c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776
Tucson [zip code exempt]
ARIZONA STATE
December 26, 1996
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST
Disclosure Officer
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building
One Columbus Circle, N.E.
Washington, D.C.
Dear Disclosure Officer:
This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.
552 et seq., and regulations thereunder. This is My firm promise
to pay fees and costs for locating, duplicating, and mailing to
Me certified copies of the records requested below.
If some of this request is exempt from release, please furnish Me
with those portions reasonably segregable. I am requiring
certified copies of the documents requested, in lieu of personal
inspection of same.
Documents requested:
1. Certified copy of the solemn oath of office of John
Devine (currently employed by the U.S. District Court
in Tucson, Arizona state) as required by Article VI,
Clause 3, of the Constitution for the United States of
America, as lawfully amended, and by 28 U.S.C. 951.
2. Certified copy of his fidelity or surety bond.
3. Certified copy of his Appointment Affidavit, signed and
witnessed, for the position he currently claims to
occupy. (This is an OMB-approved form.)
4. Certified copy of his formal delegation of authority,
beginning with the President and linking all officials
in the chain of command between the President and the
position he currently claims to occupy.
5. Certified copy of his license to practice law in the
State of Arizona, if any.
The requested records are not exempt from disclosure because
they:
(A) could not reasonably be expected to interfere with law
enforcement proceedings;
(B) would not deprive a person of a right to a fair trial
or an impartial adjudication;
(C) could not reasonably be expected to constitute an
unwarranted invasion of personal property;
(D) could not reasonably be expected to disclose the
identity of a confidential source;
(E) would not disclose techniques and procedures for law
enforcement investigations or prosecutions, and would
not disclose guidelines for law enforcement
investigations or prosecutions;
(F) could not reasonably be expected to endanger the life
or physical safety of any individual.
[see Exemption 7 in FOIA]
Moreover, the blanket FOIA exemption for the federal judiciary is
unconstitutional for being overly broad, in violation of the
First Amendment; Article VI, Clause 3; and the original
Thirteenth Amendment, because the latter amendment bars federal
officers and employees from exercising any titles or privileges
which are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. See
U.S. v. Lopez, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995).
Under the common law, and under commercial law, we are all equal
before the law. This maxim is fundamental.
If you are not the correct person to whom this Freedom of
Information Act Request should be directed, kindly forward it to
the correct person.
Time is of the essence. If you have any questions about your
rights and obligations under 5 U.S.C. 552, may we recommend that
you contact the office of the Attorney General in Washington,
D.C., for immediate assistance.
Thank you very much for your consideration, and for your timely
obedience to the controlling laws in this matter, specifically
the Freedom of Information Act and the Constitution for the
United States of America, as lawfully amended.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness,
and Counselor at Law
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
email: supremelawfirm@altavista.net
website: http://supremelaw.com
copy: John Devine
Clerk's Office
United States District Court
44 East Congress, 2nd Floor
Tucson, Arizona state
# # #
Return to Table of Contents for
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena