Time: Sun Nov 24 05:11:05 1996 To: gdoty@earthlink.net (Greg Doty) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: OMB number for Appointment Affidavit Cc: Bcc: No, OMB is federal (Office of Management and Budget). See the Paperwork Reduction Act for details about OMB control numbers -- they must exhibit a number with a valid expiration date (date cannot be past). /s/ Paul Mitchell At 10:47 PM 11/23/96 -0800, you wrote: >Paul, > >Thanks. > >Just out of curiosity, is this form also used for state officials who are >required to take an oath of office (judges in particular, possibly bar >attorneys) to uphold the constitutions of the United States and of their >particular state? > >Greg > > >>[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] >> >>MEMO >> >>TO: J. Kevin O'Brien, Chief >> Freedom of Information-Privacy Act Section >> Information Resources Division >> Federal Bureau of Investigation >> U.S. Department of Justice >> >>FROM: Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. >> Counselor at Law >> >>DATE: August 24, 1996 >> >>SUBJECT: Kubic, Thomas J., et al. >> FOIAPA No. 411592 >> >> >>I have received but not accepted your letter date-stamped August >>19, 1996. This is to inform you that I have refused said letter >>for fraud. >> >>The requisite credentials of all 633 federal agents who rotated >>in and out of the standoff with the Montana Freemen in Garfield >>county, Montana state, are a matter of public record. >> >>Specifically, their Appointment Affidavits are OMB-approved >>forms. For example, see OMB Approval No. 50-R0118, U.S. >>Government Printing Office: 1985-461-275/20152, Standard Form 61, >>Revised September 1970, U.S. Civil Service Commission, F.P.M. >>Chapter 295, 61-107. See Paperwork Reduction Act. >> >>We have sent numerous FOIA requests to the executive branch of >>the federal government, and we have received many Appointment >>Affidavits in response to said requests. Please take note of the >>fact that said Affidavits exhibit the oath of office required by >>Article VI, Clause 3, and 5 U.S.C. 3331. >> >>If any of the 633 alleged federal agents whose credentials are >>sought should feel it necessary to redact their signatures lines >>from said Appointment Affidavits, I will not object. I think it >>only proper that their signatures be protected against forgeries, >>don't you agree? We wouldn't want them to be the victims of any >>crimes. >> >>Sincerely yours, >> >>/s/ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. >> >>Counselor at Law >>c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 >>Tucson, Arizona state >>email: pmitch@primenet.com >> >>copy: Attorney General >> Department of Justice >> >> >> >>At 11:26 AM 11/23/96 -0800, you wrote: >>>Paul, >>> >>>You wouldn't happen to know (without looking) the OMB form number of the >>>Appointment Affidavit for the IRS agents to sign. >>> >>>Greg >>> >>> >>>>It is a contract, because state >>>>and federal officials take an >>>>oath to support it, an obligation >>>>which they are presumed to shoulder >>>>knowingly, intentionally, and >>>>voluntarily. Furthermore, the >>>>beneficiaries are listed in the >>>>Preamble: they are the People >>>>and their Posterity. The oaths >>>>of office must be signed and >>>>recorded. See, for example, the >>>>pertinent forms within the House >>>>of Representatives pay office, to wit: >>>>"if you don't sign this form, you >>>>will not get paid." Pretty clear >>>>to me, particularly when 5 USC 3331 >>>>is an act of Congress requiring these >>>>oaths of office as a condition of >>>>federal employment. Even IRS agents >>>>are required to take the oath, on >>>>their Appointment Affidavits, an >>>>OMB-approved form. >>>> >>>>/s/ Paul Mitchell >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>In reality it served at one time as an agreement to provide a coherent >>>>>money system between the several states, and was a nice agreement for the >>>>>cooperation and common defense for the states, but to assume that it >>>>>should have any realistic authority over me, my family, progeny, or even >>>>>my ancestors is absurd. And given the allowance of tender laws, the >>>>>document is more an instrument of tyranny than personal salvation. And >>>>>furthermore, just try to bring it up when you're being charged with >>>>>something in court and see how long the judge will listen to you without >>>>>convicting you of contempt. >>>>> >>>>>The Constitution is simply more statuory black letter maxim and irrelevant >>>>>in pure common law terms. Proof of this is that it forbids us to question >>>>>the validity of the public debt (Section 4, 14th AMendment), but we do >>>>>anyway, don't we? And why? Because we have individual consciences, because >>>>>we are sentient, questioning beings. Neither does it allow us to question >>>>>legislators for things they said on the floor of the House, but we do >>>>>anyway, don't we? A few words on paper prohibiting an inquisition of those >>>>>who purport to rule us aren't enough to quell an entire dynamic, are they? >>>>>Nor are they enough to secure our rights, either, are they? >>>>> >>>>>So if it is justice we are looking for, the Constitution's ashes would be >>>>>more welcome I think than its promotion for general reading. What we >>>>>really need is the ability to seek and find the principles of law as they >>>>>apply to each indvidual case. I would rather see people sitting on common >>>>>law juries than reading the Constitution. If you're going to read about >>>>>the real law, read Lysander Spooner, or Roscoe Pound, or John Marshall. Or >>>>>Alexis de Tocqueville. That's where you'll find justice, not in the >>>>>Constitution. >>>>> >>>>>We need common law indictments judged by common law juries, picked from >>>>>the country, at random, by lot. We need to put someone like Lon Horiuchi >>>>>on trial for murder in a common law court, or we need to indict Congress >>>>>for fraud in creating the Federal Reserve System, or examine Thomas >>>>>Paine's call for the death penalty for legislators who pass tender laws, >>>>>and do it by rules of the common law, just like the Constitution suggests. >>>>> >>>>>-jac >>>>> >>>>>On Sat, 23 Nov 1996 PATRIOTZ@aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In accessing the competentcy of those who claim to be >>>>>> learned in the law (lawyers and judges), the following facts >>>>>> speak for themselves. >>>>>> >>>>>> * * * * * * * * * * * * * >>>>>> >>>>>> In October, 1924, [over 70 years ago] Dr. John J. Tigert, >>>>>> United States Commissioner of Education, made the challenging >>>>>> statement: >>>>>> >>>>>> "I do not believe there are more than a very limited >>>>>> number of persons, perhaps a hundred who really know >>>>>> what is in the Constitution of the United States." >>>>>> >>>>>> The report of the Committee on American Citizenship, presented >>>>>> at the meeting of the American Bar Association, Denver, Colorado, >>>>>> July 14-16, 1926, contained the following remarkable confession: >>>>>> >>>>>> "Lawyers are being graduated from our law schools by the >>>>>> thousands who have little knowledge of the Constitution. >>>>>> When organizations seek a lawyer to instruct them on the >>>>>> Constitution, they find it nearly impossible to secure one >>>>>> competent." >>>>>> Publishers forward, The Constitution Explained, Harry Atwood, >>>>>> 1927, presently produced by W.I.R., Carson City, Nevada. >>>>>> >>>>>> If constitutional illiteracy was the case in the first three, how >much >>>>>> more despairing America is in the last decade of the twentieth >>>>>> century. It is a general condition for the nation at large, and >>in the >>>>>> midst of the ignorance, the nations fundamental law has been >spoiled. >>>>>> The People lament this historic malady: >>>>>> (from the Oklahoma Writ of >Mandamus): >>>>>> >>>>>> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * >>>>>> Question: If you want a lawyer who will help you defend your rights, >>>>>> Where are you going to find one??? >>>>>> >>>>>> Patriotz@aol.com (Ted Pedemonti) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>-jac >>>>> >>>>>jh@teleport.com >>>>> >>>>> HOW TO JOIN HAMMERNET >>>>> >>>>> Receive the most interesting e-mail and get to know the best writers on >>>>>the Internet. Saints and flamers, they're on the Hammernet! Hammernet >>>>>strives to address the most important issues of the day and provide a >>>>>forum for discussion. >>>>> >>>>> Here's how to join. >>>>> >>>>>Send an e mail message to: >>>>> >>>>> majordomo@teleport.com >>>>> >>>>>with the following in the text area of your message: >>>>> >>>>> subscribe hammernet-l >>>>> >>>>>and/or, for the digest version: >>>>> >>>>> subscribe hammernet-l-digest. >>>>> >>>>> It's as easy as that! (-l is a lower case L) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ><###'> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>=========================================================== >>>>Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com >>>>ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state >>>>=========================================================== >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>=========================================================== >>Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com >>ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state >>=========================================================== >> >> >> > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail