letter to Judge Marquez and the evidence at trial. Page 5, Your Honor, On paragraph 1, the same applies here as appiies to the first paragraph of page 4. Appendix ! page »& Paragraph