Time: Sun Nov 16 07:43:23 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA23351; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 07:40:27 -0700 (MST) by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA24124; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 07:39:24 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 07:39:46 -0800 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in toolbar] (by way of Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]) Subject: SLS: administrative Notice and Demand for oath(s) of office [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] c/o Rural Route 1, Box 140 Battle Lake [zip code exempt] MINNESOTA STATE NOTICE AND DEMAND TO: Disclosure Officer Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building One Columbus Circle, N.E. Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO: Clerk of Court United States District Court [sic] 110 South Fourth Street Minneapolis [zip code exempt] MINNESOTA STATE Dear Federal Officers: This is My formal Notice and Demand that you produce the certified documents requested in the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") requests and appeals which I have previously submitted to you, copies of which are attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein. I am requiring the production of these documents no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, April 4, 1997 (date highlighted to render it conspicuous). I submit to you that the blanket FOIA exemption for the federal judiciary is overly broad and therefore unconstitutional for exhibiting an obvious conflict with the Oath of Office provision in the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended ("U.S. Constitution"). See Article VI, Clause 3. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution would never have required the oath of office for all federal and state employees, and then allowed said oaths to be kept "secret" under some frivolous claim to privacy. Although I can see many cases in which federal employees are rightfully covered by provisions of the Privacy Act, their oath of office should not be exempt. Accordingly, I hereby challenge the constitutionality of the blanket FOIA exemption for the federal judiciary. I will stipulate here that copies of their individual signatures can and should be redacted, to protect them from the possibility of forgeries, based on their actual blue-ink signatures. For your information, numerous Appointment Affidavits have already been released by agencies of the federal government, with signatures redacted. Nevertheless, I still require certified copies of the redacted oaths of office, in order to establish, as a matter of fact, that the persons in question do hold lawful title to the offices which they now claim to occupy. Please be advised also that I have requested other documents, in addition to credentials. Thank you very much for your consideration. Executed on: _________________________________ Respectfully submitted, /s/ Everett C. Gilbertson ______________________________________________ Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris Citizen of Minnesota state (expressly not a citizen of the United States) All Rights Reserved without Prejudice attachments: FOIA requests and appeals previously submitted # # # =========================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01 B.A.: Political Science, UCLA; M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02 tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03 email: [address in toolbar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04 website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05 ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best 06 Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone 07 Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this 08 _____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09 As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall 10 not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11 ======================================================================== 12 [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 10, non-proportional spacing.] 13
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail