NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF Document 123 Filed 07/09/14 Page 1 of 4

NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE:

Article VI, Clause 3, U.S. Const.;

5 U.S.C. 2906, 3331; 28 U.S.C. 951; FREV 201(c)(2)

In re: #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2 (USDC/DWY)

TO: Office of the Presiding Judge (duly credentialed)

District Court of the United States (“DCUS”)

2120 Capitol Ave., 2^nd Floor

Cheyenne 82001-3658

Wyoming, USA

DATE: July 3, 2014 A.D.

In pari materia with Rule 201(c)(2) in the Federal Rules of Evidence, formal DEMAND is hereby made of this honorable DCUS to take mandatory judicial notice of all Federal court records currently in the legal custody of the Office of Clerk of Court, U.S. District Court, District of Wyoming, all locations, with particular emphasis on the U.S. Office of Personnel Management Standard Form 61 (“SF-61”) APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS, required by 5 U.S.C. 2906 to be delivered to the court to which the offices of U.S. District Judge, U.S. Magistrate Judge, Clerk of Court and Deputy Clerk of Court pertain, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 2104, 2903, 2906, 3331, 3332, 3333, 5507, and Article VI, Clause 3, in the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended (“U.S. Constitution”).

- 1 of 4 –

OBJECTION RE: DOCUMENTED

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Messrs. Alan B. Johnson, Kelly H. Rankin and Ms. Nancy D. Freudenthal are per force disqualified from ever ruling on, or otherwise attempting to “DENY”, the above DEMAND, for reasons including but not limited to the following, evidencing conflicts of interest:

(1) mandatory notice leaves no discretion on the part of this Court: compare Rule 201(c)(1);

(2) the existence of valid SF-61 credentials for all the above now assumes facts not in evidence;

(3) all the above are now IN DEFAULT by failing timely to produce valid SF-61 credentials in response to lawful requests for same (see all Docket entries);

(4) the blanket FOIA exemption for the entire Judiciary at 5 U.S.C. 551 is unconstitutional for violating Article VI, Clause 3, in the U.S. Constitution supra;

(5) “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona; 5 U.S.C. 551;

(6) “Stare decisis” means that no one should be punished for relying upon the standing decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.” U.S. v. Mason;

- 2 of 4 –

(7) violations of the Undersigned’s Petition Clause Rights have already been properly alleged, and verified, in multiple VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS, ON INFORMATION;

(8) the Petition Clause guarantees Rights conservative of all other Rights: U.S. Supreme Court (cites omitted);

(9) pleadings to Federal and State Courts are petitions to government for redress of grievances, as the latter term occurs in the Petition Clause, First Amendment;

(10) the Undersigned has already suffered deliberate, and premeditated, obstruction of Petitions for Habeas Corpus relief, FOIA enforcement, Civil RICO remedies, and rights of action under 42 U.S.C. 1985-86: see Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424 (10^th Cir. 1985) re: declaratory and injunctive relief, no immunity;

(11) the Undersigned’s common law rights to his good name and reputation have also been violated with malice aforethought, which rights are also expressly guaranteed by two (2) Human Rights Treaties elevated to the status of supreme Law by the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution i.e. supreme Law in Wyoming, Nebraska, and Washington State; and,

- 3 of 4 –

(12) the Undersigned’s DEMAND TO CEASE AND DESIST, Docket #101 entered 06/17/2014, has been ignored by continuing acts of defamation, malicious prosecution, attempted extortion e.g. forced medication, and false incarceration, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. 241, 242, 1513, 1519, 1951 and 1962(d).

- VERIFICATION –

I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, hereby verify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without (outside) the “United States” (federal government), that 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 U.S.C. 1746(1).

Dated: July 3, 2014 A.D.

Respectfully demanded,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell (chosen name)

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

Citizen of Washington State, Pannill v. Roanoke;

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

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a),

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

(objectives of Civil RICO)

- 4 of 4 -