From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <>
Date: Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 9:39 AM


USA v. Kent Hovind et al.

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:


See admissions by OPM and OMB here:


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 (Home Page) (Support Policy) (Client Guidelines) (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <>
: 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";


(2)  Form W-4 is for "employees" as defined at IRC 3401(c)

(3)  there is no liability statute for taxes imposed by subtitle A:

(4)  the law does not permit creating a tax liability with a Regulation:

(5)  as you already know, it is very dangerous to ASSUME that the prosecutor, judge, clerk and IRS personnel all have valid credentials :


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:

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:


See Executive Order 13132 in this context i.e. President's definition of "United States of America":


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 (Home Page) (Support Policy) (Client Guidelines) (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice