        IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

MICHAEL WILLIAMS                                )
                                                        )
                                                        )
                                                        )
                v.                                      )       PETITION FOR
                                                        )
                                                        )       WRIT OF MANDAMUS
                                                        ) 7th CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS    ) EASTERN DIVISION                                )

Now comes Petitioner pursuant to Title 28,  1651 and moves this honorable court to exercise its supervisory capacity over the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals as it is knowingly and intentionally denying Petitioner his Constitutional rights.
FACTS
1.      Although Petitioner, who is a layman to the law, has been made indigent by the F.B.I.'s unlawful seizure of all of his assets and property, and although he suffers from rapidly deteriorating health, caused by two years of the most brutal physical and psychological torture in the U.S. prison system, which his personal doctor has written the United States Court of Appeals Chief Judge, Hon. Richard Posner, about, complaining that it is endangering her patient's very life, he has, nonetheless, wrongfully been denied counsel and has been forced to represent himself. Petitioner is not an attorney, does not have the funds necessary to retain one, has not been appointed one despite his many persistent requests, and is thus being forced to prepare this Writ himself, even though he is not qualified to do so.
2.      The United States Court of Appeals is holding Petitioner up to procedures that are mandatory only for members of the Bar, in order to deny him access to the Courts and silence his serious complaints. Petitioner has sent many letters which he asked to be considered motions; said letters were not docketed as motions and were wrongfully returned to Petitioner, since they were not prepared in the complex format reserved for practicing members of the Bar, who have the advantage of having studied and practiced law for years.
3.      On 11. August 1988 Hon. George Marovich found Petitioner guilty even though there were not facts sufficient to constitute a crime. Despite Petitioner's persistent demands, he did not receive a copy of the transcripts of his hearing in Judge Marovich's court for over six years. When Petitioner complained to Judge Marovich that the
transcript was inaccurate and that crucial parts indicating his innocence had been edited out, Judge Marovich refused to accept responsibility and issued no orders for corrections. Petitioner's demands for a copy of the audio tape recording of the hearing have been denied. When Petitioner filed his Expansion and/or Correction of the Record - Pro Se Appellant with Judge Marovich's court, it was ignored.
4.      Petitioner's Constitutional rights have been blatantly violated, to wit:

        a.      Petitioner was arrested in his home by the F.B.I., who seized all of his
                significant assets and personal property, rendering him destitute. They also
                seized items unrelated in any way to any pending charges or
                investigations, including sensitive correspondence from U.S. Senators
                Gary Hart, William S. Cohen and other prominent politicians, confidential
                attorney-client correspondence and many other items. These unreasonable
                seizures were in violation of the 4th Amendment to the U.S.
                Constitution, and,

        b.)     as they had the effect of excessive fines, were in violation of the 8th
                Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;

        c.)     the fact that they occurred without benefit of Due Process of Law was
                also a  violation of the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;

        d.)     the fact that the foremost motivation of these seizures was to prevent
                Petitioner from retaining competent counsel of his choice and combating
                the charges laid against him was a violation of the 6th Amendment to
                the U.S. Constitution;

        e.)     that the arrest was motivated by Petitioner's political beliefs was also
                a violation of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

        f.)     On 13. December 1993, this honorable Court ruled that people are entitled
                to hearings before the government can seize their homes or other property.
                In June 1993, this honorable court ruled such seizures are subject to the
                Constitution's 8th Amendment protection against excessive fines.
                Justice Kennedy wrote that the Constitution's due-process clause requires
                property owners get notification and a chance for a hearing before

- 2 -
                seizures. Therefore, Petitioner's 8th Amendment rights have been
                violated.

        g.)     Petitioner was incarcerated from 18. March 1988 until 4. October 1989.
                During this period, and up unto February 1994, the U.S. government took
                no legal action to provide Petitioner with his right to a hearing on the
                unlawful seizure of all of his property. Only after Senator Dianne Feinstein
                made serious inquiries into Petitioner's case did the F.B.I. pressure the
                U.S. Attorney's Office into filing a motion allowing the government to
                "legalize" the F.B.I.'s unlawful seizure and obtain permanent title to it in
                February 1994, nearly six years after the seizure took place. Thus, not
                only has the government violated the 5-Year Statute of Limitations,
                Petitioner has been punished twice for the same offense, in direct
                violation of his Constitutional protection against Double Jeopardy.
                Therefore, Petitioner's 5th Amendment rights have been violated.

                This honorable court held that Forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. SS881(a)(4)
                and (a)(7) is a monetary punishment and, as such, is subject to the
                limitations of the Excessive Fines Clause of the 8th Amendment. (See
                Austin v. United States).

        h.)     Petitioner was denied his Constitutional right to a bail hearing, and thus

                forced to serve a substantial sentence in the Metropolitan Correctional
                Center, one of the worst maximum security prisons in the United States,
                even prior to the existence of any conviction. This was a direct violation of

                Petitioner's 8th Amendment right to reasonable bail.

        i.)     Petitioner was coerced into entering a plea of guilty to crimes he did not

                commit; actions which are likely not even crimes. This was a direct
                violation of Petitioner's 8th Amendment rights.

        j.)     Petitioner was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, in the form of
                vicious physical and psychological torture in the U.S. prison system. After
                Petitioner was coerced into entering a plea of guilty to crimes he did not
                commit; actions which are likely not even crimes, he was subjected to even
                more vicious physical and psychological torture in Marion Federal
                Penitentiary, a prison widely known to house political prisoners, where he

- 3 -
                was discriminated against for his political beliefs. After his long-awaited
                release from the worst prison on Earth, Petitioner was first exiled to San
                Diego, California, a continent removed from his two children, (then, ages
                1 and 3), then to Switzerland, where he has been forced to remain for
                nearly 5 years, since on or about 12. June 1991. After Petitioner's 79-
                year-old aunt, Dorothy P. Hilgadiack, who raised him after his mother's
                death, learnt of his exile, she suffered a near-fatal stroke, which left her

                right side permanently paralyzed and her speech abilities seriously
                impaired. The FBI has relayed threats to Petitioner that if he should ever
                return to his homeland, the United States of America, even to visit his
                dying aunt, or try to locate his two kidnapped small children, he would be
                placing his "life and freedom in the greatest possible jeopardy". Petitioner
                had thought that such barbaric brutality was not possible in the United
                States of America.  This were, and are, direct violations of Petitioner's 8th

                Amendment right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment,
                1st Amendment right to free speech, in addition to his Civil Rights
                and Human Rights.

        k.)     Although in a telephone conversation, Ann MacArthur, Senior Motion
                Clerk for the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, stated
                to Petitioner: "I have personally read each and every word of each and
                every one of your motions", it was obvious from said conversation that
                she had absolutely no knowledge of any of the motions, leading Defendant
                to believe they were denied without even being read.

        l.)     Petitioner is certain there exists a stalwart, well-organized conspiracy,

                whose clear intent is to deprive him of his right to Due Process and to
                cover up the F.B.I.'s criminally illegal seizure of all of his assets and
                personal property, including highly-sensitive confidential political
                correspondence between U.S. Senator/Presidential candidate Gary Hart
                and Petitioner.

                Said conspiracy includes former U.S. President George Herbert Walker
                Bush, Assistant United States Attorney Carol A. Davilo, FBI Special
                Agent in Charge Richard Loyd, attorney William J. Stevens, attorney
                Robert G. Clarke, members known and unknown of the United States
                Attorney's Office, the United States Department of Justice, The Federal
- 4 -
                Bureau of Investigation, the United States Bureau of Prisons, the Attorney
                Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of
                Illinois, others as yet unknown, and may include members of the
                Judiciary.

                A conspiracy is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1985 when there has been an
                "actual of denial of due process. (Civil Rights). - Jennings v. Nester
                (1954, Ca. 7 III.) 217, F 2d 153, CERT DEN 349 U.S. 958, 99 L Ed.
                1281, 75 S. Ct. 888.

                That all of Petitioner's motions and petitions have been systematically
                denied without reason, (and, Petitioner is certain, without reading), is
                further evidence of the existence of this conspiracy.

        m.)     The FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office have only admitted to a small portion
                of the assets and personal property seized from Petitioner, and then, after
                the Statute of Limitations had expired, and the FBI had received serious
                inquiries from Senator Dianne Feinstein and others interested in this gross
                injustice.
5.      The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is attempting to bar Petitioner from seeking his Constitutional rights.
6.      The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is attempting to silence Petitioner from exposing crimes perpetrated upon him and his family by individuals, known and unknown, employed by the U.S. government, including members of the judiciary.
7.      Petitioner was arrested on 18. March 1988.
8.      Petitioner was sentenced to 2 years' incarceration and 5 years' consecutive probation.
9.      Petitioner began his sentence on 18. March 1988 and finished it on 4. October 1994.

- 5 - 10.     Petitioner began this appeal on or about 22. June 1994.
11.     After Petitioner's original court-appointed attorney conspired with the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office to cover up the FBI's unlawful seizure of Petitioner's property, Petitioner's subsequent attorney, falsely disavowing his friendship with his predecessor, knowingly and willfully entered the conspiracy to wrongfully deprive Petitioner of his right to Due Process and sabotaged Petitioner's case, intentionally refrained from introducing fundamental evidence in the United States District Court of Hon. Harry Leinenweber and falsely informed Petitioner that he had filed a Notice of Appeal, forcing Petitioner, a layman to the law, to file his own Notice of Appeal, and to attempt to represent himself for nearly one-and-one-half years in a legal system he is unfamiliar with, thus bringing great prejudice to his case, and further violating and depriving him of his constitutional rights to Due Process of Law and representation by competent
counsel.
12.     The following is a list of motions Petitioner filed, all of which were denied as "frivolous" without explanation, in a document dated 8. August 1995 and amended on 22. August 1995, in the following order:

        a.)     Motion to Order F.B.I. to Produce and Deliver Property Seized to the
                Court for Inspection, filed on May 19, 1995;

                The purpose of this motion was to demonstrate to the Court that "The
                FBI seems determined to hide all information they have on the unlawful
                seizure of Defendant's property from Defendant and the Courts, including
                its whereabouts". Further, "It appears evident that the FBI does not have
                the property which was seized at Defendant's home on 18. March 1988,
                indicating it has been either unlawfully sold or disposed of". Some of the
                property disposed of would include confidential correspondence between
                Petitioner and prominent U.S. political figures which bring into serious
                question attempts by George Herbert Walker Bush to employ unlawful
                actions in order to steal the 1988 U.S. presidential election.

                Pursuant to Title 28, U.S.C. 1395 (b), the Court and the government
                must acknowledge the existence and location of said property.

        b.)     Motion to Order F.B.I. to Release Freedom of Information File, filed
                May 10, 1995; - 6 -
                The purpose of this motion was to force the FBI to release Petitioner's
                Freedom of Information file, which the FBI has refused to do since
                Petitioner's request on 22. July 1994, although the law requires that the
                files be provided within ten (10) days.

        c.)     Motion to Order Registered Air Mail or Express Mail Delivery of All
                Correspondence sent to Defendant, filed May 10, 1995;

                The purpose of this motion was to force the U.S. Attorney's Office to
                cease sending legal documents and notices to Petitioner via sea to his
                home-in-exile in Switzerland in an attempt to secure a quick, easy
                default judgment against Petitioner, since there is no legal basis for
                title to Petitioner's unlawfully seized property to vest in the U.S.
                government or any other entity, other than Petitioner, the rightful legal
                owner.

        d.)     Motion for Third Party Minor Claim to Ownership of Unlawfully Seized
                Property, filed May 16, 1995;

                The purpose of this motion was to protect the Third Party Claim of
                Petitioner's 9-year-old daughter, Erin Rose Williams, who holds title
                to a portion of the property unlawfully seized by the FBI and who, with
                the assistance of the FBI, was kidnapped, along with her younger sister,
                from Petitioner, her father.

        e.)     Motion to Order Copy of Government's Answer, filed July 14, 1995;

                The purpose of this motion was to order that a copy of the government's
                answer to Petitioner's 41 e motion be provided to Petitioner, who has
                never received a copy, in order that he may properly defend his case, as
                the U.S. Court of Appeals has wrongfully forced him to do, although he
                is a layman to the law.

        f.)     Motion to Dismiss U.S.A.'s Motion to Authorize Sale of Coins and
                Disburse Proceeds and Motion for an Order to Return Defendant's
                Property, filed July 14, 1995;

- 7 -
                The purpose of this motion was to dismiss the government's wrongful
                attempts to "legalize" the totally illegal seizure of Petitioner's property,
                and makes note of the fact that Petitioner is the victim of Double
                Jeopardy, that Colorado is the rightful jurisdiction, that "The government
                does not, nor ever has alleged that the illegally seized property constituted
                illegal proceeds", and many other important point and facts of law.

        g.)     Motion to Order Subpoena of Records and for an Order Prohibiting
                U.S.A.'s Contact with Bearers of Records, filed July 14, 1995; and,

                The purpose of this motion was to obtain, pursuant to Civil Rule 56,
                receipts for property purchases lawfully made by Petitioner and his family
                in order to demonstrate to the Court that the FBI is only reluctantly
                admitting to a small portion of their unlawful seizure. This motion was
                necessitated by the fact that the FBI, as part of their unlawful seizure,
                seized all of Petitioner's purchase receipts, canceled checks, etc., in an
                attempt to prevent him from presenting proof-of-purchase and lawful
                title rights to the Court or any other parties interested in investigating the
                unlawful seizure.

        h.)     Motion to Transfer Case to Rightful Jurisdiction, filed July 14, 1995.

