NOTICE OF ERRORS AND OF
CLARIFICATIONS:
#2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2
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
in a NOTICE OF
MISSING AND/OR DEFECTIVE
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”),
approximately.
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 -