DEMAND FOR RETRACTION OF FALSE AND DEAMATORY DESCRIPTIONS

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF Document 92 Filed 06/02/14 Page 1 of 5

Case No. #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2 (USDC/DWY)

NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR RETRACTION

OF FALSE AND DEAMATORY DESCRIPTIONS

(“demand” implies a right: cf. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6^th)

TO: U.S. Marshals Service

c/o U.S. District Court

Cheyenne 82001

Wyoming, USA

DATE: 5/28/2014

SUBJECTS: (1) “SOVEREIGN CITIZEN LAWYER” [sic]

(2) “EXTREMIST MONTANA FREEMAN ASSOCIATE” [sic]

The above false and defamatory descriptions were confirmed by the Undersigned in documents which he was required to sign upon his second “booking” yesterday at the Scotts Bluff County Detention Center in Gering, Nebraska (“SBCDC”). Each is accurately refuted as follows:

(1) “SOVEREIGN CITIZEN LAWYER” [sic]

The Undersigned is a Private Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. 1964 (Civil RICO), but NOT a licensed attorney. The latter fact could be very easily confirmed by querying the member registrations of The State Bar of California and the Washington State Bar Association. Those registrations are readily available on the Internet. See also Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (2000): objectives.

- 1 of 5 -

The phrase “SOVEREIGN CITIZEN” is a misnomer that results in part from standing decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court which have often described the American People as “sovereigns without subjects”. Thus, as a group e.g. voting for Senators and U.S. Representatives, the People are sovereign under American laws never repealed. As a Citizen of Washington State, the Undersigned is one of those People.

A problem arises, however, whenever an individual State Citizen is described as a “Sovereign”. The Sixth Amendment authorizes compulsory testimony, and a State Citizen is subject to that law.

As such, a State Citizen is not, and cannot be, a “Sovereign” in the same sense that a King, or Queen, is a “Sovereign” (cf. Monarchy v. Republic).

Therefore, the phrase “SOVEREIGN CITIZEN” is an oxymoron when used to describe an individual Citizen of one of the United States of America, who is not also a federal citizen, by Right of Election. Here, cf. “federal citizenship” in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth edition. The phrase “Right of Election” refers to the Right to “elect”, or choose between, one of two (2) classes of citizenship in America. See Pannill v. Roanoke.

- 2 of 5 –

(2) “EXTREMIST MONTANA FREEMAN ASSOCIATE” [sic]

The latter phrase is false and defamatory as applied to the Undersigned: in 1996 A.D., he was invited to provide on-site legal assistance to supporters and associates of the late Leroy Schweitzer, at a private residential dwelling near Billings, Montana. That invitation followed his pro bono Petition to the Montana State Courts for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”), restraining Federal (U.S.) government personnel from applying lethal force against Schweitzer’s group.

Upon arriving in Billings, the Undersigned reviewed several documents possessed by that group, participated in several discussions, and filed the civil case of People v. United States as an original action in the District Court of the United States in Billings, Montana (“DCUS” at 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)).

The Undersigned did confirm what he honestly believed was a serious flaw in one of Schweitzer’s legal theories, specifically: signing a criminal confession for someone else is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment, insofar as the accused remains silent. Such a “criminal confession” is not valid, and cannot be used, as a basis for perfecting any lien(s) against the accused.

- 3 of 5 –

Whether or not it was ever accurate to describe Schweitzer’s group as being “extremist”, the Undersigned never joined that group, merely by agreeing to provide legal assistance for a small fee. Moreover, his on-site assistance ended after about one month, no doubt due to basic disagreements that developed between the Undersigned and Schweitzer’s associates who were not incarcerated (see above).

General Objections: It is now apparent to the Undersigned that certain personnel employed by the federal government are effectively branding some Americans with the “SOVEREIGN” and “EXTREMIST” labels, in order to target those Americans with discriminatory and prejudicial abuses, such as false arrest, unlawful incarceration, and summary punishment. For example, names in ALL CAPS are correctly described as a “nom de guerre” in French, i.e. “war name” in English, implying a state of war, or mixed war, upon the American People.

- 4 of 5 –

DEMAND FOR IMMEDIATE RETRACTION AND

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS CORRECTIONS

(cf. defamation; “demand” implies a right:

cf. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6^th Edition)

The Undersigned hereby demands: an immediate retraction of the false and defamatory phrases “SOVEREIGN CITIZEN LAWYER” and “EXTREMIST MONTANA FREEMAN ASSOCIATE” from all government records maintained at locations including but not limited to:

(a) Federal courts in Seattle and Cheyenne;

(b) U.S. Marshals in Seattle and Cheyenne;

(d) Southern Nevada Detention Center;

(e) Oklahoma City Federal Transfer Center

(f) Washington County Justice Center, Akron, Colo.;

(g) Grady County Jail, Chickasha, Oklahoma;

(h) Scotts Bluff County Detention Center (#45396), Gering, Nebraska, concerning the Undersigned; and immediate correction of all such government records by substituting “Private Attorney General” for all such false and defamatory phrases.

Thank you for your cooperation,

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (chosen name)

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

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

FDC Reg. No. 44202-086

- 5 of 5 -