MEMO IN REPLY TO 5 QUESTIONS

TO: Ms. Ellen Chestnut, Attorney

Office for Civil Rights

U.S. Department of Education

915 – 2^nd Avenue, Suite 3310

Seattle 98174-1099

Washington State, USA

FROM: Paul A. Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Damaged Party

DATE: March 9, 2013 A.D.

SUBJECT: initial answers to questions in your letter of Mar. 1, 2013

OCR Reference No. 10132007, University of Washington (“UW”)

Greetings Ellen Chestnut:

Your letter dated March 1, 2013, has requested my answers to five (5) specific questions. In all honesty, I believe that the documentation already provided to your office contains factual details that answer most, if not all, of those 5 questions. Specifically, for that main reason I am attaching my Mail Fraud Report and all of its attachments, and I incorporate same by reference, as if both that Mail Fraud Report and its several attachments were set forth fully here.

I now reply with further details to your 5 specific questions, as follows:

1. What did the UW do to discriminate against you? Please describe the specific actions you allege to be discriminatory.

(a) Most recently, officials in UW’s Registrar Office placed a “hold” on my routine application for Summer 2012. The reason they gave was that there was “open police action” involving me, but that “reason” was simply not true.

(b) The same officials refused to lift that “hold” on my application for Summer 2012, even after they were provided with verifiable proof that there was no such “open police action” involving me.

(c) The UW Registrar then attempted to refund my $60 application fee with a transmittal letter claiming, falsely, that my application had not been “processed”; however, that claim was also false because some amount of “processing” must have happened for a hold to be placed on my application, and for that hold to be maintained in the face of contrary evidence i.e. in point of fact, there was no “open police action” involving me.

(d) The timing of that transmittal letter and “refund” were also very suspicious. The Registrar’s PERSONAL MONEY ORDER was dated July 17, 2012. The transmittal letter was dated July 18, 2012. However, the #10 mailing envelope was postmarked July 24, 2012. These three dates are highly significant chiefly because the two Summer 2012 classes I wanted to take were both scheduled for the second “b Term” which was scheduled to begin on July 19, 2012. As such, the Registrar’s stubborn refusal to lift the bogus “hold” on my application was further exacerbated by her evident intent to prevent me from attending either of those two (2) classes that were scheduled for the second half of the Summer 2012 session, namely, International Human Rights Law (“LSJ 320”) and Human Rights Law (“LSJ 321”).

(e) The same officials were clearly negligent by failing initially to make a routine inquiry with the UW Campus Police Department, to confirm whether or not there was in fact “open police action” involving me, and to do so before placing any hold(s) on my application. A routine telephone call to the UW Campus Police would have been normal administrative “due diligence” under those circumstances.

(f) Earlier, at the start of UW’s 2009 Summer Only sessions, I was also registered and enrolled in a Computer Science class which required the Instructor’s permission. After making several attempts to contact and meet with that Instructor, he refused to reply to my email and he also failed to show up at his office hours -- even after staff in the Department Office directed me to go to the Instructor’s office during his normal office hours. I was simply following their directions, in good faith.

(g) After discussing this odd situation with the Department Office again, they instructed me to attend the first class. At the first class, students were asked to introduce themselves, and as the last one to do so I briefly described the pro bono investigative work I had already done for U.S. Coast Guard Investigations at San Diego Harbor. That work involved the application of computer graphics technology to crime scene reconstruction and aircraft crash analysis. I am a published author in computer graphics (Harvard University, 1977).

(h) Upon returning home after that first class, I checked my email and 3 personnel of the Computer Science Department had already transmitted an email message to me, threatening me with arrest by the UW Campus Police if I even attempted to attend the next class session.

2. Please identify the basis or bases upon which you are alleging the UW’s action to be discriminatory, i.e. race, age, or disability.

(a) Quite honestly, I do believe that this question goes to motive, and the UW suspects discussed above have never offered any written or verbal explanations or justifications for their actions towards me, as described above. Any speculations by me about their motives do not and cannot constitute reliable evidence of their motives.

(b) I also believe proper answers to that good question should be obtained directly from these UW personnel, if and when officials of the U.S. Department of Education confront them with the direct questions “Why?” and “Why did you treat Paul A. Mitchell in this manner, in 2009 and again in 2012?” I do not expect their answers to be honest, however; and, I would urge you not to accept any of their answers at face value, due chiefly to the many political implications of my Complaint to the U.S. Department of Education and my Mail Fraud Report to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. See 18 U.S.C. 1341 (mail fraud).

3. Why do you believe the UW’s action(s), identified above, to be discriminatory on the basis or bases you identified?

(a) Without having verifiable confirmation of their actual motives, I cannot be absolutely sure of what basis or what bases motivated their pattern of discrimination against me.

(b) Nevertheless, all attachments to my Mail Fraud Report go into ample factual details, and both my Mail Fraud Report and all of its attachments are incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully here.

(c) The veteran Lieutenant of the UW Campus Police listened intently and politely to my story, and the one word he used to summarize what he had heard from me was that UW personnel had definitely been “rude” without any apparent or justifiable reason for being so rude.

(d) More to the merits, the UW’s Internet website has published and maintained a stated UW policy of encouraging “diversity” among all students who choose to enroll in one or more Summer Only classes. I can understand why certain reasonable criteria could be enforced to bar certain people from attending e.g. registered sex offenders. However, I have no criminal record; I am gifted with a very high intelligence; I have a B.A. from UCLA and an M.S. from U.C. Irvine; and, I have extensive professional experience in the two fields of law and computer technology.

(e) I also have a Utility Patent Application pending now for a very high-speed solid-state data storage device, of which I am the sole inventor. Obstructing my access to higher education at UW’s Computer Science Department has also had the damaging consequence of delaying my access to experts in that Department, and also in the adjacent Electrical Engineering Department. Because it is true that computer technology changes very fast, a delay now exceeding 3 years has resulted conservatively in actual damages amounting to a minimum of $2.5 Million in real opportunity costs. The device we wish to market is projected to sell 1 million units at an MSRP of $150 during the first 18- to 24-months: as such, a realistic cash flow of $150 Million USD has been delayed at least 3 years, due in part to UW’s obstructing my access to computer science and electrical engineering experts and their many computer industry contacts.

4. What did the UW do to retaliate against you? Please describe the specific actions you allege to be retaliatory.

(a) Specifically, in 2009 UW academic personnel threatened to summon the UW Campus Police to remove me from the Computer Science class in which I was registered and enrolled, even after staff at the Computer Science Department Office had directed me to attend the first class. See 18 U.S.C. 1513.

(b) The Instructor of that class had refused to respond to my several email messages, and he refused to show up for his regular office hours, during the period of time when I was attempting to obtain his permission to attend the Computer Science class in question.

(c) And, specifically in 2012, personnel in the UW Registrar’s Office placed an unwarranted hold on my application for Summer 2012, neglected to confirm defamatory hearsay by failing to make a routine inquiry with the UW Campus Police, refused to lift that hold when they were provided with proof that there was no “open police action” involving me, and then attempted to refund my $60 Summer application fee with a false and misleading letter, transmitted via U.S. Mail after the “b Term” began and claiming falsely that my application had not been “processed”.

(d) Clearly, some sort of administrative “processing” must have occurred for an unwarranted “hold” to be placed on my application, and then for that unwarranted “hold” to be maintained even in the face of contrary evidence. No such “hold” had been placed on my previous Application for the Summer 2009 session.

5. Why do you believe the UW’s action(s), identified above, were retaliatory and not for other reasons? Please include what action or activity you engaged in for which you believe the UW is retaliating against you.

I appreciate this opportunity to discuss why I believe the actions of specific UW personnel were retaliatory and not for other reasons.

(a) First of all, the email threat to summon UW Campus Police if I attended the second session of the Computer Science class, in which I was registered and enrolled during Summer 2009, was totally inappropriate, unnecessary, and it resulted in causing a “chilling effect” upon my plans and desire to pursue higher education at UW. See the First Amendment and the Federal case law which has elaborated the legal meaning of “chilling effect” in this context. See also 18 U.S.C. 241, 242 and 1512 where it states: “Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person ....” I am a qualified Federal Witness and the UW suspects in question either knew that, or should already have known that.

(b) As stated in the Summer 2009 class schedule, the Instructor’s permission was required for me to attend that class. All that the Instructor needed to do was respond politely and professionally to my attempts to contact him, and to convey his YES or NO decision to me in some timely and succinct manner. He did not do so, I believe because he and other academic personnel in UW’s Computer Science Department had looked into the history of my legal activism and extensive writings which are readily accessible from the Internet, and which date as far back as 1990.

(c) In particular, the work I did for U.S. Coast Guard Investigations focused on achieving positive identification of the murder weapons that crashed into the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001. Our conclusions were summarized in an Executive Summary that was transmitted to the U.S. Coast Guard, published on the Internet and placed in the public domain at an Internet website that I created and continue to manage and maintain as the Webmaster. I strongly suspect that the UW personnel in question do NOT want UW students to know anything about this investigation or any of the results, photographs, analysis and conclusions that are documented in that Executive Summary.

(d) I also have more than 40 years of professional experience using and developing advanced computer systems, and I am very familiar with concerted efforts by certain Federal agencies to develop a variety of sophisticated surveillance technologies that are being implemented nationwide in support of a fascist national police state. On this point, I maintain the suspicion that UW Computer Science Faculty have been receiving contracts and grants to aid and abet these same surveillance technologies. And, from past experience as a Research Associate at the University of California, I can honestly say that Faculty personnel do not always spend contract and grant funds lawfully and in faithful pursuit of the stated objectives of those contracts and grants. In this context and to elaborate this point, please see each separate INFORMAL INTERROGATORY which I served upon Professors James A. Landay and James A. Fogarty via U.S. Mail, copies of which are attached and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully here.

(e) I have also accumulated twenty-one (21+) years of practical and professional experience as a Private Attorney General, and large portions of the litigation which I have done are also published on the Internet. Chiefly, one of the most notable accomplishments of that experience to date is a comprehensive database of missing and defective credentials for personnel of the Federal Judiciary, which my office has painstakingly assembled using the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). To be quite blunt about this, it would not surprise me one bit if many UW academic and administrative personnel simply do NOT want any UW students to know anything about all the criminal infiltration that is implied by all these missing and defective credentials. In particular, see 5 U.S.C. 2906, 3331, 28 U.S.C. 453, 951, and 44 U.S.C. 3512 (Public Protection Clause in the Paperwork Reduction Act).

Ms. Chestnut, thank you very much for your professional consideration to date.

Please let the record show that I am responding to your 5 questions well in advance of the deadline stated in your letter of March 1, 2013.

If my statements do not adequately answer your five (5) questions, please advise timely and I will do my best to supplement the above with additional information before that deadline.

If I do not receive any more questions from you sufficiently in advance of that deadline to permit me to reply timely and further, then I believe I am justified in assuming that this MEMO provides adequate answers to the 5 questions in your letter of March 1, 2013.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul A. Mitchell

Paul A. Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Instructor, Inventor, Damaged Party

and Systems Development Consultant

Attachments:

INFORMAL INTERROGATORY to Prof. James A. Landay, May 24, 2011

INFORMAL INTERROGATORY to Prof. James A. Fogarty, May 24, 2011

Mail Fraud Report + its attachments