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

« 11/5/14 |#4| ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE: ORDERED that: (1) plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); and (2) this case is transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming? RICO in its | Main | 11/06/2014 |#6| PETITIONER'S STATEMENT filed by Paul Andrew Mitchell a/k/a/ Mitchell Paul Modeleski.(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 11/06/2014) »

11/06/2014 |#5| PETITIONER'S MOTION for Court order filed by Paul Andrew Mitchell a/k/a/ Mitchell Paul Modeleski. (Attachment: # 1 Exhibit)(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 11/06/2014)

24 Mitchell a/k/a/ Mitchell Paul Modeleski v. Freudenthal et al List Parties mowdce 6:2014-cv-03460 540 10/10/2014
Please 'Like' this page I created on FB https://www.facebook.com/pages/International-Covenant-on-Civil-and-Political-Rights/308087676064004

___

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Sui Juris
c/o USMCFP #44202-086
P.O. Box 4000
Springfield 65801-4000
Missouri, USA

In Propria Persona (initially)
In Forma Pauperis (USDC/DWY)



United States District Court

Western District of Missouri

Central Division / Springfield


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,      )
                                                 )
          Plaintiff,                          )
     v.                                         )
                                                 )
JOSEPH RUBEN HILL et al.,          )
                                                 )
           Defendants.                     )
______________________________)
                                                  )
United States                              )   Case No. 14-3460-CV-S-MDH-P
ex relatione                                 )
Paul Andrew Mitchell,                  )   NOTICE OF MOTION AND
                                                  )   MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENTS:
     Civil Cross-Plaintiff,               )   28 U.S.C. 2201.
                                                  )
     v.                                          )
                                                  )
Nancy Dell Freudenthal,                )
Stephan Harris,                           )
L. Robert Murray, and                )
Does 1 thru 100,                          )
                                                  )
     Civil Cross-Defendants.           )
______________________________)







- 1 of 6 -

Comes now the United States ex rel. Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.,

to move this honorable Court for Interlocutory Judgements on the ten

(10) Main Points enumerated below, and for a routine standing ORDER

requiring the Clerk of Court to serve scanned electronic copies of

this MOTION upon all named Civil Cross-Defendants in due consideration

of Relator's current plight as an indigent political prisoner --

falsely arrested and falsely incarcerated since 1/28/2014.

TEN MAIN POINTS FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

(1)  as appended to the U.S. Senate's ratification of the ICCPR
     (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights),
     the "not self-executing" Declaration is unconstitutional for
     violating the Petition Clause in the First Amendment and
     the Bicameralism Clause at Article I, Section 7, Clause 2;

(2)  without approval by the U.S. House of Representatives in
     compliance with 1 U.S.C. 101, the "not self-executing"
     Declaration is not binding upon American courts as a matter of
     supreme Law expressed in the Supremacy Clause;

(3)  Federal statutes e.g. 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1362 and 2241(c)(3)
     in pari materia with the Arising Under Clause and the Supremacy
     Clause, suffice for purposes of enacting "domestic" legislation
     implementing the ICCPR a priori;

(4)  the absence of an Act of Congress expressly declaring the
     ICCPR "not self-executing" activates a mandatory inference
     that whatever was omitted or excluded was intended to be
     omitted or excluded by Act of Congress (cf. "inclusio unius
     est exclusio alterius" in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition);

(5)  Relator is entitled to a declaratory judgment stating that
     the United States is in violation of its several obligations
     under the ICCPR;

(6)  recourse to the plain language of the ICCPR, and to its drafting
     history, demonstrates that it is, in fact, a self-executing
     agreeent that, upon ratification, became the Law of the Land
     and thus must be enforced by American courts of competent
     jurisdiction (see Igartua v. United States, 626 F.3d 592,
     624-628 (1st Cir. 2010));

(7)  the plain language of the ICCPR also counsels that individual
     rights were created, and the United States agreed to provide
     a forum and remedies for vindication, and equal protection, of
     those rights to State Citizens (Citizens of one of the United
     States of America), and also to federal citizens, when either
     class of American People do claim violations of those rights;

- 2 of 6 -

(8)  injunctive relief is also proper and available for purposes
     of enjoining indefinite delays in providing, and developing,
     effective remedies for violations of fundamental rights,
     notwithstanding that those violations were committed by
     persons acting in some official capacity;

(9)  Congress is obligated to enact legislation expressly barring
     private rights of action to enforce the ICCPR, if the intent
     of Congress is limited to governing the relationship between
     two sovereign States Party to the ICCPR; and,

(10) without a proper constitutional Amendment duly ratified pursuant
     to Article V, the ICCPR can neither expand, nor increase the
     number of, enumerated powers previously conferred upon the
     United States by the Constitution for the United States of
     America (cf. Executive Order 13132, Aug. 4, 1999 re: Federalism).

SUMMARY MEMORANDUM OF LAW

     Relator is pleased to provide this honorable Court with key

excerpts from Executive Order 13107 of Dec. 10, 1998, 63 Fed. Reg. 68991,

which directly addresses implementation of human rights treaties:

     It shall be the policy and practice of the Government of the
     United States ... fully to respect and implement its obligations
     under the international human rights treaties to which it is a
     party, including the ICCPR ....
     
     All Executive departments and agencies ... shall maintain a
     current awareness of United States international human rights
     obligations that are relevant to their functions and shall
     perform such functions so as to respect and implement those
     obligations fully ....
     
     The term 'treaty obligations' shall mean treaty obligations
     as approved by the Senate pursuant to Article II, section 2,
     clause 2 of the United States Constitution.
     
     To the maximum extent practicable and subject to the availability
     of appropriations, agencies shall carry out the provisions of
     this order.
     
     The principal functions of the Interagency Working Group shall
     include ... coordinating and directing an annual review of
     United States reservations, declarations, and understandings
     ... and matters as to which there have been nontrivial complaints
     or allegations of inconsistency with or breath of international
     human rights obligations, in order to determine whether there
     should be consideration of any modification of relevant
     reservations, declarations, and understandings to human rights
     treaties, or United States practices or laws.

- 3 of 6 -

     Relator is also pleased to provide this honorable Court with a

key definition from Executive Order 13132 of Aug. 4, 1999, 64 Fed. Reg.

43255, for clearly and precisely stating the correct legal meaning

of the phrase "United States of America" as follows:

     Section 1.  Definitions.  For purposes of this order: ...
     (b) 'State' and 'States' refer to the States of the
     United States of America, individually and collectively,
     and where relevant, to State governments, including units
     of local government and other political subdivisions
     established by the States.

     Relator hereinafter argues that the latter Definition controls

the meaning of "United States of America" and "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"

as the latter terms have already occurred in the instant cases.

     Relator also provides this honorable Court with the following

relative case law, particularly decisions which have already examined

the ICCPR's "not self-executing" Declaration:

     Igartua v. United States, 654 F.3d 99 (1st Cir. 2011)
     Judges Torruella, Lipez and Thompson dissenting
     
     Igartua v. United States, 626 F. 3d 592 at 624-628 (1st Cir. 2000)
     Judge Torruella dissenting in part
     
     Hurtado v. U.S. Attorney General, 401 Fed. Appx. 453 (2010)
     
     Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008), Breyer dissenting
     
     Roach v. Quarterman, 220 Fed. Appx. 270 (5th Cir. 2007)
     
     Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), footnote 2
     
     Beazley v. Johnson, 242 F.3d 248 (5th Cir. 2001)
     
     United States v. Stuart, 489 U.S. 353, 375 (1989)
     Justice Scalia concurring
     
     Robertson v. General Electric Co., 32 F.2d 495 (4th Cir. 1929)
     
     138 Cong. Rec. S4783-84 (statement of presiding officer of
     resolution of ratification)

- 4 of 6 -

     Relator also wishes to edify this honorable Court with the

results of recent research identifying the several Federal statutes

where the famous trio "constitution, laws, or treaties" occurs, and

which continue to have legal force and effect:

     25 U.S.C.  415   Leases of restricted lands
                416a  Lease provisions
     28 U.S.C. 1257   State courts;  certiorari
               1258   Supreme Court of Puerto Rico;  certiorari
               1260   Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands;  certiorari
               1331   Federal question
               1441   Removal of civil actions
               1505   Indian claims
               2241   Power to grant writ
               2254   State custody;  remedies in Federal courts
      48 U.S.C 1424-3 Appellate jurisdiction of District Court
               1613a  Appellate jurisdiction of District Court
               1823   Appellate jurisdiction of District Court
               1824   Relations between courts of United States and
                      courts of the Northern Mariana Islands

A similar list of statutes can be found by locating similar phrases

which replace "laws" with the word "statutes" [cites omitted].

INCORPORATION OF ATTACHMENTS

     Relator now attaches his "NOTICE OF INTENT to Justice Scalia (S.Ct.)"

dated 10/13/2014, his "Addendum to NOTICE OF INTENT to Scalia, J."

dated 10/14/2014, and his "Rebuttal to Linda Sanders, Warden"

dated 10/15/2014, and incorporates same by reference as if set forth

fully here.

REMEDIES REQUESTED

All premises having been duly considered, the United States ex rel.

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., respectfully requests this honorable

United States District Court to issue ten (10) interlocutory judgments

declaring as a matter of law each of the Ten Main Points itemized above,

thus creating specific remedies that will remain binding upon all

Proper Parties for the duration of the instant case(s) and for purposes

including but not limited to clarifying their respective legal relations.


Thank you very much for your continuing professional consideration.

- 5 of 6 -

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., hereby verify under penalty of

perjury, under the laws of the United States of America pursuant to

28 U.S.C. 1746(1), that I caused the following document(s) to be mailed,

with sufficient postage affixed, from the Mail Room at the U.S. Medical

Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri, USA:

                  NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR
                  INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENTS:  28 U.S.C. 2201
                  with Attachments

to the following addressee(s):

Clerk of Court                  annotated "LEGAL MAIL", "Special Mail"
United States District Court    and "All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308)"
400 East 9th Street, Room 1510
Kansas City 64106
Missouri, USA


Dated:



Signed:    [/s/ Paul Mitchell]
Printed:   Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
           Relator In Propria Persona (initially)
           and In Forma Pauperis (USDC/DWY)

 

 

 

- 6 of 6 -


TRULINCS  44202086 - MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL - Unit: SPG-G-P

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FROM: 44202086
TO: Brown, Thomas; Guenette, Edward; Mullen, Jack; Saccato, Larry
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF INTENT to Justice Scalia (S.Ct.)
DATE: 10/13/2014 03:43:27 PM



NOTICE OF INTENT [annotated # 14-3460-CV-S-MDH-P (USDC/WDMO) PM]

TO:
Hon. Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street, N.E.
Washington 20543
District of Columbia, USA

SUBJECT: ICCPR's "not self-executing" Declaration violates the Petition Clause

Greetings Justice Scalia:

I am writing you to express my specific intent to challenge the
"not self-executing" Declaration which the U.S. Senate attached
to its ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights ("ICCPR").

During closed door testimony on 7/10/2014 in the case of
USA v. Hill et al., #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2 (USDC/DWY),
I was allowed to mention my prior efforts to correspond with a
Judge on the International Court of Justice concerning my doubts
about the constitutionality of that "not self-executing" Declaration.

Most unfortunately, the court pleading which I subsequently drafted
for specific relief on this point, was either lost or stolen by a fellow
inmate at a county jail in Gering, Nebraska. He had promised to
forward that draft to Harris & Harris, P.C., in Cheyenne, Wyoming;
but, those attorneys now tell me that no such pleading was ever
forwarded to them.

On the merits, I was delighted to encounter your name among the
brilliant dissents by Circuit Judges Torruella, Lipez and Thompson
in Igartua v. United States, 654 F.3d 99 (1st Cir. 2011), and by
Judge Torruella again in Igartua v. United States, 626 F.3d 592, 624
aka "Igartua IV". Quoting Judge Torruella now:

  "Such declarations are, of course, not the Law of the Land;
   only reservations are part of the treaty and become the Law
   of the Land."
   
  "... petitioners are entitled ... to a declaratory judgment stating that
    the United States is in violation of its obligations under the ICCPR."

During my 24+ years as a writer and court activist, I have taken special
note of American court decisions which have elucidated the Petition Clause
as applied to active litigation. Chiefly, the Petition Clause guarantees a
Fundamental Right that is conservative of all other rights, not permitting
dubious intrusions. Here see e.g. Chambers v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.,
207 U.S. 142 (1907) and Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516 (1945).

