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

« “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 | Main | Does CT CORP SYSTEM own the courts? »

NOTICE OF RESCISSION, BY AFFIDAVIT / 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: NOTICE OF RESCISSION, BY AFFIDAVIT

DATE: 04/28/2014 06:00:48 PM

 

NOTICE OF RESCISSION, BY AFFIDAVIT

 

TO:

Presiding Judge (duly credentialed)

District Court of the United States (“DCUS”)

2120 Capitol Avenue

Cheyenne 82001

Wyoming, USA

 

DATE: April 28, 2014 A.D.

 

RE: #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2

 

Greetings Your Honor:

 

Further legal research into the duties, responsibilities and authorities

of Federal Clerks of Court and Deputy Clerks of Court now justifies,

and necessitates, this timely NOTICE OF RESCISSION, for reasons

including but not limited to the following:

 

(1) The record in the instant cases to date proves that Clerks and

Deputy Clerks are both “officers of the court”. A relevant decision

in this context is U.S. v. Bertrand, 596 F.2d 150 (6th Cir. 1979),

which clearly held as follows:

 

     Testimony by Clerk of Court identifying himself as Deputy Clerk

     is sufficient proof that Clerk and Deputy Clerk are “officers of the court”

     pursuant to 28 USCS 751, 951, so as to support conviction for forging

     or counterfeiting signatures of officers of court under 18 USCS 505.

 

(2) Similarly, another relevant decision in this same context is

Ex parte Burdell, 32 F. 681 (DCUS/DSC 1887), which also clearly held

that a Deputy Clerk is an officer of the court. The Burdell decision

has already been cited in the prior record of the instant cases.

 

(3) The laws identifying Clerks and Deputy Clerks as Court “officers”

also implicate specific authorities conferred by 28 U.S.C. 953

(Administration of oaths and acknowledgments), to wit:

 

     Each clerk of court and his deputies may administer oaths

     and affirmations and take acknowledgments.

 

Thus, the Second Circuit has held that a proper oath administered

pursuant to Section 953 is subject to the prohibition against perjury

in 18 U.S.C. 1621. See U.S. v. Lester, 248 F.2d 329 (2nd Cir. 1957).

 

(4) Furthermore, the record in the instant cases has already established that

all Clerks and Deputy Clerks must have timely executed two (2) credentials:

(a) the three (3) affidavits required by 5 U.S.C. 3331, 3332, 3333 respectively, and

(b) the second oath of office of clerks and deputies required by 28 U.S.C. 951.

 

1

 

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

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

(5) It necessarily follows, therefore, that all oaths and affirmations allegedly

administered to the Undersigned, by any Clerk’s Office personnel at all hearings

held to date at the USDC/Seattle and at the USDC/Cheyenne, were null and void

ab initio. All such personnel have failed to produce any evidence of either credential

i.e. OPM STANDARD FORM 61 (“SF-61”) APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS and OATH OF OFFICE.

 

As such, those two (2) credentials now assume facts not in evidence.

 

                                     FORMAL RESCISSION

 

The Undersigned hereby rescinds all such oaths and affirmations nunc pro tunc

and ab initio, for good causes itemized above.

 

                                            VERIFICATION

 

I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Citizen of Washington State, qualified Federal Witness,

and Private Attorney General, hereby verify under penalty of perjury,

under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States”

(federal government), that 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 U.S.C. 1746(1). See the Supremacy Clause

(Constitution, Laws and Treaties of the United States are all the supreme Law

of the Land).

 

Dated: April 28, 2014 A.D.

 

Signed: [Paul Mitchell (chosen name)]

 

Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Relator In Propria Persona (NOT “Pro Se”)

(expressly NOT a “citizen of the United States” aka federal citizen: Pannill v. Roanoke), and

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964, Rotella v. Wood (objectives of Civil RICO)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice (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 .. directly connected to IRS politically motivated attacks

May 9, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink