Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Coffees from Youngevity

Coffees from Youngevity

Youngevity Be The Change

Youngevity Healthy Chocolate

GOFoods Youngevity

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Ron Paul Forums

Ron Paul Forums

APFN Message Board

APFN Message Board

Leo Emil Wanta / Wantagate Links

++++++++++++++++++ EBAY ITEMS 4 SALE ++++++++++++++++++

« June 2014 | Main | August 2014 »


(Amazingly Paul Andrew Mitchell, a political prisoner, was able to get this into the record even though USDC Wyoming Chief Judge Nancy D. Freudenthal mooted all his motions,. and is not paying attention to him proceeding In Propria Persona while ruling he must go through whom she deems as the person who will present him [not letting Paul assert his right to have "technical assistance of counsel"] while sending him to MCFP Springfield - Federal Bureau of Prisons to be, more than likely tortured, drugging him against his will. She still can't produce all of her credentials nor can the Department of Justice come up with them.)

[Docket 132]


FOR FOUR CREDENTIALS: 5 U.S.C. 552; 5 CFR 1320.5.


TO: Office of Chief Judge

       Attn: Nancy D. Freudenthal

       U.S. District Court

       2120 Capitol Ave., 2nd Floor

       Cheyenne   82001-3658

       Wyoming, USA

DATE: 7/16/2014 A.D.


Greetings Ms. Freudenthal:


The Office of Information Policy at U.S. DOJ

responded to my FOIA request with some

credentials, and their cover letter dated 7/11/2014.


I regret to inform you that the following

credentials were not produced for you:




          displaying a valid OMB control number

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


My studied professional conclusions are

as follows, submitted in good faith:




cannot be, valid because all U.S. District

Judges must be first confirmed with the

advice and consent of the U.S. Senate.


- 1 of 4 -


For the same reason, your SF-61 APPOINT-


UNITED STATES JUDGES are not, and cannot

be, valid; both credentials must be preceded

by a valid SENATE CONFIRMATION and a



Your SF-61 is also a counterfeit because

it lacks a valid OMB control number, and

it lacks the paragraph with the required

citation to 5 U.S.C. 2903 (Authority to

administer). See also 5 U.S.C. 2906 (i.e. “court”).


As such, you also need to have all four (4) valid

credentials, in proper order, before you could lawfully

administer any other SF-61 APPOINTMENT



From a revision of SF-61 dated “August 2002,”

Deputy U.S. Marshals erroneously inferred

that OMB had authorized OPM to remove

the control number from that SF-61 revision,

when OMB had not done so! Moreover,

the records, and testimony, now before this

Court call for the conclusions that: (1) USMS


- 2 of 4 -


personnel in Seattle were negligent for

failing to inquire at either OPM or OMB

for clarification concerning the missing

OMB control number; and, (2) I did follow

my crucial fourth meeting with Seattle

USMS personnel, by promptly inquiring

at both OPM and OMB for proof of the

OPM Application expressly required by

the implementing Regulation at 5 CFR 1320.5,

using the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).


OPM and OMB both replied, in writing on

Federal government letterhead, by admitting

that no such Application could be found

at either agency, for periodic OMB review

and approval of the electronic SF-61

published at OPM’s Internet website

Accordingly, I wrote, and caused to be

filed and served at the USDC/SDNY, a


CREDENTIALS in the case of Hedges et al.

v. Obama et al., which NOTICE incorporated

verbatim copies of my two (2) FOIA requests

to OPM and OMB, respectively. See 5 U.S.C. 552;

2104, 2903, 2906, 3331, 3332, 3333, 5507 (can’t get paid).


- 3 of 4 -


Conclusion for USA v. Hill et al.


The absence of the required SENATE CONFIR-

MATION necessarily invalidates all three

(3) of your credentials, as produced by DOJ

in response to my proper FOIA request for

all four (4) required credentials. Also,

your SF-61 is a counterfeit because it

fails to display a valid OMB control number;

and, it fails to display a paragraph, at bottom,

citing 5 U.S.C. 2903. As such, the above do

constitute proof that you suffer from serious

conflicts of interest, and you lack authority

to preside on #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2 supra.

Quod erat demonstrandum (“QED”).

Respectfully submitted,

Paul Andrew Mitchell (chosen name)*

Citizen of Washington State, Pannill v. Roanoke;

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, 549 P.2d 1, Washington

   State Supreme Court (re: changing one’s name)


- 4 of 4 -







Additional 'related' information re: credentials of judges,.:

Paul Andrew Mitchell re: Federal Judges’ Credentials



Paul Andrew Mitchell, Private Attorney General,

on Angela Stark’s Talkshoe call number 39904



January 12, 2012 A.D.



Angela:  Thanks for being here.  I know your expertise includes the oaths of judges.


Paul:  Yes, the credentials of judges which they are required to have are embedded in the Constitution as well as various laws and statutes.


A lot of people who are in jail now should not be there because many judges lack the required credentials.


There are four (4) required credentials for a Federal judge to rule on any matter, be it civil or criminal.


Article VI of the Constitution is very powerful;  it renders the Constitution, Acts of Congress, and all treaties as the supreme Law of the Land; so the oath of office is a Fundamental Right.


It guarantees our Fundamental Right to have judges who have executed an oath in good faith.


So, when it comes to, say, Federal district judges, let’s start there, because there are so many of those, and cases often start before them.


It’s straightforward, and you can infer this from the Constitution and from all the laws Congress has enacted:


First, the President nominates someone;  the nomination goes to the Senate, and on the “advice and consent” of the Senate, they confirm the nominee and send back a confirmation -- a document called “SENATE CONFIRMATION.”


With that authority, the President is authorized to commission the officer.


So, the next credential is a “PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION”, signed by the President.


Then, the law says that the COMMISSION must go to the Attorney General, who must co-sign it -- counter-sign it -- and seal it with the seal of the U.S. Department of Justice.


This document is supposed to remain with the Department of Justice as the legal custodian.


That, by the way, is one of the main reasons you can sue out this credential with a Freedom of Information Act request (“FOIA”), because DOJ is an Executive Branch agency, they are subject to FOIA, and this particular document is not exempt.


If they don’t produce it, that is evidence that the “robe” (i.e. “judge”) does not have a key credential.


After the COMMISSION is signed by the AG, the appointee must execute two (2) more oaths of office.


There’s a bit of confusion here, because one of them is called the “APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS”, a form which comes out of the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”), and all Federal employees must execute this same form.


It’s called “OPM Standard Form 61” [abbreviated SF-61].


But, Congress has said that Federal judges must execute another oath, which has language specific to that office.


These four (4) credentials must be in proper order, and in proper sequence, in order for a judge to be qualified as a Federal judge.


So, the Senate must confirm;  the oath must be administered after the COMMISSION is granted;  and on Standard Form 61, there must appear the signature of an officer, as the person authorized to administer the form;  which means, if that person is claiming to be a judge, then he or she also must have those four credentials;  if not, Form 61 is invalid.


It also must have a valid OMB control number in the upper right-hand corner.


I’m really a burr under the seat of the Federal government right now, because a counterfeit version of Form 61 went out over the Internet, and it was signed by thousands of Federal employees.


The second oath is called “OATH OF OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES JUDGES”, and it too must be administered by someone who has the authority to do that.


Courts have ruled that, if those two Oaths are not proper, then the judge is not a judge, and all their acts are void.


We’ve checked the credentials of the U.S. Supreme Court judges, the Circuit Courts of Appeal, about a third of the U.S. District Courts, the U.S. Tax Court, and several others.


The Tax Court was a shocker, because all 25 judges are missing all four (4) required credentials.


So, it is a criminal enterprise.


The U.S. Marshals are very interested in this, because without their credentials, these rogue judges are guilty of all kinds of crimes, including mail fraud, obstruction of justice, witness retaliation, conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering, and more.


We have lodged a few ambitious criminal complaints.


We are invoking the Federal Civil False Claims Act against all these imposters.


Every time we found a defect, we confronted these judges as to that fact, and gave them plenty of time to cure these defects and omissions.


Only the judges in Hawaii complied.


The Marshals wanted to know what to do, it seems they’re trying to protect them;  but, this is aiding and abetting these felons.


I’m giving these “robes” a year to produce all four (4) credentials.


Title 42 Section 1986 says if they fail to correct these defects, the judges become civilly liable.


We’re formulating complaints under Qui Tam -- or “whistleblower” complaints.


When any person makes a false claim against the U.S. Treasury, and someone complains, Congress has authorized 30% of any monies recovered, to go to that person.


It also authorizes triple damages.


Write to for details on Qui Tam complaints, and I’ll provide them with confidential links, with security encryptions.


We’ve filed two Qui Tam complaints [to date], one against judges in D.C., another in Portland, Oregon.


To do anything about this, you need to know which laws apply, what credentials are required of particular officers, including the Clerks;  I’ve done all that groundwork regarding the Supremes, the District Courts, the Tax Court.


The Clerks are pivotal to this issue of “infiltration” by imposter judges in our Federal and State courts.


Congress has enacted a law which says that all “process” must exhibit the Clerk’s authorized signature and the Court’s official seal.


So, if you get a SUMMONS for a Federal civil case, but with no seal, you should return it saying, “This process violates this Federal statute, and it’s counterfeit.”


If you got it by mail, you should also report it to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service because sending counterfeit documents constitutes mail fraud, which is a felony.


And, Title 18 includes “misprision of felony,” whereby if you are aware of the commission of a felony, you must report it or you are guilty of a felony.


If there’s a seal, we’ve seen where the Clerk doesn’t have proper credentials.


The court is by law the custodian of the Clerks’, Deputy Clerks’, Magistrates’ and District Court Judges’ Forms 61.


The job of the Clerk is to maintain the integrity of the records.


For the Clerk to fail to produce their own credentials has a very, very far-reaching effect;  the court is rendered impotent, and can issue no process whatsoever;  and, we’ve done the research to prove that the term “process” embraces court ORDERs, SUBPOENAs, SUMMONSes, WRITs -- anything of legal weight.


Without a duly authorized clerk, the entire court is tied up.


Treaties with other countries, in particular, have stated that we can sue anyone in office, notwithstanding that they are acting in some official capacity -- even if they have jurisdiction -- if they have violated a Fundamental Right of ours, such as the Oath of Office requirement, even ifthey have all four credentials.


Read Stump v Sparkman, which says if a Federal judge doesn’t have jurisdiction, he or she is personally liable to all the parties.


[In Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 at 360 (1978), the Supreme Court confirmed that a judge would be immune from suit only if he did not act outside of his judicial capacity and/or was not performing any act expressly prohibited by statute.  See Block, Stump v Sparkman and the History of Judicial Immunity, 4980 Duke L.J. 879 (l980).]


All the process coming out of DOJ is on behalf of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, an entity which was twice incorporated in Delaware.


It was never created by an act of Congress, so it’s bogus.


We forced the issue on an appeal in the Tenth Circuit.


I served the agents for both these corporations that were chartered in Delaware (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INC. and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORP.), but when the Delaware SOS saw our legal service, she revoked both those corporate charters, so they are [now] both defunct.


Call your State Secretary of State and ask if this entity has been registered as a foreign corporation in your State [it would be “foreign” with respect to a corporation registered in Delaware.]


I inquired in California, and found that those two corporations are not registered to do business in California, so that wipes out all judgments going back for decades.


On top of that, the DOJ has no authority to represent any private corporation chartered in the 50 states, nor did Congress ever appropriate any money for DOJ to do that.


DOJ is chartered to represent the “United States”, which is the proper legal name for the Federal Government, but DOJ has no Power of Attorney for those two (2) bogus corporations.


The 1871 law only incorporated the District of Columbia, not the United States.


And the Supreme Court decided the same thing, in U.S. v Cooper Corporation:  "We may say in passing that the argument that the United States may be treated as a corporation organized under its own laws, that is, under the Constitution as the fundamental law, seems so strained as not to merit serious consideration."


This gets into misrepresentation, where Congress has said it’s illegal for any U.S. attorney to willfully violate any State’s Bar disciplinary guidelines;  that’s in the McDade Act [28 U.S.C. 530B].


Congress said, if you’re a U.S. Attorney in one of the States, you have to be licensed with that State’s Bar, and you must comply to the letter of that law with that State’s Bar code [of conduct].


There are remedies in State law to get these pretenders “recused”.


File a DEMAND FOR RECUSAL with an affidavit which says “this person doesn’t have credentials,” but if they don’t go, you have to appeal.


All State officers must also have an Oath of Office, per Title 4 U.S.C. Section 101, which of course is Federal law, and that’s true of legislative, executive, and judicial offices.


The best place to start to look for their credentials is the Secretary of State, and next the County Recorder.



[end of this segment]


2012 Interview with Paul

July 22, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

You Can Beat The Credit Card Debt Collectors / Shout Out To Hanavee @ Hubpages


In addition to new and important relevant posts therein:

Kevin 13 days ago

This was an amazingly good and informative article. I've helped people beat debt collectors for years. They are my favorite prey to go after. Original creditors can be dispatched without too much difficulty either when you know how the game is played. You spoke on it briefly but I think you missed the significance. The original creditor usually has insurance on your credit card which you pay on monthly which is built into your normal credit card payment. If you look at the fine print of your contract you will find reference to it. If you fail to pay o your card for 90 days the insurance will pay. The debt will have been satisfied. The only entity that has the right to sue you then would be the insurance company but they never do. The insurance company would have the right of subrogation (very important term). A debt collector cannot have the right of subrogation because they are "a mere volunteer" to the situation. They had no loss. They intervened without your asking or consent. Now we are looking at insurance fraud by the original creditor because they got paid by the insurance company and sold a paid debt to a 3rd party. If they charged it off it means they wrote it off on their tax returns and received a tax credit so they got paid twice and then sold the debt. This would be insurance fraud and tax fraud. I would report to your state tax commissioner, state attorney general, and the IRS. You can get this info in pretrial discovery from the original creditor in production of documents or by using statement of admissions to plaintiff or special interrogatories to plaintiff. Once you hit them with that they get very very nervous. You usually can only make a limited number of statements of admissions or interrogatories. Look up discovery rules of your court (probably around 35). The entire financial system is built on lies your power is knowing what they need to hide to keep it going. When you drag it into the light they run screaming.

Look up on google: 73 American Jurisprudence 2nd Edition section 93 subrogation.

"Subrogation will not be allowed to a third person who without any obligation to do so pays an indebtedness and this rule is fully applicable to payments of an indebtedness secured by a mortgage." (for debt collectors)

also see title 15 usc 1691 I (federal debt collectors protection act) which says "nothing in this title (fdcpa) shall be construed to authorize the bringing of legal action by debt collectors."

When a debt collector misrepresents that it is a subrogee (has the right of subrogation like an insurance company) it is actionable (see federal case Gearing v Check Brokerage Corp 233 F 3d 469 7th Circuit). That means you can countersue them when they bring you to court.

Kevin 13 days ago

Also look up uniform commercial code UCC3-305 A-1(iii) which says you can refuse to pay on an instrument (bill) if fraud. The UCC code has a state statute that says the same thing in every state. Always use the state code when going to court. Judges like to pretend ucc code does not apply if you don't say the state code. Use this link for ucc code locator for your state statutes


Hanavee 41 hours ago from PennsylvaniaHub Author


Send them a letter requesting validation of the debt. If you study the blog here, you will see that the best form for that letter has been posted enough times, you'll have no trouble figuring which one it is. Once they receive your letter (sent certified mail-return receipt requested), they have to cease all collection activities until such time as they have verified the debt properly. I would also add in that request a notice that you would like them to show that the original creditor has not received an insurance payoff (which is common practice), because, if the original creditor took an insurance payoff, or a tax credit, then pursuit of this debt by the collection company constitutes fraud. Tell them that you would like them to show that they have the "right of subrogation of the debt." That should really rattle their nerves.



Hanavee 3 weeks ago from PennsylvaniaHub Author


I will post here again, then I will try another route for you. Basically, what I wrote is to do your research and have a good outline to follow in court for your defense, since I don't think they really seem to have a case. But most of all, send them a request worded like this:

Since it is common business practice for credit card companies to write off bad debts and to, thereupon, receive either an insurance payoff or a tax credit, in such cases, the pursuit of any such debt thus paid off is illegal unless the entity pursuing same debt has right of subrogation of the debt. Kindly submit any and all necessary proofs that you may have which demonstrate your right of subrogation of the debt that you allege I owe.

Send that to them via certified mail, return receipt requested, and bring this material up in court before the judge.



Marlene 3 weeks ago


Thought you would enjoy knowing about the success I just had with a JDB.

Last September I got a notice from Midland about an old debt that was already past SOL when they bought it, so I sent them the usual c&d, sol letter and added your favorite, Scienti et violenti non fit injuria clause. Plus, a debt validation request letter, and threw in your other favorite, do they have right of subrogation of this alleged debt. Gave them 30 days to validate, or remove debt from my credit report.

Guess what? It worked!! Today I got a letter from Midland saying they will no longer be collecting on that debt and are closing it so I"m no longer financially obligated, and they will instruct all 3 credit reporting agencies to delete all info regarding alleged account from my credit report.


Thank you Brian for your wise words of help. And, for anyone that is dealing with these blood-suckers, never, never give up. Study and learn from Brian and all that contribute to this forum.

Happy dance!!!



Also some other big news today:

Today the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) took action against the nation’s two largest debt buyers and collectors for using deceptive tactics to collect bad debts. The Bureau found that Encore Capital Group and Portfolio Recovery Associates bought debts that were potentially inaccurate, lacking documentation, or unenforceable. Without verifying the debt, the companies collected payments by pressuring consumers with false statements and churning out lawsuits using robo-signed court documents. The CFPB has ordered the companies to overhaul their debt collection and litigation practices and to stop reselling debts to third parties. Encore must pay up to $42 million in consumer refunds and a $10 million penalty, and stop collection on over $125 million worth of debts. Portfolio Recovery Associates must pay $19 million in consumer refunds and an $8 million penalty, and stop collecting on over $3 million worth of debts.

“Encore and Portfolio Recovery Associates threatened and deceived consumers to collect on debts they should have known were inaccurate or had other problems,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Now, the two biggest debt buyers in the market must refund millions and overhaul their practices. We will continue to take action to protect consumers from illegal and obnoxious debt collection practices.”

The CFPB specifically found that Encore Capital and Portfolio Recovery Associates –

Bought debts that they knew or should have known were inaccurate or were outside the statute of limitations.

Bought debts that where they knew or should have known that the underlying documents/records were inaccurate.

Made misrepresentations to consumers such as that their account had been reviewed by an attorney, that a lawsuit was imminent, and misled some consumers into agreeing auto-dialed calls to their cellphones.

Filed lawsuits that they had no intention to prove the debt was valid if consumers contested it.

Filed misleading affidavits in their lawsuits against consumers.

Mislead consumers and courts by stating that an undisputed debt is presumed to be valid under debt collection laws when in fact the federal laws governing debt collection state no such thing.

As a penalty the CFPB has ordered Encore Capital (and subsidiaries Midland Funding and Asset Acceptance) and Portfolio Recovery Associates to pay penalties and offer refunds to consumers totaling $82 million dollars. Further, the CFPB has ordered Encore and Portfolio to –

Stop collection on debts that it cannot substantiate.

Review original account-level documents verifying a debt before seeking to collect on it.

Not file a lawsuit unless they have specific documents and information showing that the debt is accurate and enforceable.

Not use affidavits to collect debts unless the statements contained within the affidavits specifically and accurately describe the signer’s own personal knowledge of the facts and the documents referenced in the affidavit are attached.



Here are the court orders that are consent orders for the following:

For Encore Capital Group, Inc., Midland Funding, LLC, Midland Credit Management, Inc. and Asset Acceptance Capital Corp.:

Consent Order Encore Capital Group, Inc., Midland Funding, LLC, Midland Credit Management, Inc. and Asset A...

For Portfolio Recorvery:

Consent Order Portfolio Recovery Associates Llc


Hope this helps any of you being sued by these criminals

July 20, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink


“This case involves individuals who are alleged to have taken great steps to obstruct the government and have repeatedly professed that the United States lacks authority and jurisdiction over their tax matters.” – Todd Shugart, Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Wyoming

Re: Political Prisoner (soon to be tortured by drugging at a Federal US Medical Facility by the US Gov, if not already) Paul Andrew Mitchell. If you don't do something to help Paul in some way by taking action, getting the word out, getting this to others who can help Paul etc. each and every one of you are traitors to this country if you are from here, or anything good IMO.

[Note: Paul managed to get this into the record after Judge Nancy D. Freudenthal did away with him by sending him to MCFP Springfield - Federal Bureau of Prisons for 4 months of drugging whereupon they will just do the same thing to him over and over again if he isn't helped by We The People in some way to get him out of these corrupt people's (elements of the US Government) clutches. Ms. Freudenthal also mooted all of Paul's handwritten motions and writings and he can only go through the person she appointed for him who he was using as "technical assitance of counsel" while he operated In Propria Persona. In addition Re: IRS see 31 Questions (a network experiment)]




TO: Office of Presiding Judge (duly credentialed)

       U.S. District Court

       2120 Capitol Ave., 2nd Floor

       Wyoming, USA

DATE: 7/13/2014 A.D.

Greetings Your Honor and All Concerned:

My fourth meeting with Seattle U.S. Marshals

now deserves further clarification, by way of

demonstrating serious defects in Dr. C. Low’s

methodology. I am quite confident that the

record already before the Court highly

recommends the following Findings of Fact

and Conclusions of Law:

(1) At that meeting, the Deputies and I reviewed

at least two (2) different revisions of U.S. OPM

Standard Form 61 (“SF-61”);

(2) One SF-61 was an earlier revision which

did display an OMB control number 50-R0118,

and did display a paragraph citing 5 U.S.C. 2903;


- 1 of 4 –


(3) The other was a later revision which

did not display any OMB control number,

and which did not display any paragraph

citing 5 U.S.C. 2903 (Authority to administer);

(4) Those Deputies stated to Dr. Low their

belief that an OMB control number was

no longer needed;

(5) Those Deputies did not bring to our fourth

meeting any proof of their belief that an

OMB control number was no longer needed;

(6) In his subsequent email to me, Deputy

Mans wrote saying, “We simply offered

a possible path of inquiry….” [sic];

(7) I accepted that offer as bona fide, and

I promptly contacting both OPM and OMB

for the Application required by 5 CFR 1320.5;

(8) Both OPM and OMB both replied in

writing to say there was no Application

from OPM for periodic OMB review and

approval of the electronic SF-61 then

published at OPM’s Internet website;

(9) I then documented both admissions


CREDENTIALS filed in Hedges et al. v. Obama

et al. (USDC/SDNY);


- 2 of 4 -


(10) From the facts stated above, the following

conclusions are reasonable, and justified:

(a) the Deputies erred by basing their inference

on a more recent revision number;

(b) the Deputies erred by failing to base their

inference on statements issued by OPM and OMB;

(c) statements later issued by OPM and OMB

did directly contradict the Deputies inference,

(d) I did the procedurally correct thing by

contacting both OPM and OMB for clarification;

(e) the Deputies did the procedurally incorrect

thing by failing to contact either OPM or OMB

for clarification;

(f) the Deputies’ offer, and my acceptance of

that offer – as demonstrated by my FOIA

requests to OPM and OMB – are verified facts

and not false beliefs, and particularly not

false beliefs that persist psychotically;

(g) it is more accurate to conclude that the

Deputies have maintained a false belief

about the missing OMB control numbers; and,

(h) there is no evidence, currently in the Court’s

official records, to indicate the Deputies’ false

belief persisted psychotically, however;


- 3 of 4 -


In a separate matter, I erred by saying

I had transmitted 20,000 email messages to

U.S. Coast Guard Investigations during the

seven (7) years of my pro bono assistance

to them. The correct number is approximately

2,000. During those 7 years, it is accurate to

say I transmitted a TOTAL of 20,000 email

messages from the computer workstations

in my small office/home office (“SOHO”),

approximately. I hope this helps. Thank you.

Respectfully submitted in good faith,

Paul Andrew Mitchell (chosen name*)

/s/ 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,


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

     (objectives of civil RICO)

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308)


* See Doe v. Dunning, 549 P.2d 1 (Washington

State Supreme Court)


- 4 of 4 -

Attached Lexis/Nexus documentation with underlining and notes of Paul Andrew Mitchell:


Prosecutors are clearly entitled to immunity for initiating a prosecution. Whether the charges were false and whether the prosecutors knew they were false is irrelevant. An allegation that the prosecutors failed to make an independent investigation also falls within the scope of prosecutorial immunity.


Governments > Federal Government > Employees & Officials

Civil Rights Law > Immunity From Liability > Local Officials > Customs & Policies

Torts > Public Entity Liability > Immunity > Judicial immunity


Lying and submitting false affidavit after a trial has been concluded are not within the scope of prosecutorial immunity. These acts were not part of the presentation of the government’s case nor of the judicial process. They do not involve the role of prosecutors as advocates. They are instead actions taken for the personal benefit of the prosecutors to cover up their wrong doings. Although prosecutors are entitled to immunity for wrongs they may commit in the judicial process, they are not entitled to immunity for action taken to cover up these wrongs in order to avoid any possible personal liability.


Governments > Federal Government > Employees & Officials

Civil Rights Law > Immunity from Liability > Local Officials > Customs & Policies

Torts  > Public Entity Liability > Immunity > Judicial Immunity


Prosecutorial immunity extends only to liability for damages. Prosecutors may still be liable for declaratory and injunctive relief.


Civil Rights Law > General Overview

Civil Rights Law > Section 1983 Actions > Scope

Civil Rights Law > Conspiracy > Elements


42 U.S.C.S. § 1985(3) is not a general federal tort law, but requires that there must be some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus.


Civil Rights Law > General Overview

Civil Rights Law > Section 1983 Actions > Scope

Civil Rights Law > Conspiracy > Elements


A claim of conspiracy under 42 U.S.C.S § 1985(3) requires a deprivation of some right or privilege created by the Constitution or other provisions of federal law. The rights, privileges, and immunities that § 1985(3) vindicates must be found elsewhere.


Civil Rights Law > General Overview

Constitutional Law > Bill of Rights > Fundamental Freedoms > Freedom of Speech > Scope of


Torts > Intentional Torts > Defamation > Defenses > Fair Comment & Opinion


Racial prejudice and disagreement with political opinions cannot be sufficient bases for official action. The deprivation of these constitutional rights, if it can be proved, would entitle a plaintiff to nominal damages, if to no other form of relief. By making the deprivation of such rights actionable for nominal damages without proof of actual injury, the law recognizes the importance to organized society that those rights be scrupulously observed.


Civil Rights Law > Section 1983 Actions > Scope

Civil Rights Law > Conspiracy > Elements

Civil Rights Law > Conspiracy > Knowing Nonprevention

Criminal Law & Procedure > Criminal Offenses > Inchoate Crimes > Conspiracy > Elements


Under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1986, any person who has knowledge of a 42 U.S.C.S. § 1985 conspiracy and has the power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the conspiracy, and does not, may be liable to the party injured.


Civil Rights Law > Section 1983 Actions > Scope

Civil Procedure > Declaratory Judgment Actions > Federal Judgments > General Overview

Civil Rights Law > Section 1983 Actions > Education Institutions

Civil Rights Law > Section 1983 Actions > Elements > Color of State Law > General Overview

Governments > Federal Government > Claims By & Against

Governments > Federal Government > Employees & Officials


Federal officials ordinarily are not suable under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983, which requires action under color of state law, but they may be liable under § 1983 where they are charged with conspiring with state officers or employees.


Governments > Federal Government > Claims By & Against

Civil Rights Law > Immunity From Liability > Local Officials > Customs & Policies

Civil Rights Law > Immunity From Liability > General Overview

Torts > Public Entity Liability > Immunity > General Overview


The United States Department of Justice is not a juridical entity separate from the United States or the individual officers and employees who direct and work for it. The same is true of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The United States has not waived its sovereign immunity for constitutional torts as such. However desirable a direct remedy against the government might be as a substitute for individual official liability, the sovereign still remains immune to suit.


Governments > Local Governments > Claims By & Against

Governments > Local Governments > Employees & Officials


The “City of Denver Police Department” is not a separate suable entity.


Civil Rights Law > Immunity From Liability > Local Officials > Customs & Policies


Governmental entities are not entitled to any sort of immunity under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 [for federal citizens ONLY: see Wadleigh v. Newhall – PM]




Opinion by: ARNOLD

(10th Cir. 1985)

(771 F.2d 431) ARNOLD, Circuit Judge


Francisco Eugenio Martinez, known as “Kiko,” appeals from the District Court’s dismissal of his civil-rights complaint. Martinez claims the defendants deprived him of his civil and constitutional rights, conspired to “get Kiko,” and tried to “railroad” him into prison on unsubstantiated criminal charges. He asserts claims based on 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, unspecified sections of the Constitution {771 F.2d 432} of the State of Colorado, common-law tort actions including false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious abuse of process, harassment, gross misconduct, outrageous conduct, and negligence, and violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Code of Professional Responsibility for lawyers. He seeks damages, an injunction, and declaratory relief. The principal defendant is Fred M. Winner, at all relevant times Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, who presided over plaintiff’s trial in 1981 for mailing a letter bomb.


The District Court held that Judge Winner and the federal prosecutors were entitled to immunity from liability for damages for their acts, and that declaratory and injunctive relief were not available in this case. The judge and the federal prosecutors were dismissed from the case, and no relief could be granted against them. The causes of action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985, 1986, and 1988 were dismissed as either inapplicable or because no claim was stated under them. The claims against the remaining defendants were dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) and 12(b)(6). 1 Martinez 20 days to correct the deficiencies in the complaint, but he chose to stand on the complaint as filed. The dismissal of his complaint was therefore with prejudice.


We hold that Judge Winner is absolutely immune from any claim for damages, and that injunctive and declaratory relief against him would serve no purpose. He has left office. As to the other defendants, we affirm in part and reverse in part.




Martinez’s complaint arises out of criminal actions against him in both state and federal courts for the possession and mailing of three letter bombs. In 1973 the United States Attorney’s office for the District of Colorado decided to prosecute Martinez for possession of unregistered explosives and the sending of explosives through the United States mails. Martinez fled the jurisdiction and did not return until 1980, when he was arrested by federal authorities. The charges in the indictment were split; each of three mail-bomb incidents was tried separately. In 1980 the Denver District Attorney’s office also charged Martinez with crimes involving bombing attempts. These state charges were later dismissed upon motion of the prosecution.


During the first trial highly improper conduct occurred. The facts are summarized in this Court’s decision in United States v. Martinez, 667 F.2d 886, 887-88 (10th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1008, 102 S. Ct. 2301, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1304 (1982). In stating the facts we draw also on the complaint, which we must take as true for present purposes. During the middle of the first trial the presiding judge, Judge Winner, held a secret meeting in his hotel-room. Present at the meeting were two Assistant United States Attorneys, three Deputy United States Marshals, the Judge’s second secretary, who was also a deputy clerk of the District Court, and some witnesses for the prosecution. Neither defendant nor his counsel were notified about this meeting. Judge Winner expressed apprehension that the jury was being intimidated by spectators, and that Martinez might be acquitted. He wanted hidden cameras installed to record the intimidation, which he felt was an obstruction of justice. It was agreed at the meeting that a mistrial would be declared, so as to give the government another chance to convict Martinez before another jury. Judge Winner’s thought was that the prosecutors should not move for a mistrial until after the defense had presented its case, so that the government [sic] could be informed as to defense strategies. The judge further stated that he could provoke counsel for defendant into requesting a mistrial. One witness, also a defendant here, Officer Tyus of the City of Denver Police Department, {771 F.2d 433} suggested that he could cause a mistrial by giving improper and prejudicial testimony that had previously been ruled inadmissible.


The reason given for not inviting defendants counsel to the meeting was the court’s suspicion (unverified on the record) that one of defendant’s counsel might be involved in the supposed conspiracy to intimidate the jury.


The next morning, the government announced that it no longer opposed the motion for mistrial that had been made the previous day by defendant and denied. Defense counsel asked why the government had changed its position, and, according to the complaint, an Assistant United States Attorney replied, falsely, that the government was willing to consent to a mistrial because one of the jurors had become ill. The defense then joined in the motion, and a mistrial was declared. Judge Winner and the government had apparently thought it important to induce defense counsel to join in the mistrial motion, so as to avoid a later claim of double jeopardy.


In United States v. Martinez, supra, we held that the government’s misrepresentation of its grounds for seeking a mistrial and its failure to inform the defense of the hotel-room meeting barred retrial as to the first letter-bomb mailing under the Double Jeopardy Clause. Id. at 889-90. Martinez was then tried for a second alleged mailing of a letter bomb, and this time he was acquitted by the jury. The United States then prosecuted him for the third alleged letter-bomb mailing. We held that this prosecution was not barred by the government’s apparently negligent destruction of physical evidence, but that the prosecution could not, in the course of the third trial, introduce evidence of the first two alleged bombings as similar crimes or acts. United States v. Martinez, 744 F.2d 76, 80 (10th Cir. 1984). On remand, the District Court dismissed the third charge on motion of the government, which apparently believed that it lacked sufficient evidence to convict, in view of our holding ruling out evidence of the first two bombings. United States v. Martinez, No. 73-CR-414 (D. Colo. Nov. 30, 1984) (order dismissing remaining counts).


We now summarize the remaining allegations of the complaint before us on this appeal. (Additional details will be given as plaintiff’s theories against the various defendants are discussed.) Martinez alleges that there was a “get Kiko” conspiracy on the part of state and federal law-enforcement agencies, Judge Winner, and others. Plaintiff, a lawyer, says that he was actively using his legal skills to promote the assertion of rights by Mexicanos and other “oppressed” national minorities, including Native Americans. As a result of these activities, and because he himself was a Mexicano, he alleges that law-enforcement agencies conspired to harass and oppress his political and social activism. He claims they carried out unlawful surveillance and investigations, kept a dossier on him, received and passed on information, and issued malicious and inflammatory press releases. He says that false charges were brought against him, charges known to the prosecution to be false, and that the defendants tried to “railroad” him to jail. The “railroading” charge has particular reference to the hotel-room meeting, the details of which we have already described. As a result of these activities, Martinez alleges that numerous constitutional violations occurred and that many common-law torts were committed against him.


Because this appeal comes to us from a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim, we take the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322, 92 S. Ct. 1079, 31 L. Ed. 2d 263 (1972). And under the liberal pleading rules set out in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S. Ct. 99, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80 (1957), “a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief* (footnote omitted).




Martinez’s complaint seeks to allege many claims against many defendants. {771 F.2d 434} The clearest way to describe these claims and our disposition of them, we think, is to take each of the defendants or groups of defendants in turn. We will begin with Judge Winner, because the question


Corrected Docket # 130 / 2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2 by Juan Viche



American Gulag USA

ATTENTION ALL PATRIOTS! (Twitter discussion)

Big Gov v Free Speech The Real US Gov/IRS targeting coverup #IRS #IRSscandal #FreePaulAndrewMitchell

Nancy D. Freudenthals order:

Nancy D. Freudenthal scrubs the record:


Referenced by Paul in his above handwritten communication:

Re: Chris Hedges: The NDAA and the Death of the Democratic State - Truthdig

2nd Circuit "sewer service" in Hedges et al. v. Obama et al. REFUSED FOR CAUSE -- RTS (RETURN TO SENDER)


New article from World Net Daily [07/22/14]:

Shock number unsure Obama US Citizen

Paul Andrew Mitchell [09/2010] re: Pres. Obama eligibility connection re: Terry Lakin:

 Link to an interview with Paul Andrew Mitchell that also touches on Sheriff Arpaio investigation as to whether Pres. Obama  is a US Citizen

Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) corruption disclosed to Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Maricopa County, Arizona, USA by Private Attorney General |Private Attorney General discloses DOJ and DHS corruption to Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Maricopa County, Arizona, USA [04/2013]

Re: Private Attorney General complains to Joyce Riley about Arpaio's 21-MONTH investigation ... [07/13]


31 Questions (a network experiment)

2012 Interview with Paul

Paul Andrew Mitchell Constitution, citizens, and the united states OPR Live 12 06 12


New update:




July 19, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink


July 19, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

American Gulag USA

This is happening right now in the good ole United States of Amerika in the case of Paul Andrew Mitchell - the real US Gov/IRS targeting cover-up scandal they don't want you to know about.

Big Gov. v Free Speech The Real US Gov/IRS targeting cover-up #IRS #IRSscandal #FreePaulAndrewMitchell

Schizophr Bull 2010 Van Voren 33 5 aka American Gulag

July 19, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Big Government v. Freedom of Speech

Inform House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform ( for starters. After reading the below then check:




Paul Andrew Mitchell a Citizen of the State of Washington and a Private Attorney General has been detained and imprisoned since January 28, 2014, been  moved over 42 times to reach Cheyenne, Wyoming for the trial (or the NON-TRIAL) of the century.

The case of U.S. v. Joseph Rubin Hill & Paul Andrew Mitchell are tied to the string of IRS cases and rogue agents accused of targeting conservative groups across several western states.  This ongoing scandal continues to be reported widely both on and off the internet - Google “Lois Lerner - IRS Targets Conservative - Tea Party Groups”.

In January 2014 a questionable arrest warrant landed Paul Andrew Mitchell in solitary confinement and torture as testified by Paul Mitchell.  “The underlying indictment had not charged fraud but obstruction of an official proceeding at the US District Court in Cheyenne.  That proceeding has reportedly produced 10 subpoenas issued to as many clients of Mitchell’s co-defendant, Joseph Rubin Hill,” according to the latest article regarding this critical case: “Blowing Whistles at Hurricanes – Marxism Meets the Big Sky Country” by Michael Hafter.         

In the meantime, the growing number of watchdog groups and concerned citizens continues to grow while Paul Andrew Mitchell is denied bonds bail under the very base and core of our United States Constitution - “Innocent Until Proven Guilty.”

While Paul Andrew Mitchell remains in federal detention, now for over 6 months, Mr. Mitchell continues to be denied his right to a speedy trial, the right to mount his own legal defense or to represent himself even in his capacity of Private Attorney General; all the while Mr. Mitchell’s handwritten motions from his prison cell continue to be ignored by Judge Nancy Dee Freudenthal.

Perhaps even more egregious is that the judge presiding over this scandalous case, Judge Nancy Dee Freudenthal herself was involved in a subpoena in previous civil case by Paul Andrew Mitchell.

In what seems a very strange turn of events, Federal Judge Nancy Dee Freudenthal herself, whose credentials had been in default as of January 7, 2013 due to Mr. Mitchell’s subpoena in a civil suit dating October 1st 2004, is now herself presiding over this vital case of basic American freedom and constitutional rights versus big government, abuse of power and apparent retaliatory actions.

Most inconceivably, on Thursday, July 10, 2014 Judge Nancy Dee Freudenthal conducted a CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC hearing which immediately deemed Paul Andrew Mitchell incompetent and in need of formal competency restoration procedures an additional FOUR months this time in a federal MEDICAL facility [MCFP Springfield - Federal Bureau of Prisons] W ITHOUT bond and based on the opinion of ONE court expert who had been approved by Judge Nancy Dee Freudenthal herself.

Paul Andrew Mitchell, a well-respected and knowledgeable Private Attorney General with years of experience as a defender of constitutional and civil rights, who has never committed a crime in his life and who has DEVOTED himself to the protection of others’ freedoms, today sits in a federal detention facility without bond after 6 months of very “unusual” circumstances and treatment, including not having even received a response from this same judge who received a formal subpoena request in a civil case from Mr. Mitchell dating back to October 2004 and January 2013, this being a basic right afforded to all citizens of  this country under 28 United States Code 453 (re: Oath).

As a Citizen of the State of Washington Paul Andrew Mitchell continues to be treated worse than any terrorist or enemy combatant of this country while his most basic rights under the United States Constitution, the same constitution which he has studied, honored and PROTECTED year after year, still  FAILS to protect him, and all the while being denied the opportunity of bail bond, a fair and speedy trial while being detained and possibly drugged in a federal MEDICAL facility, adding insult to injury and further humiliation to this patriot of our country with a long and PROVEN history of service to the protection of this country’s freedoms and its fellow citizens freedoms and rights.

When you sit still at the face of your country’s and fellowman’s adversity and extortion, you have come one step closer to your own imprisonment.

For more information (see links below): or if you can assist Paul Andrew Mitchell, please contact:

House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform (

Cheyenne Wyoming U.S. District Court House

Contact House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform re: new US Gov./IRS target and torture scandal

Re: Paul Andrew Mitchell | U.S. Gov. (executive and judicial), IRS targeted individual

Media contacts:

Mari Fernandez 813-610-2842

Juan Schoch 407-925-4141



American Gulag USA

Attention, all patriots! (Twitter tweet thread)


Twisted individuals out there that think torturing of political prisoners is just fine and grand


July 14, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Contact House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform re: new US Gov./IRS target and torture scandal

New US Gov./IRS target and torture scandal (Please share this out)

To House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform (

Subject: US Gov. / IRS Targeting Scandal - Torture is going to happen if not stopped

Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 10:53:30 -0400

"Judges take due process and discovery claims seriously, especially when they involve concerns over the infringement of the right to free political speech. And they rightly don't take kindly to evasion or failure to produce evidence. We look forward to the IRS's answers."

Except when the judges are corrupt and sending someone off to be tortured (see below):

Torture of American in US Gov/IRS Scandal Re: Paul Andrew Mitchell | U.S. Gov. (executive and judicial), IRS targeted individual

July 13, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

CIVIL MINUTE SHEET STATUS CONFERENCE | Competency Hearing 07-10-14, 10AM | Case No. 14-CR-27-2F

"Judges take due process and discovery claims seriously, especially when they involve concerns over the infringement of the right to free political speech. And they rightly don't take kindly to evasion or failure to produce evidence. We look forward to the IRS's answers."

