DECLARATION OF RELATOR'S STATUS UNDER 18 U.S.C. 1510 & 1515

[On left margin written vertically:

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

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF Document 39 Filed 03/12/2014 Page 1 of 3

Case Nos. MJ 14-00030 JPD

USDC/DWY: 14-CR-27-F

DECLARATION OF RELATOR’S STATUS UNDER

18 U.S.C. 1510(c), 1515(a)(4)(A) and 1515(a)(1)(A) & (C)

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., “Pro Per”

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

SUBJECT: qualifications as “criminal investigator”

and “law enforcement officer” supra

Greetings Your Honor:

Please accept this DECLARATION as the good faith understanding of my current status, as expressly defined by the following Sections in Title 18 of the U.S. Code, to wit:

18 U.S.C. 1510(c):

At least since my authorization by the late U.S. District Judge John M. Roll to defend an Arizona trust In re Grand Jury Subpoena Served on New Life Health Center circa 1996-1997; at least since my authorization by an Officer of the Day at the U.S. Coast Guard main gate at San Diego Harbor to assist Coast Guard Investigations with analysis of the Pentagon events on 9/11/2001

- 1 of 3 –

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF Document 39 Filed 03/12/2014 Page 2 of 3

circa 2002 thru 2009; and, at least since commencement of Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al. at the Federal Courthouse in Sacramento, also in September 2001, I believe it is correct to describe those activities as qualifying my status as a “criminal investigator” meaning “any individual duly authorized by a department, agency, or armed force of the United States to conduct or engage in investigations of or prosecutions for violations of the criminal laws of the United States”, as the latter is expressly defined at 18 U.S.C. 1510(c);

18 U.S.C. 1515(a)(4)(A):

At least since the authorizations mentioned supra, I believe it is also correct to describe those ongoing activities as qualifying my status as “law enforcement officer” meaning “a person ... serving the Federal Government as an adviser or consultant -- (A) authorized under law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of an offense”, as the latter is expressly defined at 18 U.S.C. 1515(a)(4)(A); and,

(continue next page)

- 2 of 3 –

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF Document 37 Filed 03/12/2014 Page 5 of 5

18 U.S.C. 1515(a)(1)(A) & 1515(a)(1)(C):

At least since the authorizations mentioned supra, I believe it is also correct to describe those ongoing activities as involving “official proceedings” meaning “a proceeding before a Federal Government agency which is authorized by law”, and “a proceeding before a judge or court of the United States ... or a Federal grand jury”, as the latter are expressly defined at 18 U.S.C. 1515(a)(1)(C) and at 18 U.S.C. 1515(a)(1)(A), respectively.

Now see 18 U.S.C. 1964(a), 1964(c); and, Rotella v. Wood (for example) re: private attorneys general (in particular).

- VERIFICATION -

I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Sui Juris, Citizen of Washington State, expressly not a “federal citizen”, also a qualified Federal Witness and Private Attorney General, hereby verify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the United States (Federal Government), that the above statement of facts and laws is true and correct, to the best of my current information, knowledge, and belief, so help me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).

Dated: 2/22/2014 A.D.

Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris

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

- 3 of 3 –