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


Southern Division / Springfield





          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. )


Comes now the United States ex rel. Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., to move this honorable Court for Interlocutory Judgments 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.


(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 agreement 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;

(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).




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 breach 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.

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 relevant 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. 2010)

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)

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].


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.


All premises having been duly considered, the United States ex rel. Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., respectfully requests his 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.


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:



                  INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENTS:  28 U.S.C. 2201

                  with Attachments


to the following addressee(s):



Office of 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:    11/4/2014


Signed:   /s/ Paul Mitchell



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

          Relator In Propria Persona (initially)

          and In Forma Pauperis (USDC/DWY)