FORMAL OBJECTIONS AND RETURN TO SENDER FOR FRAUD

TO:  Whom It Does Concern

Once again, we repeat our citation to the Act of Congress at 5 U.S.C. 2906,

chiefly where it clearly designates "the court to which the office pertains"

as the legal custodian of APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS for all Court officers:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/2906

The A.O. is not a "court".

It also appears that you must have a reading disability:

our proper Request clearly stated as follows:

A.O. is not the designated legal custodian.  

See 5 U.S.C. 2906 ("court to which the office pertains").

Please do NOT refer this matter to the A.O.

You have failed to cite any authority(s) clearly designating

the A.O. as the legal custodian of APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS

for all Court "officers".

In contrast, we provided a link to a document that elaborates

in much more details, with citations to other relevant laws.

Repeating that link to our RESERVATION OF RIGHT TO INSPECT:

https://supremelaw.org/letters/reservation.of.right.to.inspect.htm  

(also appended below)

Of equal importance was the SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE

properly served upon that A.O.  However, not one (1) SF-61

was ever disclosed in timely compliance with that SUBPOENA:

https://supremelaw.org/cc/aouscourts/

If you were acting in good faith in this matter, you would

already know, or should already know, that the A.O.

now enforces a policy of NOT disclosing any

APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS, even when

politely requested to do so, and even when

referred to the A.O. by Clerks and Deputy Clerks

of Court.

Consequently, you are acting in bad faith in this matter.

Bad faith is synonymous with fraud.

REFUSAL FOR FRAUD

Accordingly, the evidence now available to us,

assembled in large part by The Credential Investigation,

requires that we refuse your false claims, and

return same to your anonymous sender, for reasons

including but not limited to fraud and blatant

violations of the Constitution for the United States

of America, as lawfully amended, and Acts of Congress

which have implemented the Oath of Office Clause,

Appointments Clauses, and Supremacy Clause.

DEMAND FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE

The United States ex rel. hereby demands the

immediate disclosure of valid APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS

for Mr. Paul A. Engelmayer in .pdf (Adobe Reader) format

no later than 5:00 PM Eastern on Friday, February 14, 2025 A.D.

Beyond that reasonable deadline, your failure to perform

will activate estoppel and constitute further fraud:

Carmine v. Bowen;  U.S. v. Tweel

Cc:  President Donald J. Trump

Attachment:

RESERVATION OF RIGHT TO INSPECT

U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

STANDARD FORM 61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS

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

               Private Attorney General, Civil RICO: 18 U.S.C. 1964;  and,

               Agent of the United States as Qui Tam Relator (4X),

               False Claims Act: 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq.

DATE:    July 20, 2013 A.D.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

After extensive litigation and related experience acquired in connection with our ongoing investigation of missing and/or defective credentials that are required of all Federal officers and employees, we now find it necessary formally to notify all whom it may concern of the following:

(1)     the Oath of Office Clause at Article VI, Clause 3, in the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended, elevates that requirement to the level of our Fundamental Right;

(2)     the standing decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), held:  “Where rights secured by [that] Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them” [underlined emphasis added];

(3)     the Oath of Office Clause supra has been implemented by Acts of Congress including but not limited to the Federal statutes at 5 U.S.C. 2104, 2903, 2906, 3331, 3332, 3333, 5507, 7311 and 28 U.S.C. 453, 543, 544, 951;

(4)     the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) effectively created a “Right to Inspect” all U.S. OPM Standard Form 61 (“SF-61”) APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS for the required display of a valid OMB control number, and for compliance with all Regulations implementing that PRA;

(5)     whenever any such SF-61 fails to display a valid OMB control number, the legislative intent of that PRA authorizes private Citizens to enforce that Act by designating all such defective SF-61s as “bootleg requests” that belong in the nearest trash can (read “not admissible”);

(6)     moreover, after first enacting the PRA, Congress added greater strength to the PRA’s Public Protection Clause at 44 U.S.C. 3512, which now reads in pertinent part:  “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” [underlined emphasis added];  and,

(7)     a badge, business card, letterhead or any other claim that one is a duly authorized Federal officer or employee can and should be regarded as evidence of criminal impersonation violating 18 U.S.C. 912 (a felony), insofar as that individual fails timely to produce a valid OPM SF-61 credential whenever challenged to do so e.g. via a proper Request submitted under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. 552, or by any other lawful REQUEST or DEMAND.  See 5 U.S.C. 551(1).

Accordingly, all Federal personnel who may wish to contact the Undersigned for any reason must first produce a true and correct copy of their valid OPM SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS and deliver same to the physical address shown below for purposes of timely inspection.

Failure to do so will fully justify the Undersigned to refuse any further contact(s) with such individual(s), to refuse all written and/or verbal communications for one or more of the good causes partially itemized above, and return all such written communications to the sender(s).

The Undersigned hereby expressly reserved the Right to Inspect all such OPM SF-61 forms for full compliance with the PRA and with all of its implementing Regulations, and to refuse same for any and all defects thereby confirmed in such forms.

Correspondence transmitted via U.S. Mail without first producing valid OPM SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS will constitute material evidence of felony mail fraud or wire fraud violating 18 U.S.C. 1341 or 1343, respectively.

In this context, you are hereby provided with ACTUAL NOTICE of the detailed documents now archived at the following Internet locations:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/United.States.Notice.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/opm/

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/omb/

NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS IS NOTICE TO AGENTS.

NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS.

Thank you very much for your consideration, and respect, for the supreme Law of the Land throughout these United States of America, particularly the Oath of Office Clause and the Supremacy Clause at Article VI, Clauses 3 and 2 respectively.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

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

Private Attorney General, Civil RICO: 18 U.S.C. 1964:

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm

Agent of the United States as Qui Tam Relator (4X),

False Claims Act: 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq.:

U.S. ex rel. Madden v. General Dynamics Corp., 4 F.3d 827 (9^th Cir. 1993)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice (cf. UCC 1-308)

On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 7:38 AM Help Desk NYSD <Help_Desk@nysd.uscourts.gov> wrote: