RELATOR’S FOURTH VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, ON INFORMATION

Case no. #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2

RELATOR’S FOURTH VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, ON INFORMATION:

18 U.S.C. 242; 1964(a)-1968; 28 U.S.C. 1345

(United States as Plaintiff)

TO: District Court of the United States

c/o Office of Clerk of Court

Cheyenne 82001

Wyoming, USA

Comes now the United States (federal government)

ex rel. Paul Andrew Mitchell,

Citizen of Washington State, qualified

Federal Witness, and Private Attorney General,

formally to charge the following named and

unnamed individuals, to wit:

Nancy D. Freudenthal with:

infringing Relator’s Right to petition

the government for redress of grievances,

particularly Relator’s “PETITION FOR

HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF, FOIA ENFORCEMENT,

AND VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, ON

INFORMATION,” as filed in the official

records of the USDC/DWY’s Case No. supra

in violation of the Federal misdemeanor

statute at 18 U.S.C. 242 (ONE COUNT, to date);

and,

- 1 of 4 -

Does 1 thru 20 with:

infringing Relator’s Right to petition the

government for redress of grievances,

particularly Relator’s “PETITION FOR

HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF, FOIA ENFORCEMENT,

AND VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT,

ON INFORMATION,” as filed in the official

records of said Case No. supra, in violation

of the Federal misdemeanor statute at

18 U.S.C. 242 (ONE COUNT, to date).

- DISCUSSION -

Pleadings to Federal courts are petitions

to government for redress of grievances,

as the latter phrase occurs in the First

Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has

already ruled that said Petition clause

guarantees the Right conservative of

all other Rights (cite omitted). It is,

therefore, no exaggeration to allege that

those misdemeanors, charged above, have

necessarily resulted in violating, and/or

infringing, all of Relator’s Rights,

no exceptions. Moreover, and more to

the merits, the Writ of Habeas Corpus

is a PRIORITY Writ. See All Writs Statute.

- 2 of 4 –

- AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE -

During a 2-hour hearing commencing

at 10:30 AM on 3/21/2014, Relator personally

witnessed Nancy D. Freudenthal attempt

repeatedly to “deny” Relator’s PETITION

supra, as if it were some sort of “motion,”

of which she had jurisdiction to “deny”.

Similarly, Ms. Freudenthal also repeated

her erroneous attempts to “deny” mandatory

judicial notice, invoked by Relator

pursuant to Rule 201(c)(2) of the Federal

Rules of Evidence. All of the above attempts

occurred without ever addressing Relator’s

frequent challenges to jurisdiction,

particularly jurisdiction in personam,

as fully explained in standing case law

already decided under 28 U.S.C. 1691.

That case law was correctly cited, and quoted,

on documents of which Relator properly

requested mandatory judicial notice.

Discretionary judicial notice is properly

invoked by Rule 201(c)(1) of the Federal

Rules of Evidence. All such Rules of Court

are binding obligations of Ms. Freudenthal!

- 3 of 4 –

- INCORPORATION OF RECORDS -

Relator hereby incorporates the

Petition supra, now filed as Docket

Entry #33, and all other Docket

entries filed by Relator to date,

as if all were set forth fully

here. See Full Faith and Credit Clause.

- VERIFICATION -

Relator hereby verifies, 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: 3/25/2014 A.D.

Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

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

Relator Sui Juris and In Propria Persona

without Prejudice to any Rights

- 4 of 4 -