Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0
HEIGHT=

Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Coffees from Youngevity
HEIGHT=

Coffees from Youngevity

Youngevity Be The Change

Youngevity Healthy Chocolate

GOFoods Youngevity

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.
HEIGHT=

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Ron Paul Forums
HEIGHT=

Ron Paul Forums

APFN Message Board
HEIGHT=

APFN Message Board

Leo Emil Wanta / Wantagate Links

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

« NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR IMMEDIATE SERVICE OF DOCKET ENTRIES / #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2 (USDC/DWY) | Main | The Explosive Billy Sol Estes Documents Re: LBJ, LBJ's Hitman Malcom Wallace,. & Kennedy,. Assassination/Murders »

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS REQUESTED UNDER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT: 5 U.S.C. 552 In re: #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2 (USDC/DWY)

[Teknosis: Docket entry 120. The last Docket entry to date. If nothing changes and Paul is not freed then he will be forced to attend a competency hearing 7-10-14 in Cheyenne, Wyoming.]

NOTICE OF MOTION AND

      MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING

      DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS REQUESTED

      UNDER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT: 5 U.S.C. 552

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

 

TO: Office of the Presiding Judge (duly credentialed)

       District Court of the United States (“DCUS”)

       2120 Capitol Avenue, 2nd Floor

       Cheyenne 82001-3658

       Wyoming, USA

DATE: June 30, 2014 A.D.

 

Greetings Your Honor:

 

Comes now the United States, 28 U.S.C. 1345,

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

Citizen of Washington State (expressly NOT

a federal citizen), Relator In Propria Persona,

28 U.S.C. 1654, and Private Attorney General,

18 U.S.C. 1964(a), to petition this honorable

DCUS for an ORDER staying any further

proceedings in the case identified by the

Docket number supra, pending discovery

of all documents requested heretofore by

Relator in proper Requests made under

the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) at

5 U.S.C. 552. For original jurisdiction,

see 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B) strictly construed.

 

- 1 of 7 -

 

The United States hereby questions the

propriety, and constitutionality, of the

blanket FOIA exemption for the entire

Federal Judiciary at 5 U.S.C. 551, as being

too broad and conflicting directly with

the Oath of Office Clause at Article VI,

clause 3, in the Constitution for the United

States of America, as lawfully amended.

 

A key holding in the historical decision by

the U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona

is directly on point in this context, to wit:

 

“Where rights secured by the Constitution

are involved, there can be no rule making

or legislation which would abrogate them.”

 

Said FOIA exemption is a clear instance

of legislation which results in impeding

routine discovery of required credentials,

of which the Office of Clerk of Court is the

legal custodian, designated as such by

5 U.S.C. 2906 and 28 U.S.C. 951.

 

The former Sec. 2906 refers expressly to

“the court to which the office pertains”;

the latter Sec. 951 refers expressly to the

duties of Clerk’s Office personnel.

 

The United States infers therefrom that

Clerk’s Office personnel must maintain

legal custody of their own OPM SF-61 credentials.

 

- 2 of 7 -

 

To date, Relator has also confirmed a

relevant statement at 63C Am Jur 2d,

under the heading “Public Officers and

employees,” which recognizes the public’s

Right to DEMAND the performance of all

such “duties”, to wit:

 

“The public has a right to demand that

public officials perform all of their

duties faithfully.” [emphasis added]

At various times in the past, the blanket

exemption at 5 U.S.C. 551 has been the

primary reason why Relator resorted

to a NOTICE AND DEMAND (“NAD”) for

the SF-61 credentials of Court personnel,

including but not limited to Ms. Nancy

D. Freudenthal, Kelly H. Rankin, Stephan

Harris, Zachary Fisher and Tammy Hilliker.

 

The applicable Law, under all circum-

stances discussed above, is that uncon-

stitutionality dates from the moment of

enactment, NOT from any decision so

branding the Act of Congress in question.

 

Accordingly, the United States now

concedes, and stipulates formally, that

5 U.S.C. 551 is and always was, uncon-

stitutional insofar as it prevents this

Court from enforcing both DEMANDs, and

 

- 3 of 7 -

 

otherwise proper FOIA requests, for the

U.S. Office of Personnel Management

Standard Form 61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS

required of all judicial officers employed

by the Federal District Courts in Seattle,

Washington State, and Cheyenne, Wyoming.

