« Hidden Government Group Linking JFK Assassination, Watergate, Iran-Contra And 9/11 | Main | 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 »

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

Please 'Like' this page I created on FB https://www.facebook.com/pages/International-Covenant-on-Civil-and-Political-Rights/308087676064004

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

 

___

 

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