TO:       Mr. William E. Bordley

      dba Associate General Counsel/FOIAPA Officer

          Office of General Counsel

          U.S. Marshals Service

          Washington 20530-1000



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

          Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)


DATE:     October 15, 2007 A.D.


SUBJECT:  Past Due FOIA Request



Hello Mr. Bordley:


We are refusing your letter and attachment dated September 25, 2007 A.D. (copies attached).


Here’s the sequence of required credentials, provided to you because of the ignorance which you have demonstrated in said letter:


(1)           President nominates a candidate for the office of U.S. Marshal;


(2)           Senate either confirms, producing a SENATE CONFIRMATION, or Senate declines to confirm;


(3)           President signs a PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION, and forwards to the Attorney General;


(4)           Attorney General countersigns and seals with the official seal of the U.S. Department of Justice;


(5)           Appointee executes an APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVIT duly witnessed by a qualified officer;  and,


(6)           Appointee also executes a separate OATH OF OFFICE, likewise witnessed by a qualified officer.


The pertinent cases have held that the President may not execute a PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION unless the Senate has first consented to the appointment.


Similarly, a PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION is not valid unless it is also countersigned and sealed by the Attorney General.


Moreover, neither the APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVIT nor the OATH OF OFFICE can be executed unless the President has issued a PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION.


Finally, the APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVIT is required by the federal statute at 5 U.S.C. 3331.  The last sentence of the latter statute makes it very clear that other oaths may also be required e.g. to define duties specific to a particular office.


Your letter is also filled with numerous legal errors, chiefly because the “law enforcement” exemptions you cite in error are not applicable when there is simply no law to enforce.  Specifically, there is no federal Statute at Large which creates a specific liability for any taxes imposed by subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code.


The latter issue was settled finally and decisively when four and one-half years passed without any answer(s) from the U.S. Department of the Treasury to a lawful SUBPOENA for the required liability statute.  See Commissioner v. Acker for controlling authority here.


Mr. Bordley, I have already had enough direct, eyewitness experiences with personnel employed by the Office of the U.S. Marshals to know that many of those personnel are not enforcing law, but sustaining an ugly and premeditated criminal protection racket.  That protection racket includes numerous criminals who are impersonating officers of the federal government, such as the high number of impostors who have actively infiltrated the federal judiciary.


Therefore, since Mr. Monier has failed to demonstrate to me that he is willing to listen to reason, you can now tell him that he and his “raiders” are now under formal investigation on suspicion of extortion, kidnapping, criminal trespass, false arrest, false imprisonment and conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activities.


Thank you, Mr. Bordley.  This is your one and only notice concerning any and all of the points made above:  ignorance of the Law in America is no excuse, remember?


How many times have you said that to your victims?



Sincerely yours,


/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell


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

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)

Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13  (Home Page)  (Support Policy)  (Client Guidelines) (Policy + Guidelines)


All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:  <-- START HERE