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

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


[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