NOTICE OF REFUSAL FOR CAUSES

NOTICE OF REFUSAL FOR CAUSES

TO: All Personnel

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (“AO”)

One Columbus Circle, N.E.

Washington 20544

District of Columbia, USA

COPY: Hon. Jeff Sessions

Office of the Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington 20530-0001

District of Columbia, USA

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

Damaged Party

DATE: April 24, 2017 A.D.

SUBJECT: Federal Tort Claim, DOJ Standard Form 95 (“SF-95”)

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

Your unsigned letter dated April 5, 2017, is hereby refused for causes including but not limited to all of the following:

(1) my proper and timely Federal Tort Claim, U.S. DOJ Standard Form 95, was mailed to the AO via Priority U.S. Mail on July 5, 2016, and delivery was confirmed by the U.S. Postal Service on July 11, 2016; your letter errs by alleging falsely that my SF-95 was “received on December 19, 2016” (see attached);

(2) the Office of AO Director is evidently vacant at the present time, due to the gross negligence of Mr. James C. Duff et al. for having failed to disclose credentials required by applicable Federal laws and implementing Regulations;

(3) as such, the Certified U.S. Mail envelope with USPS tracking number 7010 0290 0000 2508 6215 constitutes material evidence of mail fraud, violating the Federal criminal statute at 18 U.S.C. 1341; it also constitutes material evidence of private use for which the stated penalty is $300 per incident;

(4) hirelings paid by the AO have also been grossly negligent at least since 8/10/2004 and continuously thereafter, on which date the Office of the AO Director was served with a proper SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE for U.S. Office of Personnel Management Standard Form 61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS and OATHS OF OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES JUDGES for all Justices, Judges, full- and part-time Magistrates, Clerks and Deputy Clerks employed by the Federal Judiciary (see attached); silence activates estoppel;

(5) my proper and timely SF-95 did not arise from the performance of official duties integral to the judicial process, because said hirelings are barred from being paid by 5 U.S.C. 5507 and from performing any “official” duties absent all required credentials;

(6) impersonation, witness retaliation, torture, kidnapping and conspiring to engage in a pattern of racketeering activities are decidedly not “official duties integral to the judicial process”;

(7) the citation to the FTCA at 28 U.S.C. 2671 is off-point and misleading, chiefly because that statute clearly defines “Federal agency” to include the executive departments, the judicial and legislative branches of the United States (Federal government); as such, the AO is clearly a Federal agency as defined in that statute;

(8) the claim of absolute immunity from liability at 28 U.S.C. 2674 is likewise off-point and also irrelevant, chiefly because said hirelings were acting effectively as “private individuals” insofar as they lacked the mandatory credentials required to perform “official duties”; for that reason alone, section 2674 clearly states that “the United States shall be liable in the same manner and to the same extent”;

(9) my SF-95 did prove extensive negligence as partially itemized above, and also as proven by facts recited in at least seven (7) VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS, ON INFORMATION, which were timely lodged in full satisfaction of legal obligations imposed by 18 U.S.C. 4 (Misprision of felony), and which were never denied or rebutted in any way, shape or form whatsoever;

(10) my SF-95 did prove additional gross negligence in connection with numerous instances of abuse of process, in obvious violation of 28 U.S.C. 1691 and in painfully obvious retaliation for the ongoing Credential Investigation assisted by the Office of Information Policy and by the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys in the U.S. Department of Justice at least since August 2001;

(11) my SF-95 did not specifically allege any violations of “constitutional rights” insofar as your letter abuses that term to mean and include only rights that are specifically conferred upon Federal government officers and employees by the U.S. Constitution and by Acts of Congress which have implemented various Clauses in that U.S. Constitution; and,

(12) I am not now, and I never have been either an officer or employee of the Federal Government, although the False Claims Act at 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq. has effectively rendered me an “agent of the United States” pursuant to the decision of the Ninth Circuit in U.S. ex rel. Madden v. General Dynamics Corp., 4 F.3d 827 (1993).

NOTICE OF REFERRAL TO THE U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Kindly take note of the attached FORMAL REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION dated April 14, 2017 A.D., and delivered to Attorney General Jeff Sessions on April 19, 2017 A.D.

NOTICE OF POLICY Re: UNSIGNED CORRESPONDENCE

In the future, kindly also honor the policy of my office which requires us to refuse all UNsigned letters and written communications and to return same to the sender(s).

I have a right to know who is responsible for transmitting written communications on Federal Government letterhead via U.S. Mail without all required and valid credentials; and, I have a legal duty to report all instances of mail fraud to an officer in the civil or military authority of the Federal Government, because mail fraud is a FELONY violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Crime Victim: 18 U.S.C. 3771;

Private Attorney General, Civil RICO: 18 U.S.C. 1964; and,

Agent of the United States as Qui Tam Relator (4X),

Federal Civil False Claims Act: 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq.

Attachments (incorporated by reference)

U.S. Mail:

Supreme Law Firm

c/o Trustee

P.O. Box 3097

Winston 97496