APPLICATION FOR DISQUALIFICATIONS: 28 USC 144 (containing AFFIDAVIT OF BIAS AND PREJUDICE & DEMAND FOR RECUSAL as well as NOTICE TO COUNSELS: USA v. Hill et al. & NOTICE OF ERRORS re: Harris & Harris, P.C.) - from Paul Andrew Mitchell USMCFP/Springfield

10/25/2014: Newest updates have been added and are to be found towards bottom of this post: communications to Senator Barrasso's office, House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, as well as further information from Paul, political prisoner #1 in the USA. Also, I wonder if these unethical, dumbass, criminal, fraudulent, government shills perpetrating this on Paul have ever heard of elder abuse.

Update! Via Cryptome http://cryptome.org 

2014-00742            Whistleblower Mitchell Asks Disqualifications    October 24, 2014

If you care about your country and justice, you will spread this like wildfire to all of your contacts, newsgroups, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

Paul could use some help. Here is the latest info re: sending funds to Paul's commisary account [money order or postal money order]:

Federal Bureau of Prisons
MITCHELL PAUL MODELESKI
44202086
Post Office Box 474701
Des Moines, Iowa 50947-0001

___

 

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF   Document 227   Filed 10/14/14   Page 1 of 15

TRULINCS 44202086 - MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL - Unit: SPG-G-P

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FROM: 444202086

TO: Brown, Thomas; Saccato, Larry

SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR DISQUALIFICATIONS [1 of 2]

DATE: 10/03/2014 10:20:28 AM

Docket No. 2:14-CR-00027-NDF

TO:

U.S. District Court

2120 Capitol Avenue, 2nd Floor

Cheyenne 82001

Wyoming, USA

 

Subject: APPLICATION FOR DISQUALIFICATIONS: 28 USC 144

Greetings Your Honor:

Comes now Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (“Mitchell”), to apply for

mandatory disqualifications of Nancy D. Freudenthal and possibly also

Scott W. Skavdahl and Alan B. Johnson from the instant criminal case,

pursuant to 28 USC 144, for good causes showing as follows:

 

AFFIDAVIT OF BIAS AND PREJUDICE

 

Notably, at the hearing on 3/21/2014, Ms. Freudenthal clearly

attempted to characterize Mitchell’s ongoing credential

investigation as some sort of pathological obsession

(or similar words to that same effect).

 

Mitchell promptly objected by emphasizing that the credential

investigation was being performed on behalf of private clients

who paid fair professional fees for that service.

 

The credential investigation has also been actively assisted by

Federal officers in DOJ’s Office of Information Policy (“OIP”) and

the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (“EOUSA”) in Washington, D.C.,

with actual knowledge of Deputy U.S. Marshals in San Diego, Spokane

and Seattle.

 

Such official assistance consisted mainly of timely and untimely

replies and production of partial documents responsive to

Mitchell’s numerous Requests, properly submitted under the

Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 USC 552, in addition to

in-person meetings with Deputy U.S. Marshals in San Diego and Seattle.

 

To date, Mitchell has had five (5) in-person meetings with

one or more Deputy U.S. Marshals stationed in Seattle, and two (2)

in-person meetings with Deputy U.S. Marshals stationed in San Diego.

 

Near the conclusion of the 3/21/2014 hearing, Freudenthal

actually apologized to Mitchell for her attempt to characterize

the credential investigation, and its cumulative results to date,

as the obsession of someone suffering from a mental illness

of some kind.

 

Mitchell continues to regard that attempt as defamatory,

and defamation violates two (2) Human Rights Treaties –

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International

 

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF   Document 227   Filed 10/14/14   Page 2 of 15

TRULINCS 44202086 - MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL - Unit: SPG-G-P

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (See VCC5 infra.)

 

Then, without Mitchell’s actual knowledge, Mr. L. Robert Murray

dba Assistant U.S. Attorney, commenced to file a “secret motion”

-- ex parte -- for a second psychological evaluation of Mitchell at FDC/SeaTac.

That ex parte motion was never timely served upon Mitchell; no notice of any

hearing on that ex parte motion was ever served upon Mitchell; and, no

hearing on that ex parte motion was ever conducted at which Mitchell

was allowed to appear. (See Code of Conduct, Canon 3(A)(4) infra.)

 

Mitchell has always proceeded In Propria Persona i.e. “personally”

under 28 USC 1654, notwithstanding any and all appearances

to the contrary.

 

In point of fact, Mr. Mark Hardee as initial “standby counsel” failed

completely to forward or even to mention said ex parte motion to Mitchell;

and, Docket records were erroneously modified – by person(s) unknown –

so as to list Mr. Hardee as Mitchell’s formal legal “representative”,

directly contradicting Mitchell’s decision to proceed always

In Propria Persona.

 

Freudenthal summarily “granted” said ex parte motion, but

Mitchell was not allowed to see any “order” granting that ex parte motion

until after he arrived at FDC/SeaTac for a second period of detention

and more solitary confinement.

 

In point of fact, Hardee also failed completely to forward or even

to mention to Mitchell said “order” granting that ex parte motion.

 

Mitchell has also confirmed a Federal law which prohibits Federal Judges

from engaging in the practice of law, and defines that violation as a

high misdemeanor (See 28 USC 454.)

 

All psychological interviews of Mitchell by one Cynthia A. Low,

dba Forensic Psychologist, were conducted at FDC/SeaTac at all times

without the assistance of Counsel present during those interviews, and

over Mitchell’s multiple written objections to the total absence of Counsel,

and to all missing credentials for one Stephan Harris whose name

appeared in the conforming stamp displayed on Freudenthal’s “order”.

 

Relying upon information provided by the U.S. Supreme Court in

Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 468 (1938), Mitchell believes

the complete absence of counsel during all of Low’s interviews

resulted in ousting this Court of jurisdiction (cf. “jurisdictional bar”,

“court no longer has jurisdiction to proceed”).

 

Mitchell has never competently and never intelligently waived his

Fundamental right to meaningful technical assistance of “standby” counsel.

Here, Mitchell relies upon U.S. v. Coupez, 603 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir. 1979)

(re: “meaningful technical assistance”), and upon similar case law

under 28 USC 1654. Near the end of the 3/21/2014 hearing,

Mitchell expressly reserved his Right to change his mind about

formal legal representation, and Freudenthal acknowledged same

on the record.

 

Mitchell has previously filed a DEMAND FOR RECUSAL which expanded

substantially upon the several reasons why he believes Freudenthal’s bias

and prejudice do warrant her immediate disqualification.

 

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF   Document 227   Filed 10/14/14   Page 3 of 1 

TRULINCS 44202086 - MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL - Unit: SPG-G-P

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Said DEMAND FOR RECUSAL is hereby incorporated by reference, as if set forth

fully here.

 

(See Docket records for the particulars of that DEMAND FOR RECUSAL.)

 

Chiefly, while being detained unlawfully in Gering, Nebraska,

Mitchell submitted a proper FOIA Request to OIP for the four (4)

credentials required of Freudenthal, Skavdahl and Johnson.

All three (3) of said Court personnel turned up with missing and/or

defective credentials: OIP produced no SENATE CONFIRMATIONS

or OATH OF OFFICE for Johnson. (See 28 U.S.C. 453 and

5 USC 2104, 2902, 2903, 3331, 3332, 3333, 5507.)

 

Also, on information Mitchell concluded the APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS

for Freudenthal and Skavdahl were visibly counterfeit forms; and, the

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSIONS for Freudenthal and Skavdahl were incomplete

because of the visibly counterfeit APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS executed by

one Eric Holder, Jr., formerly dba U.S. Attorney General. (See 44 USC 3512.)

 

Mitchell has confirmed that the Federal statute at 5 USC 2902(c) requires

the U.S. Attorney General to countersign all PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSIONS

of judicial officers e.g. district judges, also U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals.

 

Mitchell has also diligently studied the Appointments Clause and

the Recess Appointments Clause in the U.S. Constitution.

He concluded therefrom that a SENATE CONFIRMATION is absolutely

required of Freudenthal, Skavdahl and Johnson: the absence of that

key mandatory credential also invalidates any and all other credentials,

such as the PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION, APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS

and OATH OFFICE, chiefly because the SENATE CONFIRMATION

cannot be bypassed or circumvented indefinitely.

 

Even for recess appointments under Article II, Section 2,

Clause 3 in the U.S. Constitution (“2:2:3”), Mitchell found case law

holding that the U.S. Senate’s formal advice and consent must follow

during the next ensuing Senate session. Here, Mitchell relies upon

the decision in Noel Canning v. NLRB, 705 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

 

Prior to his FOIA Request for her four (4) credentials, Mitchell

did mail to Freudenthal a proper DEMAND for disclosing a copy

of her APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS. A copy of that DEMAND should

be filed in this Court’s Docket records. Freudenthal never answered

that DEMAND (see further discussion of “demand” infra).

 

Mitchell also believes Freudenthal suffers from a severe

conflict of interest that results from her failure to exercise

adequate administrative supervision of Court subordinates

such as Stephan Harris, Zachary Fisher and Tammy Hilliker dba

Clerk and Deputy Clerks of Court, respectively (to name a few).

(See Code of Conduct, Canon 3(B) infra.) Here, Mitchell believes

probable cause exists for application of the theory of vicarious

liability aka “respondeat superior” in Latin (let superiors answer

for the misconduct of their subordinates).

 

All three of the latter personnel of this Court have either failed or refused

to produce their APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS required by 5 USC 3331 et seq.,

and their OATH OF OFFICE required by 28 USC 951 (duties),

after receiving Mitchell’s proper DEMANDs for disclosure of same.

 

 

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF   Document 227   Filed 10/14/14   Page 4 of 15 

TRULINCS 44202086 - MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL - Unit: SPG-G-P

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this context, after finding it Mitchell has been relying upon a statement

in 63C AmJur 2d, to wit: “The public have a right to demand that public officials

perform all of their duties faithfully.”

 

Also, by studying the FOIA, Mitchell confirmed the Federal law at

5 USC 551(1)(B) presently exempts the entire Judicial Branch

from the Freedom of Information Act, thus necessitating a

DEMAND instead of a proper FOIA Request for disclosure of

credentials required of this Court’s inferior officers

i.e. magistrates, clerks and deputy clerks.

 

Mitchell has now formerly charged Stephan Harris with concealing

Court records in violation of 18 USC 1519 (a Federal felony).

(See the Court Docket for that “VCC” infra, and in pari materia

compare 18 USC 2071 where it mentions “custody” of court records.)

 

The Court is the legal custodian of all APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS of

all Court officers, designated as such by the Federal law at 5 USC 2906

(“the court to which the office pertains”), NOT the Administrative Office

of the U.S. Courts in Washington, D.C.

 

Mitchell sincerely believes the instant case can and should be correctly

and promptly dismissed as a direct consequence of the well documented

failure by Stephan Harris to produce 2 required credentials; without both

credentials, neither he nor any of his subordinates can lawfully sign, or seal,

any “subpoenas” issued by the Court. See 28 USCS 1691 and 28 USCA 1691

for extensive case law upon which Mitchell has often relied during the period

in question.

 

Mitchell concluded that delegation of authority by Stephen Harris is

legally impossible, as long as he cannot or will not produce proof of

all credentials required of all Clerks of Court and all Deputy Clerks of Court by

applicable Federal statutes and Constitutional provisions. (See 6:3, U.S. Const.)

 

Mitchell has also concluded that the Paperwork Reduction Act effectively

created a “right to inspect” all U.S. Office of Personnel Management

Standard Form 61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS for the required display

of a valid OMB control number at the upper right-hand corner of page one.

 

Mitchell therefore believes the net effects of all these missing

and defective credentials is a clear and painfully obvious violation

of FRCrP Rule 2, at a minimum, in addition to many far-reaching

violations of criminal statutes dutifully cited in Mitchell’s several

VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINTs, ON INFORMATION (“VCC”),

as now filed in the Court’s official Docket records in the instant case.

 

For the record, Rule 2 currently reads: “Interpretation. These rules

are to be interpreted to provide for the just determination of every

criminal proceeding, to secure simplicity in procedure and fairness

in administration, and to eliminate unjustifiable expense and delay.

(As amended April 29, 2002, eff. Dec. 1, 2002.)”

 

On information found in the Federal court decision in U.S. v. Gregory,

508 F.Supp. 1218 (USDC/SDAL 1980), Mitchell also relies now upon

the following abstract of that decision, to wit: “Pursuant to Rule 2,

party who objects to Court’s ruling on motion to recuse should be

able to obtain review of that ruling before being put to burden and

expense of lengthy trial.”

 

 

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF   Document 227   Filed 10/14/14   Page 5 of 15

TRULINCS 44202086 - MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL - Unit: SPG-G-P

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To date, Mitchell has also lodged four (4) separate “Qui Tam” Complaints

under the False Claims Act (“FCA”) at 31 USC 3729 et seq. Each contained

a PROOF OF SERVICE identifying recipients of hard copy originals

transmitted by Mitchell via U.S. Mail.

 

Mitchell has also studied case law under the FCA which properly classifies

qui tam relators as “agents of the United States” (see United States

ex. Rel. Madden v. General Dynamics Corp., 4 F.3d 827 (9th Cir. 1993)).

 

As such, Mitchell believes that he is thereby entitled to all authorized

awards and all protections afforded to all FCA “whistleblowers”

(see 31 USC 3730(h), expressly authorizing relief from retaliation

against “agents” for efforts to stop false claims against the Treasury

of the United States.)

 

Mitchell also relies consistently upon the statute at 5 USC 5507

(a Federal officer cannot get paid before executing a valid 5 USC 3332

affidavit).

 

[continue at 2 of 2]

 

 

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF   Document 227   Filed 10/14/14   Page 6 of 15

TRULINCS 44202086 - MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL - Unit: SPG-G-P

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FROM: 44202086

TO: Brown, Thomas; Saccato, Larry

SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR DISQUALIFICATIONS [2 of 2]

DATE: 10/03/2014 10:20:51 AM

 

[continued from 1 of 2]

 

On further information and belief, Mitchell has studied the Code of Conduct

for United States Judges, and thereby inferred probable demonstrable

violations of Canons 2(A), 3(A)(4), 3(B)(1) and 3(B)(2) from all facts, laws

and court decisions mentioned heretofore.

 

On information found in the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case

of U.S. v. Mason, 412 U.S. 391 (1973), Mitchell also relies upon the following

text in that decision, to wit: “If the doctrine of stare decisis has any meaning

at all, it requires that people in their everyday affairs be able to reply [Teknosis:

rely?] upon

our [U.S. Supreme Court] decisions and not be needlessly penalized for such

reliance.”

 

On information found in the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case

of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), Mitchell also relies upon the

following principle established in that historic decision, to wit:

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be

no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”

 

On all information discussed heretofore, Mitchell sincerely believes that

sufficient probable cause already exists to justify the conclusion that

Freudenthal lacks even minimal authority to determine the legal

sufficiency of this AFFIDAVIT under 28 USC 144.

 

This concludes Mitchell’s AFFIDAVIT OF BIAS AND PREJUDICE.

 

INCORPORATION OF ATTACHMENTS

 

Mitchell hereby incorporates by reference two Attachments:

“NOTICE TO COUNSELS: USA v. Hill et al. (dated 9/20/2014)” and

“NOTICE OF ERRORS by Harris & Harris, P.C. (dated 10/1/2014)”

 

as if both were set forth fully here.

 

VERIFICATION / CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH

 

I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Sui Juris, hereby verify

under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States

of America, without the “United States” (Federal government),

that the instant APPLICATION is made in good faith, and

the above statement of facts and laws is true and correct,

according to the best of my current information, knowledge

and belief, so help me God, pursuant to 28 USC 1746(1).

See Supremacy Clause (Constitution, Laws and Treaties

of the United States are all the supreme Law of the Land).

 

Dated: 10/1/2014

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell [Signed Paul Mitchell]

 

 

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF   Document 227   Filed 10/14/14   Page 7 of 15

TRULINCS 44202086 - MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL - Unit: SPG-G-P

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Private Attorney General, Civil RICO: 18 USC 1964,

Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (2000)

(objectives of Civil RICO);

Agent of the United States as Qui Tam Relator,

False Claims Act: 31 USC 3729 et seq. (4X)

 

* See Doe v. Dunning, 549 P.2d 1

   (Washington State Supreme Court)

 

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308)

 

Attachments: NOTICE TO COUNSELS: USA v. Hill et al. (dated 9/20/2014)

                          NOTICE OF ERRORS by Harris & Harris, P.C. (dated 10/1/2014)

 

 

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF   Document 227   Filed 10/14/14   Page 8 of 15

TRULINCS 44202086 - MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL - Unit: SPG-G-P

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FROM: 44202086

TO: Brown, Thomas; Guenette, Edward; Mullen, Jack; Saccato, Larry

SUBJECT: Notice to Counsels: USA v. Hill et al.

DATE: 09/20/2014 12:08:56 PM

 

Greetings Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

I am writing to you for the primary purpose

of making each of you aware of certain laws and

facts which may not, and probably won’t,

come to your attention by any other means.

 

As you may already know, I have continued

to reserve all Rights (cf. UCC 1-308),

with emphasis on all of my Fundamental Rights,

and to appear In Propria Persona i.e. “personally”

under 28 USC 1654. Cf. “In Propria Persona”

in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition,

particularly where that definition addresses

the issue of Court jurisdiction.

 

I have now survived two (2) Faretta hearings –

one in Seattle and one in Cheyenne. The hearing

on 3/21/2014 in Cheyenne was noteworthy for

repeated attempts by one Nancy Dell Freudenthal

(“NDF”) to change my mind about formal legal

representation: I reserved my right to change my mind,

and I continued to proceed In Propria Persona.

 

The other noteworthy event at that 3/21/2014

hearing was NDF’s obvious attempt to characterize the

credential investigation as some kind of “pathological

obsession”. A transcript should show that

I opposed her vain attempt, and I actually

succeeded in eliciting a spoken apology from NDF.

 

For reasons like the latter, I have properly demanded

her immediate recusal, but she stubbornly refuses

to do so.

 

The case law I have studied requires recusal

even if there is the mere appearance of bias.

I believe that your several clients are, therefore,

now at serious risk of continuing bias and

prejudice by NDF, and by her several accomplices,

in our case(s) -- chiefly Stephan Harris and

L. Robert Murray.

 

More to the merits of our Fundamental Rights,

DOJ’s Office of Information Policy (“OIP”)

promptly replied to my proper FOIA Request

while I was being detained unlawfully in Gering,

Nebraska. OIP’s timely reply contained a cover

letter, and responsive documents, calling for the

following logical conclusions of law:

 

(1) no SENATE CONFIRMATION required of NDF by

5 USC 2902(c), and by either 2:2:2 or 2:2:3 in the

 

 

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF   Document 227   Filed 10/14/14   Page 9 of 15

TRULINCS 44202086 - MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL - Unit: SPG-G-P

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Constitution (Article:Section:Clause);

 

(2) incomplete PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION also required

of NDF by 5 USC 2902(c), and by either 2:2:2 or 2:2:3,

due in part to defective U.S. OPM Standard Form 61

(“SF-61”) APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS for one Eric Holder, Jr.;

see also 44 USC 3512 here;

 

(3) NDF’s SF-61 is also a counterfeit form because:

 

(a) it lacks a valid OMB control number at the

upper right-hand corner, as required by 44 USC 3501 et seq.;

(cf. OMB control number 50-R0118 i.e. five zero dash

R zero one one eight);

 

(b) it lacks the paragraph citing 5 USC 2903

(Authority to administer); and,

 

(c) the electronic SF-61 published at www.opm.gov

was not reviewed or approved by OMB as required by

5 CFR 1320.5, the Federal Regulation implementing the

Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”): again, see 44 USC 3512;

 

Under the Appointments Clause at 2:2:2, a

SENATE CONFIRMATION must precede the other 3

Credentials required of all U.S. District Judges.

 

Under the Recess Appointments Clause at 2:2:3, a

SENATE CONFIRMATION must issue during the next

ensuing Senate session i.e. after those other 3

credentials.

 

Accordingly, I have recently requested the law firm

of Harris & Harris, P.C., to confirm the exact dates

of NDF’s alleged appointment, and of the vacancy

she claimed to fill. To date, Harris & Harris, P.C.,

have not disclosed those exact dates to me.

 

Nevertheless, it is not likely that she was initially

appointed as “Chief Judge”; and, enough time has

now elapsed to compel a conclusion that NDF surely

needed a SENATE CONFIRMATION under one or the

other option: 2:2:2 or 2:2:3. See also the definition

of “officer” at 5 USC 2104, 3332 and 5507.

 

The legal (and moral) consequences of NDF’s

missing and defective credentials are quite far-

reaching e.g. by necessarily rendering null and void:

 

(a) all her “orders” and “rulings” to date;

 

(b) all hearings on which she attempted to preside; and,

 

(c) the original “arrest warrant” executed upon my

Person on 1/28/2014.

 

As such, the USDC/DWY lacked jurisdiction in personam

(over my proper Person) ab initio (at least beginning 1/28/2014).

 

 

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF   Document 227   Filed 10/14/14   Page 10 of 15

TRULINCS 44202086 - MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL - Unit: SPG-G-P

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moreover, NDF’s attempt to appoint Mr. Terry J. Harris

as my formal legal representative was also void ab initio,

for the very same reasons.

 

At another hearing on 7/10/2014, I again appeared

under protest and In Propria Persona; and, I gave

at least 2 hours of testimony under direct examination

by Terry J. Harris -- chiefly because no one else was

qualified, or prepared, to conduct such a direct examination

of me.

 

You should also be informed, via filed Docket records,

that several other Federal personnel have also failed or

refused to disclose their mandatory credentials e.g.

see RELATOR’S FIFTH VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT,

ON INFORMATION (“VCC”), and all other VCCs previously

filed in the Docket records, in timely compliance with 18 USC 4

(misprison of felony).

 

Notably, Dr. Cynthia A. Low has now failed or refused

to answer my proper FOIA Request for her own SF-61.

My first attempt to address that Request to the

“Disclosure Officer” at FDC/SeaTac was returned

by the U.S. Postal Service with the annotation

“no such addressee” (or words to that effect).

 

For that reason, I promptly re-mailed that FOIA Request

directly to Dr. Low, but no reply has been forthcoming

from her, nor from any of her superiors nor anyone else

at FDC/SeaTac.

 

I also wish to take this opportunity to make you

aware that I have now authored approximately

30 CONFIDENTIAL Journal entries consisting of

50+ pages; and, I mailed all of those Journal entries

to Harris & Harris, P.C.

 

Please accept this communication as my formal

authorization for all defense counsel to obtain

photocopies of all such handwritten Journal entries.

 

I wrote those Journal entries also to focus

the attention of each defense Counsel on the key

issues (e.g. the heart of the matter), and to prevent

invasions of my privacy Rights that would otherwise

result from what are often described as “fishing

expeditions” -- assembling enormous quantities

of questionable and irrelevant data, at great and

unnecessary expense to government treasuries

(e.g. 20,000 pages and still counting).

 

Kindly allow me briefly to demonstrate to you why

it is not appropriate or necessary to label my case

as “complex”: Stephan Harris has refused to

produce any valid credentials, in blatant violation

of 18 USC 1519 (a felony). Therefore, he could

not have signed or sealed any subpoena(s) issued

by any Federal grand jury(s); he could not have

selected or summoned any Federal grand jury(s); and,

 

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF   Document 227   Filed 10/14/14   Page 11 of 15

TRULINCS 44202086 - MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL - Unit: SPG-G-P

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

he could not have delegated any authority(s) to any

subordinate deputy clerk(s) whatsoever.

 

See my essay “Clerks or Jerks? The Pivotal Duties

of Federal Court Clerks” for further pertinent details.

 

In my professional opinion, any and all efforts to

expand the scope of my case beyond those simple

issues is a direct and blatant violation of FRCrP Rule 2;

and, those efforts also constitute probable cause that

barratry has already occurred, and continues to occur

even as I write this.

 

(Barratry is an offense similar to “churning” by a

stock broker i.e. for purposes of maximizing fee

generation; “Esquire” is an office under the

Crown of England. Cf. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1856).)

 

If any of you need further clarification of any points

made above, please consult the relevant Docket entries

first, then reply via email to my trusted legal assistant

lsaccato@gmail.com who will forward your terse

reply(s) to me at his earliest convenience

(no email attachments, please).

 

Thank you for your professional consideration.

 

Sincerely yours, [signed Paul Mitchell]

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (chosen name)

Private Attorney General, Civil RICO: 18 USC 1964,

Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (2000)

(objectives of Civil RICO);

Agent of the United States as Qui Tam Relator,

False Claims Act: 31 USC 3729 et seq. (4X)

 

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308)

 

Copies forwarded to:

 

agharkmd@gmail.com

tom@jubinzerga.com

mike@mhrwylaw.com

tjharrispc@gmail.com

emily.marie.harris@gmail.com

 

Gay Woodhouse

1912 Capitol Avenue, Suite 500

Cheyenne 82001

Wyoming, USA

 

Thomas A. Fleener

Fleener & Vang, LCC

P.O. Box 1186

Laramie 82073

Wyoming, USA

 

 

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF   Document 227   Filed 10/14/14   Page 12 of 15

TRULINCS 44202086 - MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL - Unit: SPG-G-P

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FROM: 44202086

TO: Brown, Thomas; Guenette, Edward; Mullen, Jack; Saccato, Larry

SUBJECT: NOTICE OF ERRORS by Harris & Harris, P.C.

DATE: 10/01/2014 04:54:51 PM

 

TO:

Hon. Warden

USMCFP

P.O. Box 4000

Springfield 65801-4000

Missouri, USA

 

RE: August 6, 2014 letter from Terry J. Harris

 

Greetings Hon. Warden:

 

Please allow me to explain to you, and to all your subordinates

who may have a need to know, several serious errors that are

evident in the written correspondence you recently received

from Harris & Harris, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

 

On the first page of his cover letter to you dated August 6, 2014,

Mr. Terry J. Harris makes the following serious errors in the

first paragraph:

 

* “I represent Paul Mitchell” [NOT correct]

 

* “Nancy Freudenthal’s Order appointing me” [NOT correct]

 

* “her more recent Order declaring Paul Mitchell incompetent” [NOT correct]

 

As admitted in their written reply to my proper Request under the

Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), DOJ’s Office of Information Policy

(“OIP”) did not find any SENATE CONFIRMATION in their appointment file

for Nancy Dell Freudenthal.

 

Moreover, her U.S. Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”)

Standard Form 61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS (“SF-61”)

are a counterfeit form because:

 

(a) no OMB control number is displayed at the upper right-hand corner;

 

(b) there is no paragraph citing 5 USC 2903 (Authority to administer); and,

 

(c) the electronic form at www.opm.gov was never reviewed or approved

     by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”).

 

Also, Freudenthal’s PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION is incomplete because

of the counterfeit SF-61 executed by one Eric Holder, Jr. Here, see

5 USC 2902(c), which mandates the Attorney General’s signature

on all such PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSIONS.

 

OIP’s cover letter and responsive documents were mailed by me

to the P.O. Box of Harris & Harris, P.C. in Cheyenne, Wyoming,

while I was unlawfully detained at a county jail in Gering, Nebraska.

 

I also requested OIP to forward to that P.O. Box OIP’s timely

reply to my proper FOIA Appeal.

 

 

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF   Document 227   Filed 10/14/14   Page 13 of 15

TRULINCS 44202086 - MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL - Unit: SPG-G-P

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Freudenthal’s missing -and- defective credentials do violate at least

two Clauses in the U.S. Constitution (cf. 6:3, and either 2:2:2 or 2:2:3),

and a distinct group of other Federal laws which implement those Clauses.

 

As such, Ms. Freudenthal lacked the required authority to appoint

Mr. Harris legally to represent me; and, she lacked the required authority

to issue any order(s) whatsoever, least of all one that blatantly defames

me for being “incompetent” [sic]. Defamation is criminal.

 

Contrary to appearances (and pretenses) fostered by Mr. Harris et al.,

he does not and cannot legally “represent” me as long as I continue

to proceed In Propria Persona. I have always appeared In Propria Persona

i.e. “personally”, which is my right under 28 USC 1654.

 

I have now survived two (2) Faretta hearings, which can be confirmed by

consulting the Court records in Docket #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2 (USDC/Cheyenne).

 

If you still harbor any reasons why you may doubt or question what

I have written above, please feel free to “go to the source” and

contact OIP directly. That Office is also part of the same Department

(“DOJ”) of which you are presently an officer.

 

See 5 USC 3331, 3332, 3333, and 5507.

 

The real reason why I am presently incarcerated at USMCFP/Springfield

is our credential investigation.

 

If you wish to receive more information about that investigation,

I will be happy to answer your questions as promptly as humanly possible,

given the limited resources and severe restrictions which I am now

compelled to endure in violation of the Constitution, laws and treaties

of the United States.

 

Here, see the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution

and also the Act of Congress at 28 USC 2241(c)(3) in chief.

 

Thank you, Warden, for your continuing professional consideration.

 

Sincerely yours, [signed: Paul Mitchell]

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (chosen name)*

Private Attorney General, Civil RICO: 18 USC 1964,

Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (2000)

(objectives of Civil RICO);

Agent of the United States as Qui Tam Relator,

False Claims Act: 31 USC 3729 et seq. (4X)

 

* See Doe v. Dunning, 549 P.2d 1 (Washington State Supreme Court)

   (fundamental principle and common-law right to change one’s name)

 

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308)

 

 

APPLICATION FOR DISQUALIFICATIONS: 28 USC 144 (containing AFFIDAVIT OF BIAS AND PREJUDICE & DEMAND FOR...

Related:

Paul Andrew Mitchell has been bundled away by the US Government
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/02/paul-andrew-mitchell-has-been-bundled-away-by-the-us-government.html

___

Further communications to, with and relating to Paul, political prisoner #1 in the USA:

from:  Juan Schoch <jvschoch@gmail.com>
to:  Caroline_danielson@barrasso.senate.gov
date:  Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 4:17 PM
subject:  Re: Paul Andrew Mitchell | U.S. Gov. (executive and judicial), IRS targeted individual
mailed-by:  gmail.com
:  Important according to our magic sauce.

As per our conversation on the phone, in re: Paul Andrew Mitchell.

Paul Andrew Mitchell, a Citizen of the State of Washington, has been doing a credentials investigation since the year 2000 of U.S. Federal Judges and other U.S. Government Officials via FOIA and has been documenting this information via his website of www.supremelaw.org and via various postings on the internet, etc.

On 1/15/14 he was indicted for obstructing a grand jury investigation and detained in the case (PACER info. below):

U.S. District Court
District of Wyoming (Cheyenne)
CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:14-cr-00027-NDF-2

PACER advanced search criteria to bring up docket report in re: Mr. Mitchell:

Case Number: 14-cr-00027

Case title: USA v. Hill et al

Date Filed: 01/15/2014

3

USA v. Hill et al - Paul Andrew Mitchell

 

wydce

2:2014-cr-00027

01/15/2014

Documentation on his supremelaw.org website in re: FOIA credentials investigation that relates to what is happening before he was indicted is here:

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/

Paul has done extensive studies in the area of Constitutional issues and legal matters and has represented himself In Propria Persona, has not accepted to be represented by anyone but had identified U.S. related law via the Constitution and federal law that he could avail himself of technical legal assistance while at the same time representing himself but the courts have not given him that opportunity and have ignored his representing himself as shown in the Court docket records. In that Paul has asserted that the indictment was not legitimate and has shown in the court record why this is the case he has been ignored, illegally incarcerated and not allowed to mount a proper defense by being released from detainment (he has never previously committed any crimes, nor is he a flight risk), has been moved over 42 times between various states since January 15, 2014 and has now been silenced by Judge Nancy Freudenthal ruling that he is to be sent to a federal medical facility for restore him to competency (whatever that means – forced medication, etc. of a sane person who knows the law?) for 4 months after which time, a status conference is set for 11/10/14 at 1:30pm. [Teknosis: Now moved to January 2015?]

Another whom I am in communication with predicted that this would happen and that they will just keep doing the same thing to him to keep him permanently silenced. This is unacceptable. Paul is being punished for knowing the Constitution, the law and for asserting his inalienable rights, and has not been availed a speedy trial and has being given diesel therapy. I have been making information from the docket available via the internet via my blog Teknosis (tekgnosis.typepad.com). The last docket entries in which his competency hearing happened, and the judge gave ruling on 7/10/14 have not been typed up yet so that info. would have to be gleaned from the docket until such time.

It not surprising to me that the U.S. government, federal court system, in collusion with the IRS is doing this to Paul but it is outrageous to anyone who has a conscience. I hold out hope that something can be done to help Paul to gain his freedom but I will not hold my breath. My wife believes that there are those in government with a conscience who can put in motion something to help Paul therefore this communication.  Below find my posts from my blog Teknosis.

 Paul is perfectly sane and can be heard in this interview to prove such is the case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wS0CvvVH-yk

Sincerely,

Juan Schoch

Casselberry, FL

407-925-4141

 

Paul Andrew Mitchell has been bundled away by the US Government

http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/02/paul-andrew-mitchell-has-been-bundled-away-by-the-us-government.html

...

from:  Danielson, Caroline (Barrasso) <Caroline_Danielson@barrasso.senate.gov>
to:  Juan Schoch <jvschoch@gmail.com>
date:  Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 4:36 PM
subject:  RE: Paul Andrew Mitchell | U.S. Gov. (executive and judicial), IRS targeted individual
mailed-by:  barrasso.senate.gov
signed-by:  senate.gov
:  Important mainly because of your interaction with messages in the conversation.

Juan,

Thank you for the information. I have just been informed, however, that because you are a third party we will not be able to help Paul in this matter; we would need to hear from Paul himself due to confidentiality and privacy restrictions. I am sorry for this inconvenience and I hope that you are able to find help elsewhere.

Regards,

Caroline Danielson

 

Caroline Danielson

Intern

Office of Senator John Barrasso

P.O. Box 22201

Casper, WY 82602

(307) 261-6413

---

from:  Juan Schoch <jvschoch@gmail.com>
to:  Caroline_danielson@barrasso.senate.gov,
 reporttoogr@mail.house.gov
date:  Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:47 AM
subject:  Re: Paul Andrew Mitchell | U.S. Gov. (executive and judicial), IRS targeted individual
mailed-by:  gmail.com
 
Caroline,

Sorry but torture and continued on-going attempts to torture and/or kill an agent of the United States (Paul had four Que Tam lawsuits in process before being illegally kidnapped, which makes him an agent of the United States) is not a third-party affair. You, Senator Barrasso or an appropriate member of his staff can easily get into contact with Paul, a citizen of the State of Washington being held political prisoner, illegally detained (no speedy trial, nor trial by jury afforded him since February), essentially kidnapped, at United States Medical Center For Federal Prisoners (USMCFP) Springfield, MIssouri.

Consider yourself given notice:

18 U.S. Code § 4 - Misprision of felony

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/4

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Paul confirms what I suspected would happen, that at the federal medical facility where he was illegally sent, there would be an attempt to administer him drugs in an attempt to damage his brain and/or kill him.

___

APPLICATION FOR DISQUALIFICATIONS: 28 USC 144 (containing AFFIDAVIT OF BIAS AND PREJUDICE & DEMAND FOR RECUSAL as well as NOTICE TO COUNSELS: USA v. Hill et al. & NOTICE OF ERRORS re: Harris & Harris, P.C.) - from Paul Andrew Mitchell USMCFP/Springfield
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/10/application-for-disqualifications-28-usc-144-containing-affidavit-of-bias-and-prejudice-demand-for-r.html
___
from:  Larry Saccato <lsaccato@gmail.com>
to:  jvschoch@gmail.com
date:  Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 1:51 AM
subject:  From Paul
mailed-by:  gmail.com
signed-by:  gmail.com
:  Important mainly because of the people in the conversation.

Larry Saccato

1:51 AM (5 hours ago)
   
to me
 
Please express my deepest appreciation to Juan
for his support, concern, and activism.

It means a great deal to me.

Juan has my permission to receive a full and
complete copy of my INITIAL APPLICATION FOR WRITS
IN THE NATURE OF QUO WARRANTO AND HABEAS CORPUS
with all Attachments.

You -- Larry Saccato -- of course have my permission to share
a true and complete copy of same with Juan.

Ideally, it should be scanned and merged into a single .pdf file
including all Attachments etc.

Many thanks, again, Larry.

p.s.  Harris & Harris, P.C. have all 30 Journal entries
I wrote and mailed to their P.O. Box -- ~50 pages:  
all defense Counsels are now authorized to receive copies of same,
but don't be at all surprised if Terry J. Harris refuses
to release any of those Journal entries.  One of those
Journal entries goes into detail about the IRS targeting
scandal, Lois Lerner, and the historical connection
to alcohol Prohibition, for starters see:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/cooper/  ("The Cooper File")
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/luxford/  (see .pdf files)
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm  (verified in several Courts)

Briefly, the Women's Christian Temperance Union was
secretly financed by the petroleum cartel, in order to
perfect a monopoly in automotive fuel;  once that monopoly
was in place, Prohibition was repealed, leaving alcohol
high and dry as the preferred fuel for cars and trucks,
and leaving a Federal police force inside the several States --
to continue extorting money from the American People.

IRS is now what was left over of that Federal Alcohol Administration
after the Eighteenth Amendment was repealed by the
Twenty-First Amendment.  See U.S. v. Constantine for
the key decision outlawing that FAA inside the several
now 50 States of the Union:  one must read all the way
to the end to see the result (i.e. read it BACKWARDS :-)

For shocking proof, see 27 CFR 26.11 definitions of
"Revenue Agent", "Secretary" and "Secretary or his delegate":

http://www.supremelaw.org/cfr/27/

Also, Google site:supremelaw.org "used tire international" "secretary of the treasury'

I hope this helps.

/s/ Paul

___

from:  Larry Saccato <lsaccato@gmail.com>
to:  Juan Schoch <jvschoch@gmail.com>
date:  Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 1:53 AM
subject:  More From Paul
mailed-by:  gmail.com
signed-by:  gmail.com
:  Important mainly because of the people in the conversation.

Larry Saccato

1:53 AM (5 hours ago)
   
to me
 
Thanks, Larry:  BETTER IDEA -- since this antiquated email system
will NOT allow forwards, it would help if you could forward to Juan
some of the email you have already received from me e.g.
"Clerks or Jerks?", "Blowing Whistles at Hurricanes" and anything
else you think he would like to read.

THE ISSUE, as far as I can tell, is THE CREDENTIAL INVESTIGATION
so you could get him started browsing the SLL for that subset
e.g.

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/oaths/
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/oaths/federal.judges.htm
etc.

He can see how we applied THE CREDENTIAL INVESTIGATION
in Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al. here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/  (cf. all SUBPOENAs)
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol2/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aouscourts/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/statebar/

See also SUBPOENA to Paul H. O'Neill here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/eddings/  (SUBPOENA to Secretary of the Treasury)
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.htm  (I believe)
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.gif  (I believe)

KEY CASE is Commissioner v. Acker:
IRS cannot create a tax liability with a Federal Regulation,
EVEN IF they were a de jure service, bureau, office or
other subdivision of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Case-related files should be here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hill/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/spd/

Google site: supremelaw.org "Case against William M. McCool"

Can you confirm this next URL too, please:
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm

If that is not the correct URL, please advise, because I predict
that I'm going to need confirmation of the correct URL very soon.

p.s.  Juan should also be given all URLs for all four (4) Qui Tam Complaints.

/s/ Paul
___
 
from:  Larry Saccato <lsaccato@gmail.com>
to:  Juan Schoch <jvschoch@gmail.com>
date:  Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 2:00 AM
subject:  More info from Paul
mailed-by:  gmail.com
signed-by:  gmail.com
:  Important mainly because of the people in the conversation.



Larry Saccato

2:00 AM (5 hours ago)
   
to me

Please inform Juan et al. that U.S. DOJ, Office of Information Policy, Washington, D.C.,
promptly replied to my FOIA Request for Freudenthal's four (4) credentials
while I was unlawfully detained at the county jail in Gering, Nebraska.

OIP did NOT have any SENATE CONFIRMATION for Freudenthal,
even though DOJ is the designated legal custodian per 5 USC 2902(c):

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/2902.html  (c)
(U.S. Attorney General must countersign and seal)

Her U.S. OPM Standard Form 61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS are a
counterfeit form;  and, her PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION is also
incomplete because Eric Holder's APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS
are also a counterfeit form:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/
(see "NOTICE OF MISSING AND/OR DEFECTIVE CREDENTIALS")
(see also admissions by OPM and OMB !!):
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/opm/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/omb/

I already checked out Holder's SF-61 here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/sebelius/holder/  (counterfeit Standard Form 61 !)

... in addition to several other Cabinet Officers under O'Bummer:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/sebelius/

Freudenthal earlier ignored my DEMAND for her SF-61:
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/freudenthal.nancy/  (NAD = PAST DUE and IN DEFAULT)

Therefore, Freudenthal's lack of authority directly affects ALL
cases on which Terry J. Harris has acted as defense counsel
e.g. all sentences she imposed were FRAUDULENT ab initio;
all "orders" and "rulings" she has signed were FRAUDULENT ab initio;
all hearings on which she "presided" need to be vacated ab initio:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions.htm

"[All] acts as such are VOID!"

Soooooo, Terry J. Harris has a HUGE CONFLICT OF INTEREST NOW ;-(

And, as "Chief Judge" Freudenthal has failed to exercise adequate
administrative supervision of her subordinates in the Clerk's Office:
see Code of Conduct for United States Judges, and folders
for Clerk's Office personnel Stephan Harris, Tammy Hilliker and
Zachary Fisher:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hill/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hill/harris/    (I believe)
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hill/hilliker/   (I believe)
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hill/fisher/    (I believe)
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/spd/  (Seattle Police Department)

See in particular
Article VI, Clause 3; 
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2;  and,
Article II, Section 2, Clause 3, in the U.S. Constitution:

In the Supreme Law Library, try:
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#6:3 (Oath of Office Clause)
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#2:2:2 (Appointments Clause)
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#2:2:3 (Recess Appointments Clause)

An excellent read on 2:2:2 and 2:2:3 is Noel Canning v. NLRB,
D.C. Circuit (2013):  holding is correct, imho: 
vacancies must ARISE during a Senate recess.

Moreover, withOUT a SENATE CONFIRMATION, all other
credentials for Freudenthal are necessarily VOID because
a SENATE CONFIRMATION must either PRECEDE those other 3,
or FOLLOW during the next ensuing Senate session (for the special
case of recess appointments under 2:2:3 -- the Recess Appointments
Clause in the U.S. Constitution).

All of the above are fully documented in my APPLICATION FOR
DISQUALIFICATIONS: 28 USC 144, which should now be filed
in Docket #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2 aka 14-CR-27-F (USDC/DWY).

Larry, you also have a hard copy of that APPLICATION FOR
DISQUALIFICATIONS because it is an ATTACHMENT incorporated
into my INITIAL APPLICATION FOR WRITS IN THE NATURE OF
QUO WARRANTO AND HABEAS CORPUS.

Try PACER for the full Docket listing at USDC/DWY (Cheyenne, Wyoming).

VERY LATEST is that the STATUS CONFERENCE scheduled for 11/10/2014
has now been VACATED, but no reason was given (to me): 

I strongly suspect that my APPLICATION FOR DISQUALIFICATIONS: 28 USC 144
was the MAIN REASON, most probably because Freudenthal did NOT see it coming
(when she should have expected it!)

Finally, 2 defense Counsels have now identified me as a "crucial witness"
and "essential witness" for their respective clients.  Case now has a total
of six (6) Co-Defendants, thus 6 total defense Counsels.

(You have the full list of defense Counsels and their contact information.)

A NOTICE AND DEMAND TO CEASE AND DESIST has now been served on
high-level officers at USMCFP/Springfield, because a "psychologist" here
threatened me, verbally and in writing, with FORCED MEDICATION
(using psychotropic drugs) as soon as I arrived here.

See Washington v. Harper (U.S. S.Ct.) for shocking discussions of the
effects of these drugs e.g. death, permanent disability, brain damages,
uncontrollable muscle spasms, permanently changing brain chemistry etc. etc.

That psychologist told me, my first day here, that Terry J. Harris
"agreed" with Dr. Cynthia Low's "diagnosis" but Low has also
failed to answer my FOIA Request for her credentials!!

/s/ Paul

___

Please forward ASAP to:

<caroline_danielson@barrasso.senate.gov>
<jvschoch@gmail.com>

TO:
Senator John Barrasso
c/o Caroline Danielson, Intern
P.O. Box 22201
Casper 82602
Wyoming, USA

Email: <caroline_danielson@barrasso.senate.gov>

Greetings Senator Barrasso:

Caroline Danielson, your Intern, was kind enough to respond via email
to Mr. Juan Schoch in Florida concerning my plight as an American
political prisoner.

I am presently detained at USMCFP in Springfield, Missouri,
after forty-nine (49) discrete moves since my false arrest on
January 28, 2014 A.D. See 18 USC 1114, 1201, 1513, 1961 et seq.

AUTHORIZATION

I hereby authorize your good Offices to communicate directly with
Mr. Larry Saccato, my trusted Legal Assistant, "Next Friend"
(under 28 USC 1654), and Interim Trustee of my private estate,
until further Notice.

Mr. Saccato can be reached via email to: <lsaccato@gmail.com>
or U.S. Mail to: 1224 N.E. Walnut #257, Roseburg 97470, Oregon, USA.

Two (2) summary documents should be particularly informative to you
and to your staff, for starters: "Blowing Whistles at Hurricanes"
(written by me, using a pen name); and, my APPLICATION FOR
DISQUALIFICATIONS: 28 USC 144, as recently filed in Docket number
#2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2 aka 14-CR-27-F (USDC/Cheyenne, Wyoming).

My 2+hours of testimony on July 10, 2014 were given during a
closed door hearing, but a faithful audio recording should be readily
produced in response to a proper SUBPOENA and/or civil investigative
demand. I was told, indirectly, that Deputy U.S. Marshals present
during that hearing were very impressed with my testimony.

One of the more sensitive issues I addressed was the ~7 years
of pro bono work I did for U.S. Coast Guard Investigations
at San Diego Harbor, California (forensic digital photo analysis).
I am a published author in computer graphics (Harvard 1977).

If the USDC/DWY Docket is not open to your staff, Larry Saccato
should be able to forward a few electronic and/or printed hard copies
to your Office(s), without much delay. The APPLICATION FOR
DISQUALIFICATIONS comes with two (2) Attachments, and I will
remind Larry to forward those Attachments as well to Ms. Danielson's
email address.

(The email system here at USMCFP is very primitive and does not
allow message forwarding.)

Another original essay is "Clerks of Jerks? The Pivotal Duties
of Federal Court Clerks," also authored by me while being detained
for a second "psychological evaluation" [sic] at FDC/SeaTac
(Federal Detention Center, Seattle/Tacoma). Almost immediately
after arriving at USMCFP/Springfield, I was threatened verbally,
and in writing, with "forced medication". Here, see the decision of
the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington v. Harper re: psychotropic drugs.

Thank you for your professional consideration, Senator Barrasso.

p.s. I will attempt to print and mail a hard copy of this AUTHORIZATION
to you, but USMCFP staff are recently making it more difficult for me to print
hard copies: they are refusing to refill the paper tray in the laser printer
in our "Ward". Wait! I see Nurse Rached approaching:

Gotta hide my papers :-)

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (chosen name) *
Private Attorney General, 18 USC 1964,
Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (2000)
(objectives of Civil RICO);
Agent of the United States as Qui Tam Relator,
False Claims Act: 31 USC 3729 et seq. (4X);
Qualified Federal Witness: 18 USC 1512, 1513;
Instructor, Inventor and Systems Development Consultant,
utility patent pending, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office;
Webmaster, Supreme Law Library: www.supremelaw.org

Bio: www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/resume.htm

* See Doe v. Dunning, 549 P.2d 1 (Washington State Supreme Court)
(fundamental principle and common-law right to change one's name)

___

Related:

October 23, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Federal Corruption Case Moves Forward As Media Fails To Investigate/Report

Update! Via Cryptome http://cryptome.org 

2014-00742            Whistleblower Mitchell Asks Disqualifications    October 24, 2014

If you care about your country and justice, you will spread this like wildfire to all of your contacts, newsgroups, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

Paul could use some help. Here is the latest info re: sending funds to Paul's commisary account [money order or postal money order]:

Federal Bureau of Prisons
MITCHELL PAUL MODELESKI
44202086
Post Office Box 474701
Des Moines, Iowa 50947-0001

___

 

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF   Document 227   Filed 10/14/14   Page 1 of 15

 

TRULINCS 44202086 - MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL - Unit: SPG-G-P

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

FROM: 444202086

 

TO: Brown, Thomas; Saccato, Larry

 

SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR DISQUALIFICATIONS [1 of 2]

 

DATE: 10/03/2014 10:20:28 AM

 

Docket No. 2:14-CR-00027-NDF

 

TO:

 

U.S. District Court

 

2120 Capitol Avenue, 2nd Floor

 

Cheyenne 82001

 

Wyoming, USA

 

 

 

Subject: APPLICATION FOR DISQUALIFICATIONS: 28 USC 144

 

Greetings Your Honor:

 

Comes now Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (“Mitchell”), to apply for

 

mandatory disqualifications of Nancy D. Freudenthal and possibly also

 

Scott W. Skavdahl and Alan B. Johnson from the instant criminal case,

 

pursuant to 28 USC 144, for good causes showing as follows:

 

 

 

AFFIDAVIT OF BIAS AND PREJUDICE

 

 

 

Notably, at the hearing on 3/21/2014, Ms. Freudenthal clearly

 

attempted to characterize Mitchell’s ongoing credential

 

investigation as some sort of pathological obsession

 

(or similar words to that same effect).

 

 

 

Mitchell promptly objected by emphasizing that the credential

 

investigation was being performed on behalf of private clients

 

who paid fair professional fees for that service.

 

 

 

The credential investigation has also been actively assisted by

 

Federal officers in DOJ’s Office of Information Policy (“OIP”) and

 

the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (“EOUSA”) in Washington, D.C.,

 

with actual knowledge of Deputy U.S. Marshals in San Diego, Spokane

 

and Seattle.

 

 

 

Such official assistance consisted mainly of timely and untimely

 

replies and production of partial documents responsive to

 

Mitchell’s numerous Requests, properly submitted under the

 

Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 USC 552, in addition to

 

in-person meetings with Deputy U.S. Marshals in San Diego and Seattle.

 

 

 

To date, Mitchell has had five (5) in-person meetings with

 

one or more Deputy U.S. Marshals stationed in Seattle, and two (2)

 

in-person meetings with Deputy U.S. Marshals stationed in San Diego.

 

 

 

Near the conclusion of the 3/21/2014 hearing, Freudenthal

 

actually apologized to Mitchell for her attempt to characterize

 

the credential investigation, and its cumulative results to date,

 

as the obsession of someone suffering from a mental illness

 

of some kind.

 

 

 

Mitchell continues to regard that attempt as defamatory,

 

and defamation violates two (2) Human Rights Treaties –

 

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International

 

 

 

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF   Document 227   Filed 10/14/14   Page 2 of 15

 

TRULINCS 44202086 - MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL - Unit: SPG-G-P

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (See VCC5 infra.)

 

 

 

Then, without Mitchell’s actual knowledge, Mr. L. Robert Murray

 

dba Assistant U.S. Attorney, commenced to file a “secret motion”

 

-- ex parte -- for a second psychological evaluation of Mitchell at FDC/SeaTac.

 

That ex parte motion was never timely served upon Mitchell; no notice of any

 

hearing on that ex parte motion was ever served upon Mitchell; and, no

 

hearing on that ex parte motion was ever conducted at which Mitchell

 

was allowed to appear. (See Code of Conduct, Canon 3(A)(4) infra.)

 

 

 

Mitchell has always proceeded In Propria Persona i.e. “personally”

 

under 28 USC 1654, notwithstanding any and all appearances

 

to the contrary.

 

 

 

In point of fact, Mr. Mark Hardee as initial “standby counsel” failed

 

completely to forward or even to mention said ex parte motion to Mitchell;

 

and, Docket records were erroneously modified – by person(s) unknown –

 

so as to list Mr. Hardee as Mitchell’s formal legal “representative”,

 

directly contradicting Mitchell’s decision to proceed always

 

In Propria Persona.

 

 

 

Freudenthal summarily “granted” said ex parte motion, but

 

Mitchell was not allowed to see any “order” granting that ex parte motion

 

until after he arrived at FDC/SeaTac for a second period of detention

 

and more solitary confinement.

 

 

 

In point of fact, Hardee also failed completely to forward or even

 

to mention to Mitchell said “order” granting that ex parte motion.

 

 

 

Mitchell has also confirmed a Federal law which prohibits Federal Judges

 

from engaging in the practice of law, and defines that violation as a

 

high misdemeanor (See 28 USC 454.)

 

 

 

All psychological interviews of Mitchell by one Cynthia A. Low,

 

dba Forensic Psychologist, were conducted at FDC/SeaTac at all times

 

without the assistance of Counsel present during those interviews, and

 

over Mitchell’s multiple written objections to the total absence of Counsel,

 

and to all missing credentials for one Stephan Harris whose name

 

appeared in the conforming stamp displayed on Freudenthal’s “order”.

 

 

 

Relying upon information provided by the U.S. Supreme Court in

 

Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 468 (1938), Mitchell believes

 

the complete absence of counsel during all of Low’s interviews

 

resulted in ousting this Court of jurisdiction (cf. “jurisdictional bar”,

 

“court no longer has jurisdiction to proceed”).

 

 

 

Mitchell has never competently and never intelligently waived his

 

Fundamental right to meaningful technical assistance of “standby” counsel.

 

Here, Mitchell relies upon U.S. v. Coupez, 603 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir. 1979)

 

(re: “meaningful technical assistance”), and upon similar case law

 

under 28 USC 1654. Near the end of the 3/21/2014 hearing,

 

Mitchell expressly reserved his Right to change his mind about

 

formal legal representation, and Freudenthal acknowledged same

 

on the record.

 

 

 

Mitchell has previously filed a DEMAND FOR RECUSAL which expanded

 

substantially upon the several reasons why he believes Freudenthal’s bias

 

and prejudice do warrant her immediate disqualification.

 

 

 

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF   Document 227   Filed 10/14/14   Page 3 of 1 

 

TRULINCS 44202086 - MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL - Unit: SPG-G-P

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Said DEMAND FOR RECUSAL is hereby incorporated by reference, as if set forth

 

fully here.

 

 

 

(See Docket records for the particulars of that DEMAND FOR RECUSAL.)

 

 

 

Chiefly, while being detained unlawfully in Gering, Nebraska,

 

Mitchell submitted a proper FOIA Request to OIP for the four (4)

 

credentials required of Freudenthal, Skavdahl and Johnson.

 

All three (3) of said Court personnel turned up with missing and/or

 

defective credentials: OIP produced no SENATE CONFIRMATIONS

 

or OATH OF OFFICE for Johnson. (See 28 U.S.C. 453 and

 

5 USC 2104, 2902, 2903, 3331, 3332, 3333, 5507.)

 

 

 

Also, on information Mitchell concluded the APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS

 

for Freudenthal and Skavdahl were visibly counterfeit forms; and, the

 

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSIONS for Freudenthal and Skavdahl were incomplete

 

because of the visibly counterfeit APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS executed by

 

one Eric Holder, Jr., formerly dba U.S. Attorney General. (See 44 USC 3512.)

 

 

 

Mitchell has confirmed that the Federal statute at 5 USC 2902(c) requires

 

the U.S. Attorney General to countersign all PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSIONS

 

of judicial officers e.g. district judges, also U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals.

 

 

 

Mitchell has also diligently studied the Appointments Clause and

 

the Recess Appointments Clause in the U.S. Constitution.

 

He concluded therefrom that a SENATE CONFIRMATION is absolutely

 

required of Freudenthal, Skavdahl and Johnson: the absence of that

 

key mandatory credential also invalidates any and all other credentials,

 

such as the PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION, APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS

 

and OATH OFFICE, chiefly because the SENATE CONFIRMATION

 

cannot be bypassed or circumvented indefinitely.

 

 

 

Even for recess appointments under Article II, Section 2,

 

Clause 3 in the U.S. Constitution (“2:2:3”), Mitchell found case law

 

holding that the U.S. Senate’s formal advice and consent must follow

 

during the next ensuing Senate session. Here, Mitchell relies upon

 

the decision in Noel Canning v. NLRB, 705 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

 

 

 

Prior to his FOIA Request for her four (4) credentials, Mitchell

 

did mail to Freudenthal a proper DEMAND for disclosing a copy

 

of her APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS. A copy of that DEMAND should

 

be filed in this Court’s Docket records. Freudenthal never answered

 

that DEMAND (see further discussion of “demand” infra).

 

 

 

Mitchell also believes Freudenthal suffers from a severe

 

conflict of interest that results from her failure to exercise

 

adequate administrative supervision of Court subordinates

 

such as Stephan Harris, Zachary Fisher and Tammy Hilliker dba

 

Clerk and Deputy Clerks of Court, respectively (to name a few).

 

(See Code of Conduct, Canon 3(B) infra.) Here, Mitchell believes

 

probable cause exists for application of the theory of vicarious

 

liability aka “respondeat superior” in Latin (let superiors answer

 

for the misconduct of their subordinates).

 

 

 

All three of the latter personnel of this Court have either failed or refused

 

to produce their APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS required by 5 USC 3331 et seq.,

 

and their OATH OF OFFICE required by 28 USC 951 (duties),

 

after receiving Mitchell’s proper DEMANDs for disclosure of same.

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF   Document 227   Filed 10/14/14   Page 4 of 15 

 

TRULINCS 44202086 - MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL - Unit: SPG-G-P

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

In this context, after finding it Mitchell has been relying upon a statement

 

in 63C AmJur 2d, to wit: “The public have a right to demand that public officials

 

perform all of their duties faithfully.”

 

 

 

Also, by studying the FOIA, Mitchell confirmed the Federal law at

 

5 USC 551(1)(B) presently exempts the entire Judicial Branch

 

from the Freedom of Information Act, thus necessitating a

 

DEMAND instead of a proper FOIA Request for disclosure of

 

credentials required of this Court’s inferior officers

 

i.e. magistrates, clerks and deputy clerks.

 

 

 

Mitchell has now formerly charged Stephan Harris with concealing

 

Court records in violation of 18 USC 1519 (a Federal felony).

 

(See the Court Docket for that “VCC” infra, and in pari materia

 

compare 18 USC 2071 where it mentions “custody” of court records.)

 

 

 

The Court is the legal custodian of all APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS of

 

all Court officers, designated as such by the Federal law at 5 USC 2906

 

(“the court to which the office pertains”), NOT the Administrative Office

 

of the U.S. Courts in Washington, D.C.

 

 

 

Mitchell sincerely believes the instant case can and should be correctly

 

and promptly dismissed as a direct consequence of the well documented

 

failure by Stephan Harris to produce 2 required credentials; without both

 

credentials, neither he nor any of his subordinates can lawfully sign, or seal,

 

any “subpoenas” issued by the Court. See 28 USCS 1691 and 28 USCA 1691

 

for extensive case law upon which Mitchell has often relied during the period

 

in question.

 

 

 

Mitchell concluded that delegation of authority by Stephen Harris is

 

legally impossible, as long as he cannot or will not produce proof of

 

all credentials required of all Clerks of Court and all Deputy Clerks of Court by

 

applicable Federal statutes and Constitutional provisions. (See 6:3, U.S. Const.)

 

 

 

Mitchell has also concluded that the Paperwork Reduction Act effectively

 

created a “right to inspect” all U.S. Office of Personnel Management

 

Standard Form 61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS for the required display

 

of a valid OMB control number at the upper right-hand corner of page one.

 

 

 

Mitchell therefore believes the net effects of all these missing

 

and defective credentials is a clear and painfully obvious violation

 

of FRCrP Rule 2, at a minimum, in addition to many far-reaching

 

violations of criminal statutes dutifully cited in Mitchell’s several

 

VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINTs, ON INFORMATION (“VCC”),

 

as now filed in the Court’s official Docket records in the instant case.

 

 

 

For the record, Rule 2 currently reads: “Interpretation. These rules

 

are to be interpreted to provide for the just determination of every

 

criminal proceeding, to secure simplicity in procedure and fairness

 

in administration, and to eliminate unjustifiable expense and delay.

 

(As amended April 29, 2002, eff. Dec. 1, 2002.)”

 

 

 

On information found in the Federal court decision in U.S. v. Gregory,

 

508 F.Supp. 1218 (USDC/SDAL 1980), Mitchell also relies now upon

 

the following abstract of that decision, to wit: “Pursuant to Rule 2,

 

party who objects to Court’s ruling on motion to recuse should be

 

able to obtain review of that ruling before being put to burden and

 

expense of lengthy trial.”

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF   Document 227   Filed 10/14/14   Page 5 of 15

 

TRULINCS 44202086 - MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL - Unit: SPG-G-P

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

To date, Mitchell has also lodged four (4) separate “Qui Tam” Complaints

 

under the False Claims Act (“FCA”) at 31 USC 3729 et seq. Each contained

 

a PROOF OF SERVICE identifying recipients of hard copy originals

 

transmitted by Mitchell via U.S. Mail.

 

 

 

Mitchell has also studied case law under the FCA which properly classifies

 

qui tam relators as “agents of the United States” (see United States

 

ex. Rel. Madden v. General Dynamics Corp., 4 F.3d 827 (9th Cir. 1993)).

 

 

 

As such, Mitchell believes that he is thereby entitled to all authorized

 

awards and all protections afforded to all FCA “whistleblowers”

 

(see 31 USC 3730(h), expressly authorizing relief from retaliation

 

against “agents” for efforts to stop false claims against the Treasury

 

of the United States.)

 

 

 

Mitchell also relies consistently upon the statute at 5 USC 5507

 

(a Federal officer cannot get paid before executing a valid 5 USC 3332

 

affidavit).

 

 

 

[continue at 2 of 2]

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF   Document 227   Filed 10/14/14   Page 6 of 15

 

TRULINCS 44202086 - MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL - Unit: SPG-G-P

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

FROM: 44202086

 

TO: Brown, Thomas; Saccato, Larry

 

SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR DISQUALIFICATIONS [2 of 2]

 

DATE: 10/03/2014 10:20:51 AM

 

 

 

[continued from 1 of 2]

 

 

 

On further information and belief, Mitchell has studied the Code of Conduct

 

for United States Judges, and thereby inferred probable demonstrable

 

violations of Canons 2(A), 3(A)(4), 3(B)(1) and 3(B)(2) from all facts, laws

 

and court decisions mentioned heretofore.

 

 

 

On information found in the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case

 

of U.S. v. Mason, 412 U.S. 391 (1973), Mitchell also relies upon the following

 

text in that decision, to wit: “If the doctrine of stare decisis has any meaning

 

at all, it requires that people in their everyday affairs be able to reply [Teknosis:

 

rely?] upon

 

our [U.S. Supreme Court] decisions and not be needlessly penalized for such

 

reliance.”

 

 

 

On information found in the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case

 

of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), Mitchell also relies upon the

 

following principle established in that historic decision, to wit:

 

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be

 

no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”

 

 

 

On all information discussed heretofore, Mitchell sincerely believes that

 

sufficient probable cause already exists to justify the conclusion that

 

Freudenthal lacks even minimal authority to determine the legal

 

sufficiency of this AFFIDAVIT under 28 USC 144.

 

 

 

This concludes Mitchell’s AFFIDAVIT OF BIAS AND PREJUDICE.

 

 

 

INCORPORATION OF ATTACHMENTS

 

 

 

Mitchell hereby incorporates by reference two Attachments:

 

“NOTICE TO COUNSELS: USA v. Hill et al. (dated 9/20/2014)” and

 

“NOTICE OF ERRORS by Harris & Harris, P.C. (dated 10/1/2014)”

 

 

 

as if both were set forth fully here.

 

 

 

VERIFICATION / CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH

 

 

 

I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Sui Juris, hereby verify

 

under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States

 

of America, without the “United States” (Federal government),

 

that the instant APPLICATION is made in good faith, and

 

the above statement of facts and laws is true and correct,

 

according to the best of my current information, knowledge

 

and belief, so help me God, pursuant to 28 USC 1746(1).

 

See Supremacy Clause (Constitution, Laws and Treaties

 

of the United States are all the supreme Law of the Land).

 

 

 

Dated: 10/1/2014

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell [Signed Paul Mitchell]

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF   Document 227   Filed 10/14/14   Page 7 of 15

 

TRULINCS 44202086 - MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL - Unit: SPG-G-P

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Private Attorney General, Civil RICO: 18 USC 1964,

 

Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (2000)

 

(objectives of Civil RICO);

 

Agent of the United States as Qui Tam Relator,

 

False Claims Act: 31 USC 3729 et seq. (4X)

 

 

 

* See Doe v. Dunning, 549 P.2d 1

 

   (Washington State Supreme Court)

 

 

 

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308)

 

 

 

Attachments: NOTICE TO COUNSELS: USA v. Hill et al. (dated 9/20/2014)

 

                          NOTICE OF ERRORS by Harris & Harris, P.C. (dated 10/1/2014)

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF   Document 227   Filed 10/14/14   Page 8 of 15

 

TRULINCS 44202086 - MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL - Unit: SPG-G-P

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

FROM: 44202086

 

TO: Brown, Thomas; Guenette, Edward; Mullen, Jack; Saccato, Larry

 

SUBJECT: Notice to Counsels: USA v. Hill et al.

 

DATE: 09/20/2014 12:08:56 PM

 

 

 

Greetings Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

 

 

I am writing to you for the primary purpose

 

of making each of you aware of certain laws and

 

facts which may not, and probably won’t,

 

come to your attention by any other means.

 

 

 

As you may already know, I have continued

 

to reserve all Rights (cf. UCC 1-308),

 

with emphasis on all of my Fundamental Rights,

 

and to appear In Propria Persona i.e. “personally”

 

under 28 USC 1654. Cf. “In Propria Persona”

 

in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition,

 

particularly where that definition addresses

 

the issue of Court jurisdiction.

 

 

 

I have now survived two (2) Faretta hearings –

 

one in Seattle and one in Cheyenne. The hearing

 

on 3/21/2014 in Cheyenne was noteworthy for

 

repeated attempts by one Nancy Dell Freudenthal

 

(“NDF”) to change my mind about formal legal

 

representation: I reserved my right to change my mind,

 

and I continued to proceed In Propria Persona.

 

 

 

The other noteworthy event at that 3/21/2014

 

hearing was NDF’s obvious attempt to characterize the

 

credential investigation as some kind of “pathological

 

obsession”. A transcript should show that

 

I opposed her vain attempt, and I actually

 

succeeded in eliciting a spoken apology from NDF.

 

 

 

For reasons like the latter, I have properly demanded

 

her immediate recusal, but she stubbornly refuses

 

to do so.

 

 

 

The case law I have studied requires recusal

 

even if there is the mere appearance of bias.

 

I believe that your several clients are, therefore,

 

now at serious risk of continuing bias and

 

prejudice by NDF, and by her several accomplices,

 

in our case(s) -- chiefly Stephan Harris and

 

L. Robert Murray.

 

 

 

More to the merits of our Fundamental Rights,

 

DOJ’s Office of Information Policy (“OIP”)

 

promptly replied to my proper FOIA Request

 

while I was being detained unlawfully in Gering,

 

Nebraska. OIP’s timely reply contained a cover

 

letter, and responsive documents, calling for the

 

following logical conclusions of law:

 

 

 

(1) no SENATE CONFIRMATION required of NDF by

 

5 USC 2902(c), and by either 2:2:2 or 2:2:3 in the

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF   Document 227   Filed 10/14/14   Page 9 of 15

 

TRULINCS 44202086 - MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL - Unit: SPG-G-P

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

U.S. Constitution (Article:Section:Clause);

 

 

 

(2) incomplete PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION also required

 

of NDF by 5 USC 2902(c), and by either 2:2:2 or 2:2:3,

 

due in part to defective U.S. OPM Standard Form 61

 

(“SF-61”) APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS for one Eric Holder, Jr.;

 

see also 44 USC 3512 here;

 

 

 

(3) NDF’s SF-61 is also a counterfeit form because:

 

 

 

(a) it lacks a valid OMB control number at the

 

upper right-hand corner, as required by 44 USC 3501 et seq.;

 

(cf. OMB control number 50-R0118 i.e. five zero dash

 

R zero one one eight);

 

 

 

(b) it lacks the paragraph citing 5 USC 2903

 

(Authority to administer); and,

 

 

 

(c) the electronic SF-61 published at www.opm.gov

 

was not reviewed or approved by OMB as required by

 

5 CFR 1320.5, the Federal Regulation implementing the

 

Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”): again, see 44 USC 3512;

 

 

 

Under the Appointments Clause at 2:2:2, a

 

SENATE CONFIRMATION must precede the other 3

 

Credentials required of all U.S. District Judges.

 

 

 

Under the Recess Appointments Clause at 2:2:3, a

 

SENATE CONFIRMATION must issue during the next

 

ensuing Senate session i.e. after those other 3

 

credentials.

 

 

 

Accordingly, I have recently requested the law firm

 

of Harris & Harris, P.C., to confirm the exact dates

 

of NDF’s alleged appointment, and of the vacancy

 

she claimed to fill. To date, Harris & Harris, P.C.,

 

have not disclosed those exact dates to me.

 

 

 

Nevertheless, it is not likely that she was initially

 

appointed as “Chief Judge”; and, enough time has

 

now elapsed to compel a conclusion that NDF surely

 

needed a SENATE CONFIRMATION under one or the

 

other option: 2:2:2 or 2:2:3. See also the definition

 

of “officer” at 5 USC 2104, 3332 and 5507.

 

 

 

The legal (and moral) consequences of NDF’s

 

missing and defective credentials are quite far-

 

reaching e.g. by necessarily rendering null and void:

 

 

 

(a) all her “orders” and “rulings” to date;

 

 

 

(b) all hearings on which she attempted to preside; and,

 

 

 

(c) the original “arrest warrant” executed upon my

 

Person on 1/28/2014.

 

 

 

As such, the USDC/DWY lacked jurisdiction in personam

 

(over my proper Person) ab initio (at least beginning 1/28/2014).

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF   Document 227   Filed 10/14/14   Page 10 of 15

 

TRULINCS 44202086 - MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL - Unit: SPG-G-P

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Moreover, NDF’s attempt to appoint Mr. Terry J. Harris

 

as my formal legal representative was also void ab initio,

 

for the very same reasons.

 

 

 

At another hearing on 7/10/2014, I again appeared

 

under protest and In Propria Persona; and, I gave

 

at least 2 hours of testimony under direct examination

 

by Terry J. Harris -- chiefly because no one else was

 

qualified, or prepared, to conduct such a direct examination

 

of me.

 

 

 

You should also be informed, via filed Docket records,

 

that several other Federal personnel have also failed or

 

refused to disclose their mandatory credentials e.g.

 

see RELATOR’S FIFTH VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT,

 

ON INFORMATION (“VCC”), and all other VCCs previously

 

filed in the Docket records, in timely compliance with 18 USC 4

 

(misprison of felony).

 

 

 

Notably, Dr. Cynthia A. Low has now failed or refused

 

to answer my proper FOIA Request for her own SF-61.

 

My first attempt to address that Request to the

 

“Disclosure Officer” at FDC/SeaTac was returned

 

by the U.S. Postal Service with the annotation

 

“no such addressee” (or words to that effect).

 

 

 

For that reason, I promptly re-mailed that FOIA Request

 

directly to Dr. Low, but no reply has been forthcoming

 

from her, nor from any of her superiors nor anyone else

 

at FDC/SeaTac.

 

 

 

I also wish to take this opportunity to make you

 

aware that I have now authored approximately

 

30 CONFIDENTIAL Journal entries consisting of

 

50+ pages; and, I mailed all of those Journal entries

 

to Harris & Harris, P.C.

 

 

 

Please accept this communication as my formal

 

authorization for all defense counsel to obtain

 

photocopies of all such handwritten Journal entries.

 

 

 

I wrote those Journal entries also to focus

 

the attention of each defense Counsel on the key

 

issues (e.g. the heart of the matter), and to prevent

 

invasions of my privacy Rights that would otherwise

 

result from what are often described as “fishing

 

expeditions” -- assembling enormous quantities

 

of questionable and irrelevant data, at great and

 

unnecessary expense to government treasuries

 

(e.g. 20,000 pages and still counting).

 

 

 

Kindly allow me briefly to demonstrate to you why

 

it is not appropriate or necessary to label my case

 

as “complex”: Stephan Harris has refused to

 

produce any valid credentials, in blatant violation

 

of 18 USC 1519 (a felony). Therefore, he could

 

not have signed or sealed any subpoena(s) issued

 

by any Federal grand jury(s); he could not have

 

selected or summoned any Federal grand jury(s); and,

 

 

 

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF   Document 227   Filed 10/14/14   Page 11 of 15

 

TRULINCS 44202086 - MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL - Unit: SPG-G-P

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

he could not have delegated any authority(s) to any

 

subordinate deputy clerk(s) whatsoever.

 

 

 

See my essay “Clerks or Jerks? The Pivotal Duties

 

of Federal Court Clerks” for further pertinent details.

 

 

 

In my professional opinion, any and all efforts to

 

expand the scope of my case beyond those simple

 

issues is a direct and blatant violation of FRCrP Rule 2;

 

and, those efforts also constitute probable cause that

 

barratry has already occurred, and continues to occur

 

even as I write this.

 

 

 

(Barratry is an offense similar to “churning” by a

 

stock broker i.e. for purposes of maximizing fee

 

generation; “Esquire” is an office under the

 

Crown of England. Cf. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1856).)

 

 

 

If any of you need further clarification of any points

 

made above, please consult the relevant Docket entries

 

first, then reply via email to my trusted legal assistant

 

lsaccato@gmail.com who will forward your terse

 

reply(s) to me at his earliest convenience

 

(no email attachments, please).

 

 

 

Thank you for your professional consideration.

 

 

 

Sincerely yours, [signed Paul Mitchell]

 

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (chosen name)

 

Private Attorney General, Civil RICO: 18 USC 1964,

 

Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (2000)

 

(objectives of Civil RICO);

 

Agent of the United States as Qui Tam Relator,

 

False Claims Act: 31 USC 3729 et seq. (4X)

 

 

 

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308)

 

 

 

Copies forwarded to:

 

 

 

agharkmd@gmail.com

 

tom@jubinzerga.com

 

mike@mhrwylaw.com

 

tjharrispc@gmail.com

 

emily.marie.harris@gmail.com

 

 

 

Gay Woodhouse

 

1912 Capitol Avenue, Suite 500

 

Cheyenne 82001

 

Wyoming, USA

 

 

 

Thomas A. Fleener

 

Fleener & Vang, LCC

 

P.O. Box 1186

 

Laramie 82073

 

Wyoming, USA

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF   Document 227   Filed 10/14/14   Page 12 of 15

 

TRULINCS 44202086 - MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL - Unit: SPG-G-P

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

FROM: 44202086

 

TO: Brown, Thomas; Guenette, Edward; Mullen, Jack; Saccato, Larry

 

SUBJECT: NOTICE OF ERRORS by Harris & Harris, P.C.

 

DATE: 10/01/2014 04:54:51 PM

 

 

 

TO:

 

Hon. Warden

 

USMCFP

 

P.O. Box 4000

 

Springfield 65801-4000

 

Missouri, USA

 

 

 

RE: August 6, 2014 letter from Terry J. Harris

 

 

 

Greetings Hon. Warden:

 

 

 

Please allow me to explain to you, and to all your subordinates

 

who may have a need to know, several serious errors that are

 

evident in the written correspondence you recently received

 

from Harris & Harris, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

 

 

 

On the first page of his cover letter to you dated August 6, 2014,

 

Mr. Terry J. Harris makes the following serious errors in the

 

first paragraph:

 

 

 

* “I represent Paul Mitchell” [NOT correct]

 

 

 

* “Nancy Freudenthal’s Order appointing me” [NOT correct]

 

 

 

* “her more recent Order declaring Paul Mitchell incompetent” [NOT correct]

 

 

 

As admitted in their written reply to my proper Request under the

 

Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), DOJ’s Office of Information Policy

 

(“OIP”) did not find any SENATE CONFIRMATION in their appointment file

 

for Nancy Dell Freudenthal.

 

 

 

Moreover, her U.S. Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”)

 

Standard Form 61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS (“SF-61”)

 

are a counterfeit form because:

 

 

 

(a) no OMB control number is displayed at the upper right-hand corner;

 

 

 

(b) there is no paragraph citing 5 USC 2903 (Authority to administer); and,

 

 

 

(c) the electronic form at www.opm.gov was never reviewed or approved

 

     by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”).

 

 

 

Also, Freudenthal’s PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION is incomplete because

 

of the counterfeit SF-61 executed by one Eric Holder, Jr. Here, see

 

5 USC 2902(c), which mandates the Attorney General’s signature

 

on all such PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSIONS.

 

 

 

OIP’s cover letter and responsive documents were mailed by me

 

to the P.O. Box of Harris & Harris, P.C. in Cheyenne, Wyoming,

 

while I was unlawfully detained at a county jail in Gering, Nebraska.

 

 

 

I also requested OIP to forward to that P.O. Box OIP’s timely

 

reply to my proper FOIA Appeal.

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF   Document 227   Filed 10/14/14   Page 13 of 15

 

TRULINCS 44202086 - MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL - Unit: SPG-G-P

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Freudenthal’s missing -and- defective credentials do violate at least

 

two Clauses in the U.S. Constitution (cf. 6:3, and either 2:2:2 or 2:2:3),

 

and a distinct group of other Federal laws which implement those Clauses.

 

 

 

As such, Ms. Freudenthal lacked the required authority to appoint

 

Mr. Harris legally to represent me; and, she lacked the required authority

 

to issue any order(s) whatsoever, least of all one that blatantly defames

 

me for being “incompetent” [sic]. Defamation is criminal.

 

 

 

Contrary to appearances (and pretenses) fostered by Mr. Harris et al.,

 

he does not and cannot legally “represent” me as long as I continue

 

to proceed In Propria Persona. I have always appeared In Propria Persona

 

i.e. “personally”, which is my right under 28 USC 1654.

 

 

 

I have now survived two (2) Faretta hearings, which can be confirmed by

 

consulting the Court records in Docket #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2 (USDC/Cheyenne).

 

 

 

If you still harbor any reasons why you may doubt or question what

 

I have written above, please feel free to “go to the source” and

 

contact OIP directly. That Office is also part of the same Department

 

(“DOJ”) of which you are presently an officer.

 

 

 

See 5 USC 3331, 3332, 3333, and 5507.

 

 

 

The real reason why I am presently incarcerated at USMCFP/Springfield

 

is our credential investigation.

 

 

 

If you wish to receive more information about that investigation,

 

I will be happy to answer your questions as promptly as humanly possible,

 

given the limited resources and severe restrictions which I am now

 

compelled to endure in violation of the Constitution, laws and treaties

 

of the United States.

 

 

 

Here, see the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution

 

and also the Act of Congress at 28 USC 2241(c)(3) in chief.

 

 

 

Thank you, Warden, for your continuing professional consideration.

 

 

 

Sincerely yours, [signed: Paul Mitchell]

 

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (chosen name)*

 

Private Attorney General, Civil RICO: 18 USC 1964,

 

Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (2000)

 

(objectives of Civil RICO);

 

Agent of the United States as Qui Tam Relator,

 

False Claims Act: 31 USC 3729 et seq. (4X)

 

 

 

* See Doe v. Dunning, 549 P.2d 1 (Washington State Supreme Court)

 

   (fundamental principle and common-law right to change one’s name)

 

 

 

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308)

 

 

 

 

 

APPLICATION FOR DISQUALIFICATIONS: 28 USC 144 (containing AFFIDAVIT OF BIAS AND PREJUDICE &amp; DEMAND FOR...

 

 

Related:

 

Paul Andrew Mitchell has been bundled away by the US Government
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/02/paul-andrew-mitchell-has-been-bundled-away-by-the-us-government.html

 

___

 

from:  Juan Schoch <jvschoch@gmail.com>
to:  Caroline_danielson@barrasso.senate.gov
date:  Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 4:17 PM
subject:  Re: Paul Andrew Mitchell | U.S. Gov. (executive and judicial), IRS targeted individual
mailed-by:  gmail.com
:  Important according to our magic sauce.

 

As per our conversation on the phone, in re: Paul Andrew Mitchell.

 

 

 

Paul Andrew Mitchell, a Citizen of the State of Washington, has been doing a credentials investigation since the year 2000 of U.S. Federal Judges and other U.S. Government Officials via FOIA and has been documenting this information via his website of www.supremelaw.org and via various postings on the internet, etc.

 

 

 

On 1/15/14 he was indicted for obstructing a grand jury investigation and detained in the case (PACER info. below):

 

 

 

U.S. District Court
District of Wyoming (Cheyenne)
CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:14-cr-00027-NDF-2

 

 

 

PACER advanced search criteria to bring up docket report in re: Mr. Mitchell:

 

Case Number: 14-cr-00027

 

Case title: USA v. Hill et al

 

Date Filed: 01/15/2014

 

 

 

3

USA v. Hill et al - Paul Andrew Mitchell

 

wydce

2:2014-cr-00027

01/15/2014

 

 

 

 

 

Documentation on his supremelaw.org website in re: FOIA credentials investigation that relates to what is happening before he was indicted is here:

 

 

 

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/

 

 

 

Paul has done extensive studies in the area of Constitutional issues and legal matters and has represented himself In Propria Persona, has not accepted to be represented by anyone but had identified U.S. related law via the Constitution and federal law that he could avail himself of technical legal assistance while at the same time representing himself but the courts have not given him that opportunity and have ignored his representing himself as shown in the Court docket records. In that Paul has asserted that the indictment was not legitimate and has shown in the court record why this is the case he has been ignored, illegally incarcerated and not allowed to mount a proper defense by being released from detainment (he has never previously committed any crimes, nor is he a flight risk), has been moved over 42 times between various states since January 15, 2014 and has now been silenced by Judge Nancy Freudenthal ruling that he is to be sent to a federal medical facility for restore him to competency (whatever that means – forced medication, etc. of a sane person who knows the law?) for 4 months after which time, a status conference is set for 11/10/14 at 1:30pm.

 

 

 

Another whom I am in communication with predicted that this would happen and that they will just keep doing the same thing to him to keep him permanently silenced. This is unacceptable. Paul is being punished for knowing the Constitution, the law and for asserting his inalienable rights, and has not been availed a speedy trial and has being given diesel therapy. I have been making information from the docket available via the internet via my blog Teknosis (tekgnosis.typepad.com). The last docket entries in which his competency hearing happened, and the judge gave ruling on 7/10/14 have not been typed up yet so that info. would have to be gleaned from the docket until such time.

 

 

 

It not suprising to me that the U.S. government, federal court system, in collusion with the IRS is doing this to Paul but it is outrageous to anyone who has a conscience. I hold out hope that something can be done to help Paul to gain his freedom but I will not hold my breath. My wife believes that there are those in government with a conscience who can put in motion something to help Paul therefore this communication.  Below find my posts from my blog Teknosis.

 

 

 

Paul is perfectly sane and can be heard in this interview to prove such is the case:

 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wS0CvvVH-yk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Juan Schoch

 

Casselberry, FL

 

407-925-4141

 

 

 

 

 

Paul Andrew Mitchell has been bundled away by the US Government

 

 

 

http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/02/paul-andrew-mitchell-has-been-bundled-away-by-the-us-government.html

 

...

 

from:  Juan Schoch <jvschoch@gmail.com>
to:  Caroline_danielson@barrasso.senate.gov,
 reporttoogr@mail.house.gov
date:  Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:47 AM
subject:  Re: Paul Andrew Mitchell | U.S. Gov. (executive and judicial), IRS targeted individual
mailed-by:  gmail.com

 

Caroline,

Sorry but torture and continued on-going attempts to torture and/or kill an agent of the United States (Paul had four Que Tam lawsuits in process before being illegally kidnapped, which makes him an agent of the United States) is not a third-party affair. You, Senator Barrasso or an appropriate member of his staff can easily get into contact with Paul, a citizen of the State of Washington being held political prisoner, illegally detained (no speedy trial, nor trial by jury afforded him since February), essentially kidnapped, at United States Medical Center For Federal Prisoners (USMCFP) Springfield, MIssouri.

Consider yourself given notice:

18 U.S. Code § 4 - Misprision of felony


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/4

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Paul confirms what I suspected would happen, that at the federal medical facility where he was illegally sent, there would be an attempt to administer him drugs in an attempt to damage his brain and/or kill him.

___

APPLICATION FOR DISQUALIFICATIONS: 28 USC 144 (containing AFFIDAVIT OF BIAS AND PREJUDICE & DEMAND FOR RECUSAL as well as NOTICE TO COUNSELS: USA v. Hill et al. & NOTICE OF ERRORS re: Harris & Harris, P.C.) - from Paul Andrew Mitchell USMCFP/Springfield
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/10/application-for-disqualifications-28-usc-144-containing-affidavit-of-bias-and-prejudice-demand-for-r.html
___

 

Communications from Paul:

 

from:  Larry Saccato <lsaccato@gmail.com>
to:  jvschoch@gmail.com
date:  Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 1:51 AM
subject:  From Paul
mailed-by:  gmail.com
signed-by:  gmail.com
:  Important mainly because of the people in the conversation.

 

Larry Saccato

1:51 AM (5 hours ago)
   
to me

 

Please express my deepest appreciation to Juan
for his support, concern, and activism.

It means a great deal to me.

Juan has my permission to receive a full and
complete copy of my INITIAL APPLICATION FOR WRITS
IN THE NATURE OF QUO WARRANTO AND HABEAS CORPUS
with all Attachments.

You -- Larry Saccato -- of course have my permission to share
a true and complete copy of same with Juan.

Ideally, it should be scanned and merged into a single .pdf file
including all Attachments etc.

Many thanks, again, Larry.

p.s.  Harris & Harris, P.C. have all 30 Journal entries
I wrote and mailed to their P.O. Box -- ~50 pages:  
all defense Counsels are now authorized to receive copies of same,
but don't be at all surprised if Terry J. Harris refuses
to release any of those Journal entries.  One of those
Journal entries goes into detail about the IRS targeting
scandal, Lois Lerner, and the historical connection 
to alcohol Prohibition, for starters see:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/cooper/  ("The Cooper File")
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/luxford/  (see .pdf files)
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm  (verified in several Courts)

Briefly, the Women's Christian Temperance Union was
secretly financed by the petroleum cartel, in order to
perfect a monopoly in automotive fuel;  once that monopoly
was in place, Prohibition was repealed, leaving alcohol
high and dry as the preferred fuel for cars and trucks,
and leaving a Federal police force inside the several States --
to continue extorting money from the American People.

IRS is now what was left over of that Federal Alcohol Administration
after the Eighteenth Amendment was repealed by the
Twenty-First Amendment.  See U.S. v. Constantine for 
the key decision outlawing that FAA inside the several
now 50 States of the Union:  one must read all the way
to the end to see the result (i.e. read it BACKWARDS :-)

For shocking proof, see 27 CFR 26.11 definitions of
"Revenue Agent", "Secretary" and "Secretary or his delegate":

http://www.supremelaw.org/cfr/27/

Also, Google site:supremelaw.org "used tire international" "secretary of the treasury'

I hope this helps.

/s/ Paul

___

from:  Larry Saccato <lsaccato@gmail.com>
to:  Juan Schoch <jvschoch@gmail.com>
date:  Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 1:53 AM
subject:  More From Paul
mailed-by:  gmail.com
signed-by:  gmail.com
:  Important mainly because of the people in the conversation.

Larry Saccato

1:53 AM (5 hours ago)
   
to me
Thanks, Larry:  BETTER IDEA -- since this antiquated email system
will NOT allow forwards, it would help if you could forward to Juan
some of the email you have already received from me e.g.
"Clerks or Jerks?", "Blowing Whistles at Hurricanes" and anything
else you think he would like to read.

THE ISSUE, as far as I can tell, is THE CREDENTIAL INVESTIGATION
so you could get him started browsing the SLL for that subset
e.g.

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/oaths/
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/oaths/federal.judges.htm
etc.

He can see how we applied THE CREDENTIAL INVESTIGATION
in Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al. here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/  (cf. all SUBPOENAs)
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol2/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aouscourts/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/statebar/

See also SUBPOENA to Paul H. O'Neill here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/eddings/  (SUBPOENA to Secretary of the Treasury)
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.htm  (I believe)
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.gif  (I believe)

KEY CASE is Commissioner v. Acker:
IRS cannot create a tax liability with a Federal Regulation,
EVEN IF they were a de jure service, bureau, office or
other subdivision of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Case-related files should be here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hill/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/spd/

Google site:supremelaw.org "Case against William M. McCool"

Can you confirm this next URL too, please:
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm

If that is not the correct URL, please advise, because I predict
that I'm going to need confirmation of the correct URL very soon.

p.s.  Juan should also be given all URLs for all four (4) Qui Tam Complaints.

/s/ Paul
___

 



 

from:  Larry Saccato <lsaccato@gmail.com>
to:  Juan Schoch <jvschoch@gmail.com>
date:  Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 2:00 AM
subject:  More info from Paul
mailed-by:  gmail.com
signed-by:  gmail.com
:  Important mainly because of the people in the conversation.

 



 

Larry Saccato

2:00 AM (5 hours ago)
   
to me

 

Please inform Juan et al. that U.S. DOJ, Office of Information Policy, Washington, D.C.,
promptly replied to my FOIA Request for Freudenthal's four (4) credentials
while I was unlawfully detained at the county jail in Gering, Nebraska.

OIP did NOT have any SENATE CONFIRMATION for Freudenthal,
even though DOJ is the designated legal custodian per 5 USC 2902(c):

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/2902.html  (c)
(U.S. Attorney General must countersign and seal)

Her U.S. OPM Standard Form 61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS are a
counterfeit form;  and, her PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION is also
incomplete because Eric Holder's APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS
are also a counterfeit form:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/ 
(see "NOTICE OF MISSING AND/OR DEFECTIVE CREDENTIALS")
(see also admissions by OPM and OMB !!):
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/opm/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/omb/

I already checked out Holder's SF-61 here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/sebelius/holder/  (counterfeit Standard Form 61 !)

... in addition to several other Cabinet Officers under O'Bummer:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/sebelius/ 

Freudenthal earlier ignored my DEMAND for her SF-61:
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/freudenthal.nancy/  (NAD = PAST DUE and IN DEFAULT)

Therefore, Freudenthal's lack of authority directly affects ALL
cases on which Terry J. Harris has acted as defense counsel
e.g. all sentences she imposed were FRAUDULENT ab initio;
all "orders" and "rulings" she has signed were FRAUDULENT ab initio;
all hearings on which she "presided" need to be vacated ab initio:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions.htm

"[All] acts as such are VOID!"

Soooooo, Terry J. Harris has a HUGE CONFLICT OF INTEREST NOW ;-(

And, as "Chief Judge" Freudenthal has failed to exercise adequate
administrative supervision of her subordinates in the Clerk's Office:
see Code of Conduct for United States Judges, and folders
for Clerk's Office personnel Stephan Harris, Tammy Hilliker and 
Zachary Fisher:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hill/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hill/harris/    (I believe)
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hill/hilliker/   (I believe)
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hill/fisher/    (I believe)
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/spd/  (Seattle Police Department)

See in particular
Article VI, Clause 3;  
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2;  and,
Article II, Section 2, Clause 3, in the U.S. Constitution:

In the Supreme Law Library, try:
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#6:3 (Oath of Office Clause)
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#2:2:2 (Appointments Clause)
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#2:2:3 (Recess Appointments Clause)

An excellent read on 2:2:2 and 2:2:3 is Noel Canning v. NLRB,
D.C. Circuit (2013):  holding is correct, imho:  
vacancies must ARISE during a Senate recess.

Moreover, withOUT a SENATE CONFIRMATION, all other
credentials for Freudenthal are necessarily VOID because
a SENATE CONFIRMATION must either PRECEDE those other 3,
or FOLLOW during the next ensuing Senate session (for the special
case of recess appointments under 2:2:3 -- the Recess Appointments
Clause in the U.S. Constitution).

All of the above are fully documented in my APPLICATION FOR 
DISQUALIFICATIONS: 28 USC 144, which should now be filed
in Docket #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2 aka 14-CR-27-F (USDC/DWY).

Larry, you also have a hard copy of that APPLICATION FOR
DISQUALIFICATIONS because it is an ATTACHMENT incorporated
into my INITIAL APPLICATION FOR WRITS IN THE NATURE OF
QUO WARRANTO AND HABEAS CORPUS.

Try PACER for the full Docket listing at USDC/DWY (Cheyenne, Wyoming).

VERY LATEST is that the STATUS CONFERENCE scheduled for 11/10/2014
has now been VACATED, but no reason was given (to me):  

I strongly suspect that my APPLICATION FOR DISQUALIFICATIONS: 28 USC 144 
was the MAIN REASON, most probably because Freudenthal did NOT see it coming
(when she should have expected it!)

Finally, 2 defense Counsels have now identified me as a "crucial witness"
and "essential witness" for their respective clients.  Case now has a total
of six (6) Co-Defendants, thus 6 total defense Counsels.

(You have the full list of defense Counsels and their contact information.)

A NOTICE AND DEMAND TO CEASE AND DESIST has now been served on 
high-level officers at USMCFP/Springfield, because a "psychologist" here 
threatened me, verbally and in writing, with FORCED MEDICATION 
(using psychotropic drugs) as soon as I arrived here.

See Washington v. Harper (U.S. S.Ct.) for shocking discussions of the
effects of these drugs e.g. death, permanent disability, brain damages,
uncontrollable muscle spasms, permanently changing brain chemistry etc. etc.

That psychologist told me, my first day here, that Terry J. Harris
"agreed" with Dr. Cynthia Low's "diagnosis" but Low has also
failed to answer my FOIA Request for her credentials!!

/s/ Paul

 

Stay tuned for the next "explosive" Paul Andrew Mitchell [whistleblower] update (to be made available in the next hours - of which the media also fails to investigate or report on) that will be the latest update coming on the heels of this exclusive Teknosis update:

NOTICE OF DEFAULT (from Political prisoner #1 in the USA)
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/10/notice-of-default-communication-of-paul-andrew-mitchell-from-91214-at-medical-center-for-federal-pol.html

Newest Explosive Update (take action to let others know now): 10/24/2014

 

APPLICATION FOR DISQUALIFICATIONS: 28 USC 144 (containing AFFIDAVIT OF BIAS AND PREJUDICE & DEMAND FOR RECUSAL as well as NOTICE TO COUNSELS: USA v. Hill et al. & NOTICE OF ERRORS re: Harris & Harris, P.C.) - from Paul Andrew Mitchell USMCFP/Springfield
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/10/application-for-disqualifications-28-usc-144-containing-affidavit-of-bias-and-prejudice-demand-for-r.html

 

___

In other news:

From: "Larry" <becraft@hiwaay.net>
To: "Lex_Rex" <Lex_Rex@yahoogroups.com>, "THINKERS' ROUNDTABLE" <THINKERSROUNDTABLE_GROUP@yahoogroups.com>, "AMOJ MAIN" <AMOJ_MAIN@yahoogroups.com>, TheAmericanRepublic@yahoogroups.com
Cc: "Rosalind Peterson" <info@californiaskywatch.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 5:42:02 PM
Subject: Re: 
Stunning federal corruption case moving forward with almost no media attention

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/10/stunning_federal_corruption_case_moving_forward_with_almost_no_media_attention.html

October 19, 2014

Stunning federal corruption case moving forward with almost no media attention

By Thomas Lifson

Corrupt federal prosecutors presenting false evidence in order to shake down a blameless corporation and bring in tens of millions of dollars seems like a pretty dramatic story. Especially when former prosecutors support the charge and a chief judge acts on the allegations and takes dramatic action. Yet the media silence is deafening.

Eric Holder’s Justice Department is implicated in a dramatic and shocking case of alleged corruption that is so bad that the Chief Judge of the Eastern District of California has taken what can rightly be called the “nuclear option” and recused all the judges in the district from the case because they may have been defrauded by the DoJ prosecutors.

So far, aside from the local paper, the Sacramento Bee, it is only Sidney Powell of the New York Observerwriting in the opinion pages of that publication that has paid attention to what should be a prominent national media scandal. In brief, the Sierra Pacific Industries, a lumber producer, was accused by the federal government of starting a large wildfire, and fined $55 million, and compelled to hand over title to 22,500 acres of land. The only problem is that the prosecution was allegedly corrupt, and knowingly submitted false evidence.

In an extraordinary development, Judge England, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, ordered the recusal of all the Eastern District judges from the case because of serious allegations that the Court itself was defrauded by the government in the original prosecution. To avoid any appearance of partiality, he has referred the case to Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski to appoint a judge from outside the Eastern District to handle the case going forward. Judge Kozinski has excoriated prosecutors for failing to meet their legal and ethical obligations.

The order notes that the defendants filed an action this week to set aside the $55 million settlement because, as the defendants allege, “the United States presented false evidence to the Defendants and the Court; advanced arguments to the Court premised on that false evidence; or, for which material evidence had been withheld, and obtaining court rulings based thereon; prepared key Moonlight Fire investigators for depositions, and allowed them to repeatedly give false testimony about the most important aspects of their investigation; and failed to disclose the facts and circumstances associated with the Moonlight Fire lead investigator’s direct financial interest in the outcome of the investigation arising from an illegal bank account that has since been exposed and terminated.”

The Sacramento Bee reported on the Defendant’s filing. Indeed, the Defendants’ motion informs us that a former Assistant United States Attorney came forward and disclosed that he believes that he was removed from the original prosecution by “his boss, David Shelledy, chief of the civil division in the United States Attorney’s office,” because he “rebuffed” pressure to “engage in unethical conduct as a lawyer.” Of course, like other former prosecutors who were unethical, Mr. Shelledy is to receive Attorney General Holder’s highest award for excellence—this week.

The defendants also reveal that another former federal prosecutor, Eric Overby, left the Moonlight Fire prosecution team also, stating: “It’s called the Department of Justice. It’s not called the Department of Revenue.” According to the motion, Mr. Overby told defense counsel that in his entire career, “I’ve never seen anything like this. Never.”

Powell aptly sums up the banana republic nature of what seems to have been going on:

This is part of a disturbing and rapidly increasing pattern of abuses by this Department of Justice to line government coffers or redistribute the wealth to its political allies—using its overwhelming litigation might and federal agencies as a tool of extortion and wealth redistribution.

The entire original prosecution against Sierra Pacific appears to have been driven by the Department of Justice’s interest in hitting a “deep pocket” for millions of dollars of revenue. The Defendants’ motion to set aside the settlement reveals a series of fraudulent acts by federal and state authorities that defiles our system of justice.

If these allegations can be proven, federal prosecutors involved should receive lengthy prison sentences. And if Eric Holder can be shown to be involved, he should join John Mitchell in the ranks of former AGs with a prison record. This is intolerable.

Hat tip: Clarice Feldman

 

October 23, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Hidden Government Group Linking JFK Assassination, Watergate, Iran-Contra And 9/11

Peter Dale Scott is considered the father of “Deep Politics”— the study of
hidden permanent institutions and interests whose influence on the political
realm transcends the elected, appointed and career officials who come and go.

A Professor of English at Berkeley and a former Canadian diplomat, he is the
author of several critically acclaimed books on the pivotal events of our
country’s recent past, including Deep Politics and the Death of JFK ; Drugs,
Oil, and War: The United States in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Indochina (War and
Peace Library); The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America and
American War Machine: Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection, and the
Road to Afghanistan (War and Peace Library). He is also a poet, whose long work,
Coming to Jakarta: A Poem about Terror, was hailed as “the most important
political poem to appear in the English language in a very long time,” by Robert
Hass, Poet Laureate of the United States from 1995 to 1997.

Daniel Ellsberg said of his book Drugs, Oil and War, “It makes most academic
and journalistic explanations of our past and current interventions read like
government propaganda written for children.”

What follows is based on a recent Scott lecture entitled “The JFK Assassination
and Other Deep Events”, and will be expanded on further in his next book, The
American Deep State, due out in November.

***

For some time now, I have been analyzing American history in the light of what I
have called structural deep events: events like the JFK assassination, the
Watergate break-in, Iran-Contra, or 9/11, which repeatedly involve law-breaking
or violence, are mysterious to begin with, are embedded in ongoing covert
processes, have political consequences that enlarge covert government, and are
subsequently covered up by systematic falsifications in the mainstream media and
internal government records.

The more I study these deep events, the more I see suggestive similarities
between them, increasing the possibility that they are not unrelated external
intrusions on American history, but parts of an endemic process, sharing to some
degree or other a common source. A deep state event seen from deep space.

For example, one factor linking Dallas, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and 9/11, has
been the involvement in all four deep events of personnel involved in America’s
highest-level emergency planning, known since the 1950s as Continuity of
Government (COG) planning, or more colloquially inside the Pentagon as “the
Doomsday Project.” A few of these actors may have been located at the top, as
overseers of the secret COG system. Others – including some I shall talk about
today – were located further down in its secret communications network.

I see this planning group as one among many in what I have chosen to call the
American deep state, along with agencies like the CIA and NSA, the private
groups like Booz Allen Hamilton to which more than half of the US intelligence
budget is outsourced, and finally the powerful banks and corporations whose
views are well represented in the CIA and NSA. But if only one group among many,
the COG planning group is also special, because of its control of and access to
a communications channel, not under government control, that can reach deeply
into the US social structure. I discuss these matters at some length in my next
book, The American Deep State, due out in November.

COG planning was originally authorized by Truman and Eisenhower as planning
for a response to a crippling atomic attack that had decapitated government. In
consequence its planning group contemplated extreme measures, including what
Alfonso Chardy in 1987 called “suspension of the Constitution.” And yet in Iran-
Contra its asset of a secret communications network, developed for the
catastrophe of decapitation, was used instead to evade an official embargo on
arms sales to Iran that dated back to 1979. My question today is whether the
network could have been similarly misused in November 1963.

The Iran-contra misuse has been well-documented. Oliver North supervised the
sale of arms to Iran by using his resources as the National Security Council
action officer for COG planning, under cover of a “National Program Office” that
was overseen by then Vice-President George H. W.  Bush. North and his superiors
could thus use the COG emergency network, known then as Flashboard, for the arms
sales to Iran that had to be concealed from other parts of the Washington
bureaucracy as well as the public. So when North had to send emergency
instructions for arms delivery to the US Embassy in Lisbon, instructions that
directly contravened the embargo prohibiting such sales, he used the Flashboard
network to avoid alerting the Ambassador and other unwitting personnel.

The documented example of Iran-Contra allows me to explain what I am saying
about the users of the COG network, and also what I am not saying. To begin
with, I am not saying that a single “Secret Team” has for decades been using the
COG network to manipulate the US Government from outside it. There is no
evidence to suggest that North’s actions in Iran-Contra were known to any of his
superiors other than CIA chief William Casey and probably George Bush. The point
is that a very small group had access to a high-level secret network outside
government review, in order to implement a program in opposition to government
policy. They succumbed to the temptation to use this secure network that had
been designed for other purposes. I have argued elsewhere that this secure
network was used again on 9/11, to implement key orders for which the 9/11
Commission could find no records. Whether it was also used for illicit purposes
is not known.

It is certain that the COG emergency network program survived North’s demise,
and continued to be secretly developed for decades, at a cost of billions, and
overseen by a team including Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. It is relevant
that the two men’s presence on the committee spanned three administrations –
those of Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton — even though at one point under Clinton
neither man held a position inside the U.S. government. Such continuity was
essential for a group so secret that few records existed of its activities. And
on 9/11 COG plans were officially implemented for the first time, by Vice
President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the two men who had planned
them for so many years.

Whether or not they knew about Iran-Contra, Cheney and Rumsfeld were on the COG
planning committee at the time of Iran-Contra. There is no such obvious link
between COG planning and Watergate, but the involvement of COG personnel in
Watergate is nonetheless striking. James McCord, one of the Watergate burglars,
was a member of a small Air Force Reserve unit in Washington attached to the
Office of Emergency Preparedness (OEP) that was assigned “to draw up lists of
radicals and to develop contingency plans for censorship of the news media and
U.S. mail in time of war.” His unit was part of the Wartime Information Security
Program (WISP), which had responsibility for activating “contingency plans for
imposing censorship on the press, the mails and all telecommunications
(including government communications) [and] preventive detention of civilian
‘security risks,’ who would be placed in military ‘camps.’” In addition, John
Dean, perhaps the central Watergate figure, had overseen secret COG activities
when serving as the associate deputy attorney general.

In the case of the JFK assassination, I wish to focus on two men who
functioned as part of the communications network of the Office of Emergency
Planning (OEP), the agency renamed in 1968 as the Office of Emergency
Preparedness (to which McCord was attached), and renamed again in 1982 as the
National Program Office (for which Oliver North was the action officer).

These two men (there are others) are Winston Lawson, the Secret Service advance
man who from the lead car of the motorcade was in charge of the Secret Service
radio channels operating in the motorcade; and Jack Crichton, the army
intelligence reserve officer who with Deputy Dallas Police Chief George Lumpkin
selected the Russian interpreter for Marina Oswald’s first (and falsified) FBI
interview.

Lawson has drawn the critical attention of JFK researchers, both for dubious
actions he took before and during the assassination, and also for false
statements he made after it (some of them under oath). For example, Lawson
reported after the assassination that motorcycles were deployed on “the right
and left flanks of the President’s car” (17 WH 605). On the morning of November
22, however, the orders had been changed (3 WH 244), so that the motorcycles
rode instead, as Lawson himself testified to the Warren Commission, “just back
of the President’s car” (4 WH 338; cf. 21 WH 768-70). Captain Lawrence of the
Dallas Police testified that that the proposed side escorts were redeployed to
the rear on Lawson’s own instructions (7 WH 580-81; cf. 18 WH 809, 21 WH 571).
This would appear to have left the President more vulnerable to a possible
crossfire.

Early on November 22, at Love Field, Lawson installed, in what would become the
lead car, the base radio whose frequencies were used by all Secret Service
agents on the motorcade. This radio channel, operated by the White House
Communications Agency (WHCA), was used for some key decisions before and after
the assassination, yet its records, unlike those of the Dallas Police Department
(DPD) Channels One and Two, were never made available to the Warren Commission,
or any subsequent investigation. The tape was not withheld because it was
irrelevant; on the contrary, it contained very significant information.

The WHCA actually reports to this day on its website that the agency was “a
key player in documenting the assassination of President Kennedy.” However it is
not clear for whom this documentation was conducted, or why it was not made
available to the Warren Commission, the House Select Committee on
Assassinations, or the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). It should have
been.

For one thing, the WHCA tape, as Vincent Palamara has written, contains the
“key” to the unresolved mystery of who, after the shooting, redirected the
motorcade to Parkland hospital. The significance of this apparently
straightforward command, about which there was much conflicting testimony, is
heightened when we read repeated orders on the Dallas Police radio transcript to
“cut all traffic for the ambulance going to Parkland code 3” (17 WH 395) – the
ambulance in question having nothing to do with the president (whose shooting
had not yet been announced on the DPD radio). In fact the ambulance had been
dispatched about ten minutes before the assassination to pick someone from in
front of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD), who was wrongly suspected of
having suffered an epileptic seizure.

Lawson later reported to the Secret Service that he heard on his radio “that we
should proceed to the nearest hospital.” He wrote also that he “requested Chief
Curry to have the hospital contacted,” and then that “Our Lead Car assisted the
motorcycles in escorting the President’s vehicle to Parkland Hospital” (17 WH
632), cf. 21 WH 580). In other words, after hearing something on the WHCA radio,
Lawson helped ensure that the President’s limousine would follow the route
already set up by the motorcycles for the epileptic. (In his very detailed
Warren Commission testimony, Lawson said nothing about the route having already
been cleared. On the contrary he testified that “we had to do some stopping of
cars and holding our hands out the windows and blowing the sirens and horns to
get through” (4 WH 354).

The WHCA radio channel used by Lawson and others communicated almost directly to
the WHCA base at Mount Weather in Virginia, the base facility of the COG
network. From there, Secret Service communications were relayed to the White
House, via the batteries of communications equipment connecting Mount Weather
with the White House and “Raven Rock” — the underground Pentagon sixty miles
north of Washington — as well as with almost every US military unit stationed
around the globe.

Jack Crichton, head of the 488th Army Intelligence Reserve unit of Dallas, was
also part of this Mount Weather COG network. This was in his capacity as chief
of intelligence for Dallas Civil Defense, which worked out of an underground
Emergency Operating Center. As Russ Baker reports, “Because it was intended for
‘continuity of government’ operations during an attack, [the Center] was fully
equipped with communications equipment.” In retrospect the Civil Defense Program
is remembered derisively, for having advised schoolchildren, in the event of an
atomic attack, to hide their heads under their desks.But in 1963 civil defense
was one of the urgent responsibilities assigned to the Office of Emergency
Planning, which is why Crichton, as much as Secret Service agent Lawson, could
be in direct touch with the OEP’s emergency communications network at Mount
Weather.

Jack Crichton is of interest because he, along with DPD Deputy Chief George
Lumpkin of the 488th Army Intelligence Reserve unit, was responsible for
choosing a Russian interpreter for Marina Oswald from the right-wing Russian
community. This man was Ilya Mamantov, who translated for Marina Oswald at her
first DPD interview on November 22. What she allegedly said in Russian at this
interview was later used to bolster what I have called the “phase one” story,
still promoted from some CIA sources, that Russia and/or Cuba were behind the
assassination.

As summarized by the FBI, Mamantov’s account of Marina’s Russian testimony was
as follows:

MARINA OSWALD advised that LEE HARVEY OSWALD owned a rifle which he used in
Russia about two years ago. She observed what she presumed to be the same rifle
in a blanket in the garage at [Ruth Paine’s residence]…. MARINA OSWALD stated
that on November 22, she had been shown a rifle in the Dallas Police
Department…. She stated that it was a dark color like the one that she had seen,
but she did not recall the sight.

These specific details – that Marina said she had seen a rifle that was dark and
scopeless – were confirmed in an affidavit (signed by Marina and Mamantov, 24 WH
219) that was taken by DPD officer B.L. Senkel (24 WH 249). They were confirmed
again by Ruth Paine, who witnessed the Mamantov interview, (3 WH 82). They were
confirmed again the next night in an interview of Marina by the Secret Service,
translated by Mamantov’s close friend Peter Gregory. But a Secret Service
transcript of the interview reveals that the source of these details was
Gregory, not Marina:

(Q) This gun, was it a rifle or a pistol or just what kind of a gun? Can she
answer that?

(A) It was a gun

Mr. Gregory asked: Can you describe it?

NOTE: Subject said: I cannot describe it because a rifle to me like all rifles.

Gregory translation: She said she cannot describe it. It was sort of a dark
rifle just like any other common rifle…

Subject in Russian: It was a hump (or elevation) but I never saw through the
scope….

Gregory translation: She says there was an elevation on the rifle but there was
no scope – no telescope.

We have to conclude not just that Gregory had falsified Marina’s testimony (“a
rifle to me like all rifles”); but so probably had his friend Mamantov, who
later testified no less than seven times to the Warren Commission that Marina
had used the word “dark” to describe the gun. There were others in Dallas who
claimed that Oswald’s gun indeed had been scopeless, until Oswald had a scope
installed on it by Dallas gunsmith Dial Ryder. The Warren Report elaborately
refuted this corroborated claim, and concluded that “the authenticity of the
repair tag” used to support it was “subject to grave doubts.” (WR 317).

We can see here, what the Warren Commission did not wish to see, signs of a
conspiracy to misrepresent Marina’s testimony, and possibly to link Oswald’s gun
to a dark and scopeless rifle he had in the Soviet Union. Our concerns that
Mamantov misrepresented her lead us to concerns about why two Army Intelligence
Reserve officers from the 488th unit (Jack Crichton and Deputy DPD Chief George
Lumpkin) selected Mamantov as her interpreter. Our concerns are increased when
we see that B.L. Senkel, the DPD officer who took Marina’s suspect affidavit,
was the partner of F.P. Turner, who collected the dubious rifle repair tag (24
WH 328), and that both men spent most of November 22 with DPD Deputy Chief
Lumpkin. For example, they were with Lumpkin in the pilot car of the motorcade
when Lumpkin was communicating with Winston Lawson in the lead car behind them.

I conclude that when we look at the conduct of the two men we know to have been
parts of the COG emergency communications network in Dallas, we see patterns of
sinister behavior that also involved others, or what we may call conspiratorial
behavior. These concatenated efforts to implicate Oswald in a phase-one
conspiracy narrative lead me to propose a hypothesis for which I have neither
evidence nor an alternative explanation: namely, that someone on the WHCA
network may have been the source for the important unexplained description on
the Dallas Police tapes of a suspect who had exactly the false height and weight
(5 feet 10 inches, 165 pounds) recorded for Oswald in his FBI and CIA files.

Note that there are no other known sources ascribing this specific height and
weight to Oswald. For example, when he was arrested and charged in Dallas that
same day, Oswald was recorded as having a height of 5’9 ½ inches, and a weight
of 131 pounds. The first reference to Oswald as 5’10”, 165 pounds, was that
offered by Oswald’s mother Marguerite to FBI Agent Fain in May 1960, when Oswald
himself was absent in Russia.

The DPD officer contributing the description on the Police Channel was Inspector
Herbert Sawyer, who allegedly had heard it from someone outside the Texas School
Book Depository (TSBD) whom he could not identify or describe. The Warren Report
said categorically that his source was Howard Brennan (WR 5), and that on the
evening of November 22, Brennan “identified Oswald as the person in the lineup
who bore the closest resemblance to the man in the window but he said that he
was unable to make a positive identification” (WR 145). But there are many
reasons to doubt this, starting with conflicts in Brennan’s own testimony (as
Anthony Summers reported in Conspiracy, pp. 109-10) . And Ian Griggs has made a
strong case that Brennan never saw Oswald in a line-up that evening. (There are
police records placing Oswald in three line-ups that day, and corroborating
witness reports of them; but there is no evidence whatever that Brennan attended
any of the three.)

There is another strong reason to doubt that the source was Brennan. Brennan
testified later to the Warren Commission that he saw his suspect in a window of
the Texas School Book Depository, “standing up and leaning against the left
window sill.” Pressed to describe how much of the suspect he saw, Brennan
answered, “I could see probably his whole body, from his hips up. But at the
time that he was firing the gun, a possibility from his belt up” (3 WH 144).

The awkwardness of Brennan’s language draws attention to the fundamental problem
about the description. It is hard to imagine anyone giving a full height and
weight estimate from seeing someone who was only partially visible in a window.
So there are intrinsic grounds for believing the description must have come from
another source. And when we see that the same description is found in Oswald’s
FBI and CIA files — and nowhere else – there are reasons to suspect the source
was from government secret files.

We have seen that there was interaction in Dallas between the WHCA and DPD radio
channels, thanks to the WHCA portable radio that Lawson had installed in the
lead car of the presidential motorcade. This radio in turn was in contact by
police radio with the pilot car ahead of it, carrying Dallas Police Department
(DPD) Deputy Chief Lumpkin of the 488th Army Intelligence Reserve unit. At the
same time, as noted above, it was in contact with the COG nerve center at Mount
Weather, Virginia. And Mount Weather had the requisite secret communications to
receive information from classified intelligence files, without other parts of
the government being alerted.

Permit me at this moment an instructive digression. It is by now well
established that Kennedy in 1963 was concerned enough by “the threat of far-
right treason” that he urgently persuaded Hollywood director John Frankenheimer
“to turn [the novel] Seven Days in May into a movie.” In this book, to quote
Wikipedia, a charismatic superior officer, Air Force General James Mattoon
Scott, intend[s] to stage a coup d’état …. According to the plan, an undisclosed
Army combat unit known as ECOMCON (Emergency COMmunications CONtrol) will seize
control of the country’s telephone, radio, and television networks, while the
conspiracy directs the military and its allies in Congress and the media from
“Mount Thunder” (a continuity of government base based on Mount Weather).

It is no secret also that in 1963 Kennedy had aroused major right-wing
dissatisfaction, largely because of signs of his increasing rapprochement with
the Soviet Union. The plot of the book and movie reflects the concern of
liberals at the time about generals like General Edwin Walker, who had resigned
in 1961 after Kennedy criticized his political activities in the Army. (Walker
had given his troops John Birch Society literature, along with the names of
right-wing candidates to vote for.) We can assume however that Kennedy had no
firm evidence of a Mount Weather conspiracy: if he had, it is unlikely his
response would have just been to sponsor a fictionalized movie.

It is important at this stage to point out that, although COG elements like
Mount Weather were considered part of the Pentagon, the COG “government in
waiting” was at no time under military control. On the contrary, President
Eisenhower had ensured that it was broadly based at the top, so its planners
included some of the nation’s top corporate leaders, like Frank Stanton of CBS.
By all accounts of COG leadership in the decades after Reagan took office in
1981, this so-called “shadow government” still included CEOs of private
corporations, like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, as well as three former CIA
directors: Richard Helms, James Schlesinger, and George Bush.

Alfonso Chardy wrote in 1987 that the “virtual parallel government” empowering
North to run Iran-Contra had also developed “a secret contingency plan that
called for suspension of the Constitution, turning control of the United States
over to FEMA.” Subsequently North was questioned in the Iran-Contra Hearings
about this charge, but was prevented by the Committee Chairman, Democratic
Senator Inouye, from answering in a public session.

Later, investigating the powerful COG planning group, CNN called it “a hidden
government [in the USA] about which you know nothing.” James Mann emphasized its
hawkish continuity, unaffected by changes of presidency in the White House:

Cheney and Rumsfeld were, in a sense, a part of the permanent, though hidden,
national security apparatus of the United States, inhabitants of a world in
which Presidents come and go, but America always keeps on fighting."

Cheney and Rumsfeld in 1974

Going one step further, Andrew Cockburn quoted a Pentagon source to support a
claim that a COG planning group under Clinton was now for the first time staffed
“almost exclusively with Republican hawks.” In the words of his source, “You
could say this was a secret government-in-waiting. The Clinton administration
was extraordinarily inattentive, [they had] no idea what was going on.”

The Pentagon official’s description of COG planners as a “secret government-in-
waiting” under Clinton (which still included both Cheney and Rumsfeld) is very
close to the standard definition of a cabal, as a group of persons secretly
united to bring about a change or overthrow of government. A very similar
situation existed under Jimmy Carter, when some of those who would later figure
in Iran-Contra (notably George H.W. Bush and Theodore Shackley) worked with
chiefs of foreign intelligence services (the so-called Safari Club) “to start
working with [former DCI Richard] Helms [then U.S. Ambassador to Iran] and his
most trusted operatives outside of Congressional and even Agency purview.” This
group began by backing guerrilla forces in Africa (notably UNITA of Jonas
Savimbi in Angola), which they knew would not be backed by the CIA under William
Colby or Stansfield Turner.

But some of these figures, notably Alexandre de Marenches of the French spy
agency SDECE, became involved with Casey, Bush, Shackley, and others in a 1980
plot – the so-called Republican “October Surprise” – to prevent the reelection
of Jimmy Carter. The essence of this plot was to frustrate Carter’s efforts to
repatriate the hostages seized in the U.S. Tehran Embassy, by negotiating a
Republican deal with the Iranians that would be more to their liking. (The
hostages in fact were returned hours after Reagan took office in 1981.)

This Republican hostage plot in 1980 deserves to be counted as a fifth
structural deep event in recent US history. Unquestionably the illicit contacts
with Iran established by the October Surprise Group in 1980 became, as Alfonso
Chardy wrote, the “genesis” of the Iran-Contra arms deals overseen by the COG/
Mount Weather planners in 1984-86.

In an important interview with journalist Robert Parry, the veteran CIA officer
Miles Copeland claimed that a “CIA within the CIA” inspired the 1980 plot,
having concluded by 1980 that Jimmy Carter (in Copeland’s words) “had to be
removed from the presidency for the good of the country.” Copeland made it clear
to Parry that he shared this view that Carter “represented a grave threat to the
nation,” and former Mossad agent Ari Ben-Menashe told Parry that Copeland
himself was in fact “the conceptual father” of the 1980 arms-for-hostages deal,
and had “brokered [the] Republican cooperation with Israel.” And Copeland,
together with his client Adnan Khashoggi whom he advised, went on with Shackley
to help launch the 1984-85 Iranian arms deals as well.

However, just as Knebel in Seven Days may have overestimated the military
component in the COG Mount Weather leadership, so Copeland may have dwelt too
exclusively on the CIA component behind the October Surprise Group. In The Road
to 9/11, I suggested that this CIA network overlapped with a so-called “Project
Alpha,” working at the time for David Rockefeller and the Chase Manhattan Bank
on Iran issues, which was chaired by the veteran establishment figure John J.
McCloy.

I will conclude by again quoting James Mann’s dictum that the Mount Weather COG
leadership constitutes a “permanent, though hidden, national security apparatus
of the United States, … a world in which Presidents come and go, but America
always keeps on fighting.” And I would like this audience to investigate whether
elements of this enduring leadership, with its ever-changing mix of CIA veterans
and civilian leaders, may have constituted “a secret government-in-waiting,” not
just under Clinton in the 1990s, not just under Carter in 1980, but also under
Kennedy in November 1963.
 

 


Footnotes:

[1] Peter Dale Scott, The American Deep State: Wall Street, Big Oil, and the
Attack on U.S. Democracy (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014 [forthcoming]).
1.

[2] For a partial list of anomalies between the JFK assassination and 9/11, see
Peter Dale Scott, The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of War
(New York: Skyhorse, 2013), 341-96.

[3] Tim Shorrock, Spies for Hire (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2008), 6.

[4] Alfonso Chardy, “Reagan Aides and the Secret Government,” Miami Herald, July
5, 1987, http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=9877: “Some of
President Reagan’s top advisers have operated a virtual parallel government
outside the traditional Cabinet departments and agencies almost from the day
Reagan took office, congressional investigators and administration officials
have concluded.”

[5] Iran-Contra Committee Counsel Arthur Liman, questioning Oliver North, “had
North repeat his testimony that the diversion was Casey’s idea” (Arthur Liman,
Lawyer: a life of counsel and controversy [New York: Public Affairs, 1998],
341).

[6] James Bamford, A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq, and the abuse of America’s
intelligence agencies (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 72.

[7] Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of
America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), 213-14, 219-29.

[8] Bamford, A Pretext for War, 71-81.

[9] Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, All the President’s Men (New York: Simon
and Schuster, 1974), 23.

[10] Jim Hougan, Secret Agenda (New York: Random House, 1984), 16. For more on
WISP, see David Wise, The Politics of Lying: Government Deception, Secrecy, and
Power (New York: Random House, 1973), 134-37.

[11] John Dean, Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush
(New York: Little Brown, 2004), 120. In addition Howard Baker, in 1973 the
ranking Republican member of the Senate Committee that investigated Watergate,
was later  part of the COG secret leadership (CNN Special Assignment, November
17, 1991).

[12] James Mann, Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush’s War Cabinet (New
York: Viking, 2004), 142.

[13] Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. 9, p.106 (or 9 WH 106) ; Scott, Deep
Politics, 275-76; Russ Baker, Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, the Powerful
Forces That Put It in the White House, and What Their Influence Means for
America (New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2009), 119-22.

[14] “White House Communications Agency,” Signal Corps Regimental History,
http://signal150.army.mil/white_house_communications_agency.html.

[15] In the 1990s the WHCA supplied statements to the ARRB concerning
communications between Dallas and Washington on November 22 (NARA #172-10001-
10002 to NARA #172-10000-10008).  The Assassination Records Review Board also
attempted to obtain from the WHCA the unedited original tapes of conversations
from Air Force One on the return trip from Dallas, November 22, 1963. (Edited
and condensed versions of these tapes had been available since the 1970s from
the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library in Austin, Texas.) The attempt was
unsuccessful: “The Review Board’s repeated written and oral inquiries of the
White House Communications Agency did not bear fruit. The WHCA could not produce
any records that illuminated the provenance of the edited tapes.” See
Assassinations Records Review Board: Final Report, chapter 6, Part 1, 116,
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/review-board/report/chapter-06-part1.pdf.

[16] 17 WH 394-95, 23 WH 841; 17 WH 368, 395; Scott, Deep Politics and the Death
of JFK, 273-74, 278. The alleged epileptic walked away from the ambulance after
it arrived at Highland (Warren Commission Document 1245, 6-10).

[17] Statement of Special Agent Winston E. Lawson [to Secret Service],” 17 WH
632; Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, 278.

[18] Richard Pollock, “The Mysterious Mountain,” The Progressive, March, 1976;
cf. “Mount Weather’s ‘Government-in-Waiting,’”
http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/mt_weather.htm.

[19] Russ Baker, Family of Secrets, 121.

[20] Dee Garrison , Bracing for Armageddon: Why Civil Defense Never Worked

(New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 46.

[21] Warren Commission Exhibit 1778, 23 WH 383-84.

[22] Commission Document 344 – SS Howard Tape Copy of 01 Dec 1963, p. 23.

[23] Lee Harvey Oswald fingerprint card, 17 WH 308. The heaviest Oswald actually
weighed was 150 pounds, when he left the Marines in 1959 (19 WH 584, 595).

[24] FBI report by Special Agent Fain, dated May 12, 1960, 17 WH 706. In the
same report Marguerite named Oswald’s father as “Edward Lee Oswald.” His actual
name was Robert Edward Lee Oswald (WR 669-70).

[25] Testimony of Inspector Herbert Sawyer, 6 WH 321-22:  “I remember that he
was a white man and that he wasn’t young and he wasn’t old.” Cf. Dallas Police
Channel Two Tape at 12:25 PM (23 WH 916).

[26] Ian Griggs, “Did Howard Leslie Brennan Really Attend an Identification
Lineup?”

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/28th_Issue/id_draft.html.

[27] Statement of Secret Service Winston Lawson, 17 WH 630: “I checked with
Chief Curry as to location of Lead Car [at  Love Field] and had WHCA portable
radio put in and checked.”

[28] “The lead car was in radio contact with the pilot car by police radio, and
with the Presidential limousine by Secret Service portable radios” (Pamela
McElwain-Brown, “The Presidential Lincoln Continental SS-100-X,” Dealey Plaza
Echo, Volume 3, Issue 2, 23,
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=16241&relPageI
d=27). Cf. Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, 272-75 (Lumpkin).

[29] David Talbot, Brothers: the hidden history of the Kennedy years (New York:
Free Press, 2007), 148.

[30] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_in_May.

[31] Jonathan M. Schoenwald, A time for choosing: the rise of modern American
conservatism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), .

[32] Hope Yen, “Eisenhower Letters Reveal Doomsday Plan: Citizens Tapped to Take
Over in Case of Attack,” AP, Deseret News, March 21, 2004,
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/595050502/Eisenhower-letters-reveal-doomsday-
plan.html?pg=all.

[33] CNN Special Assignment, November 17, 1991.

[34] Alfonso Chardy, “Reagan Aides and the Secret Government,” Miami Herald,
July 5, 1987, http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=9877: “Some of
President Reagan’s top advisers have operated a virtual parallel government
outside the traditional Cabinet departments and agencies almost from the day
Reagan took office, congressional investigators and administration officials
have concluded.”

[35] Iran-Contra Committee Counsel Arthur Liman, questioning Oliver North, “had
North repeat his testimony that the diversion was Casey’s idea” (Arthur Liman,
Lawyer: a life of counsel and controversy [New York: Public Affairs, 1998],
341). Cf. The “October Surprise” allegations and the circumstances surrounding
the release of the American hostages held in Iran: report of the Special Counsel
to Senator Terry Sanford and Senator James M. Jeffords of the Committee on
Foreign Relations, United States Senate, Volume 4, p. 33 (October Surprise
Group).

[36] CNN Special Assignment, November 17, 1991.

[37] James Mann, Rise of the Vulcans, 145.

[38] Andrew Cockburn, Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall, and Catastrophic Legacy (New
York: Scribner, 2007), 88.

[39] Joseph J. Trento, Prelude to terror: the rogue CIA and the legacy of
America’s private intelligence network (New York: Carroll & Graf, 2005), 61.

[40] Piero Gleijeses, Visions of Freedom: Havana, Washington, Pretoria and the
struggle for Southern Africa, 1976-1991 (Chapel Hill: The University of North
Carolina Press, [2013]), 66-68; Elaine Windrich, “The Laboratory of Hate: The
Role of Clandestine Radio in the Angolan War,” International Journal of Cultural
Studies 3(2), 2000.

[41] Alfonso Chardy, “Reagan Aides and the Secret Government,” Miami Herald,
July 5, 1987, http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=9877: “The group,
led by campaign foreign policy adviser Richard Allen, was founded out of concern
Carter might pull off an “October surprise” such as a last-minute deal for the
release of the hostages before the Nov. 4 election. One of the group’s first
acts was a meeting with a man claiming to represent Iran who offered to release
the hostages to Reagan.

Allen — Reagan’s first national security adviser— and another campaign aide,
Laurence Silberman, told The Herald in April of the meeting. they said
McFarlane, then a Senate Armed Services Committee aide, arranged and attended
it. McFarlane later became Reagan’s national security adviser and played a key
role in the Iran-contra affair. Allen and Silberman said they rejected the offer
to release the hostages to Reagan.” [The Iranian was Houshang Lavi, and after
Lavi’s death Robert Parry confirmed from Lavi’s diary that the meeting did take
place].

[42] Alfonso Chardy, “Reagan Aides and the Secret Government,” Miami Herald,
July 5, 1987, http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=9877.

[43] “America’s False History Allows the Powerful to Commit Crimes Without
Consequence,” Mark Karlin Interview of Robert Parry, January 15, 2013, Truthout
Interview, http://www.truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/13904-americas-false-
history-allows-the-powerful-to-commit-crimes-without-consequence.

[44] Robert Parry, Trick or Treason, 175.

[45] Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of
America

(Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), 81-83, 88. A key figure was
CIA veteran and Copeland friend Archibald Roosevelt, in 1980 a Carter foe and
also  employee of the Chase Manhattan Bank.

[46] Mann, Rise of the Vulcans, 145.

October 21, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Jackie Kennedy believed Lyndon Johnson killed JFK

WASHINGTON, October 17, 2014 — It has been widely reported that Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, widow of President John F. Kennedy, shared with family members she was certain that Kennedy’s Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson, arranged to have her husband murdered.

Read more at: http://www.commdiginews.com/history-and-holidays/jacqueline-kennedys-jfk-assassination-theory-28064/

October 21, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Oscar Pistorius Guilty: Verdict - Culpable Homicide in Reeva Steenkamp Murder

At least there is a slight smidgen of justice in the world:

Oscar Pistorius guilty of culpable homicide

Oscar Pistorius has been found guilty of culpable homicide in relation to the death of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine's Day last year. Report by Sarah Kerr.

Now if we could only get justice in this case (political prisoner #1 in the USA):

NOTICE OF DEFAULT - Communication of Paul Andrew Mitchell from 9/12/14 at Medical Center for Federal [Political] Prisoners re: Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF Document 226 Filed 10/10/14
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/10/notice-of-default-communication-of-paul-andrew-mitchell-from-91214-at-medical-center-for-federal-pol.html

October 21, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Re Lawless Judges and the Doctrine of Unauthorized Deprivation: Scott Practice of Law and Status

Mark R Ferran <mrferran@nycap.rr.com> Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 2:47 PM
Reply-To: Mark R Ferran <mrferran@nycap.rr.com>
To: pc9323@gmail.com

----- Original Message -----
From: Mark R Ferran
To: William Scott ; GLORIA Jean SYKES ; Mark R Ferran ; WNGrigg@msn.com ; Rosalie.Levinson@valpo.edu

Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 2:45 PM
Subject: Re Lawless Judges and the Doctrine of Unauthorized Deprivation: Scott Practice of Law and Status

The reason that we have Judges and Clerks who tamper with the Random-Assignment system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Garson to throw cases, Judges who flagrantly LIE
"Extremely-troubling-allegations-of-lying-by-judges-in-NY.pdf"
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Extremely-troubling-allegations-of-lying-by-judges-in-NY.pdf
(e.g., lie about the written contents of Affidavits, photographs, papers) (e.g., lie about the content of a party's legal theory, pleadings, motions, and arguments), and who intentionally violate the Right to Be Heard (refusing to Read or consider Pleadings, Witness-Affidavits, papers), and disregard or simply ignore the existing substantive Laws or precedents relied upon, as necessary to throw cases in favor of the favored party (e.g., criminally deviant agents of the Government who have transcended the limits of their lawful authority), is because MOST JUDGES no longer even intend to protect the people from "the violence of public agents transcending the limits of lawful authority" because they do not believe that the Law/Consent of the People is a constitutional limitation upon the powers or actions of rulers.

billstclair.com/ferran/markferran2.html
billstclair.com/ferran/markferran1.html
www.givemeliberty.org/spotlights/archive/march1999/markferran.htm

Rather, the Judges of America now allow all (executive and judicial) public
agents to transcend the limits of lawful authority (even to "steal" Houses and
other private property for their personal use and enrichment [Cruz-Erazo], to
file knowingly-false charges (Albright v. Oliver) to coerce surrender of
property or of the liberty to perform lawful acts, commit oppression, extortion,
trespass and iniquity (Wilkie v. Robbins) to steal property on behalf of the
Government without Just Compensation, and Perjury) as long as the deviant
conduct does not offend the mythical "conscience" of the Judges.

See e.g., the Cruz-Erazo decision
http://www.leagle.com/decision/2000829212F3d617_1768.xml/CRUZ-ERAZO%20v.%20RIVERA-MONTA%C3%91EZ,

Most Federal Judges clearly believe that our rulers have the unlimited power to
allow or coerce persons to commit crimes against other persons, and even the
power to compel public servants to commit crimes (e.g., Perjury) against citizens.
See http://dccircuitreview.com/2011/10/31/the-d-c-circuit-did-not-use-tweezers-it-used-a-sledgehammer/

In the Jackler case, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals purported to find a
First Amendment exception to the otherwise-unlimited power of our rulers to
compel people to commit crimes against others.

Compare The DC Federal Court Judges "sledgehammer" view that there is not even a
narrow First Amendment exception to the supposedly unlimited power of our
rulers to compel subordinate public servants to commit crimes against us, with
this analysis:

"We also think it clear that Jackler's refusal to accede to defendants' demands
that he falsely exculpate [Officer] Metakes has a civilian analogue. As
indicated by the authorities discussed above, a citizen has a First Amendment
right to decide what to say and what not to say, and, accordingly, the right to
reject governmental efforts to require him to make statements he believes are
false. Thus, a citizen who has truthfully reported a crime has the indisputable
right to reject pressure from the police to have him rescind his accusation and
falsely exculpate the accused. And, as indicated by laws such as the statutory
provisions described in Part II.B. above, a civilian who acceded to such
pressure would subject himself to criminal liability, as would a police officer.
Of course a police officer has a duty not to substitute a falsehood for the
truth, i.e., a duty to tell “nothing but the truth”; but he plainly has that
duty as a citizen as well.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1575103.html#sthash.ruMoSSuP.dpuf

In my opinion, the overt claim by our Judges that our rulers have an unlimitted
power to coerce us to commit crimes against others, and the unlimitted power to
coerce or allow others to commit Perjury and other crimes against us, is belum
flagrante against the People and against their Constitution. See, "US Supreme
Court Permits "Unauthorized Deprivations" and thereby Declares War Against God
and Against The People of the United States" billstclair.com/ferran

In my opinion, the "right to reject pressure" includes the individual Due
Process "right to resist"/"right to self-defense" confirmed in the Second
Amendment and implicit the Fourth Amendment.
http://billstclair.com/ferran/markferran2.html

But, most people, even most attorneys, do not understand that there is a
DIFFERENCE beteen lawless "oppression" on one hand, and "the necessary exercise
of lawful authority" on the other hand. Rather, the majority focus only upon the
superficialities, such as the official title or uniform of the actor, and ignore
the question of legality/consent of the governed. George Washington said:

"Knowledge is, in every country, the surest basis of public happiness. ... To
the security of a free constitution it [knowledge] contributes in various ways:
by convincing those who are entrusted with the public administration, that every
valuable end of government is best answered by the [Laws/Consent/Conscience] of
the people; and by teaching the people themselves to know and to value their own
rights; to discern and provide against invasions of them; to distinguish between
oppression and the necessary exercise of lawful authority; between burthens
proceeding from a disregard [of the Laws/Consent/Conscience of the people], and
those resulting from the inevitable exigencies of society; to discriminate the
spirit of liberty from that of licentiousness—cherishing the first, avoiding the
last; and uniting a speedy, but temperate vigilance against encroachments, with
an inviolable respect to the laws.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/first-annual-message-to-congress/

In early times, the Supreme Court acknowledged that "the essence of slavery" is
the "idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of
living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life -e.g.,
property] at the mere will of another":

"When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government,
the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of
their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave
room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty
itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of
law; but, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of
government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all
government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of
power. It is, indeed, quite true that there must always be lodged somewhere, and
in some person or body, the authority of final decision, and in many cases of
mere administration, the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying
except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the
pressure of opinion or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual
possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the
monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the
blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in
the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the
commonwealth "may be a government of laws, and not of men." For the very idea
that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any
material right essential to the enjoyment of life at the mere will of another
seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the
essence of slavery itself."

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/118/356

The Supreme Court has explained that the Equal Protection of the Laws Clause

"is often associated in the [Fourteenth] amendment with the due process [of law]
clause and it is customary to consider them together. It may be that they
overlap, that a violation of one may at times involve the violation of the
other.... The due process clause requires that every man shall have ... the
benefit of the general law, ... so that every citizen shall hold his life,
liberty and property and immunities under the protection of the general rules
which govern society. It of course tends to secure equality.... Our whole system
of law is predicated on the general fundamental principle of equality of
application of the law. `All men are equal before the law,' `this is a
government of laws and not of men.' `No man is above the law,' were all maxims
showing the spirit in which legislatures, executives, and courts are expected to
make, execute and apply laws. But the framers and adopters of the [fourteenth]
amendment were not content to depend on a mere minimum secured by the due
process clause, or upon the spirit of equality which might not be insisted on by
local [government]. Therefore they embodied that spirit in a specific guaranty.
The guaranty [of equal protection of the laws] was aimed at undue favor and
individual or class privilege, on the one hand, and at hostile discrimination or
the oppression of inequality on the other. It sought equality of treatment of
all persons ... similarly situated. .... It means that no person or class of
persons shall be denied the same protection of the laws which is enjoyed by
other persons or other classes in the same place and under like circumstances."

Truax v. Corrigan, 257 US 312, 331, 338 (1921).

"It will suffice to quote a paragraph from Louisville Gas & Electric Company v.
Coleman, Auditor, 277 U.S. 32, 37, 38, 48 S.Ct. 423, 425, 72 L.Ed. 770: 'The
equal protection clause, like the due process of law clause, is not susceptible
of exact delimitation. ... Certain general principles, however, have been
established, in the light of which the cases as they arise are to be considered.
In the first place, it may be said generally that the equal protection clause
means that the rights of all persons must rest upon the same rule under similar
circumstances, Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases, 115 U.S. 321, 337, 6 S.Ct. 57, 29
L.Ed. 414; Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank, 170 U.S. 283, 293, 18 S.Ct.
594, 42 L.Ed. 1037, and that it applies to the exercise of all the powers of the
state which can affect the individual or his property ..."

HARTFORD STEAM BOILER INSPECTION & INS. CO. v. HARRISON, 301 U.S. 459 (1937)
https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/301/301.US.459.355.html

The Supreme Court and other Judges no longer say such things. And, Federal
Judges will never quote such statements. And sadly, "Constitutional Law"
Professors never quote or teach such statements to their students.

Most Attorneys refuse to even acknowledge that the Doctrine of Unauthorized
Deprivation is WRONG, refuse to type even a single sentence questioning the
Doctrine of Unauthorized Deprivation or the ugly consequences of its various
applications. Very few attorneys have written anything amounting to a Challenge
to the Doctrine. See e.g., Rosalie Berger Levinson "Time to Bury the Shocks-
the-Conscience Test" http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1551391
(citing at footnote #175 one of my early section 1983 case attempting to have
the Federal Courts condemn lawless seizure/trespass/theft of real property by
Town officials: "Ferran v. Nassau, 471 F.3d 363, 369–70 (2d Cir. 2006)(holding
that although town‘s use of a landowner‘s parcel as a turnaround for its snow
plows and its paving of a road that encroached on the property was -incorrect
and ill-advised, it was not the type of conscience-shocking, outrageous behavior
that implicates substantive due process)."

See also Ferran v. Town of Poestenkill:

"The Federal District Court decided:

"As far as Plaintiff Nadia Ferran's second parcel of land at issue, the Cropsey
Road property, it is apparent that during the summer of 1990 a culvert running
underneath the public highway adjacent to plaintiff's land was in fact
constructed ... which ... resulted in damage to a section of the stone fence
located on one side of the Cropsey Road Property. In addition, Plaintiffs have
further produced evidence that a three foot wide, approximately three feet deep,
and thirtyseven feet long channel or trench was constructed through Plaintiff
Nadia Ferran's land from the end of the culvert at issue to the beginning of
another stone fence on Plaintiff's land. At the location where the channel or
trench ends, a ten feet by four feet section of a second stone fence has been
displayed and damaged. Defendants deny responsibility for the Cropsey Road
property culvert, channel or trench, and damage to both stone fences. ... This
Court finds that Defendants were in fact responsible ...."

"The Town defendants made no attempt to prove that they had obtained lawful
authority by complying with the conditions and regulations prescribed by Highway
Law sections 147 and 148 before entering and destroying and depriving her of her
property. Instead they acted stealthily, and unlawfully, like common thieves.
Therefore, these government agents clearly deviated from or acted outside of Due
Process of Law because they failed or refused to "keep within the authority
conferred, and observe every regulation which the act makes for the protection
or in the interest of the property owner." Chicago, Burlington &c. R'd v.
Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 241 (1896). These defendants certainly did not keep
within any "process due according to the law of the land."

"The District Court concluded:

"Let this Court be clear. There is merit to Plaintiff's claim that Henderson Way
is their private property and that the Town constructed the Cropsey Road culvert
and accompanying trench at issue. Because, however, Plaintiffs have not availed
themselves of State procedures to obtain Just Compensation for the Town's
actions involving both the Henderson Way property and Cropsey Road property,
their TAKINGS claims must fail.. . because their takings claims are premature
and must ... be dismissed."

Federal District Court, Ferran v. Town of Poestenkill, (NDNY, No. 91-CV-1090,
March 14, 1999).

"Despite the clear facts and the Court's incontrovertible findings that these
defendants had deprived us of our property outside of any process of Law, and
even though the District Court had determined that the Town's entries,
appropriations, and claims to our private property were unlawful and outside of
and beyond any law purporting to legalize deprivations, the District Court
failed and refused to vindicate and enforce our Constitutional Right to enjoy
and possess our property without unlawful and unauthorized governmental
interference. After the District Court determined that the defendants had
deprived us of our property outside of any process of law, the Court absurdly
purported to "dismiss" our case on the grossly erroneous grounds that our
constitutional rights were not violated. The Trial Court's decision strangely
failed to cite or take notice of the controlling precedent in Ferran v. Town of
Nassau, 11 F.3d 21 (2d Cir. 1993). Instead, the District Court cites an
unpublished opinion of the other local District Judge,Scullin, whose persistent
confusion of the rights of "Due Process" with "Just Compensation" was condemned
and repudiated by the Federal Court of Appeals in Ferran v. Town of Nassau, 11
F.3d 21 (2d Cir 1993)

"Before deciding to sue these officials, my mother [Nadia Ferran] complained of
this obvious illegality to the Town Supervisor, and asked him to make the Town
leave her property alone. She said to him: "You are not supposed to take my
property without due process of law." His response to her objection is typical
of the mentality of virtually every government official in the County of
Rensselaer, NY, and other places. He replied:

"YOU AND YOUR DUE PROCESS OF LAW!"

Town Supervisor, Richard Amadon, Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County, New
York, United States. 1988.
http://www.givemeliberty.org/spotlights/archive/march1999/markferran.htm

Some Judges still pretend that New York has a "rules-based court system" Born to
Build LLC v. Saleh, 36 Misc 3d 590 (Sup.Ct. Nassau Co. 2012)(DeStefano, J.)
(allowing defendant to Lie (make two contradictory affidavits "would gravely
prejudice New York’s rules-based court system)

But many Attorneys are aware that this alleged "system" and its "rules" is/are
suspended when the party benefiting from deviation from the "rules" is the
judge-favored party (such as when the judge-favored party is a member of the
same Democrat Machine that puts Judges into office, and/or when the case
threatens the operation of the Democrat Machine). E.g., "Extremely-troubling-
allegations-of-lying-by-judges-in-NY.pdf"
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Extremely-troubling-allegations-of-lying-by-judges-in-NY.pdf

The Liberty Teeth of the People have decayed from disuse, and from political
correctness. The Liberty Teeth of the people need to be repaired and sharpened.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio,the nation’s high court concluded that the constitutional
guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or
proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such
advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is
likely to incite or produce such action.

----- Original Message -----
From: Mark R Ferran
To: GLORIA Jean SYKES ; William Scott
Cc: Douglas Kinan ; richardfine@campaignforjudicialintegrity.org ;
dr.richard.cordero.esq@gmail.com ; donald watson ; Anthony Zampino ; Tim Lahrman
NASGA ; Glenda Martinez ; Dr. Karin Huffer ; David Starkey ; Dan Stuart ;
J.Geiger ; Bob Barnet ; Robert Barnet ; HRS ; gary yannalfo ; Major General Paul
E. Vallely US Army ; Charles Jones III ; Michael Cutler ; William Green
President of ; Political Candidate Bill Scheidler ; Journalist Janet Phelan ;
Janet Phelan ; Michael Krichevsky ; Clive Boustred ; Judicial Reform Activist ;
Documentarist Lon Gibby ; Talkshow Host Alfred Lambremont Webre Esq ; Jon Roland
; amendmentone@comcast.net ; Diane R. Gochin ; Jane Bansal ; Yania Gonzalez ; HR
Candidate ; Journalist Editor James Hill ; Judge Mary Elizabeth Bullock ; Mark
Adams ; michelle@suskauerlaw.com ; hmc@bedellfirm.com ; lokeefe@gbblaw.com ;
lcalvert@flabar.org ; asankel@flabar.org ; richardfine@richardfinelaw.com
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 12:48 AM
Subject: Re: Scott Practice of Law and Status

In my observation of classmates in Law School, and of Attorneys-at-Law
practicing, the answer to your question is simply... There is MONEY to be MADE
by obtaining and keeping a Law License, and the "corruptness" of the
Court/System is immaterial. There are many people who cease to practice law
after obtaining a law degree and/or a law license when they discover that "LAW"
has little or nothing to do with the outcomes of cases. I am in that fraction,
and I had full-tuition sholarships to study Engineering and Law School. But,
some people simply have no choice to practice law as attorneys after they incur
tens- and hundreds- of thousands of dollars of student loan debt. (For many,
only-after they graduate and become attorneys do they learn the truth about the
Court/System/LawBusiness)

[Oftentimes, women will go to cokkege and then Law School to get her MRS degree,
and instead of getting a ring and pregnant, she gets stuck with only a JD
degree. Then, she finds out that most men find female attorneys
unattractive.... I think that a high proportion of them wind up not married and
no childlren... (consistent with the findings of the last Census).]

Besides being an Attorney-at-Law for Profit, there are all sorts of paying jobs
that are unpleasant, gross, vile, disgusting, such as people who clean public
toilets, people who clean septic tanks, sewers, who bag long-dead bodies, crack-
whore prostitution, murder-for-hire, mercenary soldier, pirate. It is just a
fact of human nature that some People will do anything for money, if the money
is there. The news exposure of Judge Gerald Garson convicted for
bribery/corruption for throwing cases on behalf of favored Divorce Attorneys
ignores the fact that the Appellate Courts either AFFIRMED his corrupt
determinations, or never heard them (because the victim-client could not afford
an Appeal). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Garson The most-disgusting
part of the JOB of the attorneys of the victims was to persuade their victimized
clients that Justice was impartially admninistered by the Judges according to
rules/law (e.g., so that the clients would not kill the Judge(s), so the clients
would be able to WORK and PAY for their lawyer's services). If Attorneys-at-
law were REQUIRED to point out where Judges have LIED (see e.g., See, e.g.,
their title "Extremely-troubling-allegations-of-lying-by-judges-in-NY.pdf"
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Extremely-troubling-allegations-of-lying-by-judges-in-NY.pdf),
violated the Laws, violated Due Process, or committed other misconduct, most
Judges would be DEAD, and there would be little work for Lawyers to Do to pay
off their debts. So, basically, the job and economy of an Attorney in a
"corrupt" Court/System is to help maintain "the appearance of propriety" even
when there is no actual propriety. Only by maintaining the facade or illusion
that there still are effective Laws and Courts of Law can the Attorneys find
work to pay-off their student loans, or for their expensive suits, cars,
houses....

There were Lawyers and Judges in Germany before and after the NAZIs came to
power. Maybe some quit when the NAZIs came to power, but many did not. Post-war
Germany is one of the few places where Judges have been put on trial for their
decrees. But, such trials have historically occurred.

In Hamurrabi's code, it was prescribed Judges were to be punished for
disregarding the Law, by a fine equal to 12 times the amount in controvery
before them.

I found it very intersesting that the hanging of Judges (who violated the rights
of people) actually occurred in England.

According to "The Tyrannicide Brief".

"How to try a ruler supposedly above the law, in whose name it is administered?
Only one lawyer in all England had the combination of courage and guile to find
a successful formula: John Cooke. ... The son of a poor Leicestershire
farmer, John Cooke won his way to Oxford and the Inns of Court, where he made a
reputation as a trailblazing liberal lawyer with a passionately puritan
conscience. ... As other lawyers ran for cover, Cooke used the 'cab-rank rule'
still in practice today to justify his acceptance of a brief requiring as much
courage as craft. Made solicitor-general for the Commonwealth, he was charged by
parliament with devising a means by which neither divine right nor sovereign
immunity could afford Charles impunity for oppressing his people. Cooke came up
with a charge of high treason based on the King's 'tyranny': depriving his
subjects of their civil rights and mass murder on a scale that would now be
called ethnic cleansing.
"Cooke's landmark prosecution led to more than the execution of a monarch with
supposedly divine protection; it secured parliamentary supremacy and upheld the
rule of law, affirming the independence of judges and opening the brief
republican era in which were forged many of the democratic ideals still
cherished by most of the modern world.
"Cooke's prosecution of the King set the precedent for trials of such recent
heads of state as Pinochet and Milosevic, 'who attempt [just like Charles I] to
plead sovereign immunity when arraigned for killing their own people'. Bush and
Blair, as he suggests, might 'more credibly' have based their case against
Saddam on 'the right to punish a tyrant who denies democracy and civil and
religious liberty to his people'.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2005/oct/16/historybooks.features1

----- Original Message -----
From: GLORIA Jean SYKES
To: William Scott
Cc: Douglas Kinan ; richardfine@campaignforjudicialintegrity.org ;
dr.richard.cordero.esq@gmail.com ; donald watson ; Anthony Zampino ; Tim Lahrman
NASGA ; Glenda Martinez ; Dr. Karin Huffer ; David Starkey ; Dan Stuart ;
J.Geiger ; Bob Barnet ; Robert Barnet ; HRS ; gary yannalfo ; Major General Paul
E. Vallely US Army ; Charles Jones III ; Michael Cutler ; William Green
President of ; Political Candidate Bill Scheidler ; Journalist Janet Phelan ;
Janet Phelan ; Michael Krichevsky ; Clive Boustred ; Judicial Reform Activist ;
Documentarist Lon Gibby ; Talkshow Host Alfred Lambremont Webre Esq ; Jon Roland
; amendmentone@comcast.net ; Diane R. Gochin ; Jane Bansal ; Yania Gonzalez ; HR
Candidate ; Journalist Editor James Hill ; Judge Mary Elizabeth Bullock ; Mark R
Ferran ; Mark Adams ; michelle@suskauerlaw.com ; hmc@bedellfirm.com ;
lokeefe@gbblaw.com ; lcalvert@flabar.org ; asankel@flabar.org ;
richardfine@richardfinelaw.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 10:37 PM
Subject: Re: Scott Practice of Law and Status

Why would you want to practice (law) in a system you feel so 'corrupt'? Retire /
quit whatever and use your skills to help innocents who cannot successfully
represent themselves. If you quit or retire before you're disbarred you have
leverage. It's all about leverage.

Gloria Jean Sykes
BELIEVE (Be-Live) LLC
(773) 920-3310
Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 1, 2014, at 9:26 PM, "William Scott" <04wmscott@comcast.net> wrote:

> Doug,
>
> My plan is to keep the list posted – please stay on the list.
>
> I practiced law for over 40 years – admitted to practice in many courts.
>
> The system is in the progress of taking my right to practice law away one
> jurisdiction at a time.
>
> The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in currently in progress.
>
> Bill
>
> From: Douglas Kinan [mailto:dougkinan@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 9:49 PM
> To: William Scott; richardfine@campaignforjudicialintegrity.org;
> dr.richard.cordero.esq@gmail.com; 'donald watson'; 'Anthony Zampino'; 'GLORIA
> Jean SYKES'; 'Tim Lahrman NASGA'; 'Glenda Martinez'; 'Dr. Karin Huffer'; 'David
> Starkey'; 'Dan Stuart'; 'J.Geiger'; 'Bob Barnet'; 'Robert Barnet'; 'HRS '';
> 'gary yannalfo'; 'Major General Paul E. Vallely US Army'; 'Charles Jones III';
> 'Michael Cutler'; 'William Green President of'; 'Political Candidate Bill
> Scheidler'; 'Journalist Janet Phelan'; 'Janet Phelan'; 'Michael Krichevsky';
> 'Clive Boustred'; 'Judicial Reform Activist'; 'Documentarist Lon Gibby';
> 'Talkshow Host Alfred Lambremont Webre Esq'; 'Jon Roland';
> amendmentone@comcast.net; 'Diane R. Gochin'; 'Jane Bansal'; 'Yania Gonzalez';
> 'HR Candidate'; 'Journalist Editor James Hill'; 'Judge Mary Elizabeth Bullock';
> 'Mark R Ferran'; 'Mark Adams'; michelle@suskauerlaw.com; hmc@bedellfirm.com;
> lokeefe@gbblaw.com; lcalvert@flabar.org; asankel@flabar.org
> Cc: richardfine@richardfinelaw.com
> Subject: Re: The CFTC Motion to Dismiss
>
> William:
>
> Thanks for sharing your pleadings with me.
>
> I am not an attorney and cannot comment on the merits of your case.
>
> However, based on my direct knowledge and experience, I'll share some
> procedural things I learned.
>
> 1. Bevins is dead on arrival.
>
> 2. 18 USC 4 is also dead on arrival.
>
> 3. Pro se's in federal court with the law, facts and evidence on their side
> essentially have no voice against an attorney who can commit felony perjury
> and/or make stuff up without consequences.
>
> 4. The plain language rules are not really the rules. The lawyer/judge
> alliance can interpret the rules any way they want and there is nothing anyone
> can or will do about it. For example, we know since approximately the first
> grade that two plus two equals four. However, if the opposition argues that
> it's "five" and the "prosecuting" judge concurs, it's five. Hence the term
> "practicing attorney."
>
> 5. As a "pro se" your work appears to be exceptional and I can speculate that
> your work exceeds that of at least 95% of all attorneys. Based on my
> experience, your "audacity" is an insult to the federal bench.
>
> 6. I would guess that the Florida court and most other courts are no place
> for truth telling.
>
> 7. The Florida Board of Bar Overseers is a total sham process, as are most
> Boards and Ethics Commissions across the country.
>
> 8. The alleged "rule of law" has been replaced by the real "rule of like."
> If the judge doesn't like you, you're out. Is there a reason for the judge to
> like a pro se over an attorney who is part of the "fraternity?" I don't think
> so.
>
> 9. No money, no status and no connections in America = no justice.
>
> 10. Public corruption is the single biggest disaster in America and "greed
> medicine" that oils all that is wrong in our "just" society and it only gets
> worse.
>
> None of the above are based on speculation or hearsay. The details of my
> court experience couldn't be scripted by the 20 most talented script writers in
> Hollywood.
>
> I hope you win your case.
>
> Please keep me posted.
>
> From: William Scott <04wmscott@comcast.net>
> To: 'Douglas Kinan' <dougkinan@yahoo.com>;
> richardfine@campaignforjudicialintegrity.org; dr.richard.cordero.esq@gmail.com;
> 'donald watson' <watson.9to5job@gmail.com>; 'Anthony Zampino' <anzam@me.com>;
> 'GLORIA Jean SYKES' <gloami@msn.com>; 'Tim Lahrman NASGA' <timlahrman@aol.com>;
> 'Glenda Martinez' <glenest03@yahoo.com>; 'Dr. Karin Huffer'
> <legalabuse@gmail.com>; 'David Starkey' <dwstarkey@aol.com>; 'Dan Stuart'
> <dstu@aol.com>; 'J.Geiger' <j.geiger@republicoftheunitedstates.org>; 'Bob
> Barnet' <rtbarnet@q.com>; 'Robert Barnet' <abn64@hotmail.com>; 'HRS ''
> <sirraha@hotmail.com>; 'gary yannalfo' <relood@yahoo.com>; 'Major General Paul
> E. Vallely US Army' <standupamericausa1@gmail.com>; 'Charles Jones III'
> <cejb66@yahoo.com>; 'Michael Cutler' <mcutler007@aol.com>; 'William Green
> President of' <americarebirthtour@gmail.com>; 'Political Candidate Bill
> Scheidler' <billscheidler@outlook.com>; 'Journalist Janet Phelan'
> <janetclairephelan@yahoo.com>; 'Janet Phelan' <writejanet@live.com>; 'Michael
> Krichevsky' <tokrichevsky1@yahoo.com>; 'Clive Boustred' <clive@getited.com>;
> 'Judicial Reform Activist' <gdhicks@shaw.ca>; 'Documentarist Lon Gibby'
> <lon@gibbymedia.com>; 'Talkshow Host Alfred Lambremont Webre Esq'
> <exopolitics@exopolitics.com>; 'Jon Roland' <jon.roland@constitution.org>;
> amendmentone@comcast.net; 'Diane R. Gochin' <diane1120@comcast.net>; 'Jane
> Bansal' <jaibelle_58@yahoo.com>; 'Yania Gonzalez' <yania@horizonmgmtroc.com>;
> 'HR Candidate' <andy@andyostrowski.com>; 'Journalist Editor James Hill'
> <hilljs@washpost.com>; 'Judge Mary Elizabeth Bullock'
> <honorablejudgebullock@gmail.com>; 'Mark R Ferran' <mrferran@nycap.rr.com>;
> 'Mark Adams' <markadamsjdmba@hotmail.com>; michelle@suskauerlaw.com;
> hmc@bedellfirm.com; lokeefe@gbblaw.com; lcalvert@flabar.org; asankel@flabar.org
> Cc: richardfine@richardfinelaw.com
> Sent: Wednesday, October 1, 2014 9:09 PM
> Subject: The CFTC Motion to Dismiss
>
> Among the attempts to bring the frauds against the public and me is my suit
> against the CFTC and Steven A. Frankel, Esquire of the Florida Bar in the DC
> District Court.
>
> The CFTC filed a Motion to Dismiss based upon the usual immunity, laches, and
> statute of limitations defenses.
>
> My response is attached.
>
> Let me know if you wish copies of any pleadings or exhibits.
>
> Justice is often obtained on the backs of those who have failed before us.
>
> Bill
>
> From: Douglas Kinan [mailto:dougkinan@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 8:43 PM
> To: richardfine@campaignforjudicialintegrity.org;
> dr.richard.cordero.esq@gmail.com;donald watson; Anthony Zampino; GLORIA Jean
> SYKES; Tim Lahrman NASGA; Glenda Martinez; Dr. Karin Huffer; David Starkey; Dan
> Stuart; William Scott; J.Geiger; Bob Barnet; Robert Barnet; HRS '; gary
> yannalfo; Major General Paul E. Vallely US Army; Charles Jones III; Michael
> Cutler; William Green President of; Political Candidate Bill Scheidler;
> Journalist Janet Phelan; Janet Phelan; Michael Krichevsky; Clive Boustred;
> Judicial Reform Activist; Documentarist Lon Gibby; Talkshow Host Alfred
> Lambremont Webre Esq; Jon Roland; Diane R. Gochin; Jane Bansal; Yania Gonzalez;
> HR Candidate; Journalist Editor James Hill; Judge Mary Elizabeth Bullock
> Cc: richardfine@richardfinelaw.com
> Subject: Re: We Can End Judicial Corruption on the November 4, Election:
> Here's How!
>
> All:
>
> Let's hope the replacements, if any, will not have the same "judicial"
> attitude of indifference as the ones voted out.
>
> The lawyer/judge alliance coupled with the "revolving door" of deferred quid
> pro quo rewards are unbeatable in any court, anywhere is these United States of
> America, where "equal justice under the law" is an empty promise.
>
> Let's all remember, the two largest legalized cash cow "stealing grounds" in
> America are the probate and bankruptcy courts because they are totally
> controlled by the attorney/judge alliance. So, when the presiding judge
> appoints the Trustee to "handle" the case, anything goes, depending on how much
> money is in the ward's estate or how much is fraudulently concealed in the
> bankruptcy pleadings.
>
> I have witnessed (and opposed) "misappropriation" of funds in the millions,
> with either minimal or no consequences. For those of you who are not aware,
> "misappropriation" is the court euphemism for stealing.
>
> Best of luck on November 4 and thereafter.
>
> From: "richardfine@campaignforjudicialintegrity.org"
> <richardfine@campaignforjudicialintegrity.org>
> To: dr.richard.cordero.esq@gmail.com; Douglas Kinan <dougkinan@yahoo.com>;
> donald watson <watson.9to5job@gmail.com>; Anthony Zampino <anzam@me.com>; GLORIA
> Jean SYKES <gloami@msn.com>; Tim Lahrman NASGA <timlahrman@aol.com>; Glenda
> Martinez <glenest03@yahoo.com>; Dr. Karin Huffer <legalabuse@gmail.com>; David
> Starkey <dwstarkey@aol.com>; Dan Stuart <dstu@aol.com>; William Scott
> <04wmscott@comcast.net>; J.Geiger <j.geiger@republicoftheunitedstates.org>; Bob
> Barnet <rtbarnet@q.com>; Robert Barnet <abn64@hotmail.com>; HRS '
> <sirraha@hotmail.com>; gary yannalfo <relood@yahoo.com>; Major General Paul E.
> Vallely US Army <standupamericausa1@gmail.com>; Charles Jones III
> <cejb66@yahoo.com>; Michael Cutler <mcutler007@aol.com>; William Green President
> of <americarebirthtour@gmail.com>; Political Candidate Bill Scheidler
> <billscheidler@outlook.com>; Journalist Janet Phelan
> <janetclairephelan@yahoo.com>; Janet Phelan <writejanet@live.com>; Michael
> Krichevsky <tokrichevsky1@yahoo.com>; Clive Boustred <clive@getited.com>;
> Judicial Reform Activist <gdhicks@shaw.ca>; Documentarist Lon Gibby
> <lon@gibbymedia.com>; Talkshow Host Alfred Lambremont Webre Esq
> <exopolitics@exopolitics.com>; Jon Roland <jon.roland@constitution.org>; Diane
> R. Gochin <diane1120@comcast.net>; Jane Bansal <jaibelle_58@yahoo.com>; Yania
> Gonzalez <yania@horizonmgmtroc.com>; HR Candidate <andy@andyostrowski.com>;
> Journalist Editor James Hill <hilljs@washpost.com>; Judge Mary Elizabeth Bullock
> <honorablejudgebullock@gmail.com>
> Cc: richardfine@richardfinelaw.com
> Sent: Wednesday, October 1, 2014 4:06 PM
> Subject: We Can End Judicial Corruption on the November 4, Election: Here's
>How!
>
>
> The November 4, election is upon us. The time has come to "Take Action Now!"
>
> California has a crisis of judicial corruption which only we voters can end.
>
> November 4, is our only opportunity to end California's judicial corruption.
> We end judicial corruption by voting out the current justices seeking retention.
> On November 4, we vote "No" on the 3 California Supreme Court justices and 42
> California Court of Appeal justices seeking retention. Any person who does not
> vote, or does not vote "no" is in fact supporting California's judicial
> corruption.
>
> Please circulate this e mail and ask everyone to spread the word. 3.5 million
> votes will win!
>
>
> Regards,
> Richard I. Fine, Ph.D.
> Chairman and Founder, Campaign for Judicial Integrity
>
> On November 4, We Can End California's Judicial Corruption, Reform the
> Judicial System and Restore Our Rights to Due Process and a Fair Trial
>
> Exercising Our Right to Vote Is Our only Weapon to End California’s Judicial
> Corruption We Vote “No” on the 3 California Supreme Court Justices and the 42
> Court of Appeal Justices Seeking Retention!
>
> Eradicating Judicial Corruption Is the Highest Priority in the November 4
> Election
>
> Since the mid 1980’s, over 90% of California’s state elected judges received
> illegal payments of approximately $400 million in addition to their state
> compensation from counties. These payments were called “local judicial
> benefits”, but were actually “bribes” because the county making the payment was
> a party appearing in a case or cases before the judges. Today, these illegal
> county payments to the judges are approximately $30 million per year.
>
> No judge disqualified himself, even though the law required disqualification.
> No lawyer sought to disqualify the judges from cases because of the payments,
> except Richard I. Fine.
>
>
> See its effect on you. http://www.campaignforjudicialintegrity.org/#%21vote-
> for-justice-videos/c6yn
>
> We Must Act as Officials Abdicated their Duty to End California’s Judicial
> Corruption
>
> No California Supreme Court or Court of Appeal justice: (1) ended the
> corruption; (2) ordered the illegal county payments stopped; or (3) required the
> DAs to prosecute the California's judges and recover the illegal payments plus a
> 20% penalty as required under law.
>
> No government official or legislator took any action to end California’s
> judicial corruption.
>
> Even worse, in 2009, Senate Bill SBX 2 11 became law. Section 5 of SBX 2 11
> gave retroactive immunity to the 90% of California's judges taking the illegal
> payments from counties from California criminal prosecution, civil liability and
> disciplinary action.
>
> No California state legislator or executive introduced the CFJI legislation
> ["Fine Amendment to SBX 2 11"] presented to them to end California’s judicial
> corruption
>
> We Must Act as No California Candidate Pledged to End California’s Judicial
> Corruption
>
> No California candidate for any office in the November 4, election signed the
> CFJI Pledge to Eradicate Judicial Corruption, other than Mark Reed in the 30th
> Cong. Dist.
>
> On November 4, Vote "No"! Vote Out the 3 California Supreme Court Justices and
> 42 Court of Appeal Justices Seeking Retention! Not Voting Keeps the Corruption!
>
> Richard I. Fine, Ph.D., Chairman, Campaign for Judicial Integrity. For further
> information visit http://www.campaignforjudicialintegrity.org/ . For interviews,
> appearances and donation information, contact (310) 622-6900, or
> richardfine@campaignforjudicialintegrity.org.

___

Related: 

http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/10/notice-of-default-communication-of-paul-andrew-mitchell-from-91214-at-medical-center-for-federal-pol.html

October 21, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

NOTICE OF DEFAULT - Communication of Paul Andrew Mitchell from 9/12/14 at Medical Center for Federal [Political] Prisoners re: Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF Document 226 Filed 10/10/14

Latest update: 10/24/2014:

APPLICATION FOR DISQUALIFICATIONS: 28 USC 144 (containing AFFIDAVIT OF BIAS AND PREJUDICE & DEMAND FOR RECUSAL as well as NOTICE TO COUNSELS: USA v. Hill et al. & NOTICE OF ERRORS re: Harris & Harris, P.C.) - from Paul Andrew Mitchell USMCFP/Springfield
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/10/application-for-disqualifications-28-usc-144-containing-affidavit-of-bias-and-prejudice-demand-for-r.html

___

Note from Teknosis: Private Attorney Generals (PAGs) and other legal beagles need to get on this. We are all being damaged by these RICO crimes. Also, just had a brainstorm as to how we can help Paul. I have this piece of artwork that can generate a lot of funds if done the right way and a portion can be used to help Paul. There are various ideas I have so if anyone, who has large public reach or knows how to get things out there is interested in helping, get in touch with me @ pc9323@gmail.com and I can give the full background on it and can brainstorm as to what I am thinking: http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2013/10/original-historical-artwork-of-artist-p-adolphe-kauffmann-stamped-by-waffen-ss.html

Also it would be nice to receive contact just to let me know that you are reading this as I usually don't receive any response and it makes me wonder if my efforts are for naught, and really makes me feel alone. I rarely get feedback and when I search the entire net I don't see anything new re: Paul as to people sharing any info. It's really disempowering to know that people are sharing the info about what is going on. If I am missing something or not part of the groups who are trying to do something then let me know. It really makes me feel terrible. It can imagine how Paul might feel. I will link back to anyone providing me links to any coverage.

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF   Document 226   Filed 10/10/14   Page 1 of 4

 

NOTICE OF DEFAULT

TO: Mr. Terry J. Harris

        Harris & Harris P.C.

DATE: 9/12/2014

cc: Unit Counselor, USMCFP/Springfield, Missouri

cc: Docket #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2 (USDC/DWY), 14-CR-27-F

Hello Mr. Harris:

     As you already know, or should know by now, soon

after the hearing on 6/3/2014 at USDC/Cheyenne,

I submitted a proper request under the Freedom of

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) to U.S. DOJ’s Office

of Information Policy (“OIP”) in Washington, D.C.,

for the following four (4) mandatory credentials

required of one Nancy Dell Freudenthal before she

could lawfully occupy the office of U.S. District Judge,

TO WIT: (1) SENATE CONFIRMATION (5 U.S.C. 2902 (c));

(2) PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION (5 U.S.C. 2902 (c));

(3) U.S. OPM Standard Form 61 (“SF-61”) APPOINTMENT

AFFIDAVITS (5 U.S.C. 2903, 2906, 3331, 3332, 3333, 5507;

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); and, (4) OATH OF OFFICE (28 U.S.C. 453).

     OIP timely replied to me in writing, while I was

detained at the county jail in Gering, Nebraska.

OIP’s cover letter, on DOJ letterhead, confirmed

that their appointment file did not contain any

SENATE CONFIRMATION for Ms. Freudenthal.

     Moreover, her PRESENDENTIAL COMMISSION was

incomplete, due to known defects in the SF-61

executed by Mr. Eric Holder, Jr. dba U.S. Attorney

General; also, her own SF-61 appeared to be a

 

-1-

 

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF   Document 226   Filed 10/10/14   Page 2 of 4

 

-2-

 

counterfeit form because it lacked a valid

OMB control number at the upper right-hand

corner (cf. “50-R0118”); and, there was no

paragraph citing 5 U.S.C. 2903 (Authority to

administer) on her SF-61. See 44 U.S.C. 3512!

     I then promptly mailed OIP’s cover letter and

responsible documents to the P.O. Box for your law

firm, Harris & Harris, P.C., in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

I also timely mailed a proper FOIA Appeal to OIP,

with directions for OIP to reply to that same P.O. Box.

     After being moved to the Federal Transfer Center

in Oklahoma City, I conducted further research

into the Appointment Clause at Article II, Section 2,

Clause 2, and into the Recess Appointment Clause

at Article II, Section 2, Clause 3, in the U.S. Constitution.

     As a result of that research, I also mailed to the

same P.O. Box at least two (2) recent Circuit Court

decisions on those Clauses e.g. Noel Canning v. NLRB

(D.C. Cir. 2013) and U.S. v. Woodley (9th Cir.) All of the

latter research confirmed the mandatory and

essential  nature of the SENATE CONFIRMATION

requirement. Chiefly, the latter credential must follow

or precede the other 3; and, the absence of a valid

SENATE CONFIRMATION appears to render the other

3 invalid for having been executed without the

U.S. Senate’s advice and consent. 5 U.S.C. 2902 (c).

     In my professional opinion, the holdings in

Canning v. NLRB are correct.

 

-2-

 

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF   Document 226   Filed 10/10/14   Page 3 of 4

 

-3-

 

     Therefore, all of the above call for the

conclusions that all acts of Nancy Dell Freudenthal

in my case to date were null and void ab initio,

including but not limited to the original “arrest

warrant,” all subsequent hearings on which she

attempted to preside, and all subsequent “orders”

and “rulings” signed by her, notably her attempt

to appoint you legally to represent me contrary

to 28 U.S.C. 1654: I have always appeared

“personally” and not “by counsel”. Cf. In Propria Persona.

     Her missing and defective credentials here also

necessarily rendered void her “orders” allegedly

authorizing a second psychological evaluation at

USMCFP/Springfield, Missouri.

     Lastly, I should add that Dr. Cynthia Low,

dba Forensic Psychologist at FDC/SeaTac, has now

failed to answer my FOIA Request for her SF-61

APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS.

     Copies of all the above mentioned FOIA Requests

should also be in the Court’s Docket records supra.

     Thank you for your professional consideration.

Sincerely yours,

Paul Andrew Mitchell (chosen name)

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., “Qui Tam” Relator 4x (31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq.)

BOP Reg. No. # 44202-086

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308)

 

-3-

 

[scanned pages and envelope follow – text of Paul’s information as to location,. immediately follow]

 

Modeleski, M. P. (given name)

# 44202-086

Medical Center for Federal Prisoners

Springfield, Missouri 65801-4000

 

Note: Write “Legal Mail” on envelope in any correspondence to him if you want it to be opened in his presence. Otherwise it may never get to him.

 

NOTICE OF DEFAULT - Communication of Paul Andrew Mitchell from 9/12/14 at Medical Center for Federal [Polit...

Related:

Paul Andrew Mitchell has been bundled away by the US Government
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/02/paul-andrew-mitchell-has-been-bundled-away-by-the-us-government.html

October 16, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Gnosis 284 - Tablet of Union

Tablet of union 284_skype_extra_bigger_space

 

October 16, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Milk kefir and suero are simply wonderful and kefir with Beyond Tangy Tangerine Citrus Peach Fusion 2.0 added is even better

Recently while being in Colombia, South America I had the pleasure of being introduced to kefir and suero. Both are great for one’s health and tasty too. I had acquired Tibetan kefir grains and now have been making my own. Anybody need some kefir grains? It is so fun to make your own kefir and suero!

In any event for the healthy boost of my day I now make a novel and healthy drink with my morning kefir drink. I mix in Beyond Tangy Tangerine Citrus Peach Fusion 2.0 (BTT 2.0) which is also 100% Organic, GMO, shellfish and allergen free, has over 90 vitamins, minerals and amino acids as well as pre- and probiotics, plus more). I also mix in some chocolate protein powder on occasion and a little bit of acai juice.

BTW. You can also make other drinks with the kefir grains besides milk kefir. It's a fun subject to research on the internet.

In that I am an Executive Marketing Director with Youngevity and get 3 canisters of BTT 2.0 a month, I like to vary up the drinks I make with it. Adding it with the kefir has really been producing phenomenal health results. Order herehttps://vitafit.buyygy.com/90forlifestore/en/btt-20-citrus-peach-fusion-480-g-canister?c=US

See the Dead Doctor’s Don’t Lie banner on the upper left for a wonderful and healthy way of supplementing and helping others as well or just click herehttp://beyondtangytangerine2dot0.wordpress.com/2014/06/22/dead-doctors-dont-lie-daily-radio-podcast-store

October 14, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Waffen SS Stamped Artwork from World War 2

Waffen SS Stamped Artwork from WW2 http://t.co/K7jainOLOT via @gofundme

October 12, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink