Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0
HEIGHT=

Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Coffees from Youngevity
HEIGHT=

Coffees from Youngevity

Youngevity Be The Change

Youngevity Healthy Chocolate

GOFoods Youngevity

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.
HEIGHT=

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Ron Paul Forums
HEIGHT=

Ron Paul Forums

APFN Message Board
HEIGHT=

APFN Message Board

Leo Emil Wanta / Wantagate Links

++++++++++++++++++ EBAY ITEMS 4 SALE ++++++++++++++++++

« Private Attorney General writes to John Whitehead, attorney for U.S. Marine Veteran Brandon Raub | Main | 21.1_Rogers-Houston Memorandum_U.S. SUPREME COURT JURISDICTION>> circa 2002 »

PUBLIC NOTICE: Major admission by U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB): U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) never requested nor obtained OMB's approval of changes to SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS

 Outstanding health products/opportunity for health and wealth

http://beyondtangytangerine2dot0.wordpress.com/2014/06/22/dead-doctors-dont-lie-daily-radio-podcast-store/

___

Post main:

 
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: PUBLIC NOTICE: Major admission by OMB: OPM never requested nor obtained OMB's approval of changes to SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS

P.S. 
Now, ask yourself how many of these impostor "robes"
have executed IRS Forms 1040, there claiming to have occupied
the office of U.S. 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.?


--
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
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:
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:
("DWA" = District of Washington State)
Franklin D. Burgess appears to have all 4 credentials
in proper order:
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:
There's a SENATE CONFIRMATION and PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION for Rothstein,
but no APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS and no OATH OF OFFICE:
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:
(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):
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:
More importantly, these authorities (not my words, OK?) make
the legal consequences of missing credentials quite indisputable:
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!
 
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
 
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Edward C. Ebert Jr. <ecosoft@wi.rr.com>
To: Edward C. Ebert Jr. <ecosoft@wi.rr.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 2:18 AM
Subject: FW: PUBLIC NOTICE: Major admission by OMB: OPM never requested nor obtained OMB's approval of changes to SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS

 

This is a HFS moment … I know Paul, the only U.S. Private Attorney General in existence and his research is impeccable … http://www.supremelaw.org/  It seems that some of the top scum gov’t positions are occupied by persons holding fraudulent credentials, thus they are criminals!! Read below.
 
 
 
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 5:39 PM
Subject: PUBLIC NOTICE: Major admission by OMB: OPM never requested nor obtained OMB's approval of changes to SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS
 
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/5/2903.html  (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

August 29, 2012 in Current Affairs | Permalink