Time: Thu Aug 07 09:13:58 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA10293;
Thu, 7 Aug 1997 09:12:10 -0700 (MST)
by usr10.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA08350;
Thu, 7 Aug 1997 09:05:32 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 1997 09:04:30 -0700
To: sew@valint.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Where are Janet Reno's credentials? (fwd)
References: <3.0.3.16.19970806192933.37bf4af2@pop.primenet.com>
<3.0.3.16.19970806164555.405f0e7e@pop.primenet.com>
<3.0.3.16.19970806141429.30a7ac16@pop.primenet.com>
<3.0.3.16.19970805191502.3f9fcf32@pop.primenet.com>
<33D90868.4015D3E0@prodigy.net>
<33D90868.4015D3E0@prodigy.net>
<3.0.3.16.19970805191502.3f9fcf32@pop.primenet.com>
<3.0.3.16.19970806141429.30a7ac16@pop.primenet.com>
<3.0.3.16.19970806164555.405f0e7e@pop.primenet.com>
<3.0.3.16.19970806192933.37bf4af2@pop.primenet.com>
Steve,
What is your interest in this matter?
I don't want to argue with you, because
it does not appear to be going anywhere.
Are you a government agent of some kind?
If you must continue to disagree with me,
why don't you go and do it yourself, and
see what results you get? Really! I know
what I am doing here, and I have the
research to prove it. Uncertified documents
are not admissible; this much is beyond
dispute. If the government refuses to
certify their photocopies, then they have
failed to obey the Freedom of Information
Act. An uncertified photocopy could easily
be an altered phony.
You seem to have missed the all-important
difference between an original document,
and a photocopy of same. A copy is NOT
the original. Read the act!
Thanks, but no thanks. Janet Reno is
implicated in premeditated murder of
several innocent children at Waco,
by her own admission. Perhaps you will
opt to defend her?
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
copy: Supreme Law School
At 11:00 PM 8/6/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Wed, 06 Aug 1997 19:29:33 -0700
>Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] wrote:
>
>>At 05:45 PM 8/6/97 -0700, you wrote:
>>>I understand the evidence problem.
>
>Did you miss this?
>
>>>My question revolves around your method for procuring the
>>>evidence, which has not borne fruit.
>>
>>Who told you that?
>
>You did, as below.
>
>>Are you trying to defend
>>Janet Reno here? Your statement is false.
>>
>>On the contrary, I have Appointment Affidavits
>>for about half the FOIA requests I have
>>submitted; only problem is, not one is
>>certified.
>
>Big problem, which is why I say your requests have not borne
>fruit; you did not get the certified documents you requested.
>
>So, I certainly cannot enter
>>these into evidence, because I cannot
>>certify them as true and correct, not on
>>my word, or under my own penalties of perjury.
>>Perjury is a serious matter; I certainly don't
>>take it lightly.
>>
>>If I don't require certified copies from the
>>Disclosure Officers, then I cannot certify what
>>I get from them, and the uncertified documents
>>are not admissible. This issue came up in
>>Bill Benson's federal cases, in which he attempted
>>to enter into evidence the huge mass of evidence
>>he had assembled against the 16th amendment;
>>ruling: not admissible, because the evidence was not
>>certified. End of story.
>>
>>I encourage you to donate $25 to obtain
>>a copyrighted copy of Gilbertson's OPENING
>>BRIEF, in which we have developed this
>>approach in detail.
>>
>>Reno failed to answer Gilbertson's FOIA request
>>for her credentials, and a timely appeal for
>>same. As far as his case is concerned, Reno was
>>not Attorney General, and we have the case law
>>to prove it. Failure to qualify by taking
>>the oath is grounds for ouster by Quo Warranto.
>>Moreover, there were no delegated officers to
>>authorize proceeding against him, as required by
>>IRC 7401. The case law on this point is crystal
>>clear.
>>
>>That's the law; I didn't make it.
>>
>>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>http://www.supremelaw.com
>>
>>
>>>
>>>A first amendment petition is one thing; a request under FOIA is
>>>another. The FOIA request is limited by the letter of the law
>>>and the intent of Congress.
>>
>>The intent of Congress is that, if the
>>document exists, Citizens have a right
>>to see the document. When the document
>>is required by the Constitution, all the
>>more so must Citizens have a method to
>>compel production of documents which
>>establish authority, one way or the
>>other.
>
>Thank you. This speaks to the issue I am attempting to
>understand. I am questioning whether the proper method is one
>way or another.
>
>When a document is required by the Constitution, there should be
>a method of producing it which pre-exists FOIA.
>
>>Your logic here is too terribly confining,
>>and the alternative is untenable, particularly
>>when the oath of office is required by
>>a constitutional provision. Not one government
>>employee has used your reasoning as a defense
>>for failing to produce the oath.
>
>Do they readily provide cerified copies of other kinds of
>documents in response to FOIA requests?
>
>> Privacy has
>>been cited, but we have defeated that defense,
>>via the Oath of Office provision.
>>
>>Constitutional matters are never frivolous or
>>trivial, and the Supremacy Clause governs
>>conflicts that may arise with statutes.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>I'm certainly not as versed as you on FOIA, but I don't see
>>>Congressional intent to require the production of certified
>>>documents.
>>
>>
>>This is a fundamental rule of evidence.
>>
>>Either you get to see the original document,
>>or you request certified copy(s) in lieu of same.
>>
>>If the document(s) you request are
>>not certified, then you are not seeing
>>the documents -- just cheap imitations.
>
>Thank you. I believe this does help somewhat to clarify the
>intent of Congress, as Congress has provided in the FOIA that
>records are to be available for viewing or inspection.
>
>I was simply trying to understand this one aspect of FOIA,
>whether the Act itself requires the certification of documents,
>not answers to unasked questions about the rules of evidence.
>
>Usually, I can get get answers to simple questions by asking
>someone who knows.
>
>No doubt I need to study this FOIA issue out for myself.
>
>Thanks for your time.
>
>Steve Washam
>
>>I don't know how to make this any
>>clearer. I think you need to bone
>>up on the rules of evidence, otherwise,
>>you may as well forget about admitting
>>the requested documents into evidence,
>>where they really matter, where they
>>really belong. Uncertified documents can
>>removed via a proper MOTION TO STRIKE,
>>and this MOTION should be granted if the
>>documents are not certified.
>>
>>They can sit in your desk drawer,
>>where they will do nobody any good.
>>
>>If this is not enough for you to work with,
>>I am afraid I have other things to do.
>>
>>Take your arguments into court, and see how
>>you fare, if you are that confident of your
>>position. I have, several times! :)
>>
>>
>>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>http://www.supremelaw.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>========================================================================
>>Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
>>B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
>>
>>tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
>>email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
>>website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
>>ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
>> Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
>> Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
>>
>>As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
>>not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
>>========================================================================
>>[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
>
>
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail