TO:       Beverly A. Benka

      dba Clerk of Court

      c/o U.S. Bankruptcy Court

          P.O. Box 2164

          Spokane 99210-2164



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

          Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)

      c/o Forwarding Agent

          7115 N. Division Street #B-354

          Spokane 99208



DATE:     March 5, 2009 A.D.


SUBJECT:  APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVIT required by 5 U.S.C. §§ 2906, 3331


Hello Ms. Benka:


From our Forwarding Agent we have now received but not accepted the letter dated February 26, 2009, from one Shannon O’Brien.


We are required to refuse same for causes including, but not limited to all of the following:


That letter is not an Office of Personnel Management Standard Form 61, APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS, as required by the Federal statute at 5 U.S.C. 3331 (see enclosed).


Our NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS dated February 18, 2009, very clearly demanded production of the APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS which you were required to execute before occupying the Office of Clerk of Court.


A PAST DUE copy of that NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS is enclosed.  Another PAST DUE copy was mailed to you this week.


The Federal statute at 5 U.S.C. 2906 also designates you and your subordinates as the legal custodians of all such APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS for all past and present employees of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Washington.  Said employees include all Judges, Magistrates, Clerks and Deputy Clerks.


Your legal duties are partially enumerated in the Federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 951, which requires you to execute a second OATH OF OFFICE that contains language specific to the Office of Clerk of Court (see enclosed).


For your information, attached please also find an example of a proper OPM Form 61 APPONTMENT AFFIDAVITS, and copies of the pertinent Federal statutes cited above.


Imagine, if you will, being pulled over for a routine traffic stop by a local police officer.  The first things s/he requests of you are your driver’s license, registration and proof of insurance.


Now, instead of producing a valid driver’s license, you produce a letter from the part-time high school intern you employ, claiming that you did start to “drive” when you were 16 years of age.


What happens then, Ms. Benka?


Let me help you here:  you would be required to sign a traffic ticket, and you would probably be arrested if you refused to sign it (depending on the State in which you were driving on that day).


In point of Law, the Federal statutes cited above do implement the Oath of Office Clause that is found at Article VI, Clause 3, in the Constitution for the United States of America.  As such, the Oath requirement is a matter of Constitutional significance, guaranteeing as it does to all Citizens the fundamental Right to enjoy Federal officers and employees who have executed that required Oath of Office.


Insofar as you have failed to do so, you are implicated in impersonating an officer of the United States (Federal Government), a felony violation of 18 U.S.C. 912.  Because you are also the designated legal custodian of all APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS, including the one required of you, one or more missing APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS implicate you in a separate felony violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001.


Similarly, because 28 U.S.C. 1691 requires the Clerk’s signature on all legal “process” issuing from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court that employs you, mailing any court process that lacks the bona fide signature of a duly authorized Clerk or Deputy Clerk of Court implicates the sender(s) in felony mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. sections 1341 and 1342.


Lastly, only two (2) such acts of mail fraud are defined by Congress to constitute a “pattern of racketeering activities”.  See 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.  The criminal penalties for engaging in a pattern of racketeering activities are rather severe:  18 U.S.C. 1963.


In conclusion, as of Monday, March 9, 2009, my office will regard you as being IN DEFAULT with respect to your legal and constitutional requirements timely to exhibit a proper APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVIT as we properly and lawfully demanded of you in writing on February 18, 2009.


Thank you for your timely professional cooperation.



Sincerely yours,


/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell


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

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a), Rotella v. Wood

Courtesy copy:  Shannon O’Brien