Gmail

Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>

MULTIPLE OBJECTIONS Re: reply to NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR DISCLOSURE OF SPECIFIC APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS: U.S. Tax Court personnel

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>

Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 9:17 AM

To:  "Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf dba Secretary, Judicial Conference c/o" <AdminOversight@ao.uscourts.gov>

Cc:  HumanResources@ustaxcourt.gov, webmaster@ustaxcourt.gov, dawson.support@ustaxcourt.gov, michael.dake@ustaxcourt.gov

Bcc:

 

OBJECTIONS!

 

You were already provided with documentation consisting of U.S. DOJ's previous replies

to proper FOIA Requests for all four (4) credentials required of all U.S. Tax Court "judges",

repeating:

 

 

Not one (1) credential was ever disclosed by, or for, the latter group.

 

Their failure to disclose any of the four (4) required credentials implicates all

U.S. Tax Court "judges" in multiple Federal FELONY offenses.

 

You have a legal obligation to report all such FELONY offenses

to an officer in the civil or military authority of the United States,

as required by 18 U.S.C. 4 (Misprision of felony).

 

Moreover, the Act of Congress at 5 U.S.C. 5507 clearly states that

they may not be paid insofar as they have failed to file valid

U.S. OPM Standard Form 61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS.

 

Consequently, they were served via U.S. Mail with proper

INVOICES for their false salary claims against the U.S. Treasury:

 

 

Your Administrative Office is also IN DEFAULT and IN CONTEMPT

of a proper SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE for the very same credentials:

 

 

Your claim about Article I of the Constitution is extremely misleading.

28 U.S.C. 132 does not mention any constitutional origin(s) for the

U.S. District Courts, unlike other Acts of Congress e.g. IRC 7441

and 28 U.S.C. 251.

 

Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.

(Whatever was omitted from an Act of Congress

was intended to be omitted by Act of Congress.)

 

Extensive research and related Court litigation have established

certified proof that U.S. District Courts are likewise Article I

legislative tribunals, NOT Article III constitutional courts.

 

See compilation of relevant case law and related documentation

carefully and systematically archived on the Internet here:

 

most notably:

 

The standing decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Willy v. Coastal Corp.

is controlling, to wit:  Rules of Court may not expand or restrict

original jurisdiction previously conferred on Federal district courts 

by prior Acts of Congress.

 

Consequently, "amendments" to Rules of Court allegedly authorized

by the first Supersession Clause at 18 U.S.C. 3771 on June 25, 1948,

did not and could not effect ANY changes whatsoever to the grant of

original jurisdiction at 18 U.S.C. 3231:

 

 

The standing requirement, and practice, in Federal jurisprudence is that

statutes conferring original jurisdiction must be STRICTLY construed.

 

The surviving Supersession Clause at 28 U.S.C. 2072(b) 

is likewise unconstitutional for violating Separation of Powers

and Willy v. Coastal Corp.:

 

 

 

Consequently, the false claim that U.S. District Courts were established

under Article III of the Constitution for the United States of America,

is a FLAT-OUT LIE.

 

 

REMEDY REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAWS:

 

For reasons including, but not limited to all the above,

your email reply is REFUSED FOR CAUSE and RETURNED TO SEND.

 

We now repeat, a second time:

 

Formal DEMAND is hereby made of all U.S. Tax Court personnel

listed below to disclose true and correct electronic copies of

their U.S. Office of Personnel Management ("OPM")

Standard Form 61 ("SF-61") APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS

no later than 5:00 PM on Wednesday, January 31, 2024 A.D.

 

 

Attachments:  relevant litigation

 

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hovind/recon1.htm

 

http://supremelaw.org/cc/aol/cert.htm#drama

 

http://supremelaw.org/cc/aol/mandamus.2.htm

 

http://supremelaw.org/cc/aol/opening.htm#sec7c

 

http://supremelaw.org/rsrc/dcus.htm

 

http://supremelaw.org/cc/microsoft/transmittal.htm

 

http://supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/karmacts.htm

 

http://supremelaw.org/authors/schwan/sedition.htm

 

http://supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/opening.htm#topic-e

 

http://supremelaw.org/letters/us-v-usa.htm

 

http://supremelaw.org/cc/makarian/notice.rule.44.htm

 

http://supremelaw.org/cc/edwards/notice.rule.44.htm

 

 

Chronological List of U.S. Supreme Court cases:

 

http://supremelaw.org/cc/aol/cert.htm#sccases


More to the merits, legislative courts are not required to exercise
the Article III guarantees required of constitutional courts.

 

See:

American Insurance v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 26 U.S. 511, 7 L.Ed. 242 (1828)
(C.J. Marshall’s seminal ruling);
Benner v. Porter, 50 U.S. 235, 242‑243 (1850);
Clinton v. Englebrecht, 80 U.S. 434, 447 (1871);
Hornbuckle v. Toombs, 85 U.S. 648, 655 (1873);
Good v. Martin, 95 U.S. 90, 98 (1877);
Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145, 154 (1878);
The City of Panama, 101 U.S. 453, 460 (1879);
Keller v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 261 U.S. 428 (1923);
Federal Trade Commission v. Klesner, 274 U.S. 145 (1927);
Swift & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 311 (1928);
Ex parte Bakelite Corporation, 279 U.S. 438 (1929);
Federal Radio Commission v. General Electric Co., 281 U.S. 464 (1930);
Claiborne-Annapolis Ferry Co. v. United States, 285 U.S. 382 (1932);
O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516 (1933);
Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962); and
Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982).

 

 

Bcc:  Commander-in-Chief, and U.S. House of Representatives

 

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (Retired / pro bono)
Private Attorney General, Civil RICO: 18 U.S.C. 1964;

Agent of the United States as Qui Tam Relator (4X),

Federal Civil False Claims Act: 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq.


All Rights Reserved ( cf. UCC 1-308 https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-308 )

 

 

On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 6:17 AM Admin Oversight <AdminOversight@ao.uscourts.gov> wrote:

Mr. Mitchell,

The United States Tax Court is established under Article I of the Constitution. See: 26 U.S.C. § 7441.  The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has no authority or oversight over the Tax Court.

 

 

From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 1, 2024 1:38 PM
To: Admin Oversight <AdminOversight@ao.uscourts.gov>
Subject: NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR DISCLOSURE OF SPECIFIC APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS: U.S. Tax Court personnel

 

CAUTION - EXTERNAL:

 

 

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jan 1, 2024 at 11:31 AM
Subject: NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR DISCLOSURE OF SPECIFIC APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS: U.S. Tax Court personnel
To: <humanresources@ustaxcourt.gov>
Cc: <webmaster@ustaxcourt.gov>, <dawson.support@ustaxcourt.gov>

 

PLEASE FORWARD

TO:

United States Tax Court

Attention:  Human Resources and Clerk of Court

400 Second Street, N.W.

Washington 20217

District of Columbia, USA

 

RE:  Reservation of Right to Inspect APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS

 

 

Greetings Human Resources and Clerk of Court:

 

The Act of Congress at 5 U.S.C. 2906 designates 

the "court to which the office pertains"

as the legal custodian of all APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS 

required of all U.S. Tax Court "officers":

 

 

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts ("AO")

is not the designated legal custodian of any such credentials:

 

 

 

Formal DEMAND is hereby made of all U.S. Tax Court personnel

listed below to disclose true and correct electronic copies of

their U.S. Office of Personnel Management ("OPM")

Standard Form 61 ("SF-61") APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS

no later than 5:00 PM on Wednesday, January 31, 2024 A.D.

 

Kathleen Kerrigan

Chambers Telephone Number: (202) 521-0777

 

Tamara W. Ashford

Chambers Telephone Number: (202) 521-0822

 

Ronald L. Buch

Chambers Telephone Number: (202) 521-0810

 

Elizabeth A. Copeland

Chambers Telephone Number: (202) 521-0670

 

Travis A. Greaves

Chambers Telephone Number: (202) 521-0736

 

Courtney D. Jones

Chambers Telephone Number: (202) 521-0795

 

Alina I. Marshall

Chambers Telephone Number: (202) 521-0738

 

Joseph W. Nega

Chambers Telephone Number: (202) 521-0640

 

Cary Douglas Pugh

Chambers Telephone Number: (202) 521-0824

 

Emin Toro

Chambers Telephone Number: (202) 521-0760

 

Patrick J. Urda

Chambers Telephone Number: (202) 521-0800

 

Christian N. Weiler

Chambers Telephone Number: (202) 521-0649

 

Albert G. Lauber

Chambers Telephone Number: (202) 521-0785

 

Zachary S. Fried

Chambers Telephone Number: (202) 521-0867

 

Adam B. Landy

Chambers Telephone Number: (202) 521-0835

 

Diana L. Leyden

Chambers Telephone Number: (202) 521-0823

 

Jennifer E. Siegel

Chambers Telephone Number: (202) 521-0720

 

 

Kindly forward courtesy copies of this NOTICE AND DEMAND

to all "officers" listed above.

 

 

Thank you for your professional consideration.

 

 

 

 

--

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (Retired / pro bono)
Private Attorney General, Civil RICO: 18 U.S.C. 1964;

Agent of the United States as Qui Tam Relator (4X),

Federal Civil False Claims Act: 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq.


All Rights Reserved ( cf. UCC 1-308 https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-308 )



--

 

CAUTION - EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated outside the Judiciary. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking on links.

 

--