REQUEST
FOR IMMEDIATE CLARIFICATION
June 27, 2016 A.D.
IRS Office of Chief Counsel
Attention: William J.
Wilkins et al.
1111 Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington 20224-0002
District of Columbia, USA
Subject: IRS Claim No.
16-021; GLS-101235-16
Greetings Messrs. Wilkins, Corwin and Sterner:
The unsigned letter dated June 22, 2016, that we recently received from your office needs
immediate clarification.
First of all, please be advised that
our office now has a policy of refusing all written correspondence which does
not exhibit a wet ink original signature.
Please honor that policy.
We believe we have a right to know
who is attempting to communicate with our office for any reason.
Please identify the individual(s)
responsible for transmitting that June 22 letter to us via Certified U.S. Mail.
The second paragraph in that letter
alleges that I may file suit against the United States in the appropriate
United States district court no later than six months after the date of mailing
that notification. Unless we hear
otherwise from you, we calculate the latter six-month period will expire on
December 23, 2016.
That letter also cited the
implementing Regulation at 28 CFR 14.9(a).
We read that Regulation to say that your notification may have
included a statement of the reason(s) for the denial. However, we do not find in your June 22
letter a statement of any reason(s) for the denial. Why did you not include a statement of the
reason(s) for the denial, please?
We believe we have a right to know
the reason(s) for the denial, given the frequency and severity of felony misconduct
I have now suffered.
We are also writing to request
written clarification why your office did not cite the implementing Regulation
at 28 CFR 14.9(b). We read that
Regulation to say that, prior to expiration of the 6-month period provided in
28 U.S.C. 2401(b), a claimant may also file a written request for
reconsideration of a final denial under 28 CFR 14.9(a).
Although this REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE CLARIFICATION
is not a formal request for reconsideration, we now proceed with
the understanding that we have until December 22, 2016, to file such a request for
reconsideration.
If your construction of 28 CFR
14.9(b) is different for any reason,
kindly specify the calendar date beyond which we will be barred by your Office from
filing such a request for reconsideration.
Between now and the calendar date
beyond which we will be barred from filing such a request for reconsideration,
we intend to explore available options for obtaining relief e.g. private relief bills enacted
by Congress are one option that comes to mind, at this time.
You also briefly cited 28 U.S.C.
2680 in your June 22 letter. Subsection
(h) in the latter statute reads in pertinent part:
... with regard to acts or omissions of
investigative or law enforcement officers of the United States Government, the
provisions of this chapter and section 1346(b) of this title shall apply to any
claim arising, on or after the date of the enactment of this proviso, out of
assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process, or
malicious prosecution.
Our Claim Number 16-021
alleges false arrest and false imprisonment, but it does not allege
assault, battery, abuse of process or malicious prosecution by investigative or
law enforcement officers of the United States Government.
The documentary record does identify
probable cause that abuse of process and malicious prosecution by
investigative and law enforcement officers of the United States Government did
also occur. As such, we are hereby
formally reserving our right to file separate Federal Tort Claims (SF-95s) for abuse of process and malicious prosecution.
The statute at 28 U.S.C. 2680(h) goes on to say:
For the purpose of this subsection,
“investigative or law enforcement officer” means any officer of the United
States who is empowered by law to execute searches, to seize evidence, or to
make arrests for violations of Federal law.
Attached please find a matrix of
named defendants by statute(s) violated and verified criminal complaint number e.g. VCC1, VCC2, etc. At the very end of that matrix, please find
the following list of names arranged in alphabetical order by last name:
Christopher
A. Crofts Office of U.S. Attorney, Cheyenne,
Wyoming
James
P. Donohue U.S. District Court, Seattle,
Washington
Corey
Endo Federal Public Defender,
Seattle, Washington
Zachary
Fisher U.S. District Court, Cheyenne,
Wyoming
Nancy
D. Freudenthal
U.S. District Court, Cheyenne, Wyoming
Dave
Guest IRS, Fort Collins, Colorado
Mark
C. Hardee CJA Attorney, Cheyenne, Wyoming
Stephan
Harris U.S. District Court, Cheyenne,
Wyoming
Tammy
Hilliker U.S. District Court, Cheyenne,
Wyoming
Mr.
Holloway Federal Detention Center /
SeaTac
Cynthia
A. Low Federal Detention Center /
SeaTac
James
Marcy IRS, Cheyenne, Wyoming
William
M. McCool U.S. District Court, Seattle,
Washington
L.
Robert Murray Office of
U.S. Attorney, Cheyenne, Wyoming
Christina
A. Pietz
U.S.M.C.F.P, Springfield, Missouri
Michael
Reese CJA Attorney, Cheyenne,
Wyoming
Nancy
Tenney Federal Public Defender,
Seattle, Washington
Brian
Tsuchida U.S. District Court, Seattle,
Washington
Katherine
Skillestad Winans Federal Detention Center / SeaTac
Please identify which of the above
named individuals fall within the definition of “investigative or law enforcement officer” and which of the above
named individuals do NOT fall within that definition.
Lastly, our review of the Federal
RICO statute at 18 U.S.C. 1961(1)(A) leads us to
conclude that acts or threats involving kidnapping, which is chargeable
under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, also
qualify as “racketeering activity”.
In this context, please see Section 9A.40.020 in the
Revised Code of Washington (“RCW”), which prohibits kidnapping in the first
degree and defines that crime as a class A felony.
RCW 9a.20.021 authorizes life imprisonment, or
a fine of $50,000 per violator per incident, or both. Each “move” is one incident.
The 55 discrete moves inflicted upon me during
my 325 days of false arrest and false imprisonment were
clearly effected by means of abuse of process and for purposes of malicious
prosecution. For example, see “The Case
for Sanctions against L. Robert Murray, Mark C. Hardee et al.” which is included in our initial SF-95.
Furthermore, the verified criminal complaints
filed and served to date also call for the conclusions that I was intentionally
abducted:
·
to facilitate the commission of other Federal felonies e.g.
see VCC1 thru VCC7 in particular and both Attachments infra;
·
to inflict bodily injury upon me e.g. forced administration of
mind-altering drugs causing permanent disability;
·
to inflict extreme mental stress upon me e.g. 3 periods of
solitary confinement, 55 moves across State lines; and,
·
to interfere
with the performance of governmental functions e.g. the Credential
Investigation, False Claims litigation as a Qui Tam Relator, and continuing pro bono assistance to U.S.
Coast Guard Investigations at San Diego Harbor.
See RCW 9A.40.020(1)(b) thru (e) in chief.
Lastly, in light of all of the
felony Federal offenses now charged in VCC1 thru VCC7, we wish to know why you
have not referred this case to Federal prosecutors for deliberation by a
competent Federal Grand Jury. On this
point, please see In re
Grand Jury Application, 617 F.Supp. 199 (USDC/SDNY 1985), and 18 U.S.C. 4 (Misprision of felony).
NOTICE
OF WORKING DEADLINE
Because the clock is ticking, time is now of the essence.
Please demonstrate good faith, due
diligence and respect for the rights of crime victims, as addressed in the
Crime Victims’ Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. 3771, by responding within ten (10)
business days to each of the matters discussed above.
We will look forward to your written response(s).
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Crime Victim;
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.
U.S. Mail:
Supreme Law Firm
c/o Trustee
1224 N.E. Walnut #257
Roseburg 97470
Oregon, USA
All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308)
Courtesy Copies:
Christopher B. Sterner as Deputy Chief Counsel (Operations)
Erik H. Corwin as Deputy Chief Counsel (Technical)
Trustees,
Estate of Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Attachments: