Mitch Modeleski aka Paul Andrew Mitchell

[fortinbras]

It seems to me rather obvious that his mental illness had led to his criminal behavior, and if the authorities are going to turn his loose without treatment then we'll see more criminal acts in the near future.

By the way, the link to the indictment in the first entry on this thread no longer works. I think this is the same document:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/207940516/Pau ... ted#scribd

[notorial dissent]

Much as it pains me, I am going to have to argue a bit in PAM's defense. Part of what this all hinged on, or became unhinged upon as it were is the, now legally and incontrovertibly established, fact that our boy isn't flying with even most of his oars in the ether. PAM lives in and inhabits a totally unregistered and unlicensed reality, where whatever it was he was supposedly doing isn't illegal or even questionable, and is perfectly logical and reasonable, and there in lies the rub. My perception is that PAM was supplying some kind of, what passes for in his reality, legal opinion or advice, and nothing more. I'm equally sure that whatever PAM is/was doing was probably more than likely illegal, but can you be guilty of a crime if you really and truly and sincerely believe what you were doing was legal and valid, as that is the situation here, his reality versus the one the rest of us share, at least presumably. i doubt, to be perfectly honest, if he even really comprehended what it was he was being asked to do.

[JamesVincent]

It seems to me rather obvious that his mental illness had led to his criminal behavior, and if the authorities are going to turn his loose without treatment then we'll see more criminal acts in the near future.

Which irritates me to no end, as far as releasing him goes. Here we have a person who is a few fries short of a happy meal, was proven to be off his rocker and that fact caused him to run foul of the law, and he just gets cut loose. After proving him mentally incompetent the charges are dropped because they think he may not be a danger to himself or others. I have a problem with the reasoning linking the two bold words. Logically if he was not a danger to himself then he would not have been up on charges. Just because he did not physically harm anyone, he did do harm to himself and he should have and needs some sort of treatment.

[fortinbras]

Presumably he was indicted to begin with BECAUSE he was regarded as a danger (at least a danger of jamming up the court system) for threatening a grand jury and tampering with witnesses. So turning him loose involves the very real risk that he will repeat that very misbehavior - which was already considered (at least to a degree) somewhat dangerous.

[AndyK]

...
they think he may not be a danger to himself or others.
...

The 'danger' definition is built on shifty sands. Once one gets beyond direct (or indirect as in arson) physical harm to the self or others, what remains is speculation and psychological.

Does stalking someone either in person or via the Internet constitute 'danger'?

Does maintaining a prominent position hawking or donating grossly incorrect quasi-legal advice constitute a 'danger' to others?

Or, to place it in a simple context, does the irrestable impulse to shout FIRE in crowded theaters constitute a 'danger' to the public at large?

One of the biggest issues is a long-past court decision that people with mental illnesses have rights and can not be institutionalized willy-nilly. This decision resulted in the release of thousands of borderline-able-to-stay-alive mentally ill people from safe, warm institutions where they received care and a modicum of treatment onto the streets across the nation where they became (in the worst case) 'bum-sickles' during sub-freezing weather.

It's almost a shame that mental ilnesses were recognized as such. Before that, families kept the 'strange' uncle at home where he received care and safety.

[operabuff]

During the fifties and sixties many began to be concerned with the warehousing of mentally ill patients in mental hospitals. Studies supported that better outcomes resulted from most (nondangerous) patients receiving treatment through community health centers. The availability of psychotropic medicines contributed to the switch in policy. The Community Mental Health Act of 1963 also furthered deinstitutionalization. But the final blow may have come with a court determination (Souder v. Brennan) that patients who worked at mental institutions were employees and had to be paid the minimum wage. Mental hospitals had depended on the unpaid labor of their patients in kitchens, laundries, factories, etc. to cover part of their costs. After Souder v Brennan, many hospitals were no longer economically viable.

As I'm sure we're all aware, the results of deinstitutionalization were not as positive as hoped. The availability of adequate community mental health centers varies widely throughout the U.S. Even where there is good care available, the mentally ill may not take advantage of it. As a result, large percentages of those suffering from fairly serious mental disorders end up homeless or in jail.

[grixit]

As i've heard it, here in California, there was such a plan, but the big release came before the community centers were built. And then they weren't built at all.

[.]

This sort of thing is eventually going to have to be addressed. You can't have even a small group of people on the loose who know that they're essentially immune to indictment and trial.

He may be delusional, but he's obviously not stupid. I'd bet he knows perfectly well he can't be indicted unless some US or state attorney has very good reasons to believe that the next batch of shrinks will find him curable and ultimately competent to stand trial. He won't be trying to give anyone any such reason. He's been incentivized otherwise -- the crazier he acts, the better off he is.

And while he's been strictly non-violent to date, there's no guarantee he'll confine his activities to playing legal word-games. But even frivolous legal word-games do violence to law and justice, not to mention getting people who are dense enough to believe him in legal trouble. Sounds to me like a significant potential danger to other people.

If he's ever indicted again for anything -- non-violent or otherwise -- he probably gets tied up for a few months and then chucked back on the street, followed immediately by his suit for harassment, which might actually have some merit under the law as it stands.

Surely we can handle someone who is as mentally ill as he seems to be in a better fashion than this.

[operabuff]

This sort of thing is eventually going to have to be addressed. You can't have even a small group of people on the loose who know that they're essentially immune to indictment and trial.

It's been this way for quite awhile now. Not sure it's going to be high on anyone's priority list.

[.]

I agree, deinstitutionalization dates back 50+ years and at the moment, this is almost nobody's priority. Thus "eventually."

It may be another 50 years, but sooner or later one or more of the shrink-certified incurably mentally ill who got released after being indicted because they were found to be permanently unable to understand the nature of any criminal proceedings against them will do something really atrocious.

Inertia is only a powerful thing until it's finally disturbed by something that gets the attention of the public, causing say, an outcry along the lines of "Why was this person not locked up in psychiatric care or, worse, not even required to get any outpatient care?" Unfortunate, but so it seems to go.

[fortinbras]

Regardless of the reason, turning PAM loose probably means we'll be reading more about him in the near future.

[Gregg]

I really think that at least he should be enjoined from filing any pro se cases in any court without permission from a judge. This guy can start filing liens wholesale now and while that doesn't hurt him, it can be an expensive and annoying thing for his targets who essentially now have no recourse after getting the liens reversed.

[notorial dissent]

I think PAM's days of court harassment are pretty well over, I believe he has been pretty well enjoined from court filings at this point. His pet judge, Kozinski(sp) who is no on the 9th, vex litted him after his last foray, and I don't think it has ever, or ever will, be lifted. Everything I've seen implies that he is and has been making a living, if you can call hand to mouth a living, with his pretend law school/office selling crackpot legal advice to the other cracked pots, who don't seem to do much with it that I have been aware of. I think his mental condition has deteriorated to the point he doesn't get out much any more, and if I understood some of the wailings and moanings when he was arrested, he has been living in some basement in Seattle with most of his possessions in a storage locker. I have never heard of him being called a physical threat, in fact, I think he is afraid of most one on one contact, and I don't remember anyone ever saying anything about violence. Now he used to froth a lot on the web, but then so do a lot of people who will faint if anyone actually walked up to them and challenged them. At this point I think he is more of a danger to himself than to anyone else, and I think he is more in danger from outside contact for the simple reason that he is no longer processing reality very at all. At this point, he is a lonely, bitter, old man writing legal tracts and thesis that no one is ever really going to read or give any credence to.

[wserra]

Well, that didn't take long - not that anyone who knows Mitch's history thought that it would.

from: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
to: SupremeLaw <supremelaw@googlegroups.com>
cc: jvschoch@gmail.com,
bid@binternational.biz
date: Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 2:13 PM
subject: escaping the psycho parasites needles attacks
mailed-by: gmail.com
signed-by: gmail.com
> how in the heck did you escape the psycho parasites needles attacks

First of all, when the SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT was issued, that added 4 more co-defendants, and those 4 co-defendants all hired private attorneys.

Wrong. According to the docket, of Mitch's five codefendants, 3 had court-appointed lawyers.

Two of those private attorneys then formally identified me as a "critical defense witness" i.e. critical to the defense of their clients.

True, but - as with much about the law - misleading out of context. The context: The lawyers in question made those statements in opposition to the Judge's noticed intention to sever Mitch's trial. The Judge's concern was that waiting for Mitch - about to enter the black hole of "restoration to competency" - would violate the speedy trial rights of his codefendants. The codefendants objected to the severance, likely because: (1) Delay almost always helps the defense. (2) No criminal defendant likes the spotlight. Except Mitch. Keep Mitch in the courtroom! (3) For reasons related to (2), maybe they really did want him to testify: "Man, look at that lunatic! By comparison, I'm Nelson Mandela."

I also testified on my own behalf on July 10, 2014 e.g. about my work looking for missing children in Tucson, Arizona, and my 7 years of pro bono assistance to the U.S. Coast Guard in downtown San Diego.

Yes, you did, Mitch. Immediately following your testimony, the Judge found you incompetent.

Indirectly, I received word that the U.S. Marshals were VERY impressed with that testimony
e.g. how I analyzed the cctv frames acquired by the Pentagon's surveillance cameras

I know a lot of Marshalls, Mitch, and I don't doubt that at all. Why, they were probably laughing for days.

Thus, harassing, intimidating or threatening such a Federal witness with mind-altering (read "brain-damaging") psychotropic pharmaceuticals was a FELONY violation of 18 USC 1513, 1514, 2340 and 3771.
Also, there were the following:

* NOTICE AND DEMAND TO CEASE AND DESIST

* CITIZEN'S ARREST WARRANT for arrest of Robert Sarrazin, M.D. as "Chief of Psychiatry"
and Christina Pietz, Ph.D. as "Psychologist" at the U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners
in Springfield, Missouri ("USMCFP")

Latter CITIZEN'S ARREST WARRANT (1X) was served on the USMCFP Case Manager and Mental Health Unit Manager, Michael McIntyre and Jon Roberts, respectively.

* CITIZEN'S ARREST WARRANT (1X) for the arrest of Nancy Dell Freudenthal as "Chief U.S. District Judge" in Cheyenne, Wyoming and Stephan Harris as "Clerk of Court" at USDC in Cheyenne, Wyoming and L. Robert Muray as "Assistant U.S. Attorney" in Cheyenne, Wyoming

Latter CITIZEN'S ARREST WARRANT was served on the Director of the U.S. Marshals Service in Washington, D.C. via first-class U.S. Mail.

Outrageous! So all those miscreants are now in jail, right?

* 2 new lawsuits, for a total of five (5) litigation "fronts"

(a) original "criminal" case and "superseding indictment"

Mitch too nuts to try.

(b) APPLICATION FOR WRITS IN THE NATURE OF QUO WARRANTO AND HABEAS CORPUS invoking
18 USC 1964, 28 USC 2241, 2242, 31 USC 3730(h) and 42 USC 1985-1986, Docket #14-3460-CV-S-MDH-P (USDC/WDMO)

Ordered transferred to DWY (venue of the criminal case), docket 14cv228. No action since.

(c) FOIA Enforcement Application Docket #14-3506-CV-S-MDH-P (USDC/WDMO)

No action after filing of complaint.

(d) APPEAL to the Tenth Circuit in Denver, Colorado for WRIT OF PROHIBITION, Appeal #14-8081 (now pending: a preliminary ORDER was issued on 12/19/2014)

Wrong. Dismissed December 18.

(e) APPEAL to the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis, Missouri for WRIT OF MANDAMUS to enforce a PROTECTIVE ORDER (no Docket number assigned, as of today) requested under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, 18 USC 3771

Actually, Mitch, it is Eighth Circuit docket 14-3794, and it was dismissed on December 17. You really ought to keep up.

Yep, it must have been all that legal flailing around that did the trick.

I'll try to get everything uploaded to the SLL, but it's going to take quite a lot of time: many of those pleadings will need to be re-typed.

Don't forget the dismissals.

[notorial dissent]

Yup, sounds like pure vintage PAMian finestkind legal gobbledegook.

[LightinDarkness]

Listening to PAM's Christmas Day propaganda session:
http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-39904/TS-920740.mp3

This guy is obsessed with "credentials." His entire...uh, argument (using that word very loosely) is that because the government has not provided him - to his satisfaction - proof of the "credentials" of everyone involved in his case...therefore they are all frauds and not really judges/US marshals/etc.

For example, he filed a FOIA requesting the appointment credentials of every person in the entire Bureau of Prisons - and then when the government laughed him (for obvious reasons), he declares this is proof no one in the BOP is really a law enforcement officer.

I mean, I realize I am trying to find reason in someone who has been deemed mentally incompetent and that is a hard thing to do - but I was kind of shocked with the simplistic stupidity of it. I've come to expect far better legal gibberish from sov'runs.

Does anyone know where he gets this whole "credentials" obsession from? He is also obsessed with putting BA and MS after his name - which is really kind of pathetic since no one puts degrees after their name in the US (unless it is a PhD or a professional degree)

[notorial dissent]

I think if you just stick with obsessed you pretty well have PAM.

The credentials thing is that he is convinced that if whoever can't immediately produce their appointments and sworn oaths, then they aren't who they claim they are and anything they do is void, rather like his legal thinking.

PAM lives in a world of fantasy, including his name and his alleged accomplishments. I have never seen anything to indicate that he has any advanced degrees or anything else, but he collects titles for himself to justify his importance.

[operabuff]

There was a legitimate (or at least non tax protester) appointments clause challenge a couple of years back. Carlton Smith argued on behalf of his client that the IRS Appeals folks who hear collection due process cases administratively should be subject to the Appointments clause of the Constitution - and since they had not been appointed with Senate confirmation or even as inferior officers, the CDP hearing in his client's case was invalid. Neither the Tax Court nor the DC Circuit agreed.

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/o ... 369792.pdf

[grixit]

I'm pretty sure that most administrative law judges, ombudspersons, citizen's advocates, etc, are all chosen internally by their own agencies. Nonetheless, people keep bringing their cases to them.

Wait, i've got it. There is only one office for bureaucratic appeals that is 100% appointed right from the top, and has badges and even a uniform:

[Dr. Caligari]

Sorry, Grixit, I can't see that image.