Objections and Possible Settlement(s) / 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; Guenette, Edward; Mullen, Jack; Saccato, Larry

SUBJECT: Objections and Possible Settlement(s)

DATE: 05/06/2014 09:21:26 AM

 

TO:

Dr. C. Low

dba Forensic Psychologist

      FDC SeaTac

 

DATE: 5/5/2014 A.D.

 

RE: Objections and Possible Settlement(s)

 

Hello Dr. Low:

 

I hereby acknowledge all your time again this morning.

 

I was pleased we had an opportunity to discuss all the

efforts I have made to pursue graduate work in

computer science at the University of Washington, and

the serious obstacles which were deliberately and repeatedly

placed in my way by several UW faculty and administrators.

 

As far as I know, my utility patent application is still pending

for the very high-speed solid-state data storage device

of which I am the sole inventor. However, since 1/28/2014,

I have been unable to receive, nor respond to, any written

correspondence mailed to me by the U.S. Patent and Trademark

Office in Washington, D.C.

 

I am also writing to make you aware that a box of my court papers

and legal research was recently mailed to me by my legal assistant,

NOT yet been delivered to me, as of today.

 

My assistant addressed it to my chosen name, because that is

how I was registered the last time I was detained at FDC SeaTac.

Concerning the basic common law regarding one’s chosen name,

please see the enclosed “AGO 1985 No. 10,” which quotes the

Washington State Supreme Court as follows:

 

“… a person is free to adopt and use … any name he or she

 sees fit, as long as it is not done for any fraudulent purposes

 and does not infringe upon the rights of others …”

Doe v. Dunning, 87 Wn.2d 50, 549, P.2d 1 (1976)

 

As a Citizen of Washington State, I assert a right to stand upon

that State Supreme Court decision with total impunity.

 

If my incoming U.S. Mail is being, or has been returned to the sender

-- because it was addressed to my chosen name -- and if I am moved

yet again, FDC’s “policy” will require that I surrender all contents

of that mailed box, and witness it being shipped back to the sender

once again, a third time!

 

I should also take this opportunity to point out what I consider to be

a harsh inconsistency and double standard in your statements about

the Speedy Trial guarantee. You argued that the Speedy Trial clock

 

1

 

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

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

 

is tolled during the 30-day period reserved for psychological evaluations.

However, at our prior meeting, I demonstrated to you how and why

Ms. Freudenthal’s “order” violated 28 U.S.C. 1691.

 

At today’s meeting, I emphasized further how:

 

(a) I was never served with any MOTION or any NOTICE of any MOTION

requesting such a Court ORDER;

 

(b) I was never served with any NOTICE of any hearing on any such MOTION;

 

(c) I was never allowed to file any timely opposition to any such MOTION; and,

 

(d) I was never allowed to attend any hearings on any such MOTION.

 

If any DOJ personnel with whom you work do consider such blatant omissions

to qualify in any way as “due process law,” THEY are the ones who need

psychological evaluation, not me! Notice and hearing are the bare minimum

essentials of due process law, as I am quite sure you can confirm for

yourself by reading any published treatises on that Fifth Amendment guarantee.

 

More to the merits, why are you trying to enforce one Speedy Trial exception,

while ignoring all of the other laws that have been violated, and continue to

be violated, in my case? Where I come from, we call that “Cherry Picking”

(read “not good methodology in any field of research”).

 

Another even more blatant due process violation is evident in the fact that

you now possess an updated docket listing, and I do not. And, you seem

to find nothing wrong, and nothing out of place, with such fraudulent

concealment. Allow me to recommend that you telephone Stephan Harris,

Zachary Fisher and Tammy Hilliker at the USDC/Cheyenne, and ask them

yourself to produce evidence of their 2 Oaths of Office. For example,

see 28 U.S.C. 951 (duties).

 

The American Indians have a saying:

 

“Do not criticize a man, until you have walked a mile in his moccasins.”

 

The charges are false, Dr. Low, and you are hereby invited to experience

the proof yourself. Maybe then you will believe me. As of this moment,

I am having great difficulty understanding how you could earn a Ph.D.,

work at DOJ for 17 years, and STILL know so little about due process of law.

This I find shocking, quite shocking, to be perfectly honest with you.

 

I think you will at least understand the prudence of my position, even if

you do not agree with me, whenever I insist upon:

 

(1) effective assistance of competent Counsel during any settlement

negotiations; and,

 

(2) full disclosure of all required credentials of all “attorneys for the

government" who may participate in any such settlement negotiations

and/or sign any related settlement agreements.

 

In this context, please see the applicable definitions of key terms,

as used in Rules 1, 6 and 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; and,

the published decision in U.S. v. Pignatiello, USDC/DCO (~1985),

Judge Matsch presiding (indictment was dismissed because

an SEC lawyer conducted grand jury hearings for 3 weeks

 

2

 

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

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

 

withOUT the OATH required by 28 U.S.C. 544).

 

The actual and consequential damages to me continue to mount

as a result of criminal defamations, tortious interference e.g.

with business plans and patent research, and multiple violations

of my Fundamental Rights and of applicable Sections of the

Federal Criminal Code e.g. 18 U.S.C. 241, 242, 912, 1513, 1519

and 1962(d) – for starters.

 

Rehabilitating me, and “making me whole” again, will require

MAJOR concessions and SUBSTANTIAL compensations to me

by the United States (federal government) and ALL of its

responsible officers, employees and ALL non-credentialed “agents,”

of whatever description and irrespective of whatever de facto

positions they claim to occupy.

 

For your information, last February I did transmit a Bona Fide Offer

in Compromise to the Office of the U.S. Attorney in Cheyenne,

Wyoming; but, I now suspect it was mostly MISunderstood by

personnel in that Office. For example, the U.S. Marshal for that

District did not know what a UCC FINANCING STATEMENT is (!); and,

Mr. L. Robert Murray openly attempted to disparage the one I have

already registered against a major defendant in my complex copyright

lawsuit, commenced in Sacramento, California in late August 2001.

See U.S. v. High Country Broadcasting (re: when default judgment

is proper).

 

SECOND BONA FIDE OFFER IN COMPROMISE

 

As fair compensation for all cumulative damages I have suffered

to date, I will now accept $100 Million USD, tax-free, a public

written apology, dismissal of the “indictment” with prejudice

retroactive ab initio, and a return of all my personal properties

and belongings seized during the illegal raid on my apartment

on June 11, 2013. The $100 Million will be paid in U.S. Dollars

to the client trust account maintained by the law firm(s) of

my own choosing.

 

And, a Settlement will not prejudice any other rights which

I have acquired as a result of four (4) “Qui Tam” complaints

duly lodged with DOJ under the Federal Civil False Claims Act,

two (2) INVOICEs payable to the Treasury of the United States

(for $6.9T and $1.8T respectively), additional UCC FINANCING

STATEMENTS against 128 other named copyright defendants, and

any IRS Whistleblower awards I have earned from any of the

foregoing.

 

You have my permission to forward true and correct copies

of this memo to other persons whom it may concern.

 

Thank you very much for your consideration.

 

Sincerely yours,

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

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

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308), In Propria Persona,

28 U.S.C. 1654 (personally or by counsel)

[signed Paul Mitchell]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3

___

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