From:
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 9:39 AM
Subject: Urgent: EMERGENCY MOTION BY UNITED STATES
ex
rel. PAUL
ANDREW MITCHELL FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE:
USA v. Kent Hovind et al.
To: webmaster@flnd.uscourts.gov
TO:
The Honorable U.S. District Judge Casey Rodgers
c/o Clerk of Court
United
States District Court
One
North Palafox Street
Pensacola
32502
Florida,
USA
SUBJECT: USA v. Hovind
et al.
Greetings
Your Honor:
I am an Agent of the United States as Qui Tam Relator (4X) under the False Claims Act, and a nationally
recognized Private Attorney General under the Civil RICO law.
In the matter of Kent Hovind et
al., my office only learned of the trial the first time early this
morning.
We are taking this extraordinary step, because my office does not currently have an account with CM/ECF.
My office has extensive exculpatory information which
warrants an ORDER granting leave to the United States ex rel. Paul
Andrew Mitchell, Private Attorney General, to intervene formally in that case.
On the merits, our ongoing "credential investigation" has
confirmed that U.S. Attorneys and Assistant U.S. Attorneys all lack the second
OATH OF OFFICE required by 28 USC 544;
and, their OPM Standard Form 61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS are COUNTERFEITS:
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/United.States.Notice.htm
See
admissions by OPM and OMB here:
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/opm/letter.2012-08-06/
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/omb/letter.2012-08-23/
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/omb/letter.2013-01-25/
Further details can be confirmed in the links found in our
message below, as forwarded this morning to Forbes journalist Peter J.
Reilly. We now incorporate the message
below by reference, as if set forth fully here.
REMEDY: The United
States ex rel. Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., respectfully requests
formal leave to intervene in USA v. Hovind et
al., and a routine postponement of any further trial
proceedings, pending discovery of credentials required of all government
attorneys by Article VI, Clause 3 in the U.S. Constitution and by all 5 USC
2902, 2903, 2906, 3331, 3332, 3333, 5507 (can't get paid!), and 28 USC 453, 544
and 951. See also 44 USC 3512 (Public
Protection Clause).
See also Rules 1, 6 and 7 in the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure (who can attend grand jury hearings, who can sign indictments).
Thank you for your professional consideration.
--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
(Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
(Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm
(Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm
(Policy + Guidelines)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
From:
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 8:04 AM
Subject:
Kent Hovind
To:
Eugene
(1)
paying workers in CASH is not a crime; but, accepting Form W-4 renders the payer specifically
liable for all taxes withheld, read "withholding agent";
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1461
(2) Form W-4 is for "employees" as defined
at IRC 3401(c)
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm
(3) there is no liability
statute for taxes imposed by subtitle A:
http://supremelaw.org/press/rels/subpoena.htm
(4) the
law does not permit creating a tax liability with a Regulation:
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.gif
(5) as you already know, it
is very dangerous to ASSUME that the prosecutor, judge, clerk and IRS personnel
all have valid credentials
http://supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/clerks.or.jerks.htm
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-pignatiello-2 :
There is sound policy support
for requiring the oath of office. It solemnizes the appointment and sensitizes
the appointed person to the obligations and limitations of the office. Additionally,
it formalizes the appointment and works an official notification that the
appointed person represents the government of the United States in its
prosecuting authority and binds that branch of government to the acts of the
appointed individual. In terms familiar to the law of agency, the oath is
evidence of actual authority of the attorney as agent and thereby avoids
disputes which could be generated by reliance upon some apparent authority.
You already know the rest of the story:
http://supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm
Mr. Hovind's beliefs about the age
of planet Earth are totally irrelevant to the criminal allegations.
If we are going to discuss sanity in this context, then
let's have the "attorneys for the government" fully explain
"UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" and why they have no powers of attorney
legally to represent 2 revoked Delaware corporations:
http://supremelaw.org/cc/usa.inc/
http://supremelaw.org/cc/usa.inc/
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/us-v-usa.htm
See Executive Order 13132 in this context i.e. President's definition of
"United States of America":
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/civil/iccpr/page04.gif
p.s. I could not find an email address for Peter J.
Reilly: "imposing a tax" is
not the same as specifically defining who is liable to pay the tax
imposed. If Congress imposes a tax on
chickens, does that mean the chickens pay?
Why not the farmer? or the wholesaler? or the retailer? or the consumer?
/s/ Paul
--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
(Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
(Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm
(Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm
(Policy + Guidelines)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice