Federal Credential Laws:

Probable Cause of Conspiracy

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

Private Attorney General (retired), and

Agent of the United States as Qui Tam Relator

March 24, 2025 A.D.

This brief summary reviews specific Federal laws that were violated

by past and present personnel of the U.S. Courts at all levels.

In many instances, those violations are ongoing and as such

they also represent a threat of deliberate continuity.

The major conclusions are based in large part upon facts

assembled by The Credential Investigation.

The primary authorities are the Oath of Office Clause and

Appointments Clauses in the U.S. Constitution

as lawfully amended. See also the Commissions Clause

and the Supremacy Clause in this context.

In addition to those constitutional requirements,

there is also a set of Federal statutes which have

implemented those requirements.

A very valuable place to begin this summary is the

U.S. Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”)

Standard Form 61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS (“SF-61”).

That one Form must be executed by all newly hired

Federal Court officers and employees, no exceptions.

The statute at 5 U.S.C. 2906 is crucial because

it clearly defines the “court to which the office pertains”

as the designated legal custodian of all completed

APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS for all U.S. Court “officers”.

Other statutes also mandate enforcement of valid

APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS by defining specific

textual contents, without which any given SF-61

must be treated as a COUNTERFEIT credential.

These latter statutes include 5 U.S.C. 2902, 2903,

3331, 3332, 3333, 5507, 7311 and the criminal

statute at 18 U.S.C. 1918 (misdemeanor).

Section 2902(c) separately defines the Department of Justice

as the designated legal custodian of all timely completed

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSIONS. The latter must be issued

before APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS are administered

by officers who are delegated with authority to do so.

The relevant case law has held that the person selected

is not entitled to the office until the COMMISSION issues, and

that person cannot be legally qualified by taking the required oath

until that person has been issued a valid COMMISSION.

See Paragraph A. on all APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS

which implements section 3331 (Oath of office).

Sections 3333 and 7311 are particularly relevant here

chiefly because the Office of U.S. Representative

Val Hoyle has confirmed, via Voice Mail message (“VM”),

that those statutes were never repealed.

As such, those particular statutes historically

required SF-61 Paragraph B. to exhibit

“constitutional form of government”

by way of honoring the Guarantee Clause

in the U.S. Constitution.

However, sometime after September 1969

that essential language was removed from

OPM’s blank SF-61; and, that SF-61 remains

fatally defective for that one reason i.e.

it’s now a known COUNTERFEIT Form.

Another nuance worthy of mention in this context

is the exemption in the Freedom of Information Act

for all U.S. courts. Their personnel are under

no legal obligations to honor FOIA Requests for

any documents which those courts may control.

That explicit exemption at 5 U.S.C. 551(1)(B)

requires requests for copies of Standard Forms 61

to resort to different legal language, such as a

Reservation of Right to Inspect.

Even when presented with copy requests using phraseology

which circumvents that FOIA exemption for U.S. Courts,

personnel employed as Clerks and Deputy Clerks

of those Courts are now referring copy requests

to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (“A.O.”)

The Office of Information Policy in the U.S. Department of

Justice has often made this same referral in their written

replies to proper FOIA requests submitted to that agency

of the Executive Branch.

OIP is not exempt from the FOIA.

This current practice contrasts sharply with prior practices

by which Clerks and Deputy Clerks of U.S. Courts would certify

printed hard copies of SF-61s to satisfy all polite requests

for same. The Credential Investigation has archived many

scanned examples of those certified hard copies.

These referrals to the A.O. have become very problematic

chiefly because that A.O. is not the designated

legal custodian of any APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS

previously executed by any U.S. Court personnel.

The A.O. is not a Federal “court”.

Making matters much worse, past and present officials

of that A.O. have enforced a policy of refusing to disclose

electronic copies of such APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS.

The A.O.’s current Director has fallen silent when served

with a demand to disclose any authority designating that

A.O. as the legal custodian of any mandatory credentials.

As a matter of law, such silence can activate estoppel,

and it can also be equated with fraud.

And, it is historically very important to acknowledge that

a former Director of the A.O. never produced any credentials

that he was required to disclose, after having been served with

a proper SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE.

Consequently, it is now the position of The Credential Investigation

that Clerk referrals to that A.O., combined with standing A.O. policies,

constitute probable cause of “concealing” Federal court records in

covert violation of 18 U.S.C. 1519 and 2071 (both felony Federal offenses).

Furthermore, such collaboration among multiple Federal personnel

appears to constitute probable cause of a conspiracy to infringe

Fundamental Rights that are now secured by the U.S. Constitution,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. 241 (felony conspiracy).

The latter legal conclusion is also amplified insofar as the

Guarantee Clause is also being violated by the deliberate omission of

“constitutional form of government” from SF-61 Paragraph B.

The demonstrable practice of executing SF-61s that obviously

omit “constitutional form of government” from Paragraph B

separately constitutes probable cause that the criminal statute

at 18 U.S.C. 1918 is also being violated (a misdemeanor).

Even though the Fifth Amendment requires all felony charges

to issue from a lawfully convened Federal Grand Jury,

other legal obligations are available to the Office of President

to stop payment of salaries, and to terminate offenders from Federal jobs,

after confirming their SF-61s are missing or defective.

Those key statutes are 5 U.S.C. 5507 and 7311, respectively.

Personnel who violate 5507, in particular, are also thereby making

false salary claims upon the U.S. Treasury, which also violate

the False Claims Act at 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq.

The criminal violations do not stop there. When Federal Judges

attempt to preside on Federal civil and criminal court cases,

but without all requisite credentials in proper order, they are

impersonating officers of the United States in violation of

the Federal criminal statute at 18 U.S.C. 912 (felony).

All their acts as such are null and void ab initio

even if they claim to be “de facto” officers.

Such individuals are without authority to act, period.

And, insofar as multiple Federal “judges” are violating 912,

they thereby implicate themselves in a criminal conspiracy

to defraud the United States (Federal Government),

in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 (also a felony).

Likewise, such an expanded criminal conspiracy

also engages routinely in acts which are defined

in the Federal RICO (racketeering) laws as “predicate acts”.

These acts include but are not limited to obstructing justice,

witness retaliation and extortion, to name a few such predicates.

Only two such predicate acts during any given 10-year period

qualify as a pattern of racketeering activities. 18 U.S.C. 1961(5).

The bottom line here, summarizing all of the above,

is evidence of multiple misdemeanors and multiple felonies

that result from policies and practices of past and present

A.O. and Federal Court personnel that clearly violate

Federal laws that apply specifically to them, and

not to any of their usual victims.

Recommendation to the White House:

The President should give serious consideration

to stopping their pay and firing Federal Court personnel

whose activities violate any of the laws discussed above

by way of obstructing any of the President’s lawful

Executive Orders or any other Presidential decisions.

The President already enjoys full authority to order

U.S. Marshals to begin routine inspections of all

APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS for all Court personnel,

beginning with the SF-61s required of the most

egregious, and obnoxious offenders of late.

U.S. Marshals are already tasked with maintaining

courthouse security and doing related law enforcement.

There is no need for any additional appropriations

because Marshals are already being paid to perform

these essential duties.