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

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

Agent of the United States, 31 U.S.C. 3730

c/o Trustee, Supreme Law Firm

1224 N.E. Walnut, #257

Roseburg 97470

Oregon, USA

In Propria Persona

United States District Court

District of Oregon

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic], ) Case No. 6:10-cr-60066-AA

Plaintiff [sic], )

v. )

)

STEVEN DWIGHT HAMMOND [sic] and, )

DWIGHT LINCOLN HAMMOND, JR. [sic], )

Defendants [sic]. )

-----------------------------------)

United States ) NOTICE OF MISSING AND/OR

ex relatione ) DEFECTIVE CREDENTIALS:

Paul Andrew Mitchell, ) 5 U.S.C. 2104, 2903, 2906, 3331;

) 18 U.S.C. 4, 912, 1961 et seq.;

Interpleader. ) 28 U.S.C. 453, 544, 951;

) 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq.; and,

) 44 U.S.C. 3512(b).

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

The United States hereby notoriously appears specially, not generally, and ex rel. Paul Andrew Mitchell, Private Attorney General and Agent of the United States as Qui Tam Relator, for the limited purposes of: (1) providing formal Notice to all Proper Parties and all other recipients of this NOTICE; (2) satisfying the legal requirements imposed by the Federal criminal statute at 18 U.S.C. section 4; and, (3) establishing probable cause calling for the conclusion that the suspects named infra are engaged in a pattern of racketeering activities in violation of the Federal criminal statute at 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) (conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity).

In the interests of expediting access to all relevant and admissible documentation, Interpleader hereby notifies all concerned of a single, consolidated electronic database which now contains evidence of missing and/or defective credentials for past and present Federal Court personnel employed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. In particular, see all “NAD” links infra:

http://supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm#DOR

http://supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm#NINTH

http://supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/credential.investigation.facts.and.laws.htm

FATAL DEFECTS CONFIRMED IN OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

STANDARD FORM 61 (“SF-61”) APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS

Relator now confirms that the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) never requested nor obtained formal review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) of three (3) distinct changes that are plainly evident on the OPM SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS now in widespread use, after being made available in electronic form at OPM’s Internet website, to wit:

(1) there is no OMB control number at the upper right-hand corner;

(2) there is no paragraph at the bottom citing 5 U.S.C. 2903; and,

(3) the use of an electronic form in lieu of a hard-copy form.

Proper requests submitted under the Freedom of Information Act at 5 U.S.C. 552 (“FOIA”) specifically sought documentary evidence that OPM has duly complied with the published Regulations implementing the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”).

On August 6, 2012, OPM replied as follows:

... [W]e do not have any responsive records here at OPM.

And, on August 23, 2012, OMB replied as follows:

After careful review of your request, we conducted a search of OMB’s files and did not identify any records or documents that are responsive to your request.

Accordingly, pursuant to the legislative intent of the PRA, Relator has every right to enforce that Act by concluding that any and all OPM SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS which were never reviewed and timely approved by OMB, as required by published Regulations implementing the PRA, are necessarily “bootleg requests” belonging in the nearest trash can.

In other words, they are counterfeits!

Furthermore, the failure to produce any evidence of any duly executed OPM SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS has very far-reaching criminal consequences for all Federal employees who are similarly situated. See e.g. 18 U.S.C. §§ 912, 1341, 1951 and 1961 et seq.

In particular, concerning the consequences for Federal personnel who are claiming to be duly appointed to preside on a Federal Court, Interpleader attaches a list of authorities concerning such personnel, and incorporates same by reference, as if set forth fully here.

Those authorities make it very clear that, without taking all required Oaths, one cannot become a judge either de jure or de facto, such an individual is without authority to act, and all his acts as such are void until he has taken the prescribed oath:

Without taking the oath prescribed by law, one cannot become a judge either de jure or de facto, and such an individual is without authority to act and his acts as such are void until he has taken the prescribed oath.

[French v. State, 572 S.W.2d 934]

[Brown v. State, 238 S.W.2d 787]

The Office of Attorney General also issued a long-standing legal Opinion consistent with the statute at 5 U.S.C. 5507. Said Opinion reiterated that the required Oath was a mandatory prerequisite to exercising a judge’s duties and to receiving compensation as a judge:

... [B]ut whatever form of oath is taken, the taking of the oath is a prerequisite to the entering upon the official duties or drawing salary therefor.

[19 Op Atty Gen 221]

For reasons including but not limited to those discussed above, Relator hereby formally invokes the PRA’s Public Protection Clause at 44 U.S.C. 3512(b):

(b) The protection provided by this section may be raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto.

5 U.S.C. 2903: AUTHORITY TO ADMINISTER

Interpleader also wishes to draw attention to the existence, and legal implications, of the Federal statute at 5 U.S.C. 2903.

As explained above, the absence of any citation to that statute is one of the reasons why OPM’s electronic version of SF-61 violates the PRA and its implementing Regulations.

It is also one of the reasons why Relator asserts a right to inspect all SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS for proper compliance with the stated requirements of that particular statute.

It can happen that Federal judicial personnel have executed what appears to them to be a complete set of proper credentials.

However, if the individual who administered SF-61 lacks one or more of the credentials required of that individual, it necessarily follows that 2903 has been violated.

Let us consider one example, in order to drive this point home: consider a single SF-61 which appears to have been administered by a County Dog Catcher. Interpleader does not intend to demean that local government position: dog catchers perform a very important public safety service.

Nevertheless, the issue is whether or not a County Dog Catcher is authorized by law to administer OPM SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS.

There are three (3) subsections at 5 U.S.C. 2903. Interpleader wishes to supplement the analysis above with particular emphasis on subsection 2903(a), to wit:

(a) The oath of office required by section 3331 of this title may be administered by an individual authorized by the laws of the United States or local law to administer oaths in the State, District, or territory or possession of the United States where the oath is administered.

[underlined emphasis added]

If someone desires to know which individuals are so authorized by the laws of the United States (Federal government), it is necessary to do much additional research in order to locate each such law, and in order to determine from each such law which individual(s) have been authorized to administer OPM SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS, and which have not been so authorized.

The latter is the situation facing any private Citizen who wishes to determine the authenticity of any SF-61.

When a private Citizen is confronted with an SF-61 from which all references to the statute at 5 U.S.C. 2903 have been removed, a not so subtle fraud has been inflicted on that Citizen by failing to disclose what should have been disclosed.

Here, cf. “Fraud” in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.

A County Dog Catcher’s signature could appear there; and, without the additional knowledge which notice of this statute provides, the Citizen is thereby deprived of information necessary to perform a reasonable inspection of such a document, and to make a reasonable determination of its legality and authenticity.

Such is the PRA’s legislative intent!

Relator here argues that the citation to 5 U.S.C. 2903 should not only be a mandatory requirement on all blank SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS duly approved by OMB.

In the spirits of timely notice, full disclosure, and full compliance with the PRA, future revisions of OPM SF-61 should also be enhanced with at least one additional line on which the individual administering that form is required to cite the exact law of the United States or local law which confers upon that individual authority to administer that form.

The latter is really not too much to ask, in light of the obvious vagueness which Interpleader has already documented at 5 U.S.C. 2903(a), in light of the published Regulations which implement the PRA, and in light of the PRA’s legislative intent.

Those implementing Regulations expressly mandate opportunities for public comments whenever an OMB control number is up for mandatory renewal every three (3) years. Again, see 5 U.S.C. 5507 (“officer ... may not be paid until the [valid SF-61] affidavit has been filed”).

In fact, those implementing Regulations also authorize any person to request OMB review of any collection of information conducted by or for any Federal government agency, as follows:

Any person may request OMB to review any collection of information conducted by or for any agency to determine if, under this Act and this part, a person shall maintain, provide, or disclose the information to or for the agency. Unless the request is frivolous, OMB shall, in coordination with the agency responsible for the collection of information:

(1) Respond to the request within 60 days after receiving the request, unless such period is extended by OMB to a specified date and the person making the request is given notice of such extension; and,

(2) Take appropriate remedial action, if necessary. 5 CFR 1320.14(c)

[underlined emphasis added]

INCORPORATION OF ALL ATTACHED EXHIBITS

Interpleader hereby incorporates by reference all attached documents as Exhibits, and as if all were set forth fully here.

VERIFICATION

I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, Relator in the above entitled action, 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, according to the best of My current information, knowledge, and belief, so help me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1) (Constitution, Laws and Treaties of the United States are supreme Law of the Land, notwithstanding anything in the Constitution or Laws of Oregon State to the contrary. See Supremacy Clause.)

Dated: April 1, 2016 A.D.

Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

____________________________________________________________

Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Relator In Propria Persona;

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(c); and,

Agent of the United States as Qui Tam Relator: 31 U.S.C. 3730

(see U.S. ex rel. Madden v. General Dynamics Corp.)

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (Federal government), that I am at least 18 years of age, a Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America, and that I personally served the following document(s):

NOTICE OF MISSING AND/OR DEFECTIVE CREDENTIALS:

5 U.S.C. 2104, 2903, 2906, 3331;

18 U.S.C. 4, 912, 1961 et seq.;

28 U.S.C. 453, 544, 951;

31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq.; and,

44 U.S.C. 3512(b)

by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United States Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed to the following:

Clerk of Court (3x)

U.S. District Court

Wayne L. Morse U.S. Courthouse

405 East Eighth Avenue

Eugene 97401

Oregon, USA

Office of the U.S. Attorney

Attention: Mr. Billy J. Williams

1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite 600

Portland 97204

Oregon, USA

Lawrence H. Matasar

Lawrence Matasar, P.C.

621 S.W. Morrison Street

Suite 1025

Portland 97205

Oregon, USA

Kendra M. Matthews

Ransom Blackman, LLP

1001 S.W. Fifth Avenue

Suite 1400

Portland 97204

Oregon, USA

Courtesy Copies:

Steven Dwight Hammond

FCI Terminal Island

P.O. Box 3007

San Pedro 90731

California, USA

Dwight Lincoln Hammond

FCI Terminal Island

P.O. Box 3007

San Pedro 90731

California, USA

Mrs. Susan Hammond

c/o Trustee, Supreme Law Firm

1225 N.E. Walnut, #257

Roseburg 97470

Oregon, USA

[Please see USPS Publication #221 for “addressing” instructions.]

Dated: April 1, 2016 A.D.

Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

____________________________________________________________

Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Relator In Propria Persona;

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(c); and,

Agent of the United States as Qui Tam Relator: 31 U.S.C. 3730

(see U.S. ex rel. Madden v. General Dynamics Corp.)

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST

December 27, 2011 A.D.

Disclosure Officer IN DEFAULT

U.S. Office of Personnel Management

FOIA Requester Service Center

1900 “E” Street, N.W., Room 5415

Washington 20415-7900

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA

Subject: Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) Request

Dear Disclosure Officer:

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act. I request that a true and correct copy of the following documents be provided to Me, without delay:

(1) Regulations implementing the Federal statute at 5 U.S.C. 3331 as duly published in the Federal Register and/or the Code of Federal Regulations but not otherwise listed in the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules revised January 1, 2011 (see attached);

(2) materials submitted in compliance with 5 CFR 1320.5 to the Director of OMB for review of the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) Standard Form 61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS as revised in June 1996 and August 2002 (copies attached), including but not limited to:

(a) the certification required under 5 CFR 1320.9;

(b) the proposed collection of information;

(c) the explanation for the decision that it would not be appropriate for the proposed collection of information to display an expiration date;

(d) the statement indicating that the proposed collection of information involves the use of automatic, electronic collection techniques;

(e) pertinent statutory authority, regulations, and such related supporting materials as OMB may have requested;

(f) the notice published in the Federal Register as required by 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv);

(g) OMB’s approval of the proposed collection of information including either the control number obtained from the Director to be displayed upon the collection of information, or evidence of the Director’s decision to permit the collection of information to be used after June 1996 without a control number.

We incorporate as an essential part of this FOIA Request, all of the following relevant excerpts from the Code of Federal Regulations implementing the Paperwork Reduction Act, to wit:

[A]n agency shall not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless ... the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. 5 CFR 1320.5(b)(1)

In the case of forms ... sent or made available to potential respondents in an electronic format, the agency places the currently valid OMB control number ... on the first screen viewed by the respondent. 5 CFR 1320.5(b)(2)(ii)(B)

[A]n agency shall not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless ... the agency informs the potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 5 CFR 1320.5(b)(2)(i)

OMB will consider necessary any collection of information specifically mandated by statute .... 5 CFR 1320.5(e)(1)

An agency may not make a substantive or material modification to a collection of information after such collection of information has been approved by OMB, unless the modification has been submitted to OMB for review and approval under this Part. 5 CFR 1320.5(g)

OMB shall not approve any collection of information for a period longer than three years. 5 CFR 1320.10(b)

Agencies shall provide copies of the material submitted to OMB for review promptly upon request by any person. 5 CFR 1320.14(b)

(2) Take appropriate remedial action, if necessary. 5 CFR 1320.14(c)

I request a waiver of all fees for this request.

Disclosure of the requested information to Me is in the public interest, because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations and activities of the Federal government, and is not primarily in My commercial interest.

See also 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B).

If you are not the correct person to whom this FOIA request should be directed, please forward it without delay to the correct person(s).

Thank you for your consideration of this FOIA request.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

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

Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and

Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm

U.S. Mail:

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

c/o Lake Union Mail

117 East Louisa Street

Seattle 98102-3203

WASHINGTON STATE, USA

Attachments

Copy: U.S. Marshals, Judicial Security, Seattle, Washington State

[See USPS Publication #221 for addressing instructions.]

Authorities in re: Presidential Commissions

When person has been nominated to office by President, confirmed by Senate, and his commission signed by President, with seal of United States affixed thereto, his appointment is complete.

[U.S. v. LeBaron, 60 U.S. 73, 19 How. 73]

[15 L.Ed. 525 (1856), bold emphasis added]

The commissions of judicial officers ... appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate ... shall be made out and recorded in the Department of Justice under the seal of that department and countersigned by the Attorney General.

[5 U.S.C. 2902(c), bold emphasis added]

Federal circuit and district judges are among the “other officers of the United States” required to be nominated by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

[Thomson v. Robb, 328 S.E.2d 136, 140, hn. 3]

[229 Va. 233 (Va. 1985)]

From this clause [2:2:2] the Constitution must be understood to declare that all offices of the United States, except in cases where the Constitution itself may otherwise provide, shall be established by law.

[U.S. v. Maurice, 2 Brock, U.S., 96]

[26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,747]

... [W]here the law requires a commission to be issued, the person selected is not entitled to the office until the commission issues, and he cannot be legally qualified by taking the required oath until he has received his commission.

[Legerton v. Chambers, 163 P. 678, 32 Cal.App. 601]

[Magruder v. Tuck, 25 Md. 217]

[bold emphasis added]

The commission is in law prima facie proof of the right of the judge to enter on and perform the duties of his office.

[State v. Montague, 130 S.E. 838, 190 N.C. 841]

[Sylvia Lake Co. v. Northern Ore Co., 151 N.E. 158]

[242 N.Y. 144, cert. den. 273 U.S. 695]

It [commission] is the highest and best evidence of his right to the office until, on quo warranto or a proceeding of that nature, is annulled by judicial determination.

[Thompson v. Holt, 52 Ala. 491]

[bold emphasis added]

[French v. State, 572 S.W.2d 934]

[Brown v. State, 238 S.W.2d 787]

Law requires the judge selected to take an oath of office.

[U.S. ex rel. Scott v. Babb]

[199 F.2d 804 (7^th Cir. 1952)]

Appointment was complete upon taking oath.

[Glavey v. U.S., 182 U.S. 595 (1901)]

Judges are required to take oaths.

[7 Op Atty Gen 303]

Oath was prerequisite to compensation of judges.

[7 Op Atty Gen 303]

The salaries of all judges of courts of the United States are due from the date of appointment; but the party does not become entitled to draw pay until he has entered on the duties of his office, or at least taken his official oath; for, until then, though under commission, he is not actually in office; and in some cases, as that of the territorial judges of Oregon, Washington, Kansas, and Nebraska, salary, though due from date of appointment, cannot be drawn until the judge enters on duty in the Territory.

[7 Op Atty Gen 303 supra]

Oath was prerequisite to official duties and salary.

[19 Op Atty Gen 219]

SALARY OF MINISTER

By act of July 11, 1888, chapter 614, the office of chargé d’affaires to Paraguay and Uruguay, the salary of which was $5,000 per annum, was abolished, and provision made for representing the United States there by a minister at $7,500 a year. B., who at that time held the former office, was on the 11^th of August, 1888, appointed minister. He received his commission at his place of duty on the 3d of October, 1888, and on that latter date took the official oath and entered upon the duties of his office as minister: Advised that B. is entitled to draw his salary as minister from the 3d of October, 1888, the date on which he qualified for the office and entered upon its duties, and not from the date of his appointment (Aug. 11, 1888).

[19 Op Atty Gen 219 supra]

... [B]ut whatever form of oath is taken, the taking of the oath is a prerequisite to the entering upon the official duties or drawing salary therefor.

[19 Op Atty Gen 221 supra]

# # #

Attached Exhibits:

Admission by U.S. Office of Personnel Management:

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/opm/letter.2012-08-06/page01.gif

Admissions by U.S. Office of Management and Budget:

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/omb/letter.2012-08-23/page01.gif

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/omb/letter.2012-08-23/page02.gif

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/omb/letter.2012-08-23/page03.gif

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/omb/letter.2013-01-25/page01.gif

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/omb/letter.2013-01-25/page02.gif

Credentials Produced in Reply to FOIA Requests