Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris s1

Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris

c/o 117 E. Louisa Street

Seattle 98102-3203

Washington State, USA

In Propria Persona and

In Forma Pauperis

District Court of the United States

Judicial District of Washington

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic], ) Case No. MJ-14-00030 (JPD)

Plaintiff [sic], ) Re: 14-CR-27-F (DWY)

v. ) (incorporated by reference)

JOSEPH RUBEN HILL [sic] et al. ) PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF,

------) FOIA ENFORCEMENT, AND

United States ex rel. ) VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT,

Paul Andrew Mitchell, ) ON INFORMATION:

Private Attorney General. )

) 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B);

) 18 U.S.C. 241, 242, 912, 1512,

) 1513, 1962, 1964;

) 42 U.S.C. 1985, 1986;

) 44 U.S.C. 3512; 28 U.S.C. 1345,

) 1691; FREV 201(c)(2).

______)

Comes now the United States ex rel. Paul Andrew Mitchell, Citizen of Washington State, qualified Federal Witness, and Private Attorney General, to petition this Honorable DCUS for all relief stated supra, and for all other relief which this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances which occasion the instant Petition.

The United States hereby formally charges the following individuals with violating all laws cited infra:

Christopher A. Crofts has violated:

18 U.S.C. 241, 242, 912, 1512, 1513, 1962(d);

42 U.S.C. 1985, 1986; 44 U.S.C. 3512;

see 28 U.S.C. 544; 5 U.S.C. 3331, 3332, 3333;

L. Robert Murray has violated:

18 U.S.C. 241, 242, 912, 1512, 1513, 1962(d);

42 U.S.C. 1985, 1986; 44 U.S.C. 3512;

see 28 U.S.C. 544; 5 U.S.C. 3331, 3332, 3333; and,

James Marcy has violated:

18 U.S.C. 241, 242, 912, 1512, 1513, 1962(d);

42 U.S.C. 1985, 1986; 44 U.S.C. 3512;

see 27 CFR 26.11, Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, fn 23.

Petitioner incorporates the VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT previously lodged against James Marcy in Wyoming State court, at Cheyenne, as if same were set forth fully here. See Full Faith and Credit Clause, U.S. Const.

Petitioner also incorporates Mr. Mitchell’s prior FOIA Requests for copies of valid credentials required by law of Messrs. Crofts, Murray and Marcy. See 5 U.S.C. 2903, 2906, 3331; and, 44 U.S.C. 3512 re: OMB control number required to be duly displayed on all OPM Standard Form 61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS.

Petitioner charges all 3 named individuals with attending and/or conducting hearings in a grand jury room without having valid SF-61 credentials, which necessarily resulted in multiple acts of FRAUD upon a panel of federal citizens assembled under color of an unconstitutional Jury Selection and Service Act. Cf. 28 U.S.C. 1861 et seq., 1865!

Mr. Mitchell is now grievously damaged by FALSE ARREST and malicious prosecution, instigated by at least the 3 above-named individuals, and probably more!

REMEDIES REQUESTED

(1) proper Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus to consider immediate release of Mr. Mitchell back to unfetterd liberty;

(2) granting leave to Mr. Mitchell to amend the instant Petition to satisfy proper form and include all relevant documentary evidence;

(3) issuing a briefing schedule with a proper sequence of issues to review in correct order; and,

(4) any and all other relief which this honorable DCUS deems just and proper.

Paramount Authorities: Art. VI, Sec. 3, U.S. Const.;

U.S. v. Pignatiello, 582 F.Supp. 251 (1984) (ON POINT!!)

Respectfully submitted,

Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris

Relator on behalf of the

United States ex rel. (“ex relatione”),

and qualified Federal Witness, 18 U.S.C. 1512, 1513

Dated: January 29, 2014 A.D.

(mailing delayed due to witness intimidation, retaliation)

(cf. UCC 1-308)

VERIFICATION

I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Sui Juris, Citizen of Washington State, (expressly not a “federal citizen”), also a qualified Federal Witness, and Private Attorney General, hereby verify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the United States (“federal government”), that the above statement of facts and laws is true and correct, to the best of my current information, knowledge and belief, so help me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746.

Dated: January 29, 2014 A.D.

Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris

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

Relator on behalf of the United States ex relatione

(“ex rel.”)

p.s.

See also Rotella v. Wood (re: “private attorneys general”); Miranda v. Arizona (re: rights secured by the Constitution); Performance Management and Recognition System Termination Act (1993); Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Acker; Willy v. Coastal Corp. (Rules of Court may not expand or restrict original jurisdiction already conferred by Act of Congress), in pari materia with 18 U.S.C. 3231 (re: DCUS, not USDC).

Appendix “A”

ACTUAL NOTICE: Whenever personnel in the Clerk’s Office of any U.S. District Court do not have legal custody of their own U.S. Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) Standard Form 61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS, or whenever those Standard Forms 61 (“SF-61”) are defective for any reason (e.g. no OMB control number and/or no paragraph citing 5 U.S.C. 2903 and/or no authority to administer), such a Court cannot issue any “process” that satisfies 28 U.S.C. 1691. That law requires both a clerk’s authorized signature and the Court’s official seal; and, that law was first enacted on June 25, 1948, with no subsequent amendments whatsoever.

See, in particular, signatures of Mr. Donohue on “Search Warrant” (circa June 11, 2013), on “Arrest Warrant” (circa January 28, 2014), on “Detention Order” (circa January 28, 2014), and on “Appointment of Federal Public Defender” (circa January 28, 2014), latter expressly refused by Relator because lady Federal Public Defender refused Relator’s request that she request the missing credentials –- by visiting the USDC Clerk’s Office in Seattle specifically for that purpose. Here see 42 U.S.C. 1986, 1985 (neglect to prevent / failure to remedy).

See Johnson v. Zerbst (Court was thereby ousted of jurisdiction); Sixth Amendment!

Appendix “B”

DEMAND FOR IMMEDIATE DISQUALIFICATION

AND RECUSAL, IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE

Mr. Donohue,

For more than six (6) months, no one has produced any of your credentials. As such, you have no authority to sit on the bench, and the USDC lacks all jurisdiction in the matter of Case No. 14-CR-27-F (DWY) –- incorporated here by reference –- and, said USDC lacks all jurisdiction to proceed at all. See Johnson v. Zerbst here, for example.

Come down off that bench immediately, Sir, because your missing and/or defective credentials call for the reasonable conclusion that you are impersonating an officer of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 912, in addition to violation of numerous other consequential crime statutes e.g. see all RICO “predicate acts” itemized at 18 U.S.C. 1961.

Your acts as such are void, chiefly by failing –or- refusing to produce any evidence of the OPM SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS required by 5 U.S.C. 2903, 2906, 3331, 3332, 3333, which clearly do implement the Oath of Office Clause at Article VI, Section 3, in the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended. See also 5 U.S.C. 2104, 3332, 3333, 5507; 28 U.S.C. 453, 544, 631(g), 751, 951, 1691; 18 U.S.C. 1504; and, 44 U.S.C. 3512; 42 U.S.C. 1985, 1986; Gillespie v. Civiletti (9th Cir.)

Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief, FOIA Enforcement, and

Verified Criminal Complaint, on Information: Page 3 of 6