OBJECTIONS AND DEMAND

TO RETURN TORT CLAIM TO USMS

July 26, 2016 A.D.

Mark S. Kaizen

IRS Office of Chief Counsel

1111 Constitution Ave., N.W.

Washington 20224-0002

District of Columbia, USA

Subject: Tort Claim No. 16-021; GLS-10123516

Greetings Mr. Kaizen:

I am writing to review and formally object to certain statements made in your reply letter dated July 8, 2016.

First of all, I object to the following statement of yours in that reply letter:

... we primarily denied your claim because you failed to state a claim for false arrest and false imprisonment under the laws of the state in which the act(s) giving rise to your claim occurred, e.g. Washington and Wyoming. [emphases added]

You did not cite any law, regulation or court case which required my Tort Claim to state a claim for false arrest and false imprisonment specifically under laws of Washington State and Wyoming.

In good faith, and in order to prevent any further administrative obstruction of my Tort Claim, kindly incorporate nunc pro tunc citations to RCW 9A.40.040 prohibiting unlawful imprisonment in Washington State, and WY Stat 6-2-203 prohibiting false imprisonment in Wyoming. After research, I may incorporate other State law cites.

Please refer now to the statute at 28 U.S.C. 2680(h):

... with regard to acts or omissions of investigative or law enforcement officers of the United States Government, the provisions of this chapter and section 1346(b) of this title shall apply to any claim arising, on or after the date of the enactment of this proviso, out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process, or malicious prosecution. [emphases added]

Kindly note that no such requirement is expressly stated in the latter statute. I relied upon the latter statute by claiming false arrest and false imprisonment in my original Tort Claim.

There is a cite above to the statute at 28 U.S.C. 1346(b). Now, please refer also to subsection 28 U.S.C. 1346(b)(1). I read the latter to be a grant of jurisdiction to the district courts that are listed therein; it does not require State law citation(s) to be included in administrative tort claims using DOJ Standard Form 95:

(1) Subject to the provisions of chapter 171 of this title, the district courts, together with the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone and the District Court of the Virgin Islands, shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the United States, for money damages, accruing on and after January 1, 1945, for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred. [emphases added]

Are you interpreting “law of the place” so as to require my Tort Claim to cite specific Wyoming and Washington State laws?

Insofar as the answer to the latter question is YES, kindly incorporate cites to RCW 9A.40.040 and WY Stat 6-2-203 nunc pro tunc into my original Tort Claim.

You could have demonstrated good faith by citing one or more pertinent laws, regulations and/or court cases that required my Standard Form 95 to state expressly a claim for false arrest and false imprisonment under the laws of Wyoming and Washington State.

But, you did not do so. Why not?

Because you did not do so, I have found it necessary to do additional legal research that supports, or refutes, your statement.

As a result of that research, I did find the case of Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1 (1962). Quoting that decision in pertinent part:

(a) In the Tort Claims Act, Congress has enacted a rule which requires federal courts, in multistate tort actions, to look in the first instance to the law of the State where the acts of negligence took place. [emphases added]

Kindly confirm that the latter rule “requires federal courts ... to look in the first instance to the law of the State ....” That requirement is not expressly imposed upon the Executive Branch agency to which an administrative tort claim is initially presented, nor is imposed upon the claimant. At this time, my Tort Claim remains under administrative review, not under judicial review.

Conclusion

Therefore, based upon the above, I have concluded in good faith that your office has erred by denying my claim for the reason you gave i.e. because, as you wrote, it “failed to state a claim for false arrest and false imprisonment under the laws of the state in which the act(s) giving rise to [my] claim occurred, e.g. Washington and Wyoming.”

DEMAND TO RETURN TORT CLAIM

TO THE U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE

If you have not already reviewed a copy of my FORMAL REBUTTAL AND PROTEST OF REFERRAL TO IRS dated June 28, 2016 A.D., as addressed to Gerald M. Auerbach in the USMS Office of General Counsel, I have attached a courtesy copy. I incorporate the same by reference, as if set forth fully here.

Formal DEMAND is hereby made of the IRS Office of Chief Counsel to return my original Tort Claim to the United States Marshals Service within ten (10) calendar days.

Thank you for your timely compliance and professional consideration.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Damaged Party;

Private Attorney General, Civil RICO: 18 U.S.C. 1964(c)

(see Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (2000)); and,

Agent of the United States as Qui Tam Relator: 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq.

(see U.S. ex rel. Madden v. General Dynamics Corp.)

U.S. Mail:

Supreme Law Firm

c/o Trustee

1224 N.E. Walnut, #257

Roseburg 97470

Oregon, USA

Copies:

Congressman Peter DeFazio

Gerald M. Auerbach, USMS General Counsel

William J. Wilkins, IRS Chief Counsel

Trustees, Estate of Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.