in the circuit and district court of the United States in and for Dewey county

division of South Dakota in Common Law venue, original and exclusive jurisdiction

Letter Rogatory

United States of America	)

South Dakota state	) ss. before our Justices'

Dewey county	) special proceeding affidavit of Arnold G. Wiedmer

Memorandum in Law

In re: purported cause No. CR95-30029

Greetings: involuntary special appearance, special proceeding in legislative created tribunal

United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, Central Division

I, Arnold G. Wiedmer, hereby present by special appearance special proceeding in Common Law venue, original and exclusive jurisdiction in our Court of Justice being a court of record via Common Law venue notary public and before our supreme Court in and for Dewey county invoking Article III, section 23 of our Constitution of South Dakota this affidavit in the form of letter rogatory directed to the legislative created tribunal United States District Court, District of South Dakota, Central Division and its officers concerning unalienable Right as duly contained in the spirit and intent of Article of amendment the Eleventh of our national Constitution in direct relation to matters concerning the expatriated private party Arnold G. Wiedmer in our country of South Dakota expressly not "within" the United States.

The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, Central Division, is a voluntary court upon the agreement of the parties' exercising no original nor compelling jurisdiction over the parties' even under their purported summons in a criminal case based upon a purported indictment against the private party Arnold G. Wiedmer founded on matters before United States citizen/subjects thereby creating estoppel in said legislative created tribunal in compliance with non-waiver by Arnold G. Wiedmer of his protections and guarantees under Article of amendment the Eleventh of our national Constitution for the following reasons in Law:

The hearing officer Mark A. Moreno acting without our special appointments would be necessarily an executive officer under prima facie proof of federal form 61 which states in effect said hearing officer will not strike against the United States while an employee thereof creating a conflict of interest in the voluntary appearance process under the presumption all People are necessarily statutory defined "persons", either as a corporation or as effectively connected in the conduct of a trade or business within the United States, raising the question of whether the United States District Court, District of South Dakota, Central Division would proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 1746 (1) or under the alternative 28 U.S.C. § 1746 (2), creating the need for judicial determination of our private People utilizing their unalienable Right under Article of amendment the Eleventh of our national Constitution, expressly not foederal, or in modern parlance federal, and specially, expressly and explicitly not waived by the private party Arnold G. Wiedmer duly expatriated from "within" the United States and not effectively connected in the conduct of a trade or business "within" the United States, nor a resident of the state of South Dakota.

The United States District Court, District of South Dakota, Central Division purported indictment against Arnold G. Wiedmer fails for major compelling reasons contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1861 which recognizes two different classes of People who comprise a jury of peers, one being the more commonly used United States citizens/subjects who have a vested interest in the outcome of the case (conflict of interest, conflict of laws), and the other being a jury of peers, good and lawful men well learned in Law and necessarily expatriated from "within" the United States and its "other jurisdiction". Even the United States District Court, District of South Dakota, Central Division fully recognizes their own Rule 17, Supreme Court rules "other jurisdiction" which provide for exclusive jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1251 in our supreme Court in and for each and every county in our countries, meaning our several States of the union in America, the organic States, the Republic states expressly not the shadow states, nor compact party states nor Buck Act States of the United States under commercial nexus. Said Rule 17 of "other jurisdiction" also encompasses the spirit and intent of Article of amendment the Eleventh of our national constitution, creating not only a diversity of citizenship, but also the division of our Courts, meaning our American national side vs. the federal ( foederal) side expressly for their own subjects/citizens/aliens created by acts of congress, said subjects not being able to question the validity of the public debt.

The United States District Court, District of South Dakota, Central Division must prove no United States citizens sat on the purported grand jury who purportedly created an indictment against the private party Arnold G. Wiedmer protected in his Common Law venue in and for his respective county-court. If it will be found true United States citizens/subjects did participate in the purported grand jury indictment above mentioned, the indictment fails and plea in bar coram non judice becomes the menu in Common Law venue, original and exclusive jurisdiction not waived either express or implied by the private party Arnold G. Wiedmer under recognized United States codes U.S.C. 28 §§ 1602 through 1631, the latter creating the need for transfer to cure want of jurisdiction even after the Common Law venue is more fully adjudicated by certiorari in aid of habeas corpus, and upon discretionary denial of said certiorari an extra-ordinary writ of mandamus will issue by judicial writ from this quorum of Justices' sitting in special term time ex vi termini in our country of South Dakota organized by quoad hoc committee of necessity to prevent irreparable injury to innocent private parties'.

