Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0
HEIGHT=

Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Coffees from Youngevity
HEIGHT=

Coffees from Youngevity

Youngevity Be The Change

Youngevity Healthy Chocolate

GOFoods Youngevity

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.
HEIGHT=

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Ron Paul Forums
HEIGHT=

Ron Paul Forums

APFN Message Board
HEIGHT=

APFN Message Board

Leo Emil Wanta / Wantagate Links

++++++++++++++++++ EBAY ITEMS 4 SALE ++++++++++++++++++

« FORMAL OBJECTIONS TO “PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION” #2 / FROM: 44202086 – MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL* – Unit: SET-D-C * given name (also a “nom de guerre”) | Main | Objections and Possible Settlement(s) / FROM: 44202086 – MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL* – Unit: SET-D-C * given name (also a “nom de guerre”) »

case law: Fifth and Sixth Amendments / 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”)

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

 [Re: #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2]

FROM: 44202086

TO: Brown, Thomas; Saccato, Larry

SUBJECT: case law: Fifth and Sixth Amendments

DATE: 04/26/2014 03:10:35 PM

 

TO:

Dr. C. Low

dba Forensic Psychologist

FDC SeaTac

 

Dr. Low:

 

I have located the following court decisions in order

to demonstrate the sincere good faith of my position

concerning the second “psychological examination”

which you are endeavoring to conduct allegedly

on the basis of an invalid Federal Court “order”:

 

“If defense counsel is not present at [a] psychiatric examination,

defendant should be asked by examiner whether he understands

that counsel is entitled to be present and if he consents to be

examined in absence of counsel; defendant should further be

informed that examination is conducted on behalf of prosecution

and its results will be available for use against defendant

without confidentiality of doctor-patient relationship.”

-- State v. Mains, 295 Or 640, 669 P.2d 1112 (1983)

 

“Statements made during course of [a] court ordered psychiatric

examination are “testimonial” in nature; thus, compelled

utterances during course of examination must be viewed

as implicating [the] privilege against self-incrimination;

statements obtained under compulsion of court ordered

examination are not available to prosecution even for

limited impeachment purposes.”

-- Blaisdell v. Commonwealth, 372 Mass 753, 364 NE.2d 191 (1977)

 

“Protection of defendant’s constitutional privilege against

self-incrimination and right to assistance of counsel

at [a] pre-trial court-ordered psychiatric examination requires

that [a] tape-recording of entire interview be given to his

and government’s lawyer, and [an] in camera suppression hearing

be held to guarantee that court-ordered psychiatrist’s testimony

will not contain any incriminating statements.”

-- State v. Jackson, 171 W VA 329, 298 SE.2d 866 (1982)

 

For the record, you have NOT informed me that

Your “examination” has been and is being conducted

on behalf of the prosecution, and that its results

will be available for use against me without the

confidentiality of a doctor-patient relationship.

 

Your apparent ignorance of the Law in this matter

has also resulted in your having given me what

amounted to “bad legal advice” i.e. you did NOT

at any time ask me if I understood that counsel

is entitled to be present and if I consented to be

examined in the absence of counsel.

 

1

 

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

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

 

On the contrary, I do specifically remember saying to you that

I am being detained here at FDC SeaTac UNDER DURESS

of a fraudulent “search warrant” -and- a fraudulent

“arrest warrant” (chiefly: no compliance with 28 U.S.C. 1691;

missing credentials confirmed for several Clerk’s Office personnel;

COUNTERFEIT OPM Standard Form 61 published at www.opm.gov;

no OPM Application for OMB review and approval of that SF-61).

 

See further elaborations in my NOTICE OF TERMINATION [to Mr. Mark Hardee]

and FORMAL OBJECTIONS TO “PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION” #2,

copies of which I have already transmitted to your attention, and

which are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth fully here.

 

NOTICE OF SPECIFIC RESERVATION

 

I do NOT consent to be examined in the absence

of competent and qualified assistance of Counsel:

see Fifth and Sixth Amendments, U.S. Constitution;

18 U.S.C. 241, 242, 912, 1513, 1519, 1962(d), 1964;

Miranda v. Arizona (re: Rights secured by the Constitution);

44 U.S.C. 3512; 5 CFR 1320.5, and Rotella v. Wood infra

(re: objectives of Civil RICO).

 

Thank you for honoring all of my Fundamental Rights

e.g. Rights secured by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and

Eighth Amendment, for starters.

 

Sincerely yours,

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

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964, Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (2000)

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

___

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

Blowing Whistles At Hurricanes

http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/05/blowing-whistles-at-hurricanes-from-44202086-modeleski-mitchell-paul-unit-set-d-c-given-name-also-a-.html

May 27, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink