Acting
U.S. Attorney General in Fact Declares
FOIA
Exemption for the Judiciary Unconstitutional
by
Paul Andrew
Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney
General and
Acting U.S.
Attorney General in Fact
FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 17, 2013 A.D.
When Congress
enacted the FOIA, it attempted to prevent its use to compel disclosure of
documents in the control of the Congress, the federal courts, governments of
federal territories and possessions, the government of D.C., courts martial and
military commissions, and a few other logical exemptions. See 5 U.S.C. 551.
Sadly, the “blanket”
exemption for the entire federal judiciary has resulted in creating a loophole
for federal court personnel which clearly violates the Oath of Office Clause in
the U.S. Constitution.
Whenever American
Citizens have attempted to submit FOIA Requests to federal courts for the
APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 of judges, magistrates, clerks
and deputy clerks, the latter personnel have been very quick to cite 5 U.S.C.
551(1)(B) as their justification for refusing to comply.
Submission of
requests for that required credential to personnel employed by the Offices of
Clerk of Court has been entirely correct, due to the Act of Congress at 5
U.S.C. 2906.
That statute
designates the “court” as the legal custodian of all Office of Personnel
Management Standard Form 61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS for all personnel employed
by that court. As such, clerks and
deputy clerks of court must have legal custody of their own OPM SF-61
APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS too!
The implications of
missing SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS for personnel claiming to be clerks and
deputy clerks are very far-reaching, because of another federal statute at 28
U.S.C. 1691.
That statute
requires all federal court “process” to exhibit the court’s official seal and
a clerk’s authorized signature. If there
are no clerks who can produce evidence of their APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS, of
which they are the designated legal custodians, that fact by itself necessarily
renders the entire court totally impotent because it cannot issue any “process”
that satisfies section 1691.
Moreover, Congress
effectively created a “Right to Inspect” all such APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS when
it first enacted the Paperwork Reduction Act.
That PRA requires a valid OMB control number to be properly displayed at
the upper right-hand corner on Page 1 of all such “Information Collection
Requests” (abbreviated “ICR”).
If there is no OMB
control number displayed there, it was the intent of Congress that private
Citizens help enforce the PRA by treating such defective forms as “bootleg
requests” and by throwing them into the nearest trash can.
In other words,
such bootleg ICRs are counterfeit credentials.
On a more
fundamental level, the requirement for APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS imposed by 5
U.S.C. 3331 is a clear federal law which implements the Oath of Office Clause
at Article VI, Section 3 in the Constitution for the
As the U.S. Supreme
Court sagely ruled in Miranda v. Arizona:
Where
rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or
legislation which would abrogate them.
[underlined emphasis added]
Clearly, the Oath
of Office Clause elevates all APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS to the level of a
fundamental Right of all Americans by reason of the Supremacy Clause in that
Constitution: in chief, the
Constitution, Laws and Treaties of the United States federal government are all
to be respected, and enforced, as the supreme Law of the Land throughout
America.
Further reading and
justification for this declaration by the Acting U.S. Attorney General in Fact
can be found at the following Internet location:
http://supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/opening.htm#topic-d
A more recent
pleading authored by Paul Andrew Mitchell, in his capacity as a Private
Attorney General legally representing the
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/
All personnel employed by any and all Federal courts are now
required to respond properly to FOIA Requests for the APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS of
which those courts are the legal custodians, designated as such by 5 U.S.C.
2906.
For further
information on this matter, contact the Supreme
Law Firm at email address:
# # #