Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1301

Filed 09/19/16

Page 1 of 6

Shawna Cox
1031 South Monument
Kanab, Utah 84741
Phone: 435-899-0300
Fax: 435-644-5371
Email: utazpatriots@gmail.com
In Propria Persona, Sui Juris
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF OREGONPORTLAND DIVISION1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
Bundy, et al,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:16-cr-00051-BR

MOTION TO FILE OVERLENGTH

MEMORANDUM IN REPLY TO MULTIPLE
GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS

The Honorable Anna J. Brown

MOTION TO FILE OVERLENGTH (COMBINED) MEMORANDUMS IN RESPONSE TO

MULTIPLE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
1) Defendant Shawna Cox moves the Court for leave to file a memorandum that is over length due
to the Courts order that the responses answers responsive to defendants motion Dkt. #1186,
#1188, #1189, #1190, #1190, and #1196.
2) The Courts Order of April 11, 2016, set page limits for motions in this matter but allowed for a
party to seek permission to file over length motions based on a showing of good cause. The motion
1

Note: Under Title 18 U.S.C. 3232 the correct court is the United States Court for District and Division is Pendleton.
Proceedings to be in district and division in which offense committed. (United States Code Title 18, 3232)
DEFENDANT SHAWNA COX MEMORANDUM IN ANSWER TO GOVERNMENTS ANSWER TO (DKT. 1196) AS
FILED SEPTEMBER 07, 2016 (DKT. 1223)
Page 1 of 6

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1301

Filed 09/19/16

Page 2 of 6

at issue raises critical issues, most going directly to jurisdiction and the lack of meaningful,
substantive responses.
3) Because of the complex issues in the instant action, defendants responses necessarily go to over
length in order to present meaningful rebuttal responses to the Governments briefs.
4) Defendants nonprofessional (layman) legal team, has been working diligently to a large
independently of each other to research and provide meaningful substantive responses unlike most
of Plaintiff meaningless SHAM ANSWERS.
5) Defendant does not mean to be disrespectful of the courts ORDERS, however notices the court that
she should not be strictly subject to the rules under Haines v. Kerner.
The defendant in this action is a nonlawyer and is moving forward in Propria persona.
Haines v. Kerner (92 S. Ct. 594).
"... a pro se complaint ... requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer.
US 7TH Cir Puckett v. Cox 456 F.2nd 233 (1972)
[Defendant] must be permitted to introduce evidence of any constitutional deprivation
-- particularly the denial of due process -- which would warrant relief under 1983. US
7TH Cir Puckett v. Cox 456 F.2nd 233 (1972)
Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants
pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers. Picking
v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 151 Fed. 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox 456 2nd 233.
Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of the
group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "Unauthorized
practice of law." NAACP v. Button (371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v.
Gibbs (383 U.S. 715); and Johnson v. Avery 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969).
Litigants may be assisted by unlicensed layman during judicial proceedings.
Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar (377 U.S. 1); Gideon v.
Wainwright 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425.
6) Defendant avers the Courts order is intended only to serve those proceeding with attorneys and that
it clearly favors the prosecution attorney with unlimited resources and pleading skills to keep
pleadings short.
DEFENDANT SHAWNA COX MEMORANDUM IN ANSWER TO GOVERNMENTS ANSWER TO (DKT. 1196) AS
FILED SEPTEMBER 07, 2016 (DKT. 1223)
Page 2 of 6

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1301

Filed 09/19/16

Page 3 of 6

7) The rules being passed out in this action bring the following passages from Lewis Carrol's Alice's
Adventures and Through the Looking Glass (Grosset & Dunlap ed.) illustrates the pernicious
aspects of this doctrine.
"At this moment the King, who had been for some time busily writing in his notebook,
called out 'Silence!' and read out from his book, 'Rule Forty-two. All persons more than
a mile high to leave the court.'
"Everybody looked at Alice.
"'I'm not a mile high,' said Alice.
"'Nearly two miles high,' added the Queen.
"'You are,' said the King.
"'Well, I shan't go, at any rate,' said Alice; 'besides, that's not a regular rule; you
invented it just now.'
"'It's the oldest rule in the book,' said the King.
"'Then it ought to be Number One,' said Alice.
"The King turned pale, and shut his notebook hastily. 'Consider your verdict.' he said to
the jury in a low, trembling voice.'" (Alice, op. cit., at p. 132.)
(People v. Weaver, (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 23 at 34)
8) Defendant has endeavored to briefly but concisely present rebut the governments responses but as
aforesaid, may in some cases go over length.
9) The current combination of responses necessarily go over length; but defendant believe that they
are in fact necessary for a meaningful defense and any interference with the documents being filed
is a denial of due process.
10) Defendants rights, including clear due process rights and Defendants challenge to the court on
several fronts including (but not limited too) 1) the sufficiency of the complaint, 2) lack of probable

DEFENDANT SHAWNA COX MEMORANDUM IN ANSWER TO GOVERNMENTS ANSWER TO (DKT. 1196) AS

FILED SEPTEMBER 07, 2016 (DKT. 1223)
Page 3 of 6

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1301

Filed 09/19/16

Page 4 of 6

cause, 3) jurisdiction, 4) improper jury venire drawn from the wrong vicinage, venue and
jurisdiction all go to substantive due process rights.
11) The Court has made it abundantly clear it is making ORDERS and RULES intended to favor the
attorneys, and place un-necessary burdens on Pro Se Defendants.
The individual rights guaranteed by our constitution can be compromised or ignored by
our government. For example, in U.S. vs. JOHNSON (76 Fed, Supp. 538), Federal
District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that:
The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, not
to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one who is indifferent thereto. It is a
FIGHTING clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It
cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a
BELLIGERENT claimant in person.
McAlister vs. Henkle, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671. Commonwealth vs.
Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am. Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175 N.E. 876.
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or
legislation, which would abrogate them. Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436, 125
State courts, like federal courts, have a constitutional obligation to safeguard personal
liberties and to uphold federal law. Stone v. Powell 428 US 465, 96 S. Ct. 3037, 49 L.
Ed. 2d 1067.
Lex semper dabit remedium. The Law will always give a remedy.
12) Defendant represents in good faith that the issues addressed in the memorandum are both
important and lengthy by nature and, on the unfortunate circumstance where appellate review is
necessary, it is essential that a complete record be offered and entered on these important
arguments.
13) Under these circumstances, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court permit Defendants
over-length memorandum to both create an adequate record and to sufficiently present facts and
argument on the issues and arguments raised.
Respectfully Submitted this 19th Day of September 2016.
/S/ Shawna Cox_____
Shawna Cox
Affiant/Declarant
DEFENDANT SHAWNA COX MEMORANDUM IN ANSWER TO GOVERNMENTS ANSWER TO (DKT. 1196) AS
FILED SEPTEMBER 07, 2016 (DKT. 1223)
Page 4 of 6

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1301

Filed 09/19/16

Page 5 of 6

DECLARATION/VERIFICATION
State of Oregon
County of Multnomah

Solemnly Subscribed and Affirmed

Shawna Cox, being duly sworn, deposes, and says:

I am the accused defendant in error and the affiant/declarant in the above-entitled action. I
have read the foregoing DEFENDANT SHAWNA COX MEMORANDUM IN ANSWER TO
GOVERNMENT ANSWER TO (Dkt. #1196) AS FILED SEPTEMBER 07, 2016 (Dkt. 1223) and
know the contents therein. The same is true of my own knowledge and, except as to matters therein
stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe it to be true also.
_________________
Shawna Cox
Affiant
In Propria Persona, Sui Juris, In Propria Persona,
Sui Juris

DEFENDANT SHAWNA COX MEMORANDUM IN ANSWER TO GOVERNMENTS ANSWER TO (DKT. 1196) AS

FILED SEPTEMBER 07, 2016 (DKT. 1223)
Page 5 of 6

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1301

Filed 09/19/16

Page 6 of 6

Subscribed and sworn to before me this ________ day of September 2016.

_____________________
Notary PublicOregon
Notary Seal

______________________________________
______________________________________
My commission expires: __________________

DEFENDANT SHAWNA COX MEMORANDUM IN ANSWER TO GOVERNMENTS ANSWER TO (DKT. 1196) AS

FILED SEPTEMBER 07, 2016 (DKT. 1223)
Page 6 of 6