Subject:
OBJECTIONS re: missing and defective APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS at USMS,
Office of General Counsel; and, IRS, Office of Chief Counsel
Greetings Mary Russ:
We have now received the following responses from the
Office of General Counsel at the U.S. Marshals Service
in Washington, D.C.:
We now detail our standing OBJECTIONS to same, as follows:
We have also scanned and annotated all documents disclosed
with the latter Cover Letter (see all hyper-links below).
Kindly confirm that the signatures of all personnel who "administered"
each Standard Form 61 have been redacted.
By comparing those redactions with a multitude of other APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS
we have received at least since August 2001, we believe you will also confirm how
We do regard these particular redactions to be more instances of FRAUD.
Please be informed that we do regard such failures to disclose, and such
deliberate withholding of evidence, to be more instances of FRAUD --
as defined in Black's Law Dictionary to mean a failure to disclose
what should have been disclosed.
On the merits, all personnel whose SF-61s we have requested have been
duly notified of our "Right to Inspect" their APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS,
notwithstanding any legislation or rule-making which may appear to abrogate
that Right: see Article VI, Clause 3 in the U.S. Constitution, and one of the
major holdings in Miranda v. Arizona (re: Rights secured by the Constitution).
That Clause pre-dates the Freedom of Information Act by many decades!
Moreover, The Credential Investigation has compiled extensive information
which calls for the conclusions that the following administrative positions
are not "officers of the United States" and they lack Authority to administer
APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS, as expressly required by 5 U.S.C. 2903:
Personnel Management Specialist
Personnel Staffing Specialist
Personnel Staffing Spec.
Personnel Assistant
HR Assistant
HR Specialist
Kindly also confirm that some of the Forms listed below
do exhibit a proper citation to 5 U.S.C. 2903, and some do not.
Such omissions are further evidence that recent SF-61s do
violate the Paperwork Reduction Act and its implementing
Regulations chiefly because OMB never approved such changes.
In this context, please study the PRA's Public Protection Clause
at 44 U.S.C. 3512:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/3512
(b) The protection provided by
this section may be raised
in the form of a complete defense, bar, or
otherwise
at any time during the agency administrative process
or
judicial action applicable thereto.
If the Forms listed below were NOT administered by personnel
duly delegated with Authority to administer those Forms,
all such Forms are thereby rendered invalid, void and fraudulent
in the first instance.
We must receive sufficient identification of those personnel,
in order to make a reasonable determination whether or not
the Federal statute at 5 U.S.C. 2903 has been obeyed,
or violated, in point of fact.
Our "Reservation of Right to Inspect" their Standard Forms 61
contained links to the following legal NOTICES, which further explain
(see the PROOF OF SERVICE in particular, proving Mr. Bordley did receive the latter via U.S. Mail)
Kindly also incorporate the following three (3) admissions,
written on Federal Government letterhead --
one by the Office of Personnel M
anagement ("OPM"), and
Lastly, Mr. Bordley was previously informed of the missing
OMB control numbers way back in calendar year 2007:
as such, he knew or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN about this blatant
violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act as lawfully amended
and its implementing Regulations as correctly
cited and
correctly quoted in the legal NOTICE supra.
We have recently mailed "courtesy reminders" of the latter
to Mr. Bordley, in case he forgot.
Therefore, Mr. Bordley's willingness to disclose Forms which also lack
the required OMB control number is further evidence of deliberate fraud
in this matter.
At this juncture, we should also emphasize that any such Form
which displays advice such as "Prior editions not usable"
is also very suspicious, because the older editions are
the only ones which do display any OMB control number,
and the Forms which do display that advice do NOT display
any OMB control number! Therefore, such advice is
necessarily rendered "bad legal advice" in point of law.
For your information, we intend to file a proper FOIA Appeal,
and to attach this message and the links below to that FOIA Appeal.
Thank you for your continuing consideration in this very frustrating matter
calling as it does for the conclusion that my pending Federal Tort Claim 1 of 5
has been deliberately obstructed in painfully obvious retaliation for all
Bcc: Trustee, Estate of Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Civil RICO: 18 U.S.C. 1964;
Agent of the United States as Qui Tam Relator (4X),
Federal Civil False Claims Act: 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>Date: Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 10:40 AM
Subject: missing and defective APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS at USMS, Office of General Counsel; and, IRS, Office of Chief Counsel
To:
Trustee, Estate of Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.No SF-61 found for Harlow:
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Civil RICO: 18 U.S.C. 1964;
Agent of the United States as Qui Tam Relator (4X),
Federal Civil False Claims Act: 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq.