Even Title 18, U.S.C., Rule 5, footnotes quotes on page 23 of the 1993 edition, "The state has no appeal from errors of law committed by a magistrate upon preliminary examination and the discharge on a preliminary would operate as an unchallengeable acquittal. It is noteworthy the statutory language for preliminary examination is habeas corpus.

Next in Rule 6 of same book on Title 18, U.S.C. concerning indictment and information is quoted, "(b) (1) Challenges. The attorney for the government or a defendant who has been held to answer in the district court may challenge the array of jurors on the ground that the grand jury was not selected, drawn or summoned in accordance with law, and may challenge an individual juror on the ground that the juror is not legally qualified." Concurrence with Title 28, U.S.C., § 1861 through 1869.

After Common Law venue is more fully adjudicated and established by non-waiver of the private party Arnold G. Wiedmer in and for Dewey county-court, causing the United States District Court, District of South Dakota, Central Division to lose its purported venue and other jurisdiction over the private party Arnold G. Wiedmer for reasons in law the United States attorney cannot furnish a full and complete discovery of the purported grand jury members who could have qualified as expatriated Citizens and even upon completion of such full discovery under Title 5, privacy act of congress, said United States citizens/subjects would be exempted from jury service under the Title 28, U.S.C. mandates supra through conflict of laws, thereby raising the question of federal common law which is more fully known as Uniform Commercial Code, expressly sections 1-105 conflict of laws, Private International Law, Negotiable Instruments Law, and its legal consequences as contained within section 1-103 through elements of fraud, coercion, duress, undue influence, misrepresentation, bankruptcy, law of contracts, principal and agent, estoppel and other validating or invalidating causes in this Common Law venue by territorial application of the act and parties' power to choose applicable law in their state of the forum by non-waiver of State Privilege and Immunities as recognized in Title 28 U.S.C., Rule 302, 501, and Rules of Evidence Miscellaneous Rules 1101 (a) (c) more fully contemplated under the footnotes as quoted in pertinent part under subdivision (a),

"These various provisions do not in terms describe the same courts. In congressional usage the phrase "district courts of the United States," without further qualification, traditionally has included the district courts established by Congress in the states under Article III of the Constitution, which are "constitutional" courts, and has not included the territorial courts created under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2, which are "legislative" courts." Supported by a case opinion Hornbuckle v. Toombs, 85 U.S. 648, 21 L. Ed. 966 ( 1873 ).

This is why Rules of Evidence under Miscellaneous Rule 1101 (d) (2) Grand jury. Proceedings before grand juries., provide the exception under Rules of Privilege even though Title 28 spells the imperative word Privilege with a small case p. So the astute reader of this affidavit will look to Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition and purview the two different classes of People, by special effect of capitalization on the words Privileges and Immunities. The law of the alien ( corporation ) is separate and distinct from this peculiar jurisdiction under our Common Law venue by our supreme Law of the Land, Article VI, clause 1 and 2 and a fortiori Magna Charta chapter 61.

Considering the above startling expose of Title 28 and Title 18, the private party Arnold G. Wiedmer through his able assistance of counsel under private contract as a matter of unalienable Right presents further Article of amendment the Fourth, right of privacy which said violations by the aliens was a felony with three year prison terms in earlier statutes in the territory of Montana law prior to 1889, causing of necessity and without recourse to Arnold G. Wiedmer his express non-waiver of said vested fundamental unalienable Right.

By this non-waiver of right of privacy the purported indictment of the United States District Court, District of South Dakota, Central Division fails for substantive non-compliance with their own rules in the fact no warrant was issued upon a Trust, nor co-trustees of any trust established under Common Law venue which expressly forbids the title of nobility United States and its non-registered foreign agents from asserting a claim against said Trust, and by this very fact these Justices' have looked through the looking glass and see fraud upon the Court created by the United States attorney who has failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted in a legislative created tribunal under acts of congress in relation to the special character of the class of People by diversity of citizen, and division of the Courts.

The United States attorney has failed to prove by grand jury of peers an indictment which could circumvent the substantive right of privacy enjoyed by the private party Arnold G. Wiedmer in his Common Law venue, specially invoking original and exclusive jurisdiction in our supreme Court in and for Dewey county, country of South Dakota and by our own Rules not subject to objection by anyone of any character whatsoever as in Title 5, U.S.C., sections 701 through 703 via declaratory judgments by reliance upon extra- ordinary writ of mandamus, writ of prohibition, and writ of habeas corpus even without the aid of certiorari in aid of the appellate supreme court justices' who fail to see and hear our supreme Law of the Land.

Continuing on with the above succinctly stated causes of action and unalienable Right possessed by the private party Arnold G. Wiedmer, Article of amendment the First comes to the forefront by right of freedom of association, simple contract law, and express prohibitions on the United States via titles of nobility, impairing the obligation of contract and ex post facto law, which also would encompass the bill of attainder against the private party Arnold G. Wiedmer in his country of South Dakota exempt from the United States and its non-registered foreign agents owing allegiance to a foreign prince and power, subordinated to the position of the Sovereign Arnold G. Wiedmer.

If the above due presentments non-waived by the private party Arnold G. Wiedmer in his Common Law venue original and exclusive jurisdiction in Dewey county court are violated by agents of the United States, certiorari for suspension of our American national Constitution would become imperative with direct review in the Eighth circuit by special leave granted by this Court wherein a State shall be a party in a Court of first and last resort under our supreme Law of the Land through remedy contained in Chapter 61 of Magna Charta.

Remedy is by habeas corpus, immediate release of the political prisoner Arnold G. Wiedmer upon service of this special proceeding upon the delinquents, non-registered foreign agents of the United States by our special Marshal sitting at the pleasure of this Court of Justice, Article III jurisdiction by special appointments of necessity and without recourse in our Common Law venue, under our supreme Law of the Land.

This affidavit is true, correct and certain; admitted under Rule 44.1 Judicial Notice of Foreign Law; and, "But before all, my brethren, do not swear, neither by the heavens, nor by the earth, nor any other kind of oath; but let your yes be yes; and your no, no; so that you may not fall under a sentence."

"Holy Scriptures"	James 5:12	Ferrar Fenton

Further this Affiant sayeth naught:

per curiam, __________________________________________________________________________

Arnold G. Wiedmer, sui juris, in Dewey county court, in our country of South Dakota, in	these several States in this union in America, under organic law, not waived either express	or implied by the Sovereign.

per curiam: ___________________________________________________________________________

, Justice by special appointment in our country of South Dakota,	American national forum, Common Law venue, original and exclusive jurisdiction

per curiam: ___________________________________________________________________________

, Justice by special appointment in our country of South Dakota,	American national forum, Common Law venue, original and exclusive jurisdiction

per curiam: ___________________________________________________________________________

, Justice by special appointment in our country of South Dakota,	American national forum, Common Law venue, original and exclusive jurisdiction

Attestation:	by special appointment notary public as in Rule 902 3 ( A ) ( B ) 8 & 9 Rules of Evidence
Title 28, U.S.C.

I, , duly appointed, commissioned, and privately bonded notary public in our country of South Dakota in the county aforesaid hereby attest and acknowledge the law as presented by the Sovereign, fellow Justice free inhabitant known to me as Arnold G. Wiedmer, and the facts as more particularly described throughout this special proceeding which are exempt from the Title 28 U.S.C. Rules by their very own admittance in Rule 81, special proceedings which are prosecuted by affidavit of the Sovereign.

Fees: _________________________

Oath: _________________________

Affidavit: ______________________	American National record _______________

Postage: _______________________	Volume, ____________________________

Mileage: _______________________	non-domestic mailing location;

Misc: _________________________	Dewey county court

cc:	Supreme Court record

other interested Private Interventionists