CONFIDENTIAL
TO: Mr. Mark L. Ericks
U.S. Marshal
700 Stewart Street, Suite 9000
Seattle 98101-1271
WASHINGTON STATE, USA
FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Qualified Federal Witness
DATE: December 22, 2011 A.D.
SUBJECT: missing credential investigation + a few muddy waters
Greetings Marshal Ericks:
To date, I have had four (4) separate meetings with Deputy U.S. Marshals Mans and Wood. I take this opportunity to commend them to you whole heartedly for their kindness, professionalism, mutual respect and attention to key details at all four meetings.
There is one point which has given me cause to write directly to you, because it appears to have “muddied the waters” so to speak.
At one of our prior meetings, Mr. Mans asked me how I knew that my U.S. Mail, addressed to certain suspects within the Federal Judiciary, was actually being delivered to those suspects. I answered, “Because obstruction of correspondence transmitted via U.S. Mail is a felony Federal offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1702.”
Today, Mr. Mans presented me with five (5) envelopes which I had previously addressed to other suspects currently employed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. To enhance the probability that my confidential written communications actually did reach the intended recipients, I did in fact mail four (4) identical sets of correspondence to those same addressees, at each of the four mailing addresses listed at the Ninth Circuit’s Internet website here:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/information/locations.php
However, the question which Mr. Mans had previously asked me, did have the effect of giving me very good reason to suspect that my U.S. mail -- with my normal return address at the upper left-hand corner –- was, and still is, being actively and routinely obstructed and therefore not reaching the intended recipients.
For that reason, as a “test” of sorts, the four identical sets of my most recent correspondence addressed to five Ninth Circuit employees had a different label affixed to the upper left-hand corners, stating:
ACTUAL NOTICE:
Obstruction
of Correspondence
transmitted via U.S. Mail
is a felony violation of
18 U.S.C.
1702
As I write this confidential communication to you, I still do not know if the five (5) envelopes in question will be delivered to the intended recipients, or not.
Would you please see to it that Section 1702 supra is not violated in the case of
these five (5) envelopes that I transmitted via U.S. Mail?
I don’t want to belabor this, nor try to blow it into anything larger than it really needs to be. I have been helping the U.S. Coast Guard track black market plutonium, so I do believe I keep my priorities in proper order. (Mr. Mans can always tell me if I am not doing so!)
This may seem to you a matter of little consequence; however, I have already been damaged numerous times by 1702 violations e.g. by the late John M. Roll. Hence, I do expect that all employees of the U.S. Marshals Service will understand my insistence on their willingness to obey all Federal and State laws that apply specifically to them.
p.s. I did not regard it as necessary or appropriate for either Deputy Marshal to present me today with copies of two Federal criminal statutes which penalize false liens against Federal employees. If I have any one substantive objection to their postures in our four meetings to date, they appear to be habituated to describing certain judicial employees as “judges” e.g. “Judge Trott” and “Judge Hug”, when the three of us have met specifically for several hours now to pour over extensive documentary evidence calling for the obvious conclusion that certain named suspects are NOT “judges”. That is not only my conclusion, but also the standing holdings of several State and Federal courts which have already ruled on various aspects of this same question. I leave you with just 2 of those relevant holdings:
... [W]here the law requires a commission to be issued, the person selected is not entitled to the office until the commission issues, and he cannot be legally qualified by taking the required oath until he has received his commission.
[Legerton v. Chambers, 163 P. 678, 32 Cal.App. 601]
[Magruder v. Tuck, 25 Md. 217]
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]
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
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
Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13
Attachment: copy of mailing labels re: ACTUAL NOTICE (see above)