Except when the judges are corrupt and sending someone off to be tortured (see below):
Paul, a living being, of sound mind, is being sent away to be medicated, aka pumped full of drugs, brainwashed, brainfried, etc., that is blatant torture by the U.S. Government. Methinks multiple felonies lie somewhere therein on the part of various U.S. Government officials and in some instances U.S. Government impostors. Please notify pertinent civil, military (executive, legislative, and judicial) authorities of this crime. (see below) Please share this with your neighbor.
U.S. Code› Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 1 › § 4

18 U.S. Code § 4 - Misprision of felony

Current through Pub. L. 113-121. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.


[Docket# 125]


(Motion by Terry Harris to make this hearing closed to the public and such is granted by the Court.)

10:06 a.m Government calls Dr. Cynthia Low via video confernce. Direct examination of Dr. Low by Bob Murray for the Government.
10:26 a.m. Cross examination of Dr. Low by Terry Harris for the Defendant.
11:09 a.m. No re-direct examination of Dr. Low by Bob Murray for the Government and no additional witnesses.
11:11 a.m. Terry Harris agrees that Dr. Low can be dismissed at this time and she is dismissed (video ended).
11:12 a.m. Terry Harris calls Paul Mitchell. He swears himself. Direct examination of Paul Mitchell by Terry Harris. Defense Exhibit A used (Dr. Low report) but not offered or admitted.
11:54 a.m. Court recessed for lunch.
1:16 p.m. Court resumes. Direct examination of Modeleski by Terry Harris continues.
2:53 p.m. No cross by Bob Murray for the Government. Defense rests. Court recessed for break.
3:18 p.m. Court resumes. Judge issues ruling - defendant ordered to undertake formal competency restoration procedures at a federal medical facility. Status Conference set for 11/10/14 at 1:30 p.m. Written Order to follow.
3:45 p.m. Court recessed.

CIVIL MINUTE SHEET STATUS CONFERENCE | Competency Hearing 07-10-14, 10AM | Case No. 14-CR-27-2F



Re: Paul Andrew Mitchell | U.S. Gov. (executive and judicial), IRS targeted individual

July 12, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink


[Docket# 124]



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


TO: Office of Presiding Judge (duly credentialed)

       U.S. District Court

       2120 Capitol Avenue, 2nd Floor

       Cheyenne 82001-3658

       Wyoming, USA

DATE: June 28, 2014 A.D.


Comes now the United States ex rel. Paul Andrew

Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Citizen of Washington

State and Private Attorney General under

18 U.S.C. 1964 to brief this honorable Court

with key highlights from the binding decision

of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

in Martinez v. Winner et al., 771 F.2d 424

(1985), as follows (underlined emphasis added):


(1) “A judge is not only entitled but also has a

duty to take all lawful measures reasonably

necessary to prevent the occurrence of a crime

in his courtroom.”


(2) “… Judge Winner had a duty to notify

the proper authorities if he felt a crime was

being committed in his courtroom.”


- 1 of 9 -


(3) “The complaint also seeks an injunction

and a declaratory judgment against Judge

…. judges’ absolute immunity does not

bar these kinds of relief.”


(4) “Prosecutors may still be liable for

declaratory and injunctive relief.”


(5) “… the prosecutor defendants are not

immune from declaratory relief, which

might serve the important purpose of

vindicating plaintiff’s constitutional rights.”


(6) “… immunity does not extend to injunctive

or declaratory relief ….”


(7) “… the complaint … sufficiently alleges that

Martinez was falsely arrested, prosecuted on

unfounded charges, and denied a fair trial

because of his race and national origin.”


(8) “… the complaint sufficiently alleges that

plaintiff was harassed and oppressed in

order to intimidate him from exercising

his First Amendment rights of freedom of

speech and expression ….”


- 2 of 9 -


(9) “… this harassment was based on at least

two factors: racial antipathy and

opposition to plaintiff’s political and

social opinions.


(10) “Even without the allegation of racial bias,

the complaint would sufficiently state a

claim for violation of the First and

Fifth Amendments ….”


(11) “… it is the duty of the authorities to

maintain surveillance of those suspected

of crime.”


(12) “Every citizen has a right to be free

from investigation and prosecution because

of his religious or political beliefs or race.”


(13) “… any person who has knowledge of a

Sec. 1985 conspiracy and has the power

to prevent or aid in preventing the commission

of the conspiracy, and does not, may be

liable to the party injured. … his Sec.

1986 action also becomes viable, and it

should not have been dismissed.”


- 3 of 9 -


(14) “The complaint states legally sufficient

causes of action under Secs. 1981, 1983,

1985(3), and 1986, and under the First

Amendment and the Due Process Clause

of the Fifth Amendment.” [42 USC 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986; First Amend., Fifth Amend.]


(15) “… police surveillance and other investi-

gative techniques lawful in and of themselves

become unlawful … if employed with

specific intent to suppress certain unpopular

political opinions.”


(16) “Individual police officers … would be

entitled to qualified immunity unless they

violated clearly established constitutional

rights of which reasonable officers knew

or should have known at the time of the

alleged acts.”


(17) “Plaintiff may pursue his claim for

declaratory and injunctive relief against

the successor of the defendant … as United

States Attorney.”


[continue next page]


- 4 of 9 -



The entire Court Docket in the instant case

to date is hereby incorporated by reference,

as if set forth fully here.



“The Case for Sanctions against L. Robert

Murray, Mark C. Hardee et al.” is also

attached and hereby incorporated by reference,

as if also set forth fully here.


Respectfully submitted,

Signed: Paul Andrew Mitchell (chosen name*)

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

Citizen of Washington State, Pannill v. Roanoke;

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, 87 Wn.2d 50, 549 P.2d (1976)

(re: the fundamental law and basic common-law



- 5 of 9 -


“The Case for Sanctions against

L. Robert Murray, Mark C. Hardee et al.”


There are already numerous reasons to

impose formal sanctions on Murray, Hardee

et. al.; in no particular order, there is

now evidence of:


(1) gross negligence by failing to enforce

     proper credentials for Clerk’s Office personnel;


(2) jury tampering by entering grand jury rooms

     without all proper credentials e.g. 28 U.S.C. 544;


(3) conspiring to deprive Paul Mitchell of

     “meaningful technical assistanceof Counsel;


(4) conspiring, and being accessories to violate

     7 of the first 10 Amendments, and two (2)

     Human Rights Treaties; see 18 U.S.C. 241, 242;


(5) conspiring with U.S. Marshals to defame

     Paul Mitchell with false and misleading

     descriptions e.g. in booking records and in

     his “U.S. Marshal file” e.g. EXTREMIST” [sic];


(6) falsely representing fraudulentsubpoenas

     as valid and lawful grand jury “process”;


- 6 of 9 -


(7) commencing malicious prosecution, and

     causing false arrest and false imprisonment;


(8) being principals and accessories to vicious

     witness retaliation and concealing Court

     records, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2, 3, 1513, 1519;


(9) depriving Paul Mitchell of notice and hearing

     by failing to serve him with the “MOTION”

     for “psych evaluation”, nor with Notice

     of any hearing(s) on said “MOTION”;


(10) depriving Paul Mitchell of any hearing(s)

      on said “MOTION” for “psych evaluation”;


(11) conspiring, and being accessories to

      violate Article VI, Clause 3, in the Constitu-

      tion (Oath of Office Clause);


(12) violations of their own Oaths of Office (if any),

      as required by applicable Federal and

      Wyoming State laws e.g. McDade Act, 4 U.S.C. 101;


(13) willful misrepresentation of the “UNITED STATES

      OF AMERICA” as a Proper Plaintiff, when it

      clearly lacks legal standing; 28 U.S.C. 1345;

      “United States of America” also lack standing as such;


- 7 of 9 -


(14) conspiring to suppress favorable (exculpatory)

      evidence during GJ hearings; see Brady v. Maryland;


(15) conspiring to misrepresent the legislative intents

      of the Paperwork Reduction Act and the Civil

      RICO law at 18 U.S.C. 1964;


(16) conspiring to defame Paul Mitchell as being

      “delusional”, with intent willfully to obstruct

      a lawful credential investigation, and to

      misrepresent pro bono assistance to U.S.

      Coast Guard Investigations and other

      Federal government personnel and agencies;


(17) conspiring to inflict cruel and summary

      punishment on Paul Mitchell with solitary

      confinement, and “diesel therapy” via 42 MOVES;


(18) obstructing correspondence, lawfully

      addressed to a Federal Grand Jury “Foreperson”

      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1504 (last paragraph);

      see 18 U.S.C. 1702 (a felony Federal offense);


(19) conspiring to perpetrate tortious interference

      with the lawful livelihood of Paul Mitchell,

      and his ongoing patent research required to

      support his utility patent pending at the

      U.S. Patent and Trademark Office;


- 8 of 9 -


(20) conspiring to cause indefinite delays and

      further tortious interference with Paul

      Mitchell’s access to graduate-level/Ph.D.

      education in Computer Science and Law;


(21) causing further indefinite delays and

       tortious interference with Paul Mitchell’s

       claims against the University of Washington

       at Seattle for defamation, discrimination,

       witness retaliation, and obstructing his

       access to Summer Sessions in 2009 and 2012;


(22) conspiring to perpetrate a state of war or

      mixed war against Paul Mitchell, in

      connection with the repeated use of a “nom

      de guerre” (war name) on all Court “process”;


(23) conspiring to perpetrate tortious interference

      with further development and maintenance

      of Paul Mitchell’s Internet website and

      Internet discussion list; and,


(24) conspiracy to force total loss of Paul

      Mitchell’s Seattle apartment and all of its

      normal household contents, and personal computer

      and telecommunications equipment/network.


- 9 of 9 -





Re: Paul Andrew Mitchell | U.S. Gov. (executive and judicial), IRS targeted individual


July 12, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE: Art. VI, Clause 3, U.S. Const.; 5 U.S.C. 2906, 3331; 28 U.S.C. 951; FREV 201(c)(2) #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2 (USDC/DWY)

[Docket# 123]


JUDICIAL NOTICE: Art. VI, Clause 3, U.S. Const.;

5 U.S.C. 2906, 3331; 28 U.S.C. 951; FREV 201(c)(2)

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


TO: Office of Presiding Judge (duly credentialed)

       District Court of the United States (“DCUS”)

       2120 Capitol Ave., 2nd Floor

       Cheyenne 82001-3658

       Wyoming, USA

DATE: July 3, 2014 A.D.


In pari material with Rule 201(c)(2) in the Federal

Rules of Evidence, formal DEMAND is hereby

made of this honorable DCUS to take mandatory

judicial notice of all Federal court records

currently in the legal custody of the Office of

Clerk of Court, U.S. District Court, District

of Wyoming, all locations, with particular

emphasis on the U.S. Office of Personnel

Management Standard Form 61 APPOINTMENT

AFFIDAVITS, required by 5 U.S.C. 2906 to be

delivered to the court to which the offices

of U.S. District Judge, U.S. Magistrate

Judge, Clerk of Court and Deputy Clerk

of Court pertain, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 2104,

2903, 2906, 3331, 3332, 3333, 5507, and

Article VI, Clause 3, in the Constitution for

the United States of America, as lawfully amended

(“U.S. Constitution”).


- 1 of 4 -





Messrs. Allan B. Johnson, Kelly H. Rankin

and Ms. Nancy D. Freudenthal are per force

disqualified from ever ruling, or otherwise

attempting to “DENY”, the above DEMAND,

for reasons including but not limited to

the following, evidencing conflicts of interest:

(1) mandatory notice leaves no discretion

      on the part of this Court: compare Rule 201(c)(1);

(2) the existence of valid SF-61 credentials

      for all the above now assumes facts

      not in evidence;

(3) all the above are now IN DEFAULT by

      failing timely to produce valid SF-61

      credentials in response to lawful requests

      for same (see all docket entries);

(4) the blanket FOIA exemption for the entire

      Judiciary at 5 U.S.C. 551 is unconstitu-

      tional for violating Article VI, Clause

      3, in the U.S. Constitution supra;

(5) “Where rights secured by the Constitution

      are involved, there can be no rule making

      or legislation which would abrogate

      them.” Miranda v. Arizona; 5 U.S.C. 551;

(6) “Stare decisis” means that no one should

      be punished for relying upon standing

      decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.” U.S. v. Mason;


- 2 of 4 -


(7) violations of the Undersigned’s Petition Clause

      Rights have already been properly alleged,

      and verified, in multiple VERIFIED


(8) the Petition Clause guarantees Rights

      conservative of all other Rights: U.S. Supreme

      Court (cites omitted);

(9) pleadings to Federal and State Courts

      are petitions to government for redress

      of grievances, as the latter term occurs

      in the Petition Clause, First Amendment;

(10) the Undersigned has already suffered

        deliberate, and premeditated, obstruction

        of Petitions for Habeas Corpus relief, FOIA

        enforcement, Civil RICO remedies, and

        rights of action under 42 U.S.C. 1985-1986:

        see Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424

        (10th Cir. 1985) re: declaratory and injunc-

        tive relief, no immunity;

(11) the Undersigned’s common law rights to

        his good name and reputation have

        also been violated with malice afore-

        thought, which rights are also expressly

        guaranteed by two (2) Human Rights

        Treaties elevated to the status of supreme

        Law by the Supremacy Clause in the

        U.S. Constitution i.e. supreme Law in

        Wyoming, Nebraska, and Washington State;



- 3 of 4 -

(12) the Undersigned’s DEMAND TO CEASE AND

        DESIST, Docket #101 entered 06/17/2014, has

        been ignored by continuing acts of

        defamation, malicious prosecution,

        attempted extortion e.g. forced medication,

        and false incarceration, all in violation

        of 18 U.S.C. 241, 242, 1513, 1519, 1951 and 1962(d).


I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, hereby

verify under penalty of perjury, under the laws

of the United States of America, without

(outside) the “United States” (federal govern-

ment), 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: July 3, 2014 A.D.


Respectfully demanded,

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)


- 4 of 4 

NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE: Art. VI, Clause 3, U.S. Const.; 5 U.S.C. 2906, 3331; 28 U....



Re: Paul Andrew Mitchell | U.S. Gov. (executive and judicial), IRS targeted individual

July 11, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink