Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Private Attorney General writes to Deputy U.S. Marshal re: OBJECTION: your 2 associates just left a few moments ago

Expand Messages
  • Supreme Law Firm
    ... From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Subject: Private Attorney General writes to Deputy U.S. Marshal re: OBJECTION: your 2 associates just left a few
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 11, 2013

      ----- Forwarded Message -----
      From: "Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S."
      Private Attorney General writes to Deputy U.S. Marshal re:
      OBJECTION: your 2 associates just left a few moments ago

      U.S. Marshals Service, Seattle, Washington State
      Attention:  Deputy U.S. Marshal assigned

      Hello Deputy U.S. Marshal,

      They must have had the mistaken belief that
      I was intending to execute a physical arrest and
      apprehension of Mr. Eric H. Holder, Jr.

      They also must have thought that I am stupid:
      I am not stupid, and I believe YOU already know that.

      I have no such intentions, in spite of the
      I served on the Director of the USMS.

      I deemed that paperwork wise and necessary
      in part because of the requirement for
      prior authorization by the "Attorney General"
      at section 7401 of the Internal Revenue Code:

      (can't delegate authority without valid credentials)

      If their real intentions were merely to apply
      more pressure upon me, as the investigator
      and Private Attorney General, I must categorically
      OBJECT, again, to such questionable intentions.

      I THOUGHT that you and I had agreed that
      you would schedule all future meetings,
      as you have done for our past meetings
      at the coffee shop adjacent the U.S. Courthouse.

      They did NOT have an appointment today.

      I tried to explain to these personnel that
      they did NOT have an appointment, and
      they rudely refused to leave without
      first LECTURING me about Eric Holder.

      I also had to spend more time explaining AGAIN
      the requirement for an OMB control number,
      which is absent from the OPM SF-61 which
      I received from DOJ in response to my proper
      FOIA Request for same:


      As you may recall, at one of our latter meetings,
      you and I agreed that I needed to update my
      research to determine if OPM had requested
      and obtained OMB's approval of the latest
      SF-61 which OPM published at OPM's website.

      I did that research here, and filed it in the
      U.S. District Court in New York City:

      (see PROOF OF SERVICE for all recipients)

      As you can plainly see, both OPM and OMB
      have admitted that OPM did NOT request
      nor obtain OMB's approval of the electronic
      version of SF-61 which is now published
      at OPM's Internet website.

      goes into the implementing Regulations governing
      the renewal of all OMB control numbers which all
      Federal agencies must request every 3 years.

      Moreover, Mr. Holder has FAILED TO REMEDY
      this fatally defective credential, when his office
      was presented with proof of the missing
      OMB control number, and with OPM's failure to request
      and obtain OMB's approval of the electronic SF-61
      and removal of the paragraph citing 5 U.S.C. 2903
      (Authority to administer).

      This makes Holder at least civilly liable
      to me for neglect to prevent / failure to remedy:
      42 U.S.C. 1986, if not also criminally liable
      for violating 18 U.S.C. 912 (for starters):


      Moreover, since it is the intent of Congress
      that all such "bootleg requests" belong in the
      nearest trash can, such COUNTERFEITs
      cannot substitute under any circumstances
      as required by 5 U.S.C. 2906 and 3331, and
      by the Oath of Office Clause in the
      U.S. Constitution.  See Miranda v. Arizona here
      (re: rights secured by the Constitution).

      Lastly, the older of the 2 associates of yours
      manifested a consistently rude and obnoxious
      attitude claiming that the paperwork you have
      received from me to date is "worthless"
      (and other words to that effect).

      (To his credit, the younger one did show the
      same modicum of respect that you have shown to me
      at all times in the past.)

      The older associate maintained this bad attitude
      EVEN AFTER I did my best to explain-- AGAIN --
      the legislative intent of the Paperwork Reduction Act and

      the implications of the Public Protection Clause
      at 44 U.S.C. 3512:


      In conclusion, I requested both of them to
      channel all future questions about this
      investigation through you, chiefly because
      you have shown a lot of mutual respect,
      even if both of us have made one or more
      mistakes in this matter, and even if you and
      I may have disagreed on any particular
      points of fact or law.

      Thank you for your continuing mutual respect
      and professional consideration.

      Cc:  Stacia Hylton, Director, USMS

      P.S.  Threatening me with prosecution merely because
      I am studying the law and attempting to defend the law,
      could be construed as violations of 18 U.S.C. 1512 and 1513,
      chiefly because I do have authority under 18 U.S.C. 1964
      (Civil RICO);  see also Rotella v. Wood.

      Sincerely yours,
      /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
      Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
      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


    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.