Request for Immediate Clarification

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 felonymisconduct 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 numbere.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 feloniese.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

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: