PUBLIC NOTICE: Major admission by OMB

PUBLIC NOTICE: Major admission by OMB:

OPM never requested nor obtained OMB's approval

of changes to SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS

from: Paul Andrew Mitchell supremelawfirm@gmail.com

sender-time: Sent at 5:39 PM (GMT-07:00).

date: Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 5:39 PM

My Fellow Americans:

We have a very important PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT to make,

which concerns many thousands of Federal employees who do not have valid credentials.

We began this credential investigation in 1997,

so we have a lot of experience to share with you today!

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management ("OPM") published an updated version

of Standard Form 61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS in electronic form on the Internet, but

OPM's changes to SF-61 were never approved by the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB")

in proper compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.

To put it bluntly, that electronic SF-61 is a counterfeit credential!

Our initial FOIA Request to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management ("OPM") is here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/oaths/opm/letter.2011-12-27/foia.request.opm.htm

Note the date, and the Regulatory deadline of 60 days in addition to

the FOIA's normal deadline of 20 business days.

Our identical FOIA Request to the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") is here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/oaths/omb/letter.2011-12-27/foia.request.omb.htm

Neither OPM nor OMB ever replied to our FOIA Requests above.

Several clients have also submitted the same FOIA Requests.

OPM replied to one client on August 6, 2012, as follows:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/oaths/opm/letter.2012-08-06/page01.gif

Then, OMB replied on August 23, 2012, as follows:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/oaths/omb/letter.2012-08-23/page01.gif
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/oaths/omb/letter.2012-08-23/page02.gif
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/oaths/omb/letter.2012-08-23/page03.gif

OPM has thus failed completely to request or obtain OMB's review and approval of two (2) key changes

which my office has confirmed on Standard Form 61 ("SF-61") APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS

now published at OPM's Internet website:

(1) the OMB control number has been removed; and,

(2) the paragraph at the bottom citing 5 U.S.C. 2903 has also been removed.

Here's that electronic form at OPM's Internet website:

http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf61.pdf

The implementing Regulations cited in the FOIA Requests above make it very clear that

justification for resorting to an electronic form must also be provided to OMB,

as part of the renewals that are required of all Federal agencies every 3 years.

These OPM SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS for the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist

are genuine:

http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/rehnquist/affidavit.gif

Note the OMB control number that is displayed at upper right, and

the paragraph at the bottom citing 5 U.S.C. 2903:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/2903 (Authority to administer)

Such violations of the Paperwork Reduction Act ("PRA") necessarily implicate

the PRA's Public Protection Clause at 44 U.S.C. 3512(b):

http://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.

That Public Protection Clause was added to the PRA by an amendment approved by Congress

after the PRA was first enacted. As such, the legislative intent is quite clear that

Congress intended to increase the strength of that Public Protection Clause and

to make the implications of missing OMB control numbers quite indisputable.

Consequently, every single SF-61 that fails to display a valid OMB control number

at the upper right-hand corner on Page One, is necessarily a "bootleg request"

i.e. a counterfeit credential.

And, Congress expressly intended for private Citizens to enforce the PRA

-- by tossing such "bootleg requests" into the nearest trash can!

And, most unfortunately for many thousands of current Federal employees,

these counterfeit credentials have turned up in response to FOIA requests

for the credentials required of numerous U.S. Attorneys and Federal Judges too!

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm
(see "NAD" links)

The SF-61 for Eric H. Holder, Jr. is fatally defective for the same reason:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/sebelius/holder/letter.2010-06-09/affidavit.refused.JPG
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/sebelius/holder/letter.2010-06-09/affidavit.GIF

There is no lawful U.S. Attorney General at the present time:

that office is legally vacant.

The SF-61 for Timothy F. Geithner is also fatally defective for the same reason:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/sebelius/geithner/letter.2010-04-21/affidavit.refused.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/sebelius/geithner/letter.2010-04-21/affidavit.gif

There is no lawful U.S. Secretary of the Treasury at the present time:

that office is legally vacant.

The same is true of the SF-61s for numerous employees of the U.S. Department of Justice e.g.:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/felt/christensen/affidavit.2010-07-30.refused.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/felt/christensen/affidavit.2010-07-30.gif

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/felt/washburn/affidavit.refused.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/felt/washburn/affidavit.gif

Not only are Federal statutes being violated here:

These statutes implement the Oath of Office Clause at Article VI, Section 3,

in the Constitution for the United States of America:

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#6:3

And, to quote Miranda v. Arizona:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=384&invol=436

Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved,

there can be no rule making or legislation

which would abrogate them.

Please forward this message to all your Contacts.

Thank you for your 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: Supreme Law Firm supremelawfirm@gmail.com

sender-time: Sent at 10:06 AM (GMT-07:00).

Current time there: 2:17 PM.

Many thanks for your interest, and your kind words below, Ed.

The problem goes much deeper than what meets the eye, at first glance.

The paragraph citing 5 U.S.C. 2903 is particularly relevant, because

it requires all SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS to be administered

by an officer who is authorized to do so:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/2903.html

Take one of my favorite examples, to illustrate this requirement very dramatically:

let's say that an SF-61 is "administered" by a County Dog Catcher.

Now, I have nothing against County Dog Catchers:

they provide a valuable public safety function.

HOWEVER, the question is whether or not that "office" has been

delegated authority to administer OPM SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS.

Of course, that office has NOT been so delegated.

Now, let's apply the intent of 5 U.S.C. 2903 to one set of credentials that

might appear AOK, EXCEPT THAT the employee who attempted to administer SF-61

was suffering from missing credentials herself:

Go to our Master List for Washington State:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm#DWA

("DWA" = District of Washington State)

Franklin D. Burgess appears to have all 4 credentials in proper order:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/burgess.franklin/

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/burgess.franklin/confirm.gif

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/burgess.franklin/commission.gif

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/burgess.franklin/affidavit.gif

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/burgess.franklin/oath.gif

So far, so good!

Now, on the latter 2 credentials -- APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS and OATH OF OFFICE –

take careful note of the signature by one "Barbara J. Rothstein".

So, we go to the folder for Barbara J. Rothstein here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/rothstein.barbara/

There's a SENATE CONFIRMATION and PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION for Rothstein, but

no APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS and no OATH OF OFFICE:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/rothstein.barbara/confirm.gif

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/rothstein.barbara/commission.gif

And, we've confronted Rothstein in writing, and she has just ignored a requirement

that is expressly imposed by Article VI, Section 3 in the U.S. Constitution and

by Acts of Congress which implement that Clause:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/rothstein.barbara/nad.missing.credentials.2.htm

(the latter is now IN DEFAULT)

Go back to the folder for Burgess now, and witness why we have REFUSED two of his credentials,

chiefly because they violate 5 U.S.C. 2903 (Rothstein had no authority to administer):

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/burgess.franklin/affidavit.refused.JPG

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/burgess.franklin/oath.refused.JPG

Burgess originally had a common law defense of FRAUD by Rothstein,

as long as he was unaware that she had violated 5 U.S.C. 2903

in addition to several felonies by violating 18 U.S.C. 912 etc.

However, after receiving our annotated REFUSALs above,

Burgess then rendered himself liable to me, at least,

for neglect to prevent / failure to remedy,

as explained at 42 U.S.C. 1986:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1986.html

More importantly, these authorities (not my words, OK?)

make the legal consequences of missing credentials quite indisputable:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions.htm

Here's my favorite court decision:

Without taking the oath prescribed by law,

one cannot become a judge either de jure or de facto, and

such an individual is without authority to act and

his acts as such are void until he has taken the prescribed oath.

[French v. State, 572 S.W.2d 934]

[Brown v. State, 238 S.W.2d 787]

There you have it. The above is called DUE DILIGENCE!

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)

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)

from: Paul Andrew Mitchell supremelawfirm@gmail.com

sender-time: Sent at 10:32 AM (GMT-07:00).

Current time there: 2:18 PM.

P.S.
Now, ask yourself how many of these impostor "robes" have executed IRS Forms 1040,

there claiming to have occupied the office of United States District Judge, but

withOUT having executed valid APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS and OATH OF OFFICE!

IRS Form 1040 must be executed "under the penalties of perjury" as required by IRC 6065:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6065

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions.htm

Oath was prerequisite to compensation of judges.

[7 Op Atty Gen 303]

Oath was prerequisite to official duties and salary.

[19 Op Atty Gen 219]

... [B]ut whatever form of oath is taken, the taking of the oath is a prerequisite to

the entering upon the official duties or drawing salary therefor.

[19 Op Atty Gen 221 supra]

Are we not looking at a MASSIVE "Qui Tam" Complaint authorized

by the Federal Civil False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq.?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/3729