NOTICE AND DEMAND TO CONVEY
VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, ON INFORMATION
TO LAWFULLY CONVENED FEDERAL GRAND JURY
TO: David J. Singer
United States District Court
350 South Main Street
Salt Lake City84101
UTAH, USA
FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
c/o Lake Union Mail FAX number: (206) 329-3448
117 East Louisa Street
Seattle 98102-3203
WASHINGTON STATE, USA
DATE: January 30, 2011A.D.
SUBJECT: In Re Grand Jury Proceedings, No. 2-11MC011[SEALED];
18 U.S.C. 1702 (Felony obstruction of correspondence)
Greetings David J. Singer:
Wehereby demand that you convey, without any further delay(s), all of our U.S. Mail to the Foreperson,FederalGrand Jury, including each item for which you signed green cards,and any and all other items for which you did NOT sign green cards, and confirm in writing the delivery of same to the Foreperson!
In the course of reviewing standing court decisions which have been issued in litigation involving the Federal criminal statutes at 18 U.S.C. sections 1504 and 3332, we were very pleased to discover the correct and well documented decision In re Grand Jury Application, 617 F.Supp. 199 (USDC/SDNY 1985).
A few of the most pertinent abstracts, as published in the United States Code Annotated (“USCA”) and United States Code Service (“USCS”), now follow, to wit:
Private litigant may obtain writ of mandamus to compel U.S. attorney to present facts concerning alleged criminal wrongdoing to grand jury.
By enacting 18 U.S.C. 3332(a) ... Congress intended to remove prosecutor’s discretion in deciding whether to present information to grand jury; he retains discretion with respect to how he acts and what he recommends concerning that information.
Plaintiff is entitled to writ of mandamus to compel U.S. Attorney to present facts concerning alleged criminal wrongdoing of certain named defendants to grand jury, considering that grand jury statute [18 U.S.C. 3332(a)] gave plaintiffs a clear right to relief sought, that U.S. Attorney had duty to do the act in question, and that no other adequate remedy was available.
[bold emphases added]
Litigant in pending civil suit has standing to seek writ of mandamus to compel U.S. Attorney to present facts concerning alleged criminal wrongdoing of certain named defendants to grand jury, as 18 USCA 3332(a), providing that any attorney appearing on behalf of the United States before grand jury who receives information concerning alleged offense from any other person,shall, if requested by such other person, inform grand jury of such alleged offense, created a duty on part of U.S. Attorney that ran to the litigant.
18 U.S.C. 3332(a) creates a right in every person to have information known by them concerning organized crime to be presented to grand jury.
In order to grant a request for mandamus, a court must find: a clear right in plaintiff to relief sought; a plainly defined and peremptory duty on part of defendant to do the act in question; and no other adequate remedy available.
[bold and underlined emphases added]
This erudite decision also does an excellent job of documenting the relevant Legislative History of 18 U.S.C. 3331et seq., to wit:
Citizens would be accorded the right to contact the jury, through the foreman, regarding any alleged criminal act. ...
Act [at 3331(a)] created new sections requiring the appointment of special grand juries in all judicial districts with over four million inhabitants.
During the House Hearings, Edward L. Wright presented the views of the American Bar Association, which were essentially embodied in the Act in its final form.
[bold and underlined emphases added]
As reported In re Grand Jury Applicationsupra, Mr. Wright wrote:
It is our belief that the prosecutor should properly be vested with the responsibility of professionally screening allegations of criminal misconduct. At the same time, we recommend that there be built into the process a safeguard that will require the prosecutor to give an accounting of his screening.
House Hearings at 541
[bold emphasis added]
In his holding in that case, the judge ruled as follows:
Since the U.S. Attorneyhas been requested to present certain information to the grand jury he must do so. I will not relieve him of a duty which Congress has seen fit to impose.
DEMAND FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
Accordingly therefore, David J. Singer, formal DEMAND is hereby made of you to convey our previously lodged VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, ON INFORMATION, formally charging Mr. D. Mark Jones, Ms. Teri Sparrow, Ms. Louise S. York, and Ms. Mary L. Moranwith multiple felony Federal offenses, to a lawfully convened Federal Grand Jury forthwith.
DEADLINE FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
Your specific performance and detailed compliance with the holding, as detailed In re Grand Jury Applicationsupra, must be demonstrated by confirming same in writing delivered to the following mailing location no later than midnight on the evening of February 1, 2011A.D.:
Supreme Law Firm
c/o Lake Union Mail FAX: (206) 329-3448
117 East Louisa Street
Seattle 98102-3203
WASHINGTON STATE, USA
Thank you, Mr. Singer,for your timely and professional cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a), Rotella v. Wood