Docket No. 2:14-CR-00027-NDF

 

TO:

U.S. District Court

2120 Capitol Avenue, 2nd Floor

Cheyenne 82001

Wyoming, USA

 

Subject:  APPLICATION FOR DISQUALIFICATIONS: 28 USC 144

 

Greetings Your Honor:

 

Comes now Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. ("Mitchell"), to apply for

mandatory disqualifications of Nancy D. Freudenthal and possibly also

Scott W. Skavdahl and Alan B. Johnson from the instant criminal case,

pursuant to 28 USC 144, for good causes showing as follows:

 

                 AFFIDAVIT OF BIAS AND PREJUDICE

 

Notably, at the hearing on 3/21/2014, Ms. Freudenthal clearly

attempted to characterize Mitchell's ongoing credential

investigation as some sort of pathological obsession

(or similar words to that same effect).

 

Mitchell promptly objected by emphasizing that the credential

investigation was being performed on behalf of private clients

who paid fair professional fees for that service.

 

The credential investigation has also been actively assisted by

Federal officers in DOJ's Office of Information Policy ("OIP") and

the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys ("EOUSA") in Washington, D.C.,

with actual knowledge of Deputy U.S. Marshals in San Diego, Spokane

and Seattle.

 

Such official assistance consisted mainly of timely and untimely

replies and production of partial documents responsive to

Mitchell's numerous Requests, properly submitted under the

Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 USC 552, in addition to

in-person meetings with Deputy U.S. Marshals in San Diego and Seattle.

 

To date, Mitchell has had five (5) in-person meetings with

one or more Deputy U.S. Marshals stationed in Seattle, and two (2)

in-person meetings with Deputy U.S. Marshals stationed in San Diego.

 

Near the conclusion of the 3/21/2014 hearing, Freudenthal

actually apologized to Mitchell for her attempt to characterize

the credential investigation, and its cumulative results to date,

as the obsession of someone suffering from a mental illness

of some kind.

 

Mitchell continues to regard that attempt as defamatory,

and defamation violates two (2) Human Rights Treaties --

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  (See VCC5 infra.)

 

Then, without Mitchell's actual knowledge, Mr. L. Robert Murray

dba Assistant U.S. Attorney, commenced to file a "secret motion"

-- ex parte -- for a second psychological evaluation of Mitchell at FDC/SeaTac.

That ex parte motion was never timely served upon Mitchell;  no notice of any

hearing on that ex parte motion was ever served upon Mitchell;  and, no

hearing on that ex parte motion was ever conducted at which Mitchell

was allowed to appear.  (See Code of Conduct, Canon 3(A)(4) infra.)

 

Mitchell has always proceeded In Propria Persona i.e. "personally"

under 28 USC 1654, notwithstanding any and all appearances

to the contrary.

 

In point of fact, Mr. Mark Hardee as initial "standby counsel" failed

completely to forward or even to mention said ex parte motion to Mitchell;

and, Docket records were erroneously modified -- by person(s) unknown --

so as to list Mr. Hardee as Mitchell's formal legal "representative",

directly contradicting Mitchell's decision to proceed always

In Propria Persona.

 

Freudenthal summarily "granted" said ex parte motion, but

Mitchell was not allowed to see any "order" granting that ex parte motion

until after he arrived at FDC/SeaTac for a second period of detention

and more solitary confinement.

 

In point of fact, Hardee also failed completely to forward or even

to mention to Mitchell said "order" granting that ex parte motion.

 

Mitchell has also confirmed a Federal law which prohibits Federal Judges

from engaging in the practice of law, and defines that violation as a

high misdemeanor.  (See 28 USC 454.)

 

All psychological interviews of Mitchell by one Cynthia A. Low,

dba Forensic Psychologist, were conducted at FDC/SeaTac at all times

withOUT the assistance of Counsel present during those interviews, and

over Mitchell's multiple written objections to the total absence of Counsel,

and to all missing credentials for one Stephan Harris whose name

appeared in the conforming stamp displayed on Freudenthal's "order".

 

Relying upon information provided by the U.S. Supreme Court in

Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 468 (1938), Mitchell believes

the complete absence of counsel during all of Low's interviews

resulted in ousting this Court of jurisdiction (cf. "jurisdictional bar",

"court no longer has jurisdiction to proceed").

 

Mitchell has never competently and never intelligently waived his

Fundamental right to meaningful technical assistance of "standby" counsel.

Here, Mitchell relies upon U.S. v. Coupez, 603 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir. 1979)

(re: "meaningful technical assistance"), and upon similar case law

under 28 USC 1654.  Near the end of the 3/21/2014 hearing,

Mitchell expressly reserved his Right to change his mind about

formal legal representation, and Freudenthal acknowledged same

on the record.

 

Mitchell has previously filed a DEMAND FOR RECUSAL which expanded

substantially upon the several reasons why he believes Freudenthal's bias

and prejudice do warrant her immediate disqualification.

 

Said DEMAND FOR RECUSAL is hereby incorporated by reference, as if set forth

fully here.

 

(See Docket records for the particulars of that DEMAND FOR RECUSAL.)

 

Chiefly, while being detained unlawfully in Gering, Nebraska,

Mitchell submitted a proper FOIA Request to OIP for the four (4)

credentials required of Freudenthal, Skavdahl and Johnson.

All three (3) of said Court personnel turned up with missing and/or

defective credentials:  OIP produced no SENATE CONFIRMATIONS

for any of those 3 personnel, and also no APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS

or OATH OF OFFICE for Johnson.  (See 28 U.S.C. 453 and

5 USC 2104, 2902, 2903, 3331, 3332, 3333, 5507.)

 

Also, on information Mitchell concluded the APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS

for Freudenthal and Skavdahl were visibly counterfeit forms;  and, the

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSIONS for Freudenthal and Skavdahl were incomplete

because of the visibly counterfeit APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS executed by

one Eric Holder, Jr., formerly dba U.S. Attorney General.  (See 44 USC 3512.)

 

Mitchell has confirmed that the Federal statute at 5 USC 2902(c) requires

the U.S. Attorney General to countersign all PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSIONS

of judicial officers e.g. district judges, also U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals.

 

Mitchell has also diligently studied the Appointments Clause and

the Recess Appointments Clause in the U.S. Constitution.

He concluded therefrom that a SENATE CONFIRMATION is absolutely

required of Freudenthal, Skavdahl and Johnson:  the absence of that

key mandatory credential also invalidates any and all other credentials,

such as the PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION, APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS

and OATH OFFICE, chiefly because the SENATE CONFIRMATION

cannot be bypassed or circumvented indefinitely.

 

Even for recess appointments under Article II, Section 2,

Clause 3 in the U.S. Constitution ("2:2:3"), Mitchell found case law

holding that the U.S. Senate's formal advice and consent must follow

during the next ensuing Senate session.  Here, Mitchell relies upon

the decision in Noel Canning v. NLRB, 705 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

 

Prior to his FOIA Request for her four (4) credentials, Mitchell

did mail to Freudenthal a proper DEMAND for disclosing a copy

of her APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS.  A copy of that DEMAND should

be filed in this Court's Docket records.  Freudenthal never answered

that DEMAND (see further discussion of "demand" infra).

 

Mitchell also believes Freudenthal suffers from a severe

conflict of interest that results from her failure to exercise

adequate administrative supervision of Court subordinates

such as Stephan Harris, Zachary Fisher and Tammy Hilliker dba

Clerk and Deputy Clerks of Court, respectively (to name a few).

(See Code of Conduct, Canon 3(B) infra.)  Here, Mitchell believes

probable cause exists for application of the theory of vicarious

liability aka "respondeat superior" in Latin (let superiors answer

for the misconduct of their subordinates).

 

All three of the latter personnel of this Court have either failed or refused

to produce their APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS required by 5 USC 3331 et seq.,

and their OATH OF OFFICE required by 28 USC 951 (duties),

after receiving Mitchell's proper DEMANDs for disclosure of same.

 

In this context, after finding it Mitchell has been relying upon a statement

in 63C AmJur 2d, to wit:  "The public have a right to demand that public officials

perform all of their duties faithfully."

 

Also, by studying the FOIA, Mitchell confirmed the Federal law at

5 USC 551(1)(B) presently exempts the entire Judicial Branch

from the Freedom of Information Act, thus necessitating a

DEMAND instead of a proper FOIA Request for disclosure of

credentials required of this Court's inferior officers

i.e. magistrates, clerks and deputy clerks.

 

Mitchell has now formally charged Stephan Harris with concealing

Court records in violation of 18 USC 1519 (a Federal felony).

(See the Court Docket for that "VCC" infra, and in pari materia

compare 18 USC 2071 where it mentions "custody" of court records.)

 

The Court is the legal custodian of all APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS of

all Court officers, designated as such by the Federal law at 5 USC 2906

("the court to which the office pertains"), NOT the Administrative Office

of the U.S. Courts in Washington, D.C.

 

Mitchell sincerely believes the instant case can and should be correctly

and promptly dismissed as a direct consequence of the well documented

failure by Stephan Harris to produce 2 required credentials;  without both

credentials, neither he nor any of his subordinates can lawfully sign, or seal,

any "subpoenas" issued by the Court.  See 28 USCS 1691 and 28 USCA 1691

for extensive case law upon which Mitchell has often relied during the period

in question.

 

Mitchell concluded that delegation of authority by Stephan Harris is

legally impossible, as long as he cannot or will not produce proof of

all credentials required of all Clerks of Court and all Deputy Clerks of Court by

applicable Federal statutes and Constitutional provisions.  (See 6:3, U.S. Const.)

 

Mitchell has also concluded that the Paperwork Reduction Act effectively

created a "right to inspect" all U.S. Office of Personnel Management

Standard Form 61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS for the required display

of a valid OMB control number at the upper right-hand corner of page one.

 

Mitchell therefore believes the net effects of all these missing

and defective credentials is a clear and painfully obvious violation

of FRCrP Rule 2, at a minimum, in addition to many far-reaching

violations of criminal statutes dutifully cited in Mitchell's several

VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINTs, ON INFORMATION ("VCC"),

as now filed in the Court's official Docket records in the instant case.

 

For the record, Rule 2 currently reads:  "Interpretation.  These rules

are to be interpreted to provide for the just determination of every

criminal proceeding, to secure simplicity in procedure and fairness

in administration, and to eliminate unjustifiable expense and delay.

(As amended April 29, 2002, eff. Dec. 1, 2002.)"

 

On information found in the Federal court decision in U.S. v. Gregory,

508 F.Supp. 1218 (USDC/SDAL 1980), Mitchell also relies now upon

the following abstract of that decision, to wit:  "Pursuant to Rule 2,

party who objects to Court's ruling on motion to recuse should be

able to obtain review of that ruling before being put to burden and

expense of lengthy trial."

 

To date, Mitchell has also lodged four (4) separate "Qui Tam" Complaints

under the False Claims Act ("FCA") at 31 USC 3729 et seq.  Each contained

a PROOF OF SERVICE identifying recipients of hard copy originals

transmitted by Mitchell via U.S. Mail.

 

Mitchell has also studied case law under the FCA which properly classifies

qui tam relators as "agents of the United States" (see United States

ex rel. Madden v. General Dynamics Corp., 4 F.3d 827 (9th Cir. 1993)).

 

As such, Mitchell believes that he is thereby entitled to all authorized

awards and all protections afforded to all FCA "whistleblowers"

(see 31 USC 3730(h), expressly authorizing relief from retaliation

against "agents" for efforts to stop false claims against the Treasury

of the United States.)

 

Mitchell also relies consistently upon the statute at 5 USC 5507

(a Federal officer cannot get paid before executing a valid 5 USC 3332

affidavit).

 

On further information and belief, Mitchell has studied the Code of Conduct

for United States Judges, and thereby inferred probable and demonstrable

violations of Canons 2(A), 3(A)(4), 3(B)(1) and 3(B)(2) from all facts, laws

and court decisions mentioned heretofore.

 

On information found in the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case

of U.S. v. Mason, 412 U.S. 391 (1973), Mitchell also relies upon the following

text in that decision, to wit:  "If the doctrine of stare decisis has any meaning

at all, it requires that people in their everyday affairs be able to reply upon

our [U.S. Supreme Court] decisions and not be needlessly penalized for such

reliance."

 

On information found in the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case

of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), Mitchell also relies upon the

following principle established in that historic decision, to wit:

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be

no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

 

On all information discussed heretofore, Mitchell sincerely believes that

sufficient probable cause already exists to justify the conclusion that

Freudenthal lacks even minimal authority to determine the legal

sufficiency of this AFFIDAVIT under 28 USC 144.

 

This concludes Mitchell's AFFIDAVIT OF BIAS AND PREJUDICE.

 

 

               INCORPORATION OF ATTACHMENTS

 

Mitchell hereby incorporates by reference two Attachments:

"NOTICE TO COUNSELS: USA v. Hill et al. (dated 9/20/2014)" and

"NOTICE OF ERRORS by Harris & Harris, P.C. (dated 10/1/2014)"

as if both were set forth fully here.

 

 

           VERIFICATION / CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH

 

I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Sui Juris, hereby verify

under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States

of America, without the "United States" (Federal government),

that the instant APPLICATION is made in good faith, and

the above statement of facts and laws is true and correct,

according to the best of my current information, knowledge

and belief, so help me God, pursuant to 28 USC 1746(1).

See Supremacy Clause (Constitution, Laws and Treaties

of the United States are all the supreme Law of the Land).

 

 

Dated:  10/1/2014

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

/s/ Paul Andrew 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)

 

*   See Doe v. Dunning, 549 P.2d 1

   (Washington State Supreme Court)

 

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308)

 

Attachments:  NOTICE TO COUNSELS: USA v. Hill et al.    (dated 9/20/2014)

              NOTICE OF ERRORS by Harris & Harris, P.C. (dated 10/1/2014)