Accordingly, the "not self-executing" Declaration in the Senate's ratification
of the ICCP/r directly violates the Petition Clause. Insofar as that Declaration

- 1 of 2 -


TRULINCS  44202086 - MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL - Unit: SPG-G-P

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

bars American courts from enforcing obligations enumerated in the ICCPR,
it violates the First Amendment's crystal clear prohibition against any and all
federal legislation which infringes the Right to petition American courts for
redress of ICCPR violations, and to enforce rights enumerated in that treaty.
Here compare In re Grand Jury, 26 F.749 (DCUS/DOR 1886)(re: injury to
a right secured by a treaty).

Please also be informed that I have most recently mailed my INITIAL APPLICATION
FOR WRITS IN THE NATURE OF QUO WARRANTO AND HABEAS CORPUS
to the USDC/WDMO in Springfield, Missouri. In that litigation, God willing, I fully intend
to request declaratory judgments that:

(a) the "not self-executing" Declaration in the Senate's ICCPR ratification
    is unconstitutional for violating the Petition Clause in the First Amendment; and,
    
(b) the United States is in violation of its own obligations under the ICCPR,
    chiefly by blocking private rights of action to enforce that treaty
    otherwise available under the Arising Under Clause, the Supremacy Clause,
    28 U.S.C. 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. 2241(c)(3)(habeas corpus)
    
In the event I am denied any of the specific relief requested in my INITIAL APPLICATION
supra, please expect me to appeal ultimately to your good Office for timely judicial review
of my petition for Habeas Corpus relief, in particular under 28 U.S.C. 2241
(i.e. any justice on the Supreme Court).

Thank you, Justice Scalia, for your time and professional consideration of this
NOTICE OF INTENT.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell [signed Paul Mitchell]

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (chosen name)*
Private Attorney General, Civil RICO: 18 U.S.C. 1964,
Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (2000)
(objectives of Civil RICO);
Agent of the United States as Qui Tam Relator,
False Claims Act: 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq. (4X);
Qualified Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1513

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Larry Saccato

Legal Assistant, Next Friend and Interim Trustee,
Estate of Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308)

* See Doe v. Dunning, 549 P.2d 1 (Washington State Supreme Court)

- 2 of 2 -

RULINCS  44202086 - MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL - Unit: SPG-G-P

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FROM: 44202086
TO: Brown, Thomas: Guenette, Edward; Mullen, Jack; Saccato, Larry
SUBJECT: Rebuttal to Linda Sanders, Warden
DATE: 10/15/2014 07:30:01 AM



TO:
Hon. Linda Sanders, Warden
USMCFP/Springfield

Greetings Warden:

This is to acknowledge your brief written RESPONSE
to my given name, dated 10/10/2014.

I wanted to acknowledge your kindness as promptly
as possible, in order to demonstrate my good faith
and sincere desire to keep you, and your staff,
fully informed of the most important developments
in my case.

I will need more time to address the most important
issues more thoroughly e.g. by double-checking
all pertinent authorities before citing and sharing them
with you.

Chiefly, having testified on 7/10/2014, I am fully
qualified, and protected, by the Victim and Witness
statutes at 18 USC 1512, 1513, and also by the
retaliation remedy authorized by Congress in the
False Claims Act at 31 USC 3730(h).

Meanwhile, please permit me to summarize the
most salient errors that are immediately apparent
in your RESPONSE of 10/10/2014:

(1) my "assigned attorney" [sic]

Rebuttal: The missing and defective credentials
for one Nancy Dell Freudenthal have resulted in
making it legally impossible for her to "appoint"
any CJA attorney(s) as my formal legal representative,
or to sign any other "orders" in my case.

(2) "currently incarcerated [here] as a 4241(D) study
    for competency restoration" [sic]

Rebuttal: In point of fact, I am now fully competent
and have been fully competent for decades. Again,
Ms. Freudenthal lacks the requisite authority to "order"
my initial arrest on 1/28/2014 and transport to USMCFP
via forty-nine (49) discrete moves to date.

"Diesel therapy" is not therapy! Like solitary confinement,
it is a form of cruel and unusual punishment violating the
Eighth Amendement.

My competency does not need any "restoration procedures" [sic].

- 1 of 2 -


TRULINCS  44202086 - MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL - Unit: SPG-G-P

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frankly, my being here is a total and complete waste
of Federal government appropriations.

