U.S. Marshal Meeting #4:  The “Crucial” Meeting

Re: The Missing OMB Control Number on SF-61 (August 2002)



(1)  Deputies were wrong to infer from the “August 2002” revision that the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) had OMB’s permission;  OPM did not!


(2)  USMS Deputies brought to that meeting no proof of any such OMB permission to remove the OMB control number;


(3)  USMS Deputies “simply offered a possible path of inquiry” [sic] concerning the missing control number:  see Deputy’s email;


(4)  the PRA did not require Paul Andrew Mitchell to inquire at OPM, or at OMB, for further clarification:  see(5) below;


(5)  the PRA created no specific legal obligations for any private Citizens e.g. no obligation to inspect, only for OPM to comply;


(6)  the PRA did effectively create a right to inspect each SF-61 for a valid OMB control number at upper right-hand corner of Page 1;


(7)  prior revisions of SF-61 properly displayed OMB control number “50-R0118” at the upper right-hand corner;


(8)  prior revisions of SF-61 properly displayed paragraph citing 5 U.S.C. 2903 (Authority to administer);


(9)  the missing expiration date on the “August 2002” revision was also misleading:  it supported the false inference that OMB approval was perpetual:  see (12) below;


(10) the missing cite to 5 U.S.C. 2903 on the “August 2002” revision was also misleading:  it supported the false inference that OMB approved omission of that cite:  OMB did not!  See (16) below;


(11) the loyalty oath under 5 U.S.C. 3333 was declared to be unconstitutional, but removal of same still required OMB review and approval:  see second AFFIDAVIT on SF-61;


(12) OMB renewal was required every 3 years, but no renewals were requested at least between August 2002 and present (August 2014) -- a period of twelve (12) years;


(13) the implementing Regulation at 5 CFR 1320.5 also required notice in the Federal Register -- to permit public comments on any OPM Application to OMB:  there was no Federal Register notice!;


(14) OMB never approved the change to an electronic version of SF-61, even though the Regulation at 5 CFR 1320.5 required explicit justification for such a change:  see .pdf forms at www.opm.gov;

(15) the Regulation at 5 CFR 1320.5 required a citation to the statutes mandating SF-61 e.g. 5 U.S.C. 2903, 2906, 3331, 3332, 3333, 5507 etc.;


(16) no OPM Applications to OMB were disclosed, or produced, in reply to at least three (3) FOIA Requests for same;  see (26) below;


(17) the PRA’s Public Protection Clause authorizes specific immunity when OMB approval is missing:  see 44 U.S.C. 3512 i.e. “complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time ....”;


(18) taking the 5 U.S.C. 3331 OATH does activate a legal obligation to obey the PRA –and- to obey 5 CFR 1320.5 too;


(19) the 5 U.S.C. 3331 OATH implements the Oath of Office Clause at Article VI, Clause 3, in the U.S. Constitution;


(20) Article VI, Clause 3, elevates the 5 U.S.C. 3331 OATH requirement to the status of Fundamental Law, guaranteeing a Fundamental Right to all Americans: see Miranda v. Arizona (re: “Rights secured by the Constitution”);


(21) the status of the missing expiration dates needs additional research:  see (9) above, and also compare DOJ’s Standard Form 95 (“SF-95”);


(22) the existence, or absence, of Regulations implementing 5 U.S.C. 2903, 2906, 3331, 3332, 3333 and 5507 needs formal confirmation:  see (23) below;


(23) no Regulations implementing 5 U.S.C. 3331 were produced, or disclosed, in reply to Paul Andrew Mitchell’s FOIA Request for same;


(24) the published Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules lists no Regulation(s) for 5 U.S.C. 3331;  however, that “Parallel Table” may not be complete, hence the need for a FOIA Request for same;


(25) OPM’s Human Resources Manual -- Guide to Processing Personnel Actions -- mentions the 5 U.S.C. 3331 OATH requirement;


(26) Paul Andrew Mitchell’s FOIA Requests to OPM and to OMB were never answered;  the same FOIA Requests from his clients were answered;  see (16) above;  and,


(27) Paul Andrew Mitchell’s NOTICE OF MISSING AND/OR DEFECTIVE CREDENTIALS was not docketed in Hedges et al. v. Obama et al. (USDC/SDNY).


Sincerely yours,


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


All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308)