                This purpose of this motion was to transfer Petitioner's case to the
                rightful jurisdiction of Colorado "pursuant to the provisions of law, to
                wit: Title 28, U.S.C. 1406 (a), Amendment I, U.S. Constitution,
                Amendment IV, U.S. Constitution, Amendment V, U.S. Constitution,
                Amendment VI, U.S. Constitution, Amendment VII, U.S. Constitution,
                the U.S. Supreme Court rulings on unlawful seizures of 13. December
                1993 and June 1993, and any other applicable laws, statutes or rules
                unknown to Defendant, who is a layman to the law".

13.     The following motions filed by Petitioner were also denied "without prejudice" in the document dated 8. August 1995 and amended on 22. August 1995:

        a.)     Motion to Make Transcripts Part of the Record, filed on May 17, 1995 and
                on July 14, 1995; and,

- 8 -
                The purpose of these motions was to introduce Petitioner's sentencing
                and plea change hearing transcripts, which should have been filed in the
                U.S. District Court by Petitioner's counsel, Robert G. Clarke, who, after
                knowingly and willfully entering into said conspiracy, sought to sabotage
                Petitioner's case and deprive him of his right to Due Process of Law,
                and to make the transcripts from the hearing in which Petitioner's 41 e
                motion was denied a part of the record. Petitioner has been informed
                that Hon. Harry Leinenweber laughed at Petitioner's 41 e motion and
                stated something to the effect "This guy's been on the loose for six years,
                and I'm gonna put an end to it right now". Such transcripts are essential
                to the proper defense of this appeal, as they demonstrate the "kangaroo
                court" atmosphere which has prevailed throughout Petitioner's case
                history of nearly eight years.

        b.)     Motion to Supplement the Record on appeal, filed on May 23, 1995. The
                purpose of this motion was to supplement the record with such
                essential, relevant writings as newspaper articles detailing how this
                honorable court has ruled against unlawful seizures of late. Also
                included are newspaper articles detailing how unlawful seizures have
                reached an epidemic level, and are completely out of control. Also
                included is a newspaper article reporting "Federal Agents Arrested",
                which demonstrates the incredible corruption which plagues the FBI
                now, more than at any other time in its history.
14.     Additional motions filed by Petitioner were also denied, the stated reason being that Petitioner "has failed to comply with our orders and with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 1915(d) that he provide a notarized statement of his assets." These additional motions which were denied in the document dated 8. August 1995 and amended on 22. August 1995 are:

        a.)     Motion to Proceed on Appeal in Forma Pauperis; and,

                The purpose of this motion was to satisfy a court order setting forth all
                his assets; this, although the United States Court of Appeals is well aware
                of Petitioner's indigence, caused by the FBI's unlawful seizure of his
                assets, his unlawful exile to a distant foreign country, and his rapidly
                deteriorating health: a direct result of Petitioner's being subjected to two
- 9 -
                years of vicious physical and psychological torture in the U.S. prison
                system.

                The United States Court of Appeals is aware that the country where
                Petitioner lives in exile is a Civil Law state, with a completely different
                legal system than the United States, where notaries are usually attorneys,
                and it has been impossible thus far for Petitioner to locate an English-
                speaking attorney-notary willing to perform this major service in a foreign
                language.

                The United States Court of Appeals is also aware that the seals of foreign
                notaries are not recognized by U.S. law.

                The United States Court of Appeals is also aware that Petitioner was
                provided with court-appointed counsel at the inception of his case in
                early 1988 without his being forced to file any motions, notarize any
                documents, or fill out any applications, because the U.S. District
                Court of Hon. Harry Leinenweber was well aware that Petitioner had
                been made a pauper by the FBI's unlawful seizure of all of his
                property.

                The United States Court of Appeals is also aware and that the reason
                Petitioner now requires appointed counsel is that his previously-appointed
                counsel, William J. Stevens, has refused to represent him for years, and
                Mr. Stevens' successor improperly withdrew after intentionally sabotaging
                and prejudicing Petitioner's case, forcing Petitioner, a layman to the law,
                to represent himself on a major appeal, of which he has absolutely no
                knowledge how to properly defend.

                Petitioner is being forced to adhere to the most technical rules of court,
                whilst his adversaries are being granted absolute carte blanche to freely
                violate not only the rules of court, but any laws they have a whim to,
                despite their gravity, including, but not limited to, an evil conspiracy,
                who, by nature of design, is determined to "legalize" the felony criminal
                activity of the FBI agents and others, known and unknown, involved in
                Petitioner's politically-motivated arrest, the flagrantly illegal seizure of his
                
- 10 -
                property, and the cover-up of a host of grim crimes far too numerous to
                include in this document.

                Petitioner is being denied counsel in a further effort of the highly organized
                conspiracy to deprive him of yet another of his constitutional rights in the
                hopes of "legalizing" the blatantly illegal seizure of all of his legally-owned
                property in a manner which smacks reminiscent of the Middle Ages.

        b.)     Motion for Appointment of counsel.

                The purpose of this motion was to secure Petitioner's constitutional right
                to court-appointed indigent counsel under Amendment VI, U.S.
                Constitution and the Criminal Justice Act and to obtain substitute
                counsel after the refusal of Petitioner's appointed counsel and his
                successor to represent Petitioner.

                Petitioner's being denied counsel is prima facie evidence of the lengths to
                which the highly organized conspiracy is willing to go in order to deprive
                him of yet another of his most basic constitutional rights in the hopes of
                "legalizing" the blatantly illegal seizure of all of his legally-owned property
                in a manner which smacks reminiscent of the Middle Ages or Hitler's
                Germany.
15.     Additional motions filed by Petitioner were also denied in a document received from the United States Court of Appeals, dated 30. August 1995, to wit:

        a.)     Defendant's Motion to Supplement the Record with Evidence of U.S.
                Attorney's Misconduct and Motion to Investigate U.S. Attorney's
                Misconduct Pro Se Appellant, filed 8/14/95;

                The purpose of this motion was to provide prima facie evidence of
                Assistant U.S. Attorney Carol A. Davilos' continued unethical misconduct
                to the United States Court of Appeals; in this particular instance, in the
                form of a letter written to Ms. Davilo by Petitioner containing her assigned
                copies of court documents, which was, after being opened, resealed,
                marked "Return to Sender", apparently by Ms. Davilo, who
                intentionally blacked everything out on her address with the exception of
- 11 -
                her own name - seemingly to send some manner of "sign" to Petitioner,
                was improperly returned to Petitioner; in essence, having the identical
                effect of a refusal of the required delivery.

        b.)     Motion to Supplement Motion to Order the Subpoena of Records and
                Receipts Pursuant to Civil Rule 56 and for an Order Prohibiting the
                government's Contact with Bearers of Records and Receipts for the
                Duration of These Proceedings Pro Se Appellant, filed 8/7/95;

                The purpose of this motion was to supplement Petitioner's Motion to
                Order the Subpoena of Records and Receipts Pursuant to Civil Rule 56
                and for an Order Prohibiting the government's Contact with Bearers of
                Records and Receipts for the Duration of These Proceedings Pro Se
                Appellant  obtain, pursuant to Civil Rule 56, receipts for property
                purchases lawfully made by Petitioner and his family in order to
                demonstrate to the Court that the FBI is only reluctantly admitting to a
                small portion of their unlawful seizure. This motion was necessitated by
                the fact that the FBI, as part of their unlawful seizure, seized all of
                Petitioner's purchase receipts, canceled checks, etc., in an attempt to
                prevent him from presenting proof-of-purchase and lawful title rights to
                the Court or any other parties interested in investigating the unlawful
                seizure.

        c.)     Supplement to Defendant-Appellant Michael Williams' Response to
                William J. Stevens' Statement and Request for an Order Directing Daniel
                R. Mason to Submit a Statement under Oath Pro Se Appellant, filed
                8/21/95; and,

                The purpose of this motion was to further demonstrate to the United
                States Court of Appeals Petitioner's suffering the receipt of numerous
                threats from the FBI should he ever decide to return to the land of his
                birth, the United States of America.

                The motion also demonstrated that after Petitioner's friend, former
                father-in-law and former Jimmy Carter aide, Charles Cavanaugh Murphy,
                attempted to assist him in procuring substitute counsel, and, particularly,

- 12 -
                after Mr. Murphy had made telephone calls to the FBI, he was run down
                and nearly killed by a hit-and-run driver near his Florida home.

                Petitioner's reports to the United States Court of Appeals, indicating the
                persistent threats, harassment, surveillance, intimidation and bullying he
                and his friends and family have received from the FBI and their agents,
                has been totally ignored, and Petitioner, rather than receiving assistance,
                and rather than these grave crimes being properly investigated, has, in the
                stead, and quite the contrary, received additional threats - written, at that

                from the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals, ordering him
                to cease writing "scandalous" statements, lest he, a pauper, be subjected to
                yet more persecution, in the form of "sanctions".

        d.)     Defendant-Appellant Michael Williams' Response to William J. Stevens'
                Statement Pro Se Appellant, filed 8/8/95.

                The purpose of this motion was to counter false statements made in
                writing, (albeit, suspiciously not under oath) by Petitioner's former
                court-appointed counsel, William J. Stevens, made pursuant to court
                order in what was clearly an attempt by the United States Court of
                Appeals to provide Mr. Stevens with an effortless method of avoiding
                prosecution for his continued unethical and often severely criminal
                behavior. In its transparent zeal to protect "one of their own", the
                United States Court of Appeals has permitted Mr. Stevens to avoid
                certain prosecution with an explanation which amounts to a one-
                paragraph denial; a denial that no court of any integrity would ever
                deem sufficient to counter or even minimally explain the massive
                violations of the law Mr. Stevens has committed, not to mention his
                countless violations of the Code of Ethics to which he is sworn.

                Although the United States Court of Appeals has ruled that this motion
                "will be filed without further court action", its lack of action has the same
                effect as a denial. The United States Court of Appeals has elected to let
                the criminal activity of William J. Stevens go completely uninvestigated
                and unpunished, whilst temporaneously issuing thinly veiled written

- 13 -
                threats to Petitioner to cease making so-called "scandalous" statements
                which the Court knows to be completely true.
17.     The above motions were not denied for being "frivolous"; they were, quite the contrary, frivolously denied by a court which didn't even give Petitioner the consideration of reading them. This manner of excessive injustice has been lavishly meted out to Petitioner since the time common street gangsters with badges arrested Petitioner and brutalized him in the presence of his wife and child all those years ago, on 18. March 1988.
16.     Petitioner has received numerous threats warning him to cease all legal action which might "embarrass or harm the reputation of the F.B.I. or U.S. Attorney's Office. In a document received from the United States Court of Appeals dated August 8, 1995, Chief Judge, Hon. Richard Posner personally warned Petitioner: "...that his frivolous filings must cease, as must the scandalous allegations he has made in the various filings he has submitted to this court. Further conduct of his (sic) nature may result in the imposition of sanctions". Petitioner has not made any allegations to the United States Court of Appeals that are not absolutely true in every respect".
17.     Petitioner will be irreparably harmed if the time is not stopped, if proper
jurisdiction is not asserted and venue transferred. Petitioner would like to emphasize to this honorable Court that his doctor has written to Hon. Richard Posner, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals, warning him that Petitioner is being placed under such stress, attempting to defend himself on a major federal appeal when he is a layman to the law, that his very life is in danger.
18.     It is said that "Justice delayed is justice denied". Petitioner has been fighting an uphill battle for justice for nearly one full decade against a government that purports to be a government "of the people" and a "democracy". Such behavior is in no way, shape or form, democratic. It is the expected behavior of a notorious, merciless, police state, completely drunk with power - a police state far worse than any our nation has ever declared war upon.
19.)    In the interests of justice, far too long denied him, Petitioner requires that this honorable Court order the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to grant all of his above motions, and, particularly his Motion to Appoint Counsel, which is the
- 14 - basis of the grave injustice that has plagued Petitioner for many years and has robbed him of his youth, his promising career, and his good health
20.)    Further, in the interests of justice, Petitioner requires that the clock be stopped, so that he may have sufficient time to prepare to properly defend this case.

        WHEREAS Petitioner, MICHAEL WILLIAMS prays that the relief he seeks and desperately requires in this Writ of Mandamus be granted by this honorable court, in the interests of justice, so that he may go forward with his defense and, after nearly eight long years of insensate, unnecessary suffering, at last be able to litigate the issues of the unlawful seizure of his rightfully owned property. He prays that the motions which were wrongfully denied as being "frivolous" be granted, with particular emphasis on his Motion to Appoint Counsel, and that the clock be stopped, lest justice be denied.

                                                Respectfully submitted,


        
                                                MICHAEL WILLIAMS, in Pro Se
                                                Postfach 20
                                                CH-3112 Allmendingen bei Bern
                                                Switzerland