5 CFR 1320.5


TO:    Office of Presiding Judge (duly credentialed)

       U.S. District Court

       2120 Capitol Ave., 2nd Floor

       Wyoming, USA

DATE:  7/13/2014 A.D.

Greetings Your Honor and All Concerned:

My fourth meeting with Seattle U.S. Marshals

now deserves further clarification, by way of

demonstrating serious defects in Dr. C. Low’s

methodology.  I am quite confident that the

record already before the Court highly

recommends the following Findings of Fact

and Conclusions of Law:

(1)  At that meeting, the Deputies and I reviewed

at least two (2) different revisions of U.S. OPM

Standard Form 61 (“SF-61”);

(2)  One SF-61 was an earlier revision which

did display an OMB control number 50-R0118,

and did display a paragraph citing 5 U.S.C. 2903;


- 1 of 4 –

(3)  The other was a later revision which

did not display any OMB control number,

and which did not display any paragraph

citing 5 U.S.C. 2903 (Authority to administer);

(4)  Those Deputies stated to Dr. Low their

belief that an OMB control number was

no longer needed;

(5)  Those Deputies did not bring to our fourth

meeting any proof of their belief that an

OMB control number was no longer needed;

(6)  In his subsequent email to me, Deputy

Mans wrote saying, “We simply offered

a possible path of inquiry ....” [sic];

(7)  I accepted that offer as bona fide, and

I promptly contacted both OPM and OMB

for the Application required by 5 CFR 1320.5;

(8)  Both OPM and OMB both replied in

writing to say there was no Application

from OPM for periodic OMB review and

approval of the electronic SF-61 then

published at OPM’s Internet website;

(9)  I then documented both admissions


CREDENTIALS filed in Hedges et al. v. Obama

et al. (USDC/SDNY);


- 2 of 4 -

(10)  From the facts stated above, the following

conclusions are reasonable, and justified:

(a)  the Deputies erred by basing their inference

on a more recent revision number;

(b)  the Deputies erred by failing to base their

inference on statements issued by OPM and OMB;

(c)  statements later issued by OPM and OMB

did directly contradict the Deputies inference,

(d)  I did the procedurally correct thing by

contacting both OPM and OMB for clarification;

(e)  the Deputies did the procedurally incorrect

thing by failing to contact either OPM or OMB

for clarification;

(f)  the Deputies’ offer, and my acceptance of

that offer -- as demonstrated by my FOIA

requests to OPM and OMB -- are verified facts

and not false beliefs, and particularly not

false beliefs that persist psychotically;

(g)  it is more accurate to conclude that the

Deputies have maintained a false belief

about the missing OMB control numbers;  and,

(h)  there is no evidence, currently in the Court’s

official records, to indicate the Deputies’ false

belief persisted psychotically, however.


- 3 of 4 -

In a separate matter, I erred by saying

I had transmitted 20,000 email messages to

U.S. Coast Guard Investigations during the

seven (7) years of my pro bono assistance

to them.  The correct number is approximately

2,000.  During those 7 years, it is accurate to

say I transmitted a TOTAL of 20,000 email

messages from the computer workstations

in my small office/home office (“SOHO”),


I hope this helps.

Thank you.

Respectfully submitted in good faith,

Paul Andrew Mitchell (chosen name*)

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

Citizen of Washington State, Pannill v. Roanoke;

Relator In Propria Persona, 28 U.S.C. 1654;

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

Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (2000)

(objectives of civil RICO)

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308)


*  See Doe v. Dunning, 549 P.2d 1

  (Washington State Supreme Court)


- 4 of 4 -