FIRST NOTICE AND DEMAND TO CEASE AND DESIST / #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2 (USDC/DWY)

FIRST NOTICE AND DEMAND TO CEASE AND DESIST

#2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2 (USDC/DWY) [sic]

                                          (“SEALED” [sic])

TO: Ms. Nancy D. Freudenthal

c/o U.S. District Court (“USDC”)

       2120 Capitol Ave, 2nd Floor

       Cheyenne 82001

       Wyoming, USA

DATE: June 6, 2014 A. D.

RE: malicious prosecution, fraudulent concealment etc. [18 USC 1519]

Formal DEMAND is hereby made of you to

immediately recuse yourself from the instant

case, retroactive to the hearing on 3/21/2014,

and to cease and desist from any further

attempts to preside upon such case at any time

in the future, for reasons including but

not limited to the following:

(1) the USDC for the District of Wyoming [“DWY”] lacks

jurisdiction in personam, due chiefly to

multiple violations of 28 U.S.C. 1691 [28 USC 1691, fraudulent concealment] by Clerk’s

Office personnel; absent the requisite credentials,

Stephan Harris cannot perform any duties

conferred upon that Office: see “Clerks or Jerks?

The Pivotal Duties of Federal Court Clerks,”

by the Undersigned [author], which is incorporated

by reference, as if set forth fully here;

(2) you have violated 28 U.S.C. 1654 by knowingly,

and fraudulently, maintaining false and

 

-1 of 6-

 

misleading docket entries showing the

Undersigned as “legally represented by

Mark C Hardee” [sic], when the 2-hour

hearing on 3/21/2014 should have made

it entirely obvious to you that the Under-

signed has always proceeded In Propria Persona

- by opting to appear “personally” under

28 U.S.C. 1654 and NOT “by counsel” [sic]; cf. arraignment

(3) you have stubbornly repeated plain errors

by fostering the fallacious notion that a

litigant who opts to appear personally

has effectively “waived” counsel, and is

therefore not entitled to adequate technical

assistance of counsel; that fallacy is

flatly contradicted by standing case

law under 28 U.S.C.S. 1654 (cf. also cases

re: “Pro Se” litigants), and under the Sixth

Amendment, in which the correct meaning

of “assistance of Counsel” has been well

established for more than a century (cf.

“stare decisis” as explained in U.S. v. Mason) [S. Ct.];

(4) you have also manifested evidence that

you have failed to read statutes such as

28 U.S.C. 1654 before hearings; your gross negligence

in this manner was painfully obvious

on 3/21/2014, when you paused for some

time to access and read 18 U.S.C. 1504, giving

all present reason to conclude that you had not

 

-2 of 6-

 

reviewed that statute prior to that hearing:

the last paragraph[18 USC 1504] is one element essential

to this litigant’s defense against all of

the false charges [malicious prosecution] enumerated in the charging

document aka “indictment”; cf. 18 USCS 1504 (LexisNexis);

(5) you have allowed the Court to proceed

out of order by neglecting to adjudicate

the two (2) MOTIONS TO DISMISS filed by

this litigant to date, and by failing to ensure

that any pleading(s) in opposition to said

MOTIONS were duly served on this litigant;

even if Mr. “Hardlee” [Mark C. Hardee] did receive electronic

copies of all such opposition pleadings,

he failed to forward copies of same to this

litigant: those failures constitute positive

proof of ineffective assistance of Counsel,

which has resulted in OUSTING the Court

of jurisdiction; see Johnson v. Zerbst here;

(6) the Court was provided with an itemized

AFFIDAVIT of 28 MOVES this litigant has endured,

in violation of the Eighth Amendment; but,

on 6/3/2014 you acted as if those 28 MOVES

were “news” to you; your ignorance of

those 28 MOVES calls for the conclusion

that you are NOT reading this litigant’s

pleadings, necessarily causing multiple

violations of the Petition Clause and also

FRCvP Rule 2 re: fairness, and justice (fair and just);

 

-3 of 6-

 

(7) your ignorance and negligence regarding

credentials has rendered you civilly liable

to this litigant under 42 U.S.C. 1985-86, if not

also criminally liable under U.S.C. 2, 3, 912,

1513, 1519, and 1962, for starters; mandatory

OATHs OF OFFICE did necessarily impose a clear

legal duty upon you to confirm that all

Clerk’s Office personnel at the USDC/DWY

were at all times in full compliance with

all laws, previously cited in this litigant’s

several pleadings, as a matter of fact;

that duty of yours began when you were

first admitted to the Wyoming State Bar,

and has also continued without interruption

right up to the present: there is no statute

of limitations for fraud; see Art VI, Cl. 3 (OATHs);

(8) the Chief Judge of a Federal Court has

supervisory responsibility for all subordinates,

such as Clerk’s Office personnel, particularly

when key authorities must be delegated

to those subordinates by the same Federal

Court on which the Chief Judge presides, or

claims to preside: here cf. “respondeat

superior” aka vicarious liability in pari

materia with 18 U.S.C. 1964 (Civil RICO);

(9) absent all requisite credentials, Mr. Harris

cannot be delegated any authorities by the Court,

 

-4 of 6-

 

nor can Mr. Harris delegate any authority(s)

to any subordinate Deputies; likewise,

Mr. Harris cannot select or summon jurors:

the Federal Jury Selection and Service Act

defines who may select and summon

Federal juries, be they grand or petit

(trial) juries, be they civil or criminal

juries; as such, vicarious liability

touches both Ms. Freudenthal and

Mr. Harris insofar as 28 U.S.C. 951 and

5 U.S.C. 2906 (the “court”) are flagrantly and routinely

being violated in the instant case, and other cases;

(10) the issue of your liabilities to me is

directly addressed in Stump v. Sparkman

and in the International Covenant on Civil

and Political Rights (“ICCPR”): in the former,

the U.S. Supreme Court has already held

that a Federal Judge is liable to all Proper

Parties when the court clearly lacks

Jurisdiction; in the latter United States

Treaty, judicial offices are made liable

for violating the fundamental Rights

of Parties [cf. Supremacy Clause], notwithstanding that such

violations were committed by Court personnel

acting in their “official” capacities; also,

the “not self-executing” clause in Congress’

Reservations, Understandings and Declarations

(“RUD”) clearly violates the Petition Clause,

First Amendment: read: no private right of action.

 

-5 of 6-

 

(11) the official record in the instant case

now documents numerous violations

of this litigant’s Fundamental Rights,

as guaranteed by the ICCPR supra and

by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth,

Seventh, Eighth and Tenth Amendments,

and Article VI, Clause 2 (Supremacy Clause)

and Clause 3 (Oath of Office) in the U.S. Constitution.

- INCORPORATION -

The Undersigned now incorporates his

prior DEMAND FOR RECUSAL as already

filed and served in the instant case,

as if the same were set forth fully here.

 

Respectfully submitted June 6, 2014 A. D.

Paul Andrew Mitchell (chosen name*)

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

Relator In Propria Persona, 28 U.S.C. 1654;

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964,

Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (2000)

  (objectives of Civil RICO)

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308)

 

* See Doe v. Dunning, Washington State Supreme

Court (re: fundamental law, common law

right, to change one’s name)

 

-6 of 6-

FIRST NOTICE AND DEMAND TO CEASE AND DESIST / #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2 (USDC/DWY)

___

Related:

US Gov / IRS is using diesel therapy against IRS targeted political prisoner
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

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