REQUEST TO VACATE DECISIONS AND HEARINGS BY JAMES P. DONOHUE

[On left margin written vertically:

Incorporated by reference in #14-CR-27-F (USDC/DWY)]

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF Document 28 Filed 03/12/2014 Page 1 of 4

Case No. MJ 14-00030 JPD

REQUEST TO VACATE DECISIONS

AND HEARINGS BY JAMES P. DONOHUE

TO: Chief Judge, duly credentialed Ref. #14-CR-27-F

U.S. District Court (USDC/DWY)

700 Stewart St.

Seattle 98101

Washington State, USA

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

FDC SeaTac Reg. No. 44202-086, Unit “EA”

SUBJECT: James P. Donohue’s conflict of interest

and demonstrable bias

Greetings Your Honor:

Start by reviewing Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424.

Please allow me to begin this REQUEST by confirming that Mr. James P. Donohue has failed to produce any evidence of a valid OPM SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS.

Moreover, I have made that request in writing, which Mr. Donohue did not answer, and personally at the Clerk’s public counter on 6/11/2013. An employee of the Clerk’s Office replied: “We are not going to cooperate with you, Mr. Mitchell.”

Mr. Donohue’s signature, as I recall, was visible on the “search warrant” [sic] to which I objected on 6/11/2013, chiefly because I have never had any opportunity to inspect his APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS.

Also, in violation of 28 U.S.C. 1691, that “search warrant” did not display any

- 1 of 4 –

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF Document 28 Filed 03/12/2014 Page 2 of 4

signature of any Clerk or Deputy Clerk of Court; it did show a rubber stamp bearing the name of “William M. McCool”, who has also refused to produce any evidence of a valid OPM SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS, as required by 5 U.S.C. 2903, 2906, 3331, and the Oath of Office Clause.

Furthermore, Mr. Donohue has manifested bias and apparent prejudice specifically in the “DETENTION ORDER” dated January 31, 2014. For example: Using U.S. v. Callender, 25 F.Cas. 239 (1800) as a guide:

(a) “Defendant has made it clear he will not go to the District of Wyoming willingly.” [sic]

Objection: I have no car, no driver’s license, and I did have just barely enough money saved to pay 2 months of rent. Travel is out of the question to such a distant city, as long as I am expected to pay travel costs etc.

(b) “Defendant does not believe the Court has authority over him and will not comply with Court Orders.” [sic]

The record shows I timely challenged jurisdiction. I timely objected, and my objection was “noted”. Pursuant to case law I have already studied under 28 U.S.C. 1691, violations of that law do deprive the Court of jurisdiction in personam! Likewise, Court “orders” are process as that term occurs in Sec. 1691. In point of law, the Court does lack “authority over me” as long as it lacks jurisdiction in personam. 28 U.S.C.A. 1691.

- 2 of 4 –

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF Document 28 Filed 03/12/2014 Page 3 of 4

(c) “There are no conditions or combination of conditions other than detention that will reasonably assure the appearance of defendant as required in the District of Wyoming.” [sic]

That exaggerated and foregone conclusion overlooked the obvious: I can appear in writing at preliminary hearings held in Cheyenne, Wyoming, provided I am released on my own recognizance (“OR”) and allowed to prepare my own defense, using the powerful computer resources I have assembled in my apartment.

“House arrest” is another option, provided I be allowed to return to my apartment as described in the preceding paragraph.

I am presently at real risk of LOSING that apartment and ALL of my personal and professional possessions. Why? Reprisal?

What was the REAL reason for the lightning bolt arrest on 1/28/2014, and the cruel and unusual punishment of expediting me NON-STOP to solitary confinement, orchestrated by lies, defamations and distortions?

WHY?

Is there a conspiracy to violate rights guaranteed by the Constitution?

- REMEDIES –

The facts above fully justify an ORDER to the OUSA to show cause why (a) Mr. Donohue’s rulings & hearings should not be vacated and why (b) Defendant should not be released on his own recognizance so that he may prepare his defense In Propria Persona, on his own computers.

- 3 of 4 –

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF Document 28 Filed 03/12/2014 Page 4 of 9

VERIFICATION: 28 U.S.C. 1746

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

Dated: 2/8/2014

Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

In Propria Persona (NOT “Pro Se”)

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

p.s. “Pro se” in Latin means “For it” in English: “se” is a neuter Latin pronoun that is inappropriate when used to refer to human beings, particularly Citizens of ONE OF the States united.

“Quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia.” (in Latin).

To what end will your unbridled audacity hurl itself?

(in English)

Cicero’s Oration against Cataline

See Pannill v. Roanoke here.

- 4 of 4 –