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

« You Can Beat The Credit Card Debt Collectors / Shout Out To Hanavee @ Hubpages | Main | Ebola treatment with accompanying MOA from doctor who has worked with Ebola victims (5 search results on Google, 6 search results on Bing) »


(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 opm.gov.

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 [email protected] 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]

Ref: http://supremelaw.org/authors/stark/transcript.re.credentials.htm

2012 Interview with Paul http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-39904/TS-577579.mp3

July 22, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink