« New Evidence in JFK Assassination: More Mystery Deaths | Main | case law: Fifth and Sixth Amendments / FROM: 44202086 – MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL* – Unit: SET-D-C * given name (also a “nom de guerre”) »

FORMAL OBJECTIONS TO “PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION” #2 / FROM: 44202086 – MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL* – Unit: SET-D-C * given name (also a “nom de guerre”)

TRULINCS  44202086 – MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL* – Unit: SET-D-C * given name

                                                                                   (also a “nom de guerre”)



FROM: 44202086

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


DATE: 04/19/2014 01:22:11 PM



Dr. C. Low

dba Forensic Psychologist

FDC SeaTac


Dr. Low:


By now you should have received a Courtesy Copy of my

NOTICE OF TERMINATION to attorney Mark Hardee.

I am writing to expand upon the points of fact

itemized in paragraphs numbered (6) thru (9)

in that NOTICE.


The Federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 1691 is obviously

very important in my case: If you have not received it yet,

that law requires the Clerk’s authorized signature -AND-

the Court’s official seal on all Federal Court “process”.


On the Internet, try:



The term “process” embraces everything a Federal Court

issues, such as subpoenas, orders, writs, warrants,

summonses, and so on. Sec. 1691 was enacted on

June 25, 1948 (4 days after I was born), and it has

never been amended by any Act(s) of Congress.


The case law at 28 USCA and 28 USCS 1691

all agree that failing to satisfy its two (2) simple requirements

results in depriving a Federal Court jurisdiction

in personam (over Persons).


I am proceeding In Propria Persona (in my Proper Person).

See also 28 U.S.C. 1654.


USCA = United States Code Annotated

USCS = United States Code Service


As I have already confirmed to you, in your private office

this past week, the so-called “order”, allegedly authorizing

a [second] “psychological evaluation” of me, clearly violated

Sec. 1691 because it was not signed by any Clerk of Court,

and it did not exhibit any official Court seal.


The machine-generated date-and-time stamp is NOT

the official seal of the United States District Court

for the District of Wyoming.


Moreover, as summarized in paragraph (8) of my


cannot legally sign any such “order”, even if he tried,

because he has chosen to conceal the U.S. Office of

Personnel Management Standard Form 61 (“SF-61”)








Article VI, Clause 3 in the U.S. Constitution, and

by the Federal statutes at 5 U.S.C. 2104, 2903, 2906,

3331, 3332, 3333 and 5507.


Because Mr. Harris has failed to produce his own SF-61

for more than six (6) YEARS now, he has been formally

charged with violating 18 U.S.C. 1519 (a FELONY Federal

offense). He is IN DEFAULT and now legally ESTOPPED

by his silence for such a long period of time.


On the Internet, try:



Here, I should emphasize that 5 U.S.C. 2906 expressly

designates the “court” as the legal custodian of the SF-61

required of Mr. Harris and of ALL other Court officers:

that means he must have custody of his own SF-61.

See also 28 U.S.C. 951 (re: duties of Clerks).


Moreover, such a Court “officer” cannot even get paid until

and unless the second AFFIDAVIT required by 5 U.S.C. 3332

is timely executed by each such “officer”. See 5 U.S.C. 5507.


Ms. Nancy D. Freudenthal is also implicated in all the above

violations. She is now personally liable to me chiefly because

the U.S. District Court in Cheyenne, Wyoming, was never

able to prove jurisdiction in personam: it CAN’T, as long as

Clerk’s Office personnel neglect, or refuse, to produce their own



“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved,

there can be no rule making or legislation which would

abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona (re: Miranda warnings).

Article VI, Clause 3, guarantees such a “fundamental” Right!


Moreover, failure to ensure effective assistance of Counsel

has necessarily resulted in OUSTING her Court of jurisdiction.

See Johnson v. Zerbst. As you should already know by now,

Mr. Mark Hardee has totally abandoned me. Of course,

a Federal court cannot be “ousted of jurisdiction”

if it never had jurisdiction in the first place!


Two (2) other Federal Public Defenders were also terminated

in my case, for obvious incompetence and gross negligence.

See the Sixth Amendment here re: assistance of Counsel

(NOT representation by a licensed attorney). The Framers

knew the difference between Counsel and licensed attorney.


Now, I must address the legal risks to which you are being

exposed, insofar as you are, or may be, aiding and abetting

any of the violations mentioned above, or merely being an

accessory after the fact to those same violations. Here,

see 18 U.S.C. 2 and 3, respectively.


Because I have now proven to you that Freudenthal’s “order”

is not valid, I am under no obligations to submit to a second

psychological evaluation allegedly authorized by that invalid “order”.







In conclusion, therefore, I decline to answer any more of your

questions unless I am accompanied by a capable and qualified

stand-by counsel who can provide me with timely, and reliable,

legal advice about possible attempts to induce me to be a witness

against myself, in obvious violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Here, see 18 U.S.C. 241, 242, and 1513 in particular.


Thank you for your professional consideration in this matter.


Sincerely yours,

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

Private Attorney General

See 18 U.S.C. 1964; Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (2000)

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308)


[Signed Paul Mitchell]






































May 27, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink