TO:       Mr. Matthew J. Dykman

      c/o U.S. District Court

          333 Lomas Boulevard N.W.

          Albuquerque 87102

          NEW MEXICO, USA


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

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


DATE:     February 14, 2007 A.D.


SUBJECT:  probable further violations of 28 U.S.C. 1691

          and related federal felonies



Greetings Mr. Dykman:


Attached please find a scanned copy of the alleged “ORDER OF SALE” issued in Civil No. 04-CV-885-BB-WDS and signed on January 19, 2007.


We read the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 1691 to mandate that all such court process must exhibit the seal of the Court and the signature of the Clerk.


Upon investigating the pertinent cases, we confirmed that the word “process” at 28 U.S.C. 1691 means a court order.  See Middleton Paper Co. v. Rock River Paper Co., 19 F. 252 (C.C. W.D. Wisconsin 1884);  Taylor v. U.S., 45 F. 531 (C.C. E.D. Tennessee 1891);  U.S. v. Murphy, 82 F. 893 (DCUS Delaware 1897);  Leas & McVitty v. Merriman, 132 F. 510 (C.C. W.D. Virginia 1904);  U.S. v. Sharrock, 276 F. 30 (DCUS Montana 1921);  In re Simon, 297 F. 942, 34 ALR 1404 (2nd Cir. 1924);  Scanbe Mfg. Co. v. Tryon, 400 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1968);  and Miles v. Gussin, 104 B.R. 553 (Bankruptcy D.C. 1989).


Similarly, on the “ORDER OF SALE” in our folder dated 2007-01-19, please witness the signature by UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Bruce D. Black.  However, we see nothing that even resembles the official seal of the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT or the signature of any Clerk.


We invite you now to do the same analysis of all additional “process” cited in said “ORDER OF SALE”, specifically the “Memorandum Opinion and Order” allegedly entered August 24, 2006 (see Page 1) and the “Memorandum Opinion and Order” allegedly entered December 29, 2005 (see Page 7 at paragraph 8.c.)  The pattern established by the above facts should be plainly obvious to someone, like you, who claims special knowledge and expertise in federal laws.


We will require your written reply within ten (10) business days of this FIRST SUPPLEMENT, because time is now of the essence.  Your written reply must adequately explain the deficiencies evident on the document attached hereto, and on the 2 documents it cites supra.


The additional evidence which my office has already assembled, chiefly in replies from the U.S. Department of Justice to our proper FOIA Requests, now indicates that you are already liable to the named Defendants for one or more violations of 42 U.S.C. 1986 (neglect to prevent and/or refusal to prevent).


Your silence to date in the face of Ms. M. Christina Armijo’s missing credentials now implicates you in a neglect to prevent the multiple federal felonies that necessarily result from impersonating an Officer of the United States.  See 18 U.S.C. 912, 1001, 1341, and 1961 et seq.


If you do not provide satisfactory explanations for the seals of the court and the signatures of clerks that are missing from each attached “process”, we will infer from your omissions that you are now liable to the same named Defendants also for refusal to prevent multiple violations of the same federal criminal statutes itemized above.


In your reply, please also provide a true and correct photocopy of the APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVIT required of Messrs. Matthew J. Dykman dba Clerk of Court and W. Daniel Schneider dba UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.


Last but not least, we think it appropriate, at this juncture, that you promptly disclose a true and correct copy of the official seal of the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.  If, in your opinion, the clerk’s conforming stamp qualifies as that “official seal,” then please make that opinion of yours unequivocally clear in your written reply.


Thank you for your prompt professional consideration.  In such a situation as this, silence will activate estoppel.  Carmine v. Bowen.  And, silence can be equated with fraud by you because you have a legal and moral duty to answer, and you will be intentionally misleading this investigation if our inquiries above are left unanswered by you.  U.S. v. Tweel.



Sincerely yours,


/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell


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

Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and

Federal Witness:  18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)


All Rights Reserved without Prejudice