FIRST NOTICE AND DEMAND TO CEASE AND DESIST

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF Document 101 Filed 06/16/14 Page 1 of 6

FIRST NOTICE AND DEMAND TO CEASE AND DESIST

#2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2 (USDC/DWY) [sic]

(“SEALED” [sic])

TO: Ms. Nancy D. Freudenthal

c/o U.S. District Court (“USDC”)

2120 Capitol Ave., 2^nd Floor

Cheyenne 82001

Wyoming, USA

DATE: June 6, 2014

RE: malicious prosecution, fraudulent concealment etc.

[18 USC 1519]

Formal DEMAND is hereby made of you to immediately recuse yourself from the instant case, retroactive to the hearing on 3/21/2014, and to cease and desist from any further attempts to preside upon such case at any time in the future, for reasons including but not limited to the following:

(1) The USDC for the District of Wyoming (“DWY”) lacks jurisdiction in personam, due chiefly to multiple violations of 28 U.S.C. 1691 by Clerk’s Office personnel [fraudulent concealment]; absent the requisite credentials, Stephan Harris cannot perform any duties conferred upon that Office: see “Clerks or Jerks? The Pivotal Duties of Federal Court Clerks,” by the Undersigned [author], which is incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully here;

- 1 of 6 -

(2) you have violated 28 U.S.C. 1654 by knowingly, and fraudulently, maintaining false and misleading docket entries [18 USC 1001] showing the Undersigned as “legally represented by Mark C. Hardee” [sic], when the 2-hour hearing on 3/21/2014 should have made it entirely obvious to you that the Undersigned has always proceeded In Propria Persona by opting to appear “personally” under 28 U.S.C. 1654 and NOT “by counsel” [sic]; cf. arraignment;

(3) you have stubbornly repeated plain errors by fostering the fallacious notion that a litigant who opts to appear personally has effectively “waived” counsel, and is therefore not entitled to adequate technical assistance of counsel [cf. “plain error”]; that fallacy is flatly contradicted by standing case law under 28 U.S.C.S. 1654 (cf. also cases re: “Pro Se” litigants, 28 USCA 1654), and under the Sixth Amendment, in which the correct meaning of “assistance of counsel” has been well established for more than a century (cf. “stare decisis” as explained in U.S. v. Mason [S.Ct.]);

(4) you have also manifested evidence that you have failed to read statutes such as 28 U.S.C. 1654 before hearings; your gross negligence in this manner was painfully obvious on 3/21/2014, when you paused for some time to access and read 18 U.S.C. 1504, giving all present reason to conclude that you had not reviewed that statute prior to that hearing: the last paragraph is one element essential to this litigant’s defense against all of the false charges enumerated in the charging document aka “indictment”; cf. 18 USCS 1504 (LexisNexis), [malicious prosecution];

- 2 of 6 –

(5) you have allowed the Court to proceed out of order by neglecting to adjudicate the two (2) MOTIONs TO DISMISS filed by this litigant to date, and by failing to ensure that any pleading(s) in opposition to said MOTIONs were duly served on this litigant; even if Mr. “Hardlee” [Mark C. Hardee] did receive electronic copies of all such opposition pleadings, he failed to forward copies of same to this litigant: those failures constitute positive proof of ineffective assistance of Counsel, which has resulted in OUSTING the Court of jurisdiction; see Johnson v. Zerbst [S.Ct.] here;

(6) the Court was provided with an itemized AFFIDAVIT of 28 MOVES this litigant has endured, in violation of the Eighth Amendment; but, on 6/3/2014 you acted as if those 28 MOVES were “news” to you; your ignorance of those 28 MOVES calls for the conclusion that you are NOT reading this litigant’s pleadings, necessarily causing multiple violations of the Petition Clause and also FRCrP Rule 2 re: fairness and justice (fair and just);

- 3 of 6 –

(7) your ignorance and negligence regarding credentials has rendered you civilly liable to this litigant under 42 U.S.C. 1985-86, if not also criminally liable under 18 U.S.C. 2, 3, 912, 1513, 1519, and 1962, for starters; mandatory OATHs OF OFFICE did necessarily impose a clear legal duty upon you to confirm that all Clerk’s Office personnel at the USDC/DWY were at all times in full compliance with all laws, previously cited in this litigant’s several pleadings, as a matter of fact [fraudulent concealment]; that duty of yours began when you were first admitted to the Wyoming State Bar, and has continued without interruption right up to the present: there is no statute of limitations for fraud; see Art. VI, Cl. 3 (OATHs) [cf. Fraud, Black’s Law Dictionary];

(8) the Chief Judge of a Federal Court has supervisory responsibility for all subordinates, such as Clerk’s Office personnel, particularly when key authorities must be delegated to those subordinates by the same Federal Court on which the Chief Judge presides, or claims to preside: here cf. “respondeat superior” aka vicarious liability in pari materia with 18 U.S.C. 1964 (Civil RICO) [fraudulent concealment];

- 4 of 6 –

(9) absent all requisite credentials, Mr. Harris cannot be delegated any authorities by the Court, nor can Mr. Harris delegate any authority(s) to any subordinate Deputies; likewise, Mr. Harris cannot select or summon jurors: the Federal Jury Selection and Service Act [28 USC 1861 et seq.] defines who may select and summon Federal juries, be they grand or petit (trial) juries, be they civil or criminal juries; as such, vicarious liability touches both Ms. Freudenthal and Mr. Harris insofar as 28 U.S.C. 951 and 5 U.S.C. 2906 (the “court”) are flagrantly and routinely being violated in the instant case, and other cases;

(10) the issue of your liabilities to me is directly addressed in Stump v. Sparkman and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”): in the former, the U.S. Supreme Court has already held that a Federal Judge is liable to all Proper Parties when the Court clearly lacks jurisdiction; in the latter United States Treaty [cf. Supremacy Clause], judicial officers are made liable for violating the fundamental Rights of Parties, notwithstanding that such violations were committed by Court personnel acting in their “official” capacities [fraudulent concealment 18 USC 1519]; also, the “not self-executing” clause in Congress’ Reservations, Understanding and Declarations (“RUD”) clearly violates the Petition Clause, First Amendment: read: no private right of action.

- 5 of 6 –

(11) the official record in the instant case now documents numerous violations of this litigant’s Fundamental Rights, as guaranteed by the ICCPR supra and by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Tenth Amendments, and Article VI, Clause 2 (Supremacy Clause) and Clause 3 (Oath of Office Clause) in the U.S. Constitution.

- INCORPORATION –

The Undersigned now incorporates his prior DEMAND FOR RECUSAL as already filed and served in the instant case, as if the same were set forth fully here.

Respectfully submitted June 6, 2014 A.D.

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell (chosen name*)

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

Relator In Propria Persona, 28 U.S.C. 1654;

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964,

Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (2000)

(objectives of Civil RICO)

* See Doe v. Dunning, Washington State Supreme Court

(re: fundamental law, common-law right

to change one’s name)

- 6 of 6 –