(3) "address these issues with the court or your attorney" [sic]

Rebuttal: Once again, see (1) above for proof that
I am not legally represented by Harris & Harris, P.C.,
as a matter of fact.

As a matter of law, I have always proceeded In Propria Persona
i.e. "personally" under 28 USC 1654.

As for the "court" to which you seem to refer, it should
already be evident to you (if not to your staff), that
serious conflicts of interest are now proven to exist
for multiple personnel employed by the USDC/DWY, notably
Ms. Freudenthal and Stephan Harris dba Clerk of Court
i.e. the principals (18 USC 2).

I do encourage you to contact DOJ's Office of Information Policy
("OIP") in Washington, D.C., for formal confirmation of their
written response to my proper FOIA Request for Freudenthal's
four (4) mandatory credentials required of all U.S. District Judges.

In further support of all (3) points made above, enclosed
please find a copy of Parts 1 of 2 and 2 of 2 of my recent
APPLICATION FOR DISQUALIFICATIONS: 28 USC 144,
which should now be filed in the official Docket records
of the USDC/DWY, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

That APPLICATION was legally served on the same day it was posted
via U.S. Mail at the Mail Room here at USMCFP/Springfield.

In conclusion, your RESPONSE of 10/10/2014 does not adequately
address "my issue" -- such as it is -- for reasons stated above,
and for additional reasons which I fully intend to elaborate,
as soon as I can perfect a more comprehensive rebuttal.

Thank you, Warden Sanders, for your continuing professional
consideration.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell [signed Paul Mitchell]

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (chosen name)*
Private Attorney General, Civil RICO: 18 USC 1964,
Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (2000)
(objectives of Civil RICO);
Agent of the United States as Qui Tam Relator,
False Claims Act: 31 USC 3729 et seq. (4X);
Qualified Federal Witness: 18 USC 1512, 1513

cc: Jon Roberts, Mental Health Unit Manager

* See Doe v. Dunning, 549 P.2d 1 (Washington State Supreme Court)

- 2 of 2 -

 

TRULINCS  44202086 - MODELESKI, MITCHELL PAUL - Unit: SPG-G-P

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FROM: 44202086
TO: Saccato, Larry; Schoch, Juan
SUBJECT: CIVIL INVESTIGATIVE REQUEST: 18 USC 1964
DATE: 11/2/2014 06:16:48 AM



CIVIL INVESTIGATIVE REQUEST: 18 USC 1964 (Civil RICO)

Attention:  [see DISTRIBUTION LIST below]

Greetings Warden et al.:

No later than 5:00 PM on Friday, 11/7/2014, kindly photocopy and transmit
to the Clerk of Court, USDC/WDMO, 400 East 9th Street, Room 1510,
Kansas City, Missouri, USA 64106, Civil Number 14-3460-CV-S-MDH-P,
printed hard copies of all documents, records, notes, email messages,
correspondence, and all other documentary materials currently maintained
by the USMCFP/Springfield concerning the Undersigned.

That Court will decide which documents to seal for reasons of privacy etc.

If you do not comply timely with this Request, please expect a proper SUBPOENA
for same (cf. civil investigative demand, 18 USC 1961 et seq.;  Rotella v. Wood,
528 U.S. 549 (2000) (objectives of Civil RICO)).

Thank you for your professional cooperation in this matter.

Respectfully,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell [signed Paul Mitchell]

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (chosen name)
BOP Reg. No 44202-086 aka "Modeleski, M.P." (given name)

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308)

DISTRIBUTION LIST:

1.  Sara Hampton
2.  Brenda Hutchison
3.  Michael McIntype
4.  Christina A. Pietz
5.  Jon Roberts
6.  Linda Sanders
7.  Robert Sarrazin
8.  Elizabeth Tyner

Cc:  Richard W. Schott, BOP Regional Counsel

- 1 of 1 -

PETITIONER'S MOTION for Court order filed by Paul Andrew Mitchell a/k/a/ Mitchell Paul Modeleski. (Att...

___

Exhibit # 1

11/06/2014 PETITIONER'S MOTION for Court order filed by Paul Andrew Mitchell a/k/a/ Mitchell Paul Mode...

___

Related:

Paul Andrew Mitchell has been bundled away by the US Government
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/02/paul-andrew-mitchell-has-been-bundled-away-by-the-us-government.html

November 8, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink