« NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR RETRACTION OF FALSE AND DEFAMATORY DESCRIPTIONS / #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2 / Paul Andrew Mitchell from Scotts Bluff County Detention Center | Main | Why Should Anyone Trust a Government...? »
Case no. #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2 / RELATOR’S FOURTH VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, ON INFORMATION
This is from Docket Entry 72 (Judge Nancy Freudenthal is an Obama appointed judge from 2010 and is the wife of former Governor David Freudenthal (2003-2011). She is presiding over Paul's case. Paul has a continued (now RESET from June 24 to July 10) competancy hearing in the J.C. O'Maloney Federal Building | 2120 Capitol Avenue | Cheyenne, WY 82001 | Courtroom #1 on 7/10/2014 at 10:00am; and Docket Entry 93 was results of first competancy hearing held 6/3/2014 and indicates: Competancy Hearing - Plaintiff requests that subject to the findings by Dr. Low, defendant be detained for four months to attempt to restore his competancy. Defendant's counsel (note: who was never his counsel according to Paul) states that he has submitted a motion to withdraw from the case. Mr. Modeleski objects to the hearing as a whole due to lack of notification. He strenuously objects to request of the Plaintiff because he has not seen the report. Court grants the motion to withdraw as counsel. Mr. Modeleski will have a new attorney appointed. The competancy hearing will be continued. Competancy hearing reset on 6/24/14 at 1:30 p.m. [Paul is not crazy or an extremist. Paul was never a flight risk. How long does it take to get a fair and speedy trial? Competancy hearing? What a total crock. Paul has been illegally held in federal detention/confinement since January and has been moved around between several states over 42 times since that time (can anyone say diesal therapy) Now the US gov wants 4 more months to restore his competancy? Restore his competancy?! Those US gov officials are the ones who need a head check IMHO. Looks like the prosecution/judge is going to get away with doing a Dusky]:
Case no. #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2
RELATOR’S FOURTH VERIFIED CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT, ON INFORMATION : 18 U.S.C. 242
1964(a)-1968; 28 U.S.C. 1345 (United States as Plaintiff)
TO: District Court of the United States
c/o Office of Clerk of Court
Cheyenne 82001
Wyoming, USA
Comes now the United States (federal
government) ex rel. Paul Andrew Mitchell,
Citizen of Washington State, qualified
Federal Witness, and Private Attorney
General, formally to charge the following
named and unnamed individuals, to wit:
Nancy D. Freudenthal with:
infringing Relator’s Right to petition the
government for redress of grievances,
particularly Relator’s “PETITION FOR
HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF, FOIA ENFORCEMENT,
AND VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, ON
INFORMATION,” as filed in the official
records of the USDC/DWY’s Case No. supra
in violation of the Federal misdemeanor
statute at 18 U.S.C. 242 (ONE COUNT, to date);
and,
- 1 of 4 -
Does 1 thru 20 with:
infringing Relator’s Right to petition the
government for redress of grievances,
particularly Relator’s “PETITION FOR
HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF, FOIA ENFORCEMENT,
AND VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, ON
INFORMATION,” as filed in the official
records of said Case No. supra, in violation
of the Federal misdemeanor statute at
18 U.S.C. 242 (ONE COUNT, to date).
- DISCUSSION -
Pleadings to Federal courts are petitions
to government for redress of grievances,
as the latter phrase occurs in the First
Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has
already ruled that said Petition clause
guarantees the Right conservative of
all other Rights (cite omitted). It is,
therefore, no exaggeration to allege that
those misdemeanors, charged above, have
necessarily resulted in violating, and/or
infringing, all of Relator’s Rights,
no exceptions. Moreover, and more to
the merits, the Writ of Habeas Corpus
is a PRIORITY Writ. See All Writs Statute.
- 2 of 4 -
- AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE -
During a 2-hour hearing commencing
at 10:30 AM on 3/21/2014, Relator personally
witnessed Nancy D. Freudenthal attempt
repeatedly to “deny” Relator’s PETITION
supra, as if it were some sort of “motion,”
of which she had jurisdiction to “deny”.
Similarly, Ms. Freudenthal also repeated
her erroneous attempts to “deny” mandatory
judicial notice, invoked by Relator
pursuant to Rule 201(c)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Evidence. All of the above attempts
occurred without ever addressing
Relator’s frequent challenges to jurisdiction,
particularly jurisdiction in personam,
as fully explained in standing case law
already decided under 28 U.S.C. 1691. That
case law was correctly cited, and quoted,
on documents of which Relator properly
requested mandatory judicial notice.
Discretionary judicial notice is properly
invoked by Rule 201(c)(1) of the Federal
Rules of Evidence. All such Rules of Court
are binding obligations of Ms. Freudenthal!
- 3 of 4 -
- INCORPORATION OF RECORDS -
Relator hereby incorporates the
Petition supra, now filed as Docket
Entry #33, and all other Docket
Entries filed by Relator to date,
as if all were set forth fully
here. See Full Faith and Credit Clause.
- VERIFICATION -
Relator hereby verifies, under penalty
of perjury, under the laws of the United
States of America, without (outside)
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).
Dated: 3/25/2014 A.D.
Signed: Paul Andrew Mitchell
Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Relator Sui Juris and
In Propria Persona
All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308)
without Prejudice to any Rights
- 4 of 4 -
___
In re: Freudenthal's personal liability:
TRULINCS 44202086 – MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL* – Unit: SET-D-C * given name
(also a “nom de guerre”)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM: 44202086
TO: Brown, Thomas; Guenete, Edward; Mullen, Jack; Saccato, Larry
SUBJECT: FORMAL OBJECTIONS TO “PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION” #2
DATE: 04/19/2014 01:22:11 PM
TO:
Dr. C. Low
dba Forensic Psychologist
FDC SeaTac
Dr. Low:
By now you should have received a Courtesy Copy of my
NOTICE OF TERMINATION to attorney Mark Hardee.
I am writing to expand upon the points of fact
itemized in paragraphs numbered (6) thru (9)
in that NOTICE.
The Federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 1691 is obviously
very important in my case: If you have not received it yet,
that law requires the Clerk’s authorized signature -AND-
the Court’s official seal on all Federal Court “process”.
On the Internet, try:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1691.html
The term “process” embraces everything a Federal Court
issues, such as subpoenas, orders, writs, warrants,
summonses, and so on. Sec. 1691 was enacted on
June 25, 1948 (4 days after I was born), and it has
never been amended by any Act(s) of Congress.
The case law at 28 USCA and 28 USCS 1691
all agree that failing to satisfy its two (2) simple requirements
results in depriving a Federal Court jurisdiction
in personam (over Persons).
I am proceeding In Propria Persona (in my Proper Person).
See also 28 U.S.C. 1654.
USCA = United States Code Annotated
USCS = United States Code Service
As I have already confirmed to you, in your private office
this past week, the so-called “order”, allegedly authorizing
a [second] “psychological evaluation” of me, clearly violated
Sec. 1691 because it was not signed by any Clerk of Court,
and it did not exhibit any official Court seal.
The machine-generated date-and-time stamp is NOT
the official seal of the United States District Court
for the District of Wyoming.
Moreover, as summarized in paragraph (8) of my
NOTICE OF TERMINATION, Mr. Stephan Harris
cannot legally sign any such “order”, even if he tried,
because he has chosen to conceal the U.S. Office of
Personnel Management Standard Form 61 (“SF-61”)
1
TRULINCS 44202086 – MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL* – Unit: SET-D-C
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS required of him by
Article VI, Clause 3 in the U.S. Constitution, and
by the Federal statutes at 5 U.S.C. 2104, 2903, 2906,
3331, 3332, 3333 and 5507.
Because Mr. Harris has failed to produce his own SF-61
for more than six (6) YEARS now, he has been formally
charged with violating 18 U.S.C. 1519 (a FELONY Federal
offense). He is IN DEFAULT and now legally ESTOPPED
by his silence for such a long period of time.
On the Internet, try:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1519.html
Here, I should emphasize that 5 U.S.C. 2906 expressly
designates the “court” as the legal custodian of the SF-61
required of Mr. Harris and of ALL other Court officers:
that means he must have custody of his own SF-61.
See also 28 U.S.C. 951 (re: duties of Clerks).
Moreover, such a Court “officer” cannot even get paid until
and unless the second AFFIDAVIT required by 5 U.S.C. 3332
is timely executed by each such “officer”. See 5 U.S.C. 5507.
Ms. Nancy D. Freudenthal is also implicated in all the above
violations. She is now personally liable to me chiefly because
the U.S. District Court in Cheyenne, Wyoming, was never
able to prove jurisdiction in personam: it CAN’T, as long as
Clerk’s Office personnel neglect, or refuse, to produce their own
SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS.
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved,
there can be no rule making or legislation which would
abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona (re: Miranda warnings).
Article VI, Clause 3, guarantees such a “fundamental” Right!
Moreover, failure to ensure effective assistance of Counsel
has necessarily resulted in OUSTING her Court of jurisdiction.
See Johnson v. Zerbst. As you should already know by now,
Mr. Mark Hardee has totally abandoned me. Of course,
a Federal court cannot be “ousted of jurisdiction”
if it never had jurisdiction in the first place!
Two (2) other Federal Public Defenders were also terminated
in my case, for obvious incompetence and gross negligence.
See the Sixth Amendment here re: assistance of Counsel
(NOT representation by a licensed attorney). The Framers
knew the difference between Counsel and licensed attorney.
Now, I must address the legal risks to which you are being
exposed, insofar as you are, or may be, aiding and abetting
any of the violations mentioned above, or merely being an
accessory after the fact to those same violations. Here,
see 18 U.S.C. 2 and 3, respectively.
Because I have now proven to you that Freudenthal’s “order”
is not valid, I am under no obligations to submit to a second
psychological evaluation allegedly authorized by that invalid “order”.
2
TRULINCS 44202086 – MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL* – Unit: SET-D-C
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, therefore, I decline to answer any more of your
questions unless I am accompanied by a capable and qualified
stand-by counsel who can provide me with timely, and reliable,
legal advice about possible attempts to induce me to be a witness
against myself, in obvious violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Here, see 18 U.S.C. 241, 242, and 1513 in particular.
Thank you for your professional consideration in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (my chosen name)
Private Attorney General
See 18 U.S.C. 1964; Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (2000)
All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308)
[Signed Paul Mitchell]
3
Ref:
___
Related:
Blowing Whistles At Hurricanes (a good overview)
Interview with Paul Andrew Mitchell (a must listen):
NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR RETRACTION OF FALSE AND DEFAMATORY DESCRIPTIONS / #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2 / Paul Andrew Mitchell (#45396) Scotts Bluff County Detention Center
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/06/notice-and-demand-for-retraction-of-false-and-defamatory-descriptions-214-cr-00027-ndf-2-paul-andrew.html
US Government has settled with Paul Andrew Mitchell; or?
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/06/us-government-has-settled-with-paul-andrew-mitchell-or.html
My message on FB in regards to this:
Re: Paul Andrew Mitchell.This is from Docket Entry 72, Judge Nancy Freudenthal is an Obama appointed judge from 2010 and is the wife of former Governor David Freudenthal (2003-2011). She is presiding over Paul's case. Paul has a competancy hearing in the J.C. O'Maloney Federal Building | 2120 Capitol Avenue | Cheyenne, WY 82001 | Courtroom #1 on 6/24/2014 at 1:30pm - Paul is not an extremist. Paul was never a flight risk. Paul is a blue blooded American (his words). How long does it take to get a fair and speedy trial? Competancy hearing? What a total crock. Paul has been illegally held in federal detention/confinement since January and has been moved around between more than several states over 29 times since that time (can anyone say diesal therapy). At what point are the American people going to put their foot down and rally to Paul's support?:
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/06/case-no-214-cr-00027-ndf-2-relators-fourth-verified-criminal-complaint-on-information.html
June 10, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink
