The Crucial Meeting No. 4 with Deputy U.S. Marshals

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.