 

Moreover, relevant case law under the FOIA

has consistently held that a proper FOIA

request is not required to demonstrate either

relevance or materiality: if the document

exists, the requester has a right to a true

and correct copy, provided the document

is not covered by one or more of the reason-

able exemptions e.g. privacy.

 

As already discussed above, the blanket

exemption for the credentials of Federal court

officers is NOT reasonable because it

directly abrogates all Fundamental Rights

embodied in the Oath of Office Clause at

Article VI, clause 3 supra.

 

Nevertheless, valid SF-61 credentials are

both relevant and material e.g. 5 U.S.C. 5507

bars personnel from being paid any compen-

sation without having executed the AFFIDAVIT

required by 5 U.S.C. 3332. Similarly, 44 U.S.C. 3512

authorizes a “complete defense, bar, or otherwise”

if a SF-61 form lacks a valid OMB control

number.

 

- 4 of 7 -

 

The record in the instant cases already demonstrates

unnecessary and unjustified delays in produc-

tion of other discovery e.g. here see Docket

#45 and #46 (both dated 03/13/2014). After

more than 3 FULL MONTHS have elapsed

since the latter date, Relator has STILL

received NONE of the documents covered by

the latter two (2) Discovery “orders”.

 

Of course, insofar as Mr. Rankin’s SF-61

has not been produced, or fails to display

a currently valid OMB control number and

proper paragraph citing 5 U.S.C. 2903, THEN

both discovery “orders” were unlawful

ab initio; and the “arraignment” must be

vacated chiefly because Mr. Rankin lacked

authority to preside in the first instance.

Relator’s NAD to Rankin was never

answered, thereby activating estoppel pursuant

to Carmine v. Bowen, and resulting in a

fraud upon Relator and upon the Courts,

pursuant to U.S. v. Tweel.

 

Furthermore, the statutes at 5 U.S.C. 2104,

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

to render Mr. Rankin a material witness

to the existence, or absence, of his own

valid SF-61 credential, chiefly Sec. 2906.

 

- 5 of 7 -

 

REMEDIES REQUESTED

All premises having been duly considered,

this honorable Court is respectfully moved

to issue the following immediate relief:

(1) STAY of proceedings pending discovery of

      all documents previously requested in all

      FOIA requests and DEMANDS originated by

      PAUL Andrew Mitchell;

(2) VACATING the “Detention Hearing/Arraignment”

      at Docket #42, and the “ORDER OF DETENTION”

      at Docket #48, in the interests of justice;

(3) RELEASING Paul Andrew Mitchell to the

      protective custody of Harris & Harris, P.C.;

(4) PAYMENT of a preliminary stipend of USD

      $25,000.00 to a special client trust account,

      maintained by Harris & Harris, P.C.,

      for the purposes of initiating rehabilitation

      of Paul Andrew Mitchell’s basic needs

      for food, shelter and clothing;

(5) ORDER to the Office of the U.S. Attorney, District

      of Wyoming, to show cause why the instant

      “criminal case” should not be dismissed

      with prejudice as to Paul Andrew Mitchell; and,

(6) ORDER to the Office of the U.S. Attorney, District

      of Wyoming, to show cause why this Court

      should not proceed to adjudicate all

      other civil remedies previously requested by

      Paul Andrew Mitchell e.g. Civil RICO, 42 U.S.C. 1986

      etc.

 

- 6 of 7 -

 

Respectfully submitted June 30, 2014 A.D.,

[Signed:] Paul Andrew Mitchell (chosen name*)

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

Citizen of Washington State, Pannil 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, 87 Wn. 2d 50, 549 P.2d 1

(1976)(re: the fundamental law, and

basic common law principal, concerning

Relator’s right to change his name)

 

- 7 of 7 - 

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS REQUESTED UNDER FREEDOM...

___

Related: 

A submission to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform re: IRS targeting scandal:
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/06/house-committee-on-oversight-and-government-reform-informed-about-new-information-re-irs-us-gov-targ.html

 

 

 

 

July 9, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink