MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

TO:
Hon. Leo Dobrovolny, District Judge
Twelfth Judicial District
Scotts Bluff County Courthouse
1725 - 10th Street
Gering 69341
Nebraska, USA

email: <ldobrovolny@scottsbluffcounty.org>

RE: People ex rel. Mitchell v. Stephan Harris et al.

Greetings Your Honor:

Because of the twenty-eight (28) moves I have had to endure
since 1/28/2014, I did finally receive TODAY (5/13/2014)
your ruling dated April 4, 2014.

In that ruling, you denied my motion to proceed in forma pauperis
("IFP") "as it is not verified before an officer qualified to
administer oaths."

Please accept this MOTION respectfully to request your timely
reconsideration, for the following good causes:

(1) I remain indigent and, as such, I cannot either afford or earn
any filing fees while I remain detained;

(2) My motion to proceed IFP was properly verified pursuant to
28 U.S.C. 1746(1) i.e. without (outside) the "United States"
(federal government) and inside (within) the United States of
America i.e. 50 States of the Union; Nebraska is one of those
50 States, in good standing;

(3) 28 U.S.C. 1746 is rendered supreme Law of the Land
throughout Nebraska by virtue of the Supremacy Clause
in the Constitution for the United States of America,
as lawfully amended;

(4) 28 U.S.C. 1746 was enacted with the legislative intent
to eliminate the need for any Notary Public, or similar
qualified officer, to administer an oath or affirmation;

(5) For example, 28 U.S.C. 1746 governs the perjury jurat
on Internal Revenue Service Forms 1040, which are thereby
rendered admissible evidence without the need for a
Notary Public, or other qualified officer, to administer
or otherwise witness that Form;

(6) Under the common law, I also enjoy the fundamental Right
to choose any name I see fit; here, see Doe v. Dunning,
87 Wn.2d 50, 549 P.2d 1 (1976) (re: the fundamental law
and basic common-law principle), and Washington State
AGO 1985 No. 10 (copy attached via second email message
sent by my "next friend" and legal assistant, Larry Saccato); and,

(7) Accordingly, my chosen name since 1996 has remained
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

REMEDY REQUESTED

All premises having been duly considered, Petitioners now
respectfully request this honorable Court to reconsider
its April 4, 2014, ruling denying Relator's motion for leave
to proceed In Forma Pauperis.

In the alternative, Petitioners request a routine continuance
of sixty (60) calendar days during which Relator will be permitted
to make all necessary arrangements to pay the required filing fees.

Thank you for your professional consideration.

Dated: May 13, 2014 A.D.

Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
________________________________________________
Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Relator In Propria Persona

(NOT "Pro Se"), (expressly NOT a "citizen of the United States"

aka federal citizen: Pannill v. Roanoke), and

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

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

(stated objectives of Civil RICO actions)