Teknosis: U.S. Marshals Service Harasses Private Attorney General Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on behalf of Eric Holder / Department of Justice

« LIBERTY DOLLAR NEWS: June 2013 Vol. 15 No. 06 | Main | Beyond Tangy Tangerine Citrus Peach Fusion 2.0 (BTT 2.0) from Youngevity / HEALTHY BODY START PAK 2.0 »

U.S. Marshals Service Harasses Private Attorney General Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on behalf of Eric Holder / Department of Justice

Update:

Paul Andrew Mitchell has been bundled away by the US Government
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/02/paul-andrew-mitchell-has-been-bundled-away-by-the-us-government.html

___

SHARE THIS

----- Forwarded Message -----
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 moments ago

TO:
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

CITIZEN'S ARREST WARRANT which

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:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/7401.html

(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:

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

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:

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

(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.

The NOTICE OF MISSING AND/OR DEFECTIVE CREDENTIALS

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):

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1986.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/912

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
for valid OPM SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS
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:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/44/3512.html

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/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)

___

Related latest update [10/25/14], but see Update at top for compendium of communications towards bottom of that particular post:

APPLICATION FOR DISQUALIFICATIONS: 28 USC 144 (containing AFFIDAVIT OF BIAS AND PREJUDICE & DEMAND FOR RECUSAL as well as NOTICE TO COUNSELS: USA v. Hill et al. & NOTICE OF ERRORS re: Harris & Harris, P.C.) - from Paul Andrew Mitchell USMCFP/Springfield
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/10/application-for-disqualifications-28-usc-144-containing-affidavit-of-bias-and-prejudice-demand-for-r.html