[On left margin written
vertically:
“Petition Clause is the Right
conservative of all other rights.”
-- U.S. Supreme Court]
Case
2:14-cr-00027-NDF Document 67 Filed 03/27/14 Page 1 of 19
Case
No. #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR
RECUSAL OF NANCY D.
FREUDENTHAL (“NDF”)
AND EMERGENCY HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF
TO: Hon. Alan B. Johnson, USDC/DWY
DATE: 3/22/2014 A.D.
Greetings Your Honor,
I am honestly appalled by the bias, prejudice and discrimination exhibited by Ms. Freudenthal at the 2-hour hearing yesterday in the above case (3/21/2014).
Please allow Me to highlight the worst of her misconduct in what follows; and, I will be happy to elaborate and supplement as needed by you, at your earliest convenience.
(1) First things first: I enjoy a fundamental Right, under the Petition Clause, to request Habeas Corpus and Civil RICO relief; but, NDF emphatically refused any such remedies to Me, and did so repeatedly. This prejudice is all the more serious, given the lack of proven criminal jurisdiction: I have repeatedly challenged jurisdiction from the beginning (arrest on 1/28/2014), ab initio.
(2) Venue is obviously proper in the Western District of Washington: during the period in question, I never left Seattle except for occasional trips to Fry’s Electronics, in Renton, Wash.
- 1 of 11 –
(3) Rules of Court cannot be strictly enforced upon litigants proceeding In Propria Persona. The relevant case law is correctly cited, in context, in My Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for Writ of Certiorari in Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.; but, I am currently prevented from accessing the Internet and the large private database on the workstations in my private Seattle apartment. Rules of Court are not laws! See, e.g., Willy v. Coastal Corp. (Rules of court cannot expand or restrict original jurisdiction conferred by Act of Congress, notwithstanding the Abrogation Clauses at 28 U.S.C. 2072, and the former law at 18 U.S.C. 3771 (June 25, 1948) later replaced!)
(4) Speaking of law libraries, there is no U.S. Code, no CFR, and no Parallel Table of Authorities at the Scottsbluff County Detention Center in Nebraska. I invite NDF to spend just one 24-hour day here, to witness that ADJUDICATIVE FACT first-hand. Maybe then she will better understand FREV Rule 201(c)(2)! Maybe. Maybe not.
- 2 of 11 –
(5) NDF is flatly wrong about mandatory judicial notice, which is not limited to factual matters like the weather at noon yesterday. I have now lodged two (2) criminal complaints, against Messrs. James Marcy and Dave Guest, and I required mandatory [NOT discretionary] judicial notice of both, in part to satisfy my legal obligations imposed by 18 U.S.C. 4 (misprision). Those criminal complaints document matters of fact that were duly verified pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746 [without U.S.]. NDF is therefore aiding and abetting suppression of exculpatory evidence. See Brady v. Maryland. The relevant matters of fact include the well documented refusals of personnel, like William M. McCool, to produce ANY evidence of their OPM Standard Form 61 –or- their OATH imposed by 28 U.S.C. 951. Here, see 5 U.S.C. 5507 (can’t be paid), and 18 U.S.C. 912 (felony impersonation).
(6) The very same refusal has been true of Stephan Harris for at least 6 years! His missing OATHs are a major factual matter in my defense and in my challenge to jurisdiction: 28 U.S.C. 1691.
- 3 of 11 –
(7) “Indictments” are obviously “process” as the latter term occurs at 28 U.S.C. 1691. But, NDF arbitrarily ruled that all indictments are exempt from the clear and long-standing requirements of that statute, to wit: Clerk’s authorized signature and the Court’s official seal.
(8) NDF also had a serious conflict of interest because her signature is found on the “warrant” for my arrest; but, the FACTS call for the unavoidable conclusion that Mr. Harris was not the Clerk of Court when that “warrant” was signed by NDF!! Moreover, no such document can ever be a valid “indictment” as long as it was issued by a panel of federal citizens, selected and summoned pursuant to a Jury Selection and Service Act [28 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.] which obviously discriminates against State Citizens (read Citizens of ONE OF the 50 States united). See Pannill v. Roanoke (federal citizens were not even contemplated when the organic Constitution was first being drafted!); and, “Citizenship for Dummies,” by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. NDF must be such a “dummy”! :-)
- 4 of 11 –
(9) Another incident of vicious bias was confirmed, when NDF decided to “apologize” for trying to insinuate that my “drive” to investigate so many missing and defective credentials was evidence of some kind of psychotic obsession, or “mental illness”. By that insult she relinquished all claims to being fair, objective and unbiased in this case. See FRCrP Rule 2 (“provide ... just determination ... and fair administration”). What if I had insulted her??
(10) Of equal or greater significance is NDF’s demonstrated ignorance concerning 18 U.S.C. 1964, and its standing case law, which I have frequently cited in several filed pleadings, notably Rotella v. Wood. [See also Agency Holding v. Malley-Duff.] The latter explains the objectives of the RICO laws, and defines the functions and goals of private attorneys general, i.e. to investigate diligently and prosecute, to suppress and eliminate organized criminal rackets. How very brazen of anyone, like Me, to investigate infiltration of the Federal Judiciary, only to be obstructed in my official efforts to prosecute racketeering activities by the several suspects:
- 5 of 11 –
they are properly named in the VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS, ON INFORMATION now duly filed in this Court’s docket records! NDF is now personally liable to Me for the clear and previously demonstrated lack of criminal jurisdiction: Stump v. Sparkman. Ironically, this USDC does enjoy original jurisdiction in Civil RICO cases, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1964(c), which is also THE primary authority for the automatic 3X TRIPLE DAMAGE multiplier. In light of NDF’s lack of knowledge and experience with Civil RICO and its standing case law, I submit to you that she is probably also totally unaware that RICO’s Liberal Construction Rule was never codified anywhere in the U.S. Code! 18 U.S.C. 1961.
(11) There is also more than ample proof, now in the record, of numerous Sixth Amendment violations e.g. ineffective assistance of counsel, lack of access to adequate law libraries, destruction of My legal notes during frequent moves, lack of Internet access, and a need to beg for stamps and envelopes. ??
- 6 of 11 –
Throwing Me in solitary confinement on the basis of several lies, surely set the shrill tone on 1/28/2014: the Feds have effectively CRUSHED my Right of self-defense, while insisting that all such vicious retaliation is “due process of law” as defined by the Fifth Amendment. Here, please see Johnson v. Zerbst (a Federal court is OUSTED of jurisdiction if it does not guarantee effective assistance of Counsel at every step in the proceedings). Of course, a Federal court cannot be ”ousted” of jurisdiction in personam, if it did not enjoy such jurisdiction in the first instance. See 18 U.S.C. 1513 (retaliation).
(12) None of the Clerk’s Office personnel in Seattle, or in Cheyenne, ever produced any OATHs required by 28 U.S.C. 951. None of DOJ’s personnel in Cheyenne ever produced any OATHs required by 28 U.S.C. 544. Neither of the 2 IRS personnel -- James Marcy and Dave Guest -- has produced any valid U.S. OPM Standard Form 61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS (“SF-61”); and, Christopher A. Crofts’ SF-61 is also a COUNTERFEIT violating 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and 5 CFR 1320.5.
- 7 of 11 –
Mr. Murray, therefore, is not qualified to enter a grand jury room, nor legally to represent any Proper Party in the instant case; same is true of Mr. Crofts. [28 USC 530B] The instant case should be dismissed with prejudice on the basis of the holdings in U.S. v. Pignatiello, if nothing else: that case just happens to be RIGHT ON POINT!! See 28 U.S.C. 544; Rule 6.
(13) NDF is evidently fond of assuming facts not in evidence: I am not a “taxpayer” as the latter term is defined at IRC 7701(a), where “internal” means “municipal”. See also the definition of “United States person” at 7701(a)(30); and, 26 CFR 1.1-1 which vainly attempted to create a specific income tax liability, but ONLY for federal citizens and resident aliens. Compare also the identical definition of the term “individual” at 5 U.S.C. 552a (Privacy Act).
(14) The APPLICATION FOR ORDERS [to OPM and to OMB] -- TO SHOW CAUSE why both should not be compelled to comply with 5 CFR 1320.5 -- has now become a matter of ever-expanding urgency, as long as OPM’s COUNTERFEIT SF-61 is allowed to remain in electronic form at OPM’s Internet website (opm.gov).
- 8 of 11 –
Look at the current situation this way, please: viral distribution of that COUNTERFEIT may be implicating OPM’s responsible personnel in multiple acts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343 and 1962(d). See 18 U.S.C. 1961(5).
(15) The pending MOTIONs TO DISMISS (2x to date) should be assigned to some other U.S. District Judge i.e. one whose four required credentials are all in proper order i.e. SENATE CONFIRMATION, PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION, APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS and OATH OF OFFICE.
(16) In light of all the FRAUD upon this Court, this defendant and Relator should be released promptly and returned to His private dwelling unit in Seattle at the expense of, and under the protection of, the U.S. Marshals Services in Nebraska, Wyoming and Washington State.
Thank you very much for your continuing professional consideration.
(please continue next page)
- 9 of 11 –
INCORPORATION
OF RECORDS: FREV Rule 201(c)(2)
Once again, all records currently in the legal custody of the Offices of Clerk of Court at the USDC/DWY in Cheyenne, and at the USDC/WDWA in Seattle, are hereby incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully here, pursuant to Rule 201(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence (mandatory judicial notice). THEREFORE, all required credentials, as already documented in the instant case, now assume facts not in evidence before this honorable Court. Moreover, a sufficient amount of time has now elapsed to justify activation of estoppel against Messrs. Stephan Harris, Zachary Fisher, William M. McCool and Ms. T. Hilliker. (Cf. “legal estoppel” and “equitable estoppel” in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.)*
Also attached: ANNOTATED “Memorandum of Conversation” (3/14/2014)
(please continue next page)
* Please note that subsequent editions of Black’s Law Dictionary omitted any definitions of “United States”. [see: 28 USC 1345, 1346]
- 10 of 11 -
- REMEDIES –
Ms. Nancy D. Freudenthal should be recused; and, all premises having been duly considered, this defendant and Relator should be released to unfettered liberty, and the U.S. Marshals should be ordered to transport Him without delays to His private apartment in Seattle, Washington State, at the culmination of a priority hearing on His PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF (see Docket Entry #33). Failure to adjudicate that PETITION thusfar to date has inflicted enormous damages upon this defendant and Relator, which can, and should, be quantified and recovered by Him, using litigation under 18 U.S.C. 1964 (Civil RICO), 42 U.S.C. 1986, and a Bivens-type action -- for starters.
Thank you.
Dated: 3/22/2014
Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris
___________________________________
Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308)
without prejudice to any Rights
- 11 of 11 –
Attachments:
