Ransom and Blackman LLP

Mr. John S. Ransom

1001 S.W. Fifth Ave.

Suite 1400

Portland, Oregon 97204

Mary Moran, Clerk of Court

Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse
1000 Southwest Third Avenue, Suite 740
Portland, Oregon 97204-2930

Anna J. Brown

Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse

1000 Southwest Third Avenue

Portland, Oregon 97204-2930

Federal Grand Jury – Foreman

Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse

1000 Southwest Third Avenue

Portland, Oregon 97204-2930

U.S. Marshal: William Knaust (Acting)

Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse

1000 Southwest Third Avenue Room 401

Portland, Oregon 97204-2930

Dear Mr. Ransom,

After doing some research I have come to the conclusion that there are serious defects in not only the subpoena you sent, but the case in general. As such, I am “refusing for cause” the defective subpoena, and with it your request that I testify on behalf of Tony Dutson.

Please also note the following missing credentials from the “alleged judges” in the US District Court of Oregon.

Anna J. Brown's Office of Personnel Management Standard Form 61APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS isdefective for 2 reasons:

It is NOT OPM Standard Form 61
It lacks the required OMB control numberas mandated by the Paperwork Reduction Act:

Please note the signature by "Michael R. Hogan" above, and here also:

5 U.S.C. 2903 requires that Form 61 be witnessed by a duly qualified officer: (also mentioned at the very bottom of OPM Form 61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS:

Michael R. Hogan is also missing credentials:

Mary L. Moran has also refused to produce credentials (see attached email files for proof). 28 U.S.C. 1691 requires BOTH the Clerk's signature and the Court's seal on such a SUBPOENA:

Many of authorities in support of this requirementare located here:

e.g.:

It will not be denied that a writ is a mandatory precept issued by a court, commanding the person to whom it is addressed to do or refrain from doing some act therein specified. Because it is a mandatory, and issued by a court, it is an order of the court. ...A subpoena is a writ or process, and is mandatory in nature, being a positive command. ...In some of the states statutes may permit a summons or a subpoena to be issued by an attorney, but such statutes do not apply to proceedings in federal courts.

[In re Simon, 297 F. 942, 944-946]

[(2nd Cir. 1924), emphases added]

Proper Parties

"United States of America" are not Proper Partiesto be appearing on a SUBPOENA or as theComplainants in a Federal criminal case:

They have never been granted legal standing as suchto appear as Proper Parties. However, Congress has conferred standingon the "United States" to appear as a Plaintiff:

U.S. Attorneys have no powers of attorney legally to represent the 50 States,whether individually or as a groupbecause they have no standing to appear as such. Each State has its own Attorney General. For all 50 States to appear as a group, each would need to appear separately under auspices of therespective Attorney General for each State of the Union.

U.S. Attorneys to have powers of attorney to representthe United States (Federal government) and ITS agencies: 28 U.S.C. 547:

The so-called "INDICTMENT" is also fatally defective, because it shows "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" as the Plaintiff (singular):compare how the "SUBPOENA" changed the spelling to"United States of America".

This entity -- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -- incorporated twice in Delaware, but both charters were subsequently revoked by the Delaware Secretary of State:

They tried again by incorporating "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"read: more proof of FRAUD:

Again, see this for more particulars:

The panel of federal citizens was also not a duly convenedFederal Grand Jury:

The historical consequences of confusing these 2 separate classes of people have grown into a particularly twisted situation at present: those who are qualified to serve in the House, Senate and White House are not eligible to vote or serve on any juries. And, those who can vote and serve on juries are not eligible to serve in the House, Senate or White House.

Criminal Jurisdiction

The U.S. District Courts have no criminal jurisdiction:

Strictly construed, as it should be, 18 U.S.C. 3231 confers criminaljurisdiction on the Article III District Courts of the United States:

The USDCs are Article IV legislative tribunals which originatedin the Federal Territories: Oregon State is not a Federal Territory.

Attorney Oaths of Office

Attached is the required oath of office that must be signed by all attorneys admitted to the Oregon State bar:

(also attached)

This OATH is imposed by Section 9.250 of the Oregon Revised Statutes ("ORS"):

9.250 Order for admission; oath of qualified applicant. (1) If the Supreme Court finds that an applicant for admission as an attorney is 18 years of age or more, is of good moral character and fit to practice law, and possesses the requisite learning and ability to practice as an attorney in all the courts of this state, the court shall enter an order that the applicant be admitted to practice as an attorney. The order shall specify that admission take effect upon the applicant taking the oath required by subsection (2) of this section.

(2) The applicant shall execute a written oath that in the practice of law the applicant will support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state, and be of faithful and honest demeanor in office. The applicant is entitled to practice as an attorney after the State Court Administrator has received the oath executed under this subsection. [Amended by 1973 c.827 §3; 1981 c.193 §8; 1989 c.1052 §6; 1991 c.726 §4; 1997 c.388 §3] [end quote]

The McDade Act at 28 U.S.C. 530B also requires all U.S. Attorneysstationed in Oregon to execute this very same OATH OF OFFICE:

("to the same extent and in the same manner")

The INDICTMENT inUNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic] v. MICAELA RENEE DUTSON and TONY DUTSON
shows the following names on the last page:

KENT S. ROBINSON OSB number 096251

CRAIG J. GABRIEL OSB number 012571

HANNAH HORSLEY (not found in OSB member directory)

Based on a search of the Oregon State Bar's website you as well as KENT S. ROBINSON ,and CRAIG J. GABRIEL are active members of the Oregon State Bar and should have oaths on file.

However, HANNAH HORSLEY is not a member based on a current search.

Hannah Horsley is evidently admitted to The State Bar of California,and her record in that Bar's member directory shows her practicing in Portland, Oregon. However, she is not listed in the member directoryof the Oregon State Bar.Based on these records, she is now violating the McDade Actby failing to be a member in good standing of the Oregon State Bar. This alone is grounds for nullifying the SECOND SUPERSEDING INDICTMENTsigned by Hannah Horsley dba Assistant United States Attorney. As such, she has already been formally charged, along with 200,000+other "members" of The State Bar of California, here:

Summary

Based on the above research, I am formally refusing for cause the defective subpoena. Please see the attached refused for cause subpoena. I am formally requesting the following information:

Valid and proper oaths be presented to me from yourself and all attorneys associated with this case including the prosecutors.
Valid and proper oaths be presented to me for all “alleged” judges presiding over the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.
Valid and proper oaths be presented to me for all “alleged” Clerks of Court for the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.

I am also requesting that if you do not provide the above information, that you send me a formal written release from “subpoena” with copies to the “alleged” Clerk of Court and Judge.

Sincerely,

/s/ Chester Evans, Davis

Chester Evans, Davis