TO: Hon. Linda Sanders, Warden
DATE: 10/15/2014 07:30:01 AM
SUBJECT: Rebuttal to Linda Sanders, 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 U.S.C. 1512, 1513, and also by the retaliation remedy authorized by Congress in the False Claims Act at 31 U.S.C. 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
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 Amendment.
My competency does not need any “restoration procedures” [sic].
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 U.S.C. 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. principals (18 U.S.C. 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 Requests for Freudenthal’s four (4) mandatory credentials required of all U.S. District Judges.
In further support of all three (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 U.S.C. 144, which should now be filed in the official Docket records of the USDC/DWY, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
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.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (chosen name)*
Private Attorney General, Civil RIO: 18 U.S.C. 1964,
Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (2000)
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
Cc: Jon Roberts, Mental Health Unit Manager
* See Doe v. Dunning, 549 P.2d 1 (Washington State Supreme Court)