NOTICE OF DOJ REPY TO FOIA REQUEST FOR FOUR CREDENTIALS

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF Document 132 Filed 07/21/14 Page 1 of 4

NOTICE OF DOJ REPY TO FOIA REQUEST

FOR FOUR CREDENTIALS:

5 U.S.C. 552; 5 CFR 1320.5

#2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2 (USDC/DWY)

TO: Office of Chief Judge

Attn.: Nancy D. Freudenthal

U.S. District Court

2120 Capitol Ave., 2^nd Floor

Cheyenne 82001-3658

Wyoming, USA

DATE: 7/16/2014 A.D.

Greetings Ms. Freudenthal:

The Office of Information Policy at U.S. DOJ responded to my FOIA request with some credentials, and their cover letter dated 7/11/2014.

I regret to inform you that the following credentials were not produced for you:

(a) SENATE CONFIRMATION; and,

(b) valid SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS displaying a valid OMB control number and paragraph citing 5 U.S.C. 2903.

My studied professional conclusions are as follows, submitted in good faith:

Without a valid SENATE CONFIRMATION, your PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION is not, and cannot be, valid because all U.S. District Judges must be first confirmed with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate.

- 1 of 4 –

For the same reason, your SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS and OATH OF OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES JUDGES are not, and cannot be, valid; both credentials must be preceded by a valid SENATE CONFIRMATION and a valid PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION.

Your SF-61 is also a counterfeit because it lacks a valid OMB control number, and it lacks the paragraph with the required citation to 5 U.S.C. 2903 (Authority to administer). See also 5 U.S.C. 2906 (i.e. “court”).

As such, you also need to have all four (4) valid credentials, in proper order, before you could lawfully administer any other SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS or any other OATH OF OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES JUDGES. See 28 U.S.C. 453.

From a revision of SF-61 dated “August 2002”, Deputy U.S. Marshals erroneously inferred that OMB had authorized OPM to remove the control number from that SF-61 revision, when OMB had not done so! Moreover, the records, and testimony, now before this Court call for the conclusions that:

- 2 of 4 –

(1) USMS personnel in Seattle were either negligent for failing to inquire at either OPM or OMB for clarification concerning the missing OMB control number; and, (2) I did follow my crucial fourth meeting with Seattle USMS personnel, by promptly inquiring at both OPM and OMB for proof of the OPM Application expressly required by the implementing Regulation at 5 CFR 1320.5, using the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).

OPM and OMB both replied, in writing on Federal government letterhead, by admitting that no such Application could be found at either agency, for periodic OMB review and approval of the electronic SF-61 published at OPM’s Internet website opm.gov.

Accordingly, I wrote, and caused to be filed and served at the USDC/SDNY, a NOTICE OF MISSING AND/OR DEFECTIVE CREDENTIALS in the case of Hedges et al. v. Obama et al., which NOTICE incorporated verbatim copies of my two (2) FOIA requests to OPM and OMB, respectively. See 5 U.S.C. 552; 2104, 2903, 2906, 3331, 3332, 3333, 5507 (can’t get paid).

- 3 of 4 –

Conclusion for USA v. Hill et al.

The absence of the required SENATE CONFIRMATION necessarily invalidates all three (3) of your credentials, as produced by DOJ in response to my proper FOIA request for all four (4) required credentials. Also, your SF-61 is a counterfeit because it fails to display a valid OMB control number; and, it fails to display a paragraph, at bottom, citing 5 U.S.C. 2903. As such, the above do constitute proof that you suffer from serious conflicts of interest, and you lack authority to preside on #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2 supra.

Quod erat demonstrandum (“QED”).

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell (chosen name*)

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)

* See Doe v. Dunning, 549 P.2d 1,

Washington State Supreme Court (re: changing one’s name)

- 4 of 4 –