FORMAL REFUSAL FOR CAUSES AND

DEMAND FOR IMMEDIATE DISQUALIFICATION

 

August 2, 2016 A.D.

Gerald M. Auerbach

Office of General Counsel

U.S. Marshals Service

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington 20530-0001

District of Columbia, USA

 

Subject: more plain errors evident in your ridiculous letter 7/26/2016

 

 

Mr. Auerbach:

 

This is a formal REFUSAL of your ridiculous letter dated July 26, 2016 and signed for you by someone else whose signature is not legible. 

 

And, this is also a DEMAND that you disqualify yourself from any further participation or connection with my pending Tort Claim(s), on grounds that should be obvious to any thinking human being, if not also painfully obvious.

 

(We wouldn’t want to cause you any pain, Mr. Auerbach, but causing pain to innocent human beings seems to be your raison d'être.)

 

Allow us to begin this REFUSAL with the most ridiculous statement that you (or some unfortunate subordinate) penned here:

 

Please be advised that the IRS determination on your claim, on behalf of the United States and all named Federal agencies, was final and conclusive.

 

In support of the following refutation, we incorporate the attached REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE CLARIFICATION dated June 27, 2016 A.D., and the attached OBJECTIONS AND DEMAND TO RETURN TORT CLAIM TO USMS dated July 26, 2016 A.D.

 

First of all, USMS Administrative Tort Claim No. 50397 should never have been referred to the IRS in the first place, for reasons sufficiently discussed in our FORMAL REBUTTAL AND PROTEST OF REFERRAL TO IRS dated June 28, 2016 A.D.

 

Your letter of July 26, 2016, does acknowledge the latter REBUTTAL but fails to refute any of the facts which prove that referral to the IRS was a “plain error”.  Chiefly, at all times during my false arrest and false imprisonment, I was in the custody of the Department of Justice.

 

By failing or refusing to deny these facts or to offer any contrary facts, your silence constitutes a tacit admission that those facts are true and correct.  Those facts have also been verified under the penalty of perjury, in three (3) affidavits which were signed by me, and then filed and served in the related Federal Court case.


It is also painfully obvious that you are adopting the pretentious and patently erroneous posture that the “IRS determination ... was final and conclusive.” BS! Then your letter goes on to cite the Federal Regulation at 28 CFR 14.2(b)(3) completely out of context.  (You should read the Regulations you cite in your letters, Mr. Auerbach.)

 

The latter Regulation expressly concerns a claim that is presented to more than one agency:

 

(3)  A claimant presenting a claim arising from an incident to more than one agency should identify each agency to which the claim is submitted at the time each claim is presented.  [emphasis added]

 

My Administrative Tort Claim No. 50397 was presented to the Office of General Counsel at the U.S. Marshals Service Headquarters, and not to any other Federal agency(s).  You were the one who incorrectly referred that Tort Claim to the IRS, not I.

 

Any reasonable person reading your ridiculous letter of July 26, 2016, might arrive at the conclusion that “final and conclusive” means and should be interpreted to say that there are no further administrative remedies available to me, at this point in time.  Such a conclusion is flatly wrong again, Mr. Auerbach.

 

Our REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE CLARIFICATION addresses the latter point very directly, as follows:

 

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).  [emphasis in original]

 

You cannot claim ignorance of the latter implementing Regulation, and your failure to acknowledge its clear reference to a written request for reconsideration amounts to fraud, in my professional opinion.  Here confer at “Fraud” in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (failure to disclose what should have been disclosed).

 

I maintain and expressly reserve the administrative right to file a written request for reconsideration, although I have not yet done so.

 

Because your referral to the IRS was another plain error, on the basis of that error I conclude that such a request for reconsideration should be filed with the agency principally responsible for the damages documented in my Tort Claim No. 50397.

 

That agency is the U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Department of Justice.

 

In addition to the Regulation authorizing reconsideration, there are other relevant Federal statutes which provide for additional administrative remedies, none of which you have ever mentioned in any of your correspondence to date.  Please refer now to the relevant Federal statutes at 28 U.S.C. 2672 and 5 U.S.C. 573.


In pertinent parts, those statutes read as follows:

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2672 :

 

Each Federal agency may use arbitration, or other alternative means of dispute resolution under the provisions of subchapter IV of chapter 5 of title 5, to settle any tort claim against the United States, to the extent of the agency’s authority to award, compromise, or settle such claim without the prior written approval of the Attorney General or his or her designee.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/573 :

 

(a)     A neutral may be a permanent or temporary officer or employee of the Federal Government or any other individual who is acceptable to the parties to a dispute resolution proceeding.  A neutral shall have no official, financial, or personal conflict of interest with respect to the issues in controversy, unless such interest is fully disclosed in writing to all parties and all parties agree that the neutral may serve.  [emphases added]

 

It is obvious that neither you, nor any other personnel presently employed by the Office of General Counsel at USMS, can possibly claim to be “neutral” in this matter, chiefly because it was USMS personnel who should have known better than to arrest and incarcerate a qualified Federal Witness under color of a false and fraudulent arrest “warrant”.

 

Respondeat superior, Mr. Auerbach.

 

Then, the real “whopper” (read lie) showed up in your July 26, 2016 letter when you, or your subordinate signing for you, wrote:

 

In the denial letter, you were advised of your administrative and judicial remedies. [sic]

 

Not once have you ever mentioned mediation, arbitration, or any other alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) techniques, which are expressly authorized by the Federal statutes cited and quoted above.

 

Whom do you think you’re kidding, anyway, Mr. Auerbach?  You should already know that I’m not stupid, so kindly cease and desist from patronizing me -- now or ever again!

 

It is also my professional duty to remind you of my proper pending Requests under the Freedom of Information Act for your credentials, and for the following inmate records:

 

all inmate records for the Undersigned with particular relevance to the fifty-five (55) moves inflicted upon him by personnel of the U.S. Marshals Service, and also with particular relevance to written allegations in those inmate records that the Undersigned is or was at any time a “SOVEREIGN CITIZEN LAWYER” [sic] and/or “EXTREMIST MONTANA FREEMAN ASSOCIATE” [sic].


As such, “according to your records” this claim is not closed.  On the contrary, the clock is still ticking because of reasonable deadlines which are expressly imposed upon all Federal agencies by the Freedom of Information Act at 5 U.S.C. 552, and its implementing Regulations.

 

I direct your undivided attention now to the pivotal Federal statute at 5 U.S.C. 5507.  Insofar as you have failed or refused to execute valid APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS, as required by other Federal statutes at 5 U.S.C. 2903, 2906, 3331, 3332 and 3333, all pay which you have received while employed by the United States must be returned to the Treasury of the United States.  See also 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq.

 

Absent that requisite credential, your correspondence to date will constitute material evidence of mail fraud, in violation of the Federal criminal statute at 18 U.S.C. 1341, and probable impersonation in violation of 18 U.S.C. 912.  Both are Federal felonies.

 

Moreover, without that singular credential, you had no authority whatsoever to come within a country mile of my pending Federal Tort Claim;  and, all of your actions, decisions, “consultation with IRS” and related correspondence can and should be treated as evidence of administrative obstruction of justice.

 

It’s a very sad day when lofty “officials” of the U.S. Marshals Service end up gagging on their own medicine.

 

 

DEMAND FOR IMMEDIATE DISQUALIFICATION

 

I hereby demand, Mr. Auerbach, that you honor this Crime Victim’s Rights, as expressly protected by the Federal criminal statute at 18 U.S.C. 3771, by immediately and permanently disqualifying yourself from any further contact or involvement with my pending Federal Tort Claim No. 50397.

 

 

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.

 

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:

 

Trustees, Estate of Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

David L. Harlow, Deputy Director, U.S. Marshals Service

William J. Wilkins as IRS Chief Counsel

Mark S. Kaizen as IRS Associate Chief Counsel

Christopher B. Sterner as IRS Deputy Chief Counsel (Operations)

Erik H. Corwin as IRS Deputy Chief Counsel (Technical)

 

 

Attachments (incorporated by reference):

 

REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE CLARIFICATION (June 27, 2016);

 

FORMAL REBUTTAL AND PROTEST OF REFERRAL TO IRS (June 28, 2016);

 

OBJECTIONS AND DEMAND TO RETURN TORT CLAIM TO USMS (July 26, 2016);  and,

 

Related correspondence

 

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/letter.2016-07-26.2/page01.refused.gif

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/letter.2016-07-26.2/page01.gif

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/letter.2016-07-26.2/page02.refused.gif

 

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/letter.2016-07-08/page01.gif

 

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/letter.2016-06-22/page01.gif

 

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/letter.2016-01-04/page01.gif

 

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/letter.2015-12-21/page01.gif