Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1029

Filed 08/12/16

Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHAWNA COX,
Defendant.

Case No. 3:16-cr-00051-BR-7

DECLARATION OF SHAWNA COX IN
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE ISSUED AUGUST 18, 2016,
DKT. #988.

DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY IN RESPONSE TO ORDER

TO SHOW CAUSE, ORDER FILED AUGUST 18, 2016, DOCKET # 988.
On August 18, 2006 the Honorable Anna J. Brown issued an order to show cause:
Order by Judge Anna J. Brown as to Shawna Cox. Notwithstanding the Court's
Order 987 directing the government to respond to Defendant Shawna Cox's
Motion for Disclosure of Grand Jury Transcripts, the Court directs Cox to show
good cause no later than 5:00 p.m. on August 12, 2016, for her failure to file her
Motion timely, that is.by the deadline for Round One Motions on April 27,2016.
(bb) (Entered: 08/08/2016) (District Court of Oregon, 3:16-cr-00051-BR, Dkt.
#988)
I, Shawna Cox a Pro Se Litigant1 make this Declaration as a private-non-attorney
(laywoman) in response to the Order to Show Cause, without fully understanding of the
technical points of law. What I do know is that the attorney that was appointed for me
(while we have no personal conflict) has not kept me up to-date in this matter and further I
USDC Oregon Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
DEFENDANT SHAWNA COX ANSWER TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, DKT #988

Page 1 of 9

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1029

Filed 08/12/16

Page 2 of 9

believe I have had ineffective assistance of counsel2 from the day she was appointed,
without my prior knowledge or consent.
I understand she and the other public defenders were appointed (without our free will
consent requesting an attorney) while we were in transit from Burns Oregon to Portland, and
they were there at the hearing when we arrived.
I believe the Public Defenders in this matter have a conflict in that they have a
private contract with the same executive branch of the Federal Government, the FBI
investigator / hearsay Complainant (by Katherine Armstrong) the Government the
Prosecutor, the Judge, the Clerk, the Court Reporter, the Marshall and the Public Defenders
(all are either public officers, employees or private contractors) and all are believed to draw
paychecks from the Executive Branch of the Federal Government and subject to the
President of the United States. The problem may be best summarized in the United States
Attorneys Manual which provides:
The disciplinary rules of /Canon 5 bring into professional regulation and with some
specificity, the ancient maxim that one cannot serve two masters.7.
7. No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the
one, and love the other: or else he will hold to the one, and
despise the other. Ye can serve God and mammon. Matthew 6:24.
See also Formal Opinions 33 (1931), 71 (1932), and 83 (1932).
The latter quoted Hoffmans Eighth Resolution: If I have ever
had any connection with a cause, I will never permit myself
(when that connection is for any reason severed) to be engage on the side of
my former antagonist.
(United States Attorneys Manual (Vol. I, (1988) Sections 1-4.643Professional
Ethics Opinions, Pg. 24, 1)
1) I declare that communication was minimal and frustrating.
2) I am aware of only one pretrial motion3 filed on my behalf even though Im sure she was
party to others that were lumped together with other defendants.
3) I felt like Att. Harris ignored all instructions I presented to her on my behalf.
4) Further she neglected to inform me of all of my protections and rights and keep informed
regarding the actions she was taking to preserve all of my Protections and Rights.
USDC Oregon Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
DEFENDANT SHAWNA COX ANSWER TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, DKT #988

Page 2 of 9

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1029

Filed 08/12/16

Page 3 of 9

5) It was a difficult decision to proceed Pro Se; out necessity, I was left no reasonable choice;
if I wished to vindicate myself and reserve All of my Protections and Rights and restore
my Liberty.
6) I am not up on all the laws involved and I am struggling with the help of multiple Next
Friends to come up to speed in understanding protection and defenses available.
7) To that end I have invested in several law books regarding federal civil and criminal
procedure and am endeavoring to abide by the rules the best I can.
8) Due to ineffective legal counsel and representation during round one, I did not receive all
of my Protection and Rights afforded me. Thus the motivation to file pro se.
9) I was kept locked in jail for three (3) days, denied bail or own recognizance release, then
shackled to an ankle monitor and restricted by location travel.
10) I live in a remote area where there is no law library. Internet and phone service minimal.
Now it sounds like I am being further punished for not being able to file motions by the
deadline.
11) I was not granted pro se status until July 18, 2016.
12) First round motions had to be submitted by April 27, 2016.
13) It was not possible for me to have met the deadline given by the Court.
14) I have worked diligently and aggressively with regard to the motion(s) Dkt #968 and
Dkt#986 in question.
15) I do not have the unlimited resources that the Federal Government has.
16) I do not have the resources, experience and education comparable to those of my stand-by
council; however, I have a great deal at stake (my liberty) for a very significant number of
years in prison so you can say MY HEART IS IN THE FIGHT!
17) I also have traveled three separate times to attend hearings, July 6, 18, and Aug. 3, 2016 to
accommodate the Courts schedule. The travel from home takes two 11 hour shifts and
accommodations.
USDC Oregon Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
DEFENDANT SHAWNA COX ANSWER TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, DKT #988

Page 3 of 9

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1029

Filed 08/12/16

Page 4 of 9

18) With the time that remained, Ive had to, with the assistance of my "Next Friends,
research the rather complex matters of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures, U.S.
Prosecutors Manual, Law and Case Law regarding all of my Protections and Right.
19) It is my desire to try and abide by the rules and give my assurance to try and conform,
however that said the Court has not provided it's specific authority to require filling all
challenges to legal issues, by a date specific.
20) In reviewing FRCrP 6 I found no time limit to make the challenge under FRCrP Rule 6(b)
Objections to the Grand Jury or to a Grand Juror.
(1) Challenges. Either the government or a defendant may challenge the grand jury on
the ground that it was not lawfully drawn, summoned, or selected, and may challenge
individual juror on the ground that the juror is not legally qualified.
(2) Motion to Dismiss an Indictment. A party may move to dismiss the indictment
based on an objection to the grand jury or and individual jurors lack of legal
qualification, unless the court has previously ruled on the same objection under Rule
6(b)(1). The motion to dismiss is governed by 28 U.S.C. 1867(e).
21) I believe the fact that the Grand Jury was not drawn in the correct Division (Title 18
3232), nor represents an equitably cross-section of potential jurors, creates a substantial
jurisdictional defect that cannot be repaired and I believe that I can file a jurisdictional
challenge any time.
Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time. Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co.,
495 F 2d 906, 910.
There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction. Joyce v. United States, 474
2D 215.
The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction. Rosemond v. Lambert, 469
F 2d 416
Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction
asserted. Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York 37 F Supp.
150
The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it
must be proven. State of Maine, v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 (1980)
22) For the Court to deny the motions I submitted for filing and answer, is a denial of due
process and would be an obstruction of Justice for I, the Defendant.
USDC Oregon Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
DEFENDANT SHAWNA COX ANSWER TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, DKT #988

Page 4 of 9

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1029

Filed 08/12/16

Page 5 of 9

23) I aver it is an unlawful attempt by the Courts and attorneys (Prosecutors and Public
Defenders) to circumvent laws and procedures intended to protect my (our) rights and
protections established by Congress; and proceed in ex post de facto law in an unlawful
attempt to rush me to judgement.
24) It appears Your Honor may be using your judicial discretion4 to create your own
procedures and policys in order to convict me (us) because:
25) The Federal Bureau of Land Management, (BLM) and the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USF&W) and the Department of Interior (the Complainants) are
agencies of the Federal Government in the Executive Branch under and subject to the
direction, control of the Barack Obama, President of the United States of America;
26) Barack Obama, BLM and the Department of Interior was sued by the Bundy family in
2014 in U.S. District Court, District of Nevada (Reno) case 3:14-cv-256-MMN-WGC, a
case that was dismissed. And is another case filed against Barack Obama, Judge Navarro
and United States Senator Harry Reid by Cliven Bundy in U.S. District Court, District of
Nevada (Reno) case 2:16-cv-01047-JCM-GWF;
27) The United States Justice Department (USDOJ) (the Prosecutors) are in the Executive
Branch of Government under Barack Obama, President of the United States namely
Barack Obama;
28) Your Honor is now demanding an the ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE and are yourself an
Executive Officer and de facto5 Federal Judge appointed6 by former President Bill
Clinton, usurping judicial branch power;
29) Your Honor is also caught between a rock and a hard spot. If you side with the me and
the Co-Defendants you will be subjected to the wrath and demotion by Barack Obama and
/ or the DOJ and subject to removal or demotion7 (downgraded) by Barack Obama,
President of the United States and / or the Department of Justice;

USDC Oregon Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

DEFENDANT SHAWNA COX ANSWER TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, DKT #988

Page 5 of 9

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1029

Filed 08/12/16

Page 6 of 9

30) If Your Honor is successful in obtaining a conviction of me and the Co-Defendant you
will gain political favor with the Clintons who appointed her, you and Barack Obama who
currently holds the key to your her judgeship;
31) If Your Honor is not able to convict me, and the Co-Defendants you may lose face and
suffer political consequences as well;
32) I envy yourposition naught!
33) Again the problem for ALL of the State and Federal Bar member attorneys in this matter,
is best summarized in the United States:
The disciplinary rules of /Canon 5 bring into professional regulation and with some
specificity, the ancient maxim that one cannot serve two masters.7.
7. No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the
one, and love the other: or else he will hold to the one, and
despise the other. Ye can serve God and mammon. Matthew 6:24.
See also Formal Opinions 33 (1931), 71 (1932), and 83 (1932).
The latter quoted Hoffmans Eighth Resolution: If I have ever
had any connection with a cause, I will never permit myself
(when that connection is for any reason severed) to be engage on the side of
my former antagonist.
(United States Attorneys Manual (Vol. I, (1988) Sections 1-4.643Professional
Ethics Opinions, Pg. 24, 1)
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct; and those matters said on information a belief, I believe them to
be true also.
EXECUTED on August 11, 2016.

/S/ Shawna Cox

_________________________
Shawna Cox, Pro Se
1

Rights of Pro Se Litigants. Due Process provides that the rights of pro se litigants are to be construed
liberally and held to less stringent standard [with appropriate benevolence] than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers, if court can reasonably read pleadings to state a valid claim on which litigant could prevail, it should

USDC Oregon Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

DEFENDANT SHAWNA COX ANSWER TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, DKT #988

Page 6 of 9

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1029

Filed 08/12/16

Page 7 of 9

do so despite failure to cite proper legal authority, confusion of legal theories, poor syntax and sentence
construction, or litigants unfamiliarity with pleading requirements. (Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519-520
(1972); further at supra 520; allegatios of pro se complaints [pleadings] are held to let stringent standards than
formal pleading drafted by lawyer, reaffd, Hugh v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-10 (1980) [Bolding and underling
added]
The harm in erroneously denying a party leave to proceed pro se is that it injures his/her dignity and autonomy,
and this harm cannot be repaired after a judgment on the merits. See McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 178,
104 S.Ct. 944, 951, 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (1984) (The defendant's appearance in the status of one conducting his
own defense is important in a criminal trial, since the right to appear pro se exists to affirm the accused's
individual dignity and autonomy.).14 Moreover, this harm exists quite apart from any prejudice a party might
incur from trying his/her case with an unwanted attorney; that is, the affront to a litigant's right to conduct the
case would persist even if the party were granted a new trial because of an erroneous denial of pro se status.15
15

. Although McKaskle involved a criminal defendant's constitutional right of self-representation, the

right to proceed pro se under 28 U.S.C. 1654[ ] is a fundamental statutory right that is afforded the
highest degree of protection. It is a right which is deeply rooted in our constitutional heritage, and
although statutory in origin, [i]ts constitutional aura is underscored by the proposal the very next day of
the Sixth Amendment, to the U.S. Constitution. Reshard, 819 F.2d at 1579 (quoting United States v.
Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, 1123 (D.C.Cir.1972)).
2

Effective Assistance of Competent Counsel. The defendant's right to challenge the quality of the legal
assistance provided to him did not immediately follow the right to counsel granted in Powell. FN14 The Court in
Powell had indicated that when there was an obligation to provide legal counsel to an indigent, that duty is not
discharged by an assignment at such time or under such circumstances as to preclude the giving of effective aid
in the preparation and trial of the case., FN15 Some courts nevertheless narrowly interpreted the holding so as to
undercut the right to effective counsel. In Mitchell v. United States, FN16 for example, the court held that an
effective appointment by the court was required but that effective appointment did not refer to the quality of
service that counsel has rendered. FN17 The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Diggs v. Welch, FN18 stated: It is
clear that once competent counsel is appointed his subsequent negligence does not deprive the accused of any
right under the Sixth Amendment. All that amendment requires is that the accused shall have the assistance of
counsel. FN19 However, by 1964, the right to effective assistance in the qualitative sense was firmly imbedded
in case law. FN20 In 1970, the Supreme Court, in McMann v. Richardson, FN21 clearly stated that defendants
facing felony charges are entitled to the effective assistance of competent counsel. FN22 (13 Hastings Const.
L.Q. 625)
FN14

. There was no ancestor to the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in English law. For a
discussion of the response of English law to a defendant's claim against his trial counsel, see Rondel v.
Worsley, 1 A.C. 191 (1969). American courts, following English tradition, had held that a lawyer's
negligence and lack of skill would not lead to a reversal of conviction. See State v. Dreher, 137 Mo. 11,
23, 38 S.W. 567, 570 (1897) ( 'The decisions [of the American Courts] are too numerous to cite, but
their uniform tenor is to the effect that neither ignorance, blunders, nor misapprehension of counsel not
occasioned by his adversary is ground for setting aside a judgment or awarding a new trial.').
FN15

. Powell, 287 U.S. at 71 (emphasis added).

FN16

. 259 F.2d 787 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 850 (1958).

FN17

. Id. at 790.

FN18

. 148 F.2d 667 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 325 U.S. 889 (1945).

FN19

. Id. at 668.

FN20

. See Waltz, Inadequacy of Trial Defense Representation as a Ground for Post-Conviction Relief in
Criminal Cases, 59 NW. U.L. REV. 289-92 (1964).
FN21

. 397 U.S. 759 (1970).

USDC Oregon Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

DEFENDANT SHAWNA COX ANSWER TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, DKT #988

Page 7 of 9

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1029

Filed 08/12/16

Page 8 of 9

THE IMPORTANCE OF LEGAL MOTIONS IN THE LITIGATION OF A CRIMINAL CASE

CANNOT BE OVEREMPHASIZED. 1:1. Motion practiceGenerally

The importance of legal motions in the litigation of a criminal case cannot be overemphasized. Success or
failure in the defense of a criminal charge often turns upon the outcome of a pretrial motion. Legal motions
enable defense counsel to prevent the introduction of damaging evidence by the prosecution. This narrowing of
the prosecution's case expands the area of reasonable doubt available for defense counsel to argue. Legal
motions present counsel with the opportunity to preview and discover prosecution evidence, thus allowing the
defense to be forewarned and better prepared. Pretrial motions delineate and preserve appellate issues in a clear
and concise fashion.
One unique advantage of legal motions is that they can be heard outside the presence of the jury. This allows
counsel to vigorously protect his client's rights without concern that such advocacy will damage counsel's
credibility in the eyes of the jury by creating the impression that counsel is attempting to withhold evidence
from it. Counsel is also able to present evidence in support of the defendant's legal position on the motion that
might be damaging on the question of guilt or innocence. Additionally, pretrial motions allow counsel to
preview the potential trial testimony of both defense and prosecution witnesses.
Note: Experienced criminal defense attorneys often urge that pretrial motions be made orally in order to avoid
alerting the opposition to the merits of the motion. With an able prosecutor, this is usually not a consideration.
Moreover, a written motion has certain distinct advantages. In a written motion, counsel can frame the issues
and thus focus the court's attention on specific facts. Counsel can anticipate and refute the arguments on the
other side before the judge adopts a pride of authorship in them. A written motion can also offer the judge
reasons to be utilized in justifying a decision in favor of the defense and in convincing the court that such a
decision would stand on appeal. (California Criminal Forms and Instructions, 2nd ed, Vol. 1, pg. 4-5)
4

Discreation, practice. 1. When it is said that something is left to the discretion of a judge, it signifies that he
ought to decide according to the rules of equity, and the nature of circumstances. Louis. Code, art. 3522, No.
13; 2 Inst. 50, 298; 4 Serg. & Rawle, 265; 3 Burr. 2539.

2. The discretion of a judge is said to be the law of tyrants; it is always unkown; it is different in different
men; it is casual, and depends upon constitution, temper, and passion. In the best, it is oftentimes caprice; in the
worst, it is every vice, folly, and passion, to which human nature is liable. Optima lex quae minimum relinquit
arbitrio judicis: optimus judex qui minimum sibi. Bac. Aph; 1 Day's Cas.. 80, ii.; 1 Pow. Mortg. 247, a; 2 Supp.
to Ves. Jr. 391; Toull. liv. 3, n. 338; 1 Lill. Ab. 447. (LAW DICTIONARY (1856) ADAPTED TO THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OF THE SEVERAL
STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION With References to the Civil and Other Systems of Foreign Law by
John Bouvier)
Discretion of a Judge. The discretion of a Judge is the law of tyrants: it is always unknown. It is different
in different men. It is casual, and depends upon constitution, temper, passion. In the best it is oftentimes
caprice; in the worst it is every vice, folly, and passion to which human nature is liable. --Lord Camden,
L.C.J., Case of Hindson and Kersey, 8 Howell State Trials 57 (1680).
5

De Facto. In fact, in deed, actually. This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past
action, or a state of affairs which must be accepted for all practical purposes, but is illegal or illegitiniate. Thus,
an office, position or status existing under a claim or color of right such as a de facto corporation. In this sense
it is the contrary of de jure, which means rightful, legitimate, just, or constitutional. Thus, an officer, king, or
government de facto is one who is in actual possession of the office or supreme power, but by usurpation, or
without lawful title; while an officer, king, or governor de lure is one who has just claim and rightful title to the
office or power, but has never had plenary possession of it, or is not in actual possession MacLeod v, United
States, 229 U.S. 416, 33 SCt. 955, 57 L.Ed. 1260. A wife de facto is one whose marriage is voidable by decree,
as distinguished from a wife de jure, or lawful wife. But the term is also frequently used independently of any
distinction from de lure, thus a blockade de facto is a blockade which is actually maintained, as distinguished
from a mere paper blockade. Compare De jure.

USDC Oregon Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

DEFENDANT SHAWNA COX ANSWER TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, DKT #988

Page 8 of 9

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1029

Filed 08/12/16

Page 9 of 9

"De facto doctrine" will validate, on grounds of public policy and prevention of failure of public justice, the
acts of officials who function under color of law. People v. Davis, 86 Mich.App. 514, 272 N.W.2d 707, 710.
(Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th ed., (1990) pg. 416, col. 1)
6

Federal Judge Means. In the United States, the title of federal judge means a judge appointed by the
President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate pursuant to the Appointments
Clause in Article II of the United States Constitution.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_judge) [Bolding and underling added]

Federal Judge Downgraded. The U.S. government has downgraded a judge who had ruled in favor of a
Nevada rancher and against the Feds. Reno judge Robert Clive Jones, appointed by President George W. Bush
in 2003, has repeatedly clashed with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals not only on the rancher case but on
the gay marriage issue. Jones is being relegated to what is called senior status, making him a part-time
judge.

The case is well known in the West among property rights advocates who charge the government "exercises a
heavy hand" in relations with those who make their livelihood off the land, a report in the Las Vegas ReviewJournal said. In a decades-long dispute between the government and the E. Wayne Hage family's Pine Creek
Ranch near Tonopah, Jones had ruled in favor of the rancher. (http://www.worldtribune.com/u-s-sidelinedjudge-who-ruled-for-key-rancher-against-feds-rejected-same-sex-marriage/) [Bolding and underling added]

USDC Oregon Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

DEFENDANT SHAWNA COX ANSWER TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, DKT #988

Page 9 of 9