FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL

 

October 11, 2016 A.D.

FOIA/PA Officer

Office of General Counsel

U.S. Marshals Service

FOI/PA, CS-4, 10th Floor

Washington 20530

District of Columbia, USA

 

Subject:  probable bad faith and fraud (i.e. failure to disclose)

 

Greetings Disclosure Officer:

 

This is a proper and lawful Appeal under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).

 

I recently requested true and correct copies of valid U.S. Office of Personnel Management Standard Form 61 (“SF-61”) APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS for several personnel reportedly employed by the U.S. Marshals Service.

 

I also served those same personnel with a RESERVATION OF RIGHT TO INSPECT their SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS.

 

To date, I have not received a complete reply to those FOIA requests.

 

The documents that were disclosed to me completely obscured the signatures of the individuals who administered those SF-61s.

 

See annotated copies attached.

 

And, no SF-61s were disclosed at all for two other USMS personnel.

 

At least thirty (30) working days have now transpired since the dates of my original requests.

 

I hereby appeal your failure to reply with legible copies of all requested documents, in particular your failure fully to identify and not obscure the signatures of individuals who allegedly administered said SF-61s, as required by the Federal statute at 5 U.S.C. 2903 (Authority to administer).  I specifically deny that the “Titles” of said individuals had authority to administer the attached SF-61s.

 

Thank you for your consideration of this FOIA appeal.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

 

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

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

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 without Prejudice (cf. UCC 1-308)

 

 

Attachments:

 

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/auerbach/letter.2016-09-26/page01.gif
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/auerbach/letter.2016-09-26/page02.gif

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/auerbach/affidavit.refused.gif
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/auerbach/reservation.of.right.to.inspect.pdf

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/usms/ethics.team/boehm/affidavit.refused.gif
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/usms/ethics.team/boehm/reservation.of.right.to.inspect.pdf

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/usms/ethics.team/bordley/affidavit.refused.gif
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/usms/ethics.team/bordley/reservation.of.right.to.inspect.pdf

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/usms/ethics.team/bryan/affidavit.refused.gif
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/usms/ethics.team/bryan/reservation.of.right.to.inspect.pdf

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/usms/ethics.team/chan/affidavit.refused.gif
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/usms/ethics.team/chan/reservation.of.right.to.inspect.pdf

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/usms/ethics.team/choi/affidavit.refused.gif
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/usms/ethics.team/choi/reservation.of.right.to.inspect.pdf

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/usms/ethics.team/day/affidavit.refused.gif
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/usms/ethics.team/day/reservation.of.right.to.inspect.pdf

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/usms/ethics.team/dickinson/foia.request.dickinson.verified.htm
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/usms/ethics.team/dickinson/nad.affidavit.htm
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/usms/ethics.team/dickinson/reservation.of.right.to.inspect.pdf

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/usms/ethics.team/forder/affidavit.refused.gif
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/usms/ethics.team/forder/reservation.of.right.to.inspect.pdf

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/harlow/foia.request.harlow.verified.htm
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/harlow/nad.affidavit.htm
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/harlow/reservation.of.right.to.inspect.pdf

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/usms/ethics.team/kim/affidavit.refused.gif
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/usms/ethics.team/kim/reservation.of.right.to.inspect.pdf

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/usms/ethics.team/marcovici/affidavit.refused.gif
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/usms/ethics.team/marcovici/reservation.of.right.to.inspect.pdf

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/usms/ethics.team/radcliffe/affidavit.refused.gif
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/tort.claim/usms/ethics.team/radcliffe/reservation.of.right.to.inspect.pdf