Docket No. 2:14-CR-00027-NDF
U.S. District Court
2120 Capitol Avenue, 2nd Floor
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
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
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 --
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
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,
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
(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)
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
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
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,
for extensive case law upon which Mitchell has often relied during the period
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
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
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
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).
/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)