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

« NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF BONA FIDE OFFER IN COMPROMISE DATED 2/6/2014 / #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2 (USDC/DWY) | Main | SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF MOVES #29 THRU #42 Case No.: #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2 (USDC/DWY) »

CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES: 42 U.S.C. 1986, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a), 5 USC 552 Re: #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2

CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES:

42 U.S.C. 1986, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a), 5 USC 552

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

 

TO: Office of Presiding Judge (duly credentialed)

District Court of the United States (“DCUS”)

2120 Capitol Avenue, 2nd Floor

Cheyenne 82001

Wyoming, USA

DATE: June 21, 2014 A.D.

Greetings Your Honor:

Comes now the United States (28 U.S.C. 1345)

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

Citizen of Washington State and Private

Attorney General (18 U.S.C. 1964(a)), to petition

this honorable DCUS for declaratory and

injunctive relief and damages arising from:

(a) neglect to prevent and failure to remedy

multiple violations of equal protection of

the law, (b) multiple RICO “predicate acts,”

and (c) multiple attempts to prevent discovery

of documents properly requested under the

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).

 

JURISDICTION

This DCUS has original jurisdiction under

18 U.S.C. 1964(a), 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B), and

Federal questions arising under 42 U.S.C. 1985, 1986.

 

- 1 of 4 -

 

INCORPORATION OF DOCKET

So as to leave no doubt about the full

extent, and severity, of all damages inflicted

to date upon Relator, all entries in the

Docket number supra are hereby incur-

porated by reference, as if set forth fully

here without exception, “SEALED” or not “SEALED.”

PARTIES

The United States expressly names Ms.

Nancy Dell Freudenthal as the first

Civil Cross-Defendant, in addition to

as yet unnamed Does 1 thru 100, until such

time as proper discovery shall justify the

substitution of additional named Cross-

Defendants for one or more Does 1 thru 100.

PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS

Cross-Defendant Freudenthal has repeatedly

violated Relator’s right to equal protection

of the law chiefly by neglecting to prevent and

failing to remedy multiple violations of:

Article VI, clauses 2 and 3 in the Constitution

for the United States of America, as lawfully

amended; 28 U.S.C. 453, 544, and 951; 5 U.S.C.

2104, 2903, 2906, 3331, 3332,3333 and 5507; 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq. and 3512; and, the implementing

Regulation at 5 CFR 1320.5 in connection with

the COUNTERFEIT U.S. Office of Personnel Manage-

ment Standard Form 61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS

 

- 2 of 4 -

 

recently published at OPM’s Internet website.

 

Relator claims a “Right to Inspect”

all such SF-61 credentials for proper

compliance with the Paperwork Reduction

Act supra, and a related right to ignore,

and timely object to, all such forms which

clearly fail to display a valid OMB control

number and the paragraph citing 5 U.S.C. 2903

(Authority to administer). See Supremacy Clause.

 

At a 2-hour hearing (3/21/2014) in the “criminal case” of

USA v. Hill et al., Freudenthal ultimately apologized

on the record for attempting to mis-characterize

Relator’s “credential investigation” as some sort

of pathological obsession. Then, instead of

repairing the damages caused by such obvious

slander, e.g. by recusing herself for bias and

prejudice, Freudenthal commenced to conspire

with Does 1 thru 100 to libel Relator as

“delusional”. The latter conspiracy is now evident

in a “MOTION FOR PSYCHIATRIC OR PSYCHOLOGICAL

EVALUATION” that was concealed from Relator;

no NOTICE of any such MOTION was timely

served on Relator; no NOTICE of any hearing

on any such MOTION was ever served on Relator;

and, Relator was never allowed to attend

any hearing(s) on any such MOTION. Plain error!

 

Notice and hearing are the minimal, essential

prerequisites of due process of law: see Fifth Amendment.

 

- 3 of 4 -

INITIAL REMEDIES

On behalf of Relator as a damaged Party,

the United States ex rel. hereby requests a

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION barring Nancy Dell

Freudenthal from presiding any further

on the “criminal” case of USA v. Hill et al.;

and, a preliminary ORDER granting leave for

Relator: to amend this CROSS-COMPLAINT

with adequate technical assistance of

Harris & Harris, P.C., and to proceed

In Forma Pauperis with all reasonable

Attorney fees paid to Harris & Harris, P.C.

by the United States (Federal government),

pursuant to the “personal” option for Relator

to proceed In Propria Persona under 28 U.S.C

1654 (personally or by counsel) and 18 U.S.C.

1964(a) (Civil RICO liberally construed).

Thank you for your professional consideration.

 

Respectfully submitted June 21, 2014 A.D.,

Signed: Paul Andrew Mitchell (chosen name)

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

Citizen of Washington State, Pannill v. Roanoke;

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

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a),

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

(objectives of Civil RICO)

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308):

Petition clause is the Right conservative of all Rights!

 

- 4 of 4 -

 

CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES: 42 U.S.C. 1986, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a), 5 USC...

___

Related:

A submission to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform re: IRS targeting scandal:

http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/06/house-committee-on-oversight-and-government-reform-informed-about-new-information-re-irs-us-gov-targ.html

July 3, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink