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 ++++++++++++++++++

« Paul Andrew Mitchell’s Moves Since 1/28/2014, by AFFIDAVIT / Case No. #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2, USDC/DWY, Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA | Main | NOTICE OF RESCISSION, BY AFFIDAVIT / Case No. #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2, USDC/DWY, Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA »

“Clerks or Jerks? The Pivotal Duties of Federal Court Clerks” by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964, Rotella v. Wood / Case No. #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2, USDC/DWY, Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA

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

                                                                                    (also a “nom de guerre”)

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

FROM: 44202086

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

SUBJECT: new essay: “Clerks or Jerks? ….”

DATE: 04/25/2014 11:33:01 AM

 

“Clerks or Jerks? The Pivotal Duties of Federal Court Clerks”

 

                                      by

 

                    Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964, Rotella v. Wood

 

            All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308)

                      April 24, 2014 A.D. 

The credential investigation, as we call it, became an ongoing effort

in late August 2001. At that time, this writer filed a complex copyright

lawsuit in Sacramento, California, USA. Although Clerk’s Office personnel

were definitely on our radar, we did not take that opportunity to delve

too deeply into the various legal duties that are imposed by law upon

Clerks and Deputy Clerks of Federal Courts. Our plates were quite full

with subpoenas to defense attorneys for their (missing) licenses, and

FOIA requests for the credentials required of Federal Judges and Magistrates.

 

As the credential investigation expanded and matured during a period

spanning more than a decade after 2001, our focus slowly but surely

shifted to the pivotal role of Federal Court Clerks in almost every activity

and function performed by those Courts. This shift was driven chiefly

by the Federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 1691, which requires a Clerk’s

authorized signature -and- the Court’s official seal on ALL “process”

issued by the Court.

 

That term -- “process” -- covers just about anything and everything

a Federal Court might contemplate doing, such as subpoenas, orders,

writs, warrants, summonses, judgments, injunctions, and so on.

Section 1691 was first enacted on June 25, 1948, and it has never been

amended, to this day.

 

On closer examination of relevant case law which has accumulated

under Section 1691 during the 65 years it has been law, we were

encouraged to find standing decisions which held that its 2 simple

requirements are also jurisdictional in nature: a Federal Court

is deprived of jurisdiction in personam if it attempts to issue

any summons, subpoena, writ or warrant that does not clearly

satisfy those 2 requirements.

 

It was not too long before we were compelled to consider the

legal implications that arise whenever Clerk’s Office personnel

neglect or refuse to produce evidence of their own credentials.

For Clerks and Deputy Clerks of Court, those credentials include

the U.S. Office of Personnel Management Standard Form 61

(“SF-61”), and the second OATH required of all Clerks and

Deputy Clerks by 28 U.S.C. 951 (duties).

 

The latter term -- “duties” -- was then our immediate motivation

to consider the broader range of tasks which are necessarily tainted,

and thereby rendered void, whenever Clerks and Deputy Clerks of Court

 

1

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

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

fail to maintain legal custody of their own valid SF-61 credentials.

That motivation was boosted by the statute at 5 U.S.C. 2906,

which expressly designates the “court” -- NOT the Administrative Office

of the U.S. Courts in Washington, D.C. -- as the legal custodian of

all SF-61s required of all Court officers, no exceptions.

 

This line of reasoning ended up leading us to two primary and

unavoidable conclusions:

(1) Clerks and Deputy Clerks must have legal custody of their own

SF-61 credentials, because maintaining all such records is one of

their stated duties; and,

(2) a Federal Court is effectively rendered totally impotent,

insofar as there are no personnel in the Clerk’s Office who

are duly authorized to satisfy the 2 clear requirements of

Section 1691.

 

Lacking required credentials that are also maintained in

their legal custody, all of the latter interlopers -- i.e. imposters --

are not only barred from ever handling the Court’s official

embossing seal, and form affixing that official seal to any

Court process whatsoever.

 

Those are not the only duties imposed by law upon Clerks

and Deputy Clerks of Court. A deeper search then revealed a

much larger range of their official duties. For example,

Federal Clerks of Court also:

 

(a) select and summon juries;

(b) maintain custody of all Court records;

(c) execute and preserve their own SF-61 credentials;

(d) execute and preserve the second OATH required by 28 U.S.C. 951;

(e) hire and delegate authority to Deputies;

(f) transmit and archive electronic documents via email and the Internet;

(g) handle all monies deposited with the Court;

(h) supervise all “back office” administrative operations; and so on.

 

If some Deputy Clerks lack valid credentials, it is very likely that

SOME of those duties are being performed without any lawful authority.

In contrast, if the person claiming to be the Clerk of Court lacks valid

credentials, then ALL of those duties are being performed without any

lawful authority.

 

The latter conclusion necessarily follows from the fact that

no superior Clerk authority(s) can be delegated to any subordinate

Deputy Clerk(s), if the person claiming to be the Clerk of Court

also lacks valid credentials: delegation of authority is rendered

legally impossible whenever the latter condition is true.

 

As long as the Office of Clerk of Court is legally vacant,

there is no authority and no responsibility to delegate, period!

 

The absence of valid credentials also implicates the suspects

in acts and omissions that warrant criminal penalties. The most

obvious offences are concealing records in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1519,

and impersonating officers of the United States in violation of

18 U.S.C. 912.

 

Other offenses necessarily follow as direct consequences of

 

2

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

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

impersonation and concealing records. For example, a myriad

of RICO “predicate acts” are also probable, in violation of

18 U.S.C. 1962, as are deprivations of the Oath of Office Clause

In the U.S. Constitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 242 (a misdemeanor),

and conspiracy to do so in violation of 18 U.S.C. 241 (a felony Federal

offense).

 

A simple example will serve to illustrate how quickly the “rap sheet”

expands. A Clerk of Court may announce a job opening by publishing

a portable document on the Internet. That announcement uses

standard letterhead which displays the name and title of the person

claiming to be “Clerk of Court,” but s/he lacks valid credentials

as a matter of fact.

 

Whenever someone views that computer file, its transmission

or “download” via the Internet implicates the impostor/clerk in

felony wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343. Transmission

of that document via U.S. Mail also implicates the impostor/clerk

in felony mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341. And so it goes,

further implicating a seemingly endless series of other RICO

predicate acts itemized at 18 U.S.C. 1961 e.g. jury tampering,

obstruction of justice etc.

 

When their negligence to prevent failure to remedy these

crimes also touch other key officers, like Federal Judges and

U.S. Attorneys, it is no exaggeration to allege and report the

existence of an ongoing conspiracy to engage in a pattern of

racketeering activities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d).

Only two (2) RICO predicate acts during any given 10-year period

qualify as a pattern of racketeering activities. See 18 U.S.C 1961(5).

Here, see also 18 U.S.C. 4 (misprision of felony).

 

In plain English, such a Federal courthouse is thus harboring

an organized crime racket that is expressly prohibited by the

Federal RICO laws.

 

In conclusion, the rapid “domino effect” of so many RICO

predicate acts should alarm even casual observers of this

ongoing pattern of racketeering activities. All the more so

are active litigants in great jeopardy of being victimized,

and substantially damaged, by the manifold frauds those

activities cause.

 

One of the most disturbing aspects of this entire crisis

is the widespread failures by licensed defense Counsels

to investigate diligently the pertinent laws and relevant

facts, and to take all steps necessary and appropriate

to protect their legal clients from the obvious actual and

consequential damages.

 

After all, licensed attorneys are also “officers of the Court,”

and they are likewise bound to support and defend the

Oath of Office Clause at Article VI, Clause 3, in the

U.S. Constitution to the same extent as all other Federal

officers and employees. Here see 4 U.S.C. 101 (re:

judicial officers of a State):

 

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved,

there can be no rule making or legislation which would

 

3

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

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

abrogate them.” -- Miranda v. Arizona

 

With all sincerity, we look forward anxiously to the day

when this entire mess is thoroughly addressed and

finally fixed. At a minimum, all confirmed impostors

need to be removed and replaced with personnel who

will honor and obey all laws which specifically apply

to the Offices of Clerk and Deputy Clerk of Court.

 

                                  # # #

 

[Signed Paul Mitchell]

(chosen name)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4

___

Related:

Paul Andrew Mitchell released from federal detention by Hon. Nancy Freudenthal?
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/05/paul-andrew-mitchell-released-from-federal-detention.html

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 .. directly connected to IRS politically motivated attacks

May 9, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink