NOTICE OF DEFAULT, BY AFFIDAVIT

[On left margin written vertically:

Incorporated by reference in #14-CR-27-F (USDC/DWY)]

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF Document 35 Filed 03/12/2014 Page 1 of 4

Case Nos. MJ 14-00030 JPD

14-CR-27-F (USDC/DWY)

NOTICE OF DEFAULT, BY AFFIDAVIT

TO: Office of Chief Judge

U.S. District Court

700 Stewart St.

Seattle 98101

Washington State, USA

FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

FDC SeaTac Reg. No 44202-086, Unit “EA”

SUBJECT: key personnel with missing and/or

defective credentials, now IN DEFAULT

Greetings Your Honor:

For several years by now, I have studied diligently the federal laws codified at 5 U.S.C. 2104, 2903, 2906, 3331, 3332, 3333, 5507; 28 U.S.C. 453, 544, 631(g), 751, 951, 1691; 18 U.S.C. 1504 (last sentence); and, 44 U.S.C. 3512. By incorporating all prior pleadings which I have already signed and filed in the instant cases, I do declare that the following individuals are now IN DEFAULT for the specific reasons mentioned, to wit:

(1) William M. McCool has failed and consciously refused to disclose any valid OPM Standard Form 61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS (“SF-61”), nor any OATH required by 28 U.S.C. 951, at least since 1996 A.D.;

- 1 of 4 –

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF Document 35 Filed 03/12/2014 Page 2 of 4

(2) Stephan Harris has also failed to disclose any valid SF-61, nor any OATH required by 28 U.S.C. 951;

(3) Christopher A. Crofts has failed to disclose any OATH required by 28 U.S.C. 544, and his SF-61 was a counterfeit because it violated the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) and the PRA’s Public Protection Clause at 44 U.S.C. 3512; cf. all FOIA Requests;

(4) While being denied access to my private electronic databases and the Internet, to the best of my memory: L. Robert Murray has also failed to disclose any OATH required by 28 U.S.C. 544, and his SF-61 was also a counterfeit because it violated the PRA and 44 U.S.C. 3512; cf. all FOIA Requests;

(5) Jenny A. Durkan has also failed to disclose any OATH required by 28 U.S.C. 544, and her SF-61 was also a counterfeit because it also violated the PRA and 44 U.S.C. 3512;

(6) James P. Donohue has also failed to disclose any valid SF-61, nor any OATH required by 28 U.S.C. 453 and 631(g);

(7) Brian Tsuchida has also failed to disclose any valid SF-61, nor any OATH required by 28 U.S.C. 453 and 631(g);

- 2 of 4 –

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF Document 35 Filed 03/12/2014 Page 3 of 4

(8) James Marcy’s SF-61 was also a counterfeit because it also violated the PRA and 44 U.S.C. 3512;

(9) Dave Guest’s SF-61 was also a counterfeit because it also violated the PRA and 44 U.S.C. 3512;

(10) My hand-written FOIA request for the credentials of one Sarah Y. Vogel was mailed to the Federal Public Defender in Seattle, but I have heard nothing to date from that office concerning that FOIA request, and nothing at all about Ms. Vogel’s credentials. See 5 U.S.C. 3331, 28 U.S.C. 544.

INCORPORATION

Pursuant to FREV 201(c)(2), I hereby incorporate the following pleadings by reference, as if all were set forth fully here, to wit:

(a) AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE (2/6/2014);

(b) SECOND AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE (2/7);

(d) THIRD AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE (2/9);

(e) MEMORANDUM OF LAW RE: CLERK OF COURT IS AN OFFICER (2/10/2014); and,

(f) NOTICE OF BONA FIDE CONTROVERSY AT LAW (2/12/2014).

- 3 of 4 –

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF Document 35 Filed 03/12/2014 Page 4 of 4

VERIFICATION: 28 U.S.C. 1746

I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., hereby verify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without (outside) the United States (federal government) that the above statement of facts and laws is true and correct, according to the best of my current information, knowledge, and belief, so help me God.

Dated: 2/13/2014

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

Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris

Foundation Authority: U.S. v. Callender, 25 F.Cas. 239 (1800).

Supplemental authorities: 5 U.S.C. 2903, 2906, 3331, 3332,

3333; 28 U.S.C. 453, 951; 44 U.S.C. 3507, 3512; 18 U.S.C.

1504 (last sentence), 1964 (Civil RICO); Martinez v. Winner,

771 F.2d 424 (1985); 5 U.S.C. 551, 552; 19 Op Atty Gen 219

(1889); Carmine v. Bowen; U.S. v. Tweel; 42 U.S.C. 1985, 1986;

In re Grand Jury Application, 617 F.Supp. 199 (1985); 5 U.S.C.

2104, 5507; 28 U.S.C. 751; In re Simon, 297 F. 942

(2^nd Cir. 1924); 28 U.S.C. 1746; U.C.C. 1-308; Art. VI,