Larry Stephen Felt, Sui Juris

Citizen of Utah State

(expressly not a “citizen of the United States”)

c/o 2066 Woodberry Drive

Lehi 84043

UTAH, USA

Without Prejudice

United States District Court

Judicial District of Utah

Central Division

IN RE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS ) No. 2-11MC011

)

---------------------------------) [ SEALED ]

)

United States ) MOTION BY WITNESS FELT

ex relatione ) REQUESTING CLARIFICATION:

Paul Andrew Mitchell, )

) 5 U.S.C. 2903, 2906, 3331;

Interpleader. ) 28 U.S.C. 951, 1654, 1691, 1746;

_________________________________) 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 3512(b).

COMES NOW Larry Stephen Felt, Sui Juris, Citizen of Utah, expressly not a “citizen of the United States” (federal citizen), hereinafter “Felt” under protest and by special appearance to move this honorable Court for written clarification of certain questions that have arisen to date in the instant case, and to provide formal Notice of same to all interested individuals.

After attending a hearing in this Court before Mr. Ted Stewart on February 2, 2011 A.D., Felt is understandably confused by certain obvious omissions, unverified statements and unsupported allegations that were made by personnel currently employed by the Office of the U.S. Attorney in Salt Lake City. See PROOF OF SERVICE infra.

It is Felt’s clear understanding that the Oath of Office Clause at Article VI, Section 3 in the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended (“U.S. Constitution”), renders that requirement a fundamental Right of all Americans, also including Felt.

It is also Felt’s clear understanding that the Federal statutes at 5 U.S.C. 2906, 3331 and 28 U.S.C. 951 not only implement said Clause, but they are also elevated to the status of supreme Law of the Land by the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution: Article VI, Section 2.

Likewise, the other Federal statutes cited supra -- 5 U.S.C. 2903 and 28 U.S.C. 1654, 1691 and 1746 -- are also rendered supreme Law of the Land by the very same Supremacy Clause.

Section 1691 is particularly clear and terse, by requiring that all “process” issued by any Federal court must exhibit an authorized signature by a Clerk of Court and the official seal of the same Court.

Felt attaches, and hereby incorporates by reference, a list of citations and quotations from relevant Federal court decisions which have uniformly upheld, and clarified, these two (2) clear requirements imposed upon all Federal court “process”. Cf. “stare decisis”.

In particular, this honorable Court will kindly take notice of the decisions which have specifically mentioned “subpoenas” and in personam jurisdiction in this context: to be lawful in the first instance, a SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY BEFORE A GRAND JURY must comply with section 1691. Similarly, all Court “orders” must also comply with section 1691.

The requirements imposed by section 1691 also go to jurisdiction. A Federal court lacks jurisdiction in personam insofar as any “process” it may attempt to issue does lack an official seal of that court and/or an authorized signature by a clerk of court or deputy clerk of court.

The stated requirement that all process be “signed by the clerk” necessarily implicates the Oath of Office Clause in the U.S. Constitution and the Federal statutes which have implemented that Clause. Perhaps it goes without saying that Federal court employees cannot claim to occupy the offices of “Clerk” or “Deputy Clerk”, nor can they exercise any of the authorities conferred upon those offices, until and unless they have satisfied the requirements imposed by the Federal statutes at 5 U.S.C. 2903, 2906, 3331 and 28 U.S.C. 951.

In this context, the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) Standard Form 61 (“SF-61”) APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS imposed by section 3331 are particularly important for several reasons:

(1) if any given SF-61 should fail to display a valid OMB control number in the upper right-hand corner, the Paperwork Reduction Act authorizes private Citizens to treat such a form as a “bootleg information collection request” (“ICR”), and to throw it into the nearest trash can: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.; and,

(2) the versions of SF-61 which have been duly approved by OMB also display a short paragraph near the bottom edge, which explains the requirements imposed by 5 U.S.C. 2903, namely, that SF-61 must be administered by a person duly authorized to perform such a duty; if any given SF-61 is administered by any person who also happens to have missing or defective credentials, then section 2903 has been violated and the SF-61 is thereby rendered fatally defective.

Similarly, the separate OATH OF OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES JUDGES, and separate OATH OF OFFICE required of all clerks and deputy clerks of court, must also be administered in full compliance with section 2903. See 28 U.S.C. 453, 631(g) and 951 here.

Felt has made diligent and good faith efforts to obtain true and correct copies of the APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS required of three (3) personnel currently employed by this Court, namely: Mr. D. Mark Jones, Ms. Teri Sparrow and Ms. Louise S. York. In a separate NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (“NAD”), Felt lawfully demanded full disclosure by each of said personnel of the APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS and OATHS OF OFFICE required of them by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and 28 U.S.C. 951. Such NADs were necessitated by 5 U.S.C. 551(1)(B), which expressly exempts the entire Judicial Branch from the Freedom of Information Act.

The Federal statute at 5 U.S.C. 2906 is particularly important in this context, because it expressly designates the “court” as the legal custodian of all APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS required of all personnel currently employed by this Court. For better or for worse, this means that the “clerks” are the designated legal custodians not only of their own credentials, but also of the credentials of all other personnel employed by this Court, no exceptions.

Now, Felt is informed on reliable authority that personnel employed by the Office of Clerk, in several Federal courts throughout the USA, have made a habit of referring routine credential inquiries to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts in Washington, D.C. (“A.O.”). For the record, Felt emphatically objects to such referral(s), chiefly because there is no known Federal constitutional, statutory or regulatory authority expressly designating that A.O. as the legal custodian of any such credentials. Clearly, 5 U.S.C. 2906 does NOT designate the A.O. as the legal custodian of any SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS either. Cf. “inclusio unius est exclusio alterius” in Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition (whatever was omitted or excluded must be inferred as an intentional Act of Congress).

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

All premises having been duly considered, Larry Stephen Felt hereby requests timely written clarification from this honorable Court, and from the Office of the U.S. Attorney, of the following questions:

(1) Does 5 U.S.C. 3331 require all clerks and deputy clerks to execute valid SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS?

(2) Does 5 U.S.C. 2903 require all such APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS to be administered by an authorized individual?

(3) Does 5 U.S.C. 3331 require all such administering individuals to execute valid SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS also?

(4) Does 5 U.S.C. 2906 designate the Office of Clerk of Court as the legal custodian of all SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS executed by all personnel employed by this Court?

(5) Does 28 U.S.C. 951 require all clerks and deputy clerks to execute a separate OATH OF OFFICE in addition to SF-61?

(6) Does 28 U.S.C. 453 require all district judges presently seated on this Court to execute a separate OATH OF OFFICE?

(7) Does 28 U.S.C. 631(g) require all magistrate judges presently seated on this Court to execute a separate OATH OF OFFICE?

(8) Does 5 U.S.C. 3331 require all judges and magistrates presently seated on this Court to execute separate SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS in addition to an OATH OF OFFICE?

(9) Does the Paperwork Reduction Act require all OPM SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS to display a valid OMB control number in the upper right-hand corner on page one?

(10) What authority(s), if any, designate the A.O. as the legal custodian of any credentials discussed above?

Thank you very much for your continuing professional consideration.

VERIFICATION

I, Larry Stephen Felt, Sui Juris, hereby verify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (Federal Government), that the above statement of facts and laws is true and correct, according to the best of My current information, knowledge, and belief, so help me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1). See Supremacy Clause (Constitution, Laws and Treaties are all the supreme Law of the Land).

Dated: February ___, 2011 A.D.

Signed: /s/ Larry Stephen Felt

______________________________________________________________

Printed: Larry Stephen Felt, Sui Juris, Citizen of Utah State

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Larry Stephen Felt, Sui Juris, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (Federal Government), that I am at least 18 years of age, a Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America, and that I personally served the following document(s):

MOTION BY WITNESS FELT

REQUESTING CLARIFICATION:

5 U.S.C. 2903, 2906, 3331;

28 U.S.C. 951, 1654, 1691, 1746;

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 3512(b)

by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United States Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed to the following:

Hon. Ted Stewart (under seal) (3x)

United States District Court

350 South Main Street

Salt Lake City 84101

UTAH, USA

Office of the U.S. Attorney

Attention: Carlie Christensen

185 South State Street, Ste. 300

Salt Lake City 84111

UTAH, USA

Confidential Courtesy Copies:

Foreperson, Federal Grand Jury United States Marshals

Frank E. Moss Federal Courthouse Attn: Federal Witness Security

350 South Main Street, Room 311 350 South Main Street

Salt Lake City 84101 Salt Lake City 84101

UTAH, USA UTAH, USA

Dated: February ___, 2011 A.D.

Signed: /s/ Larry Stephen Felt

______________________________________________________________

Printed: Larry Stephen Felt, Sui Juris