FORMAL NOTICE AND DEMAND


TO:       Wally Edgell, Ph.D.
          United States District Court
          P.O. Box 471
          Wheeling, West Virginia state
          Postal Zone 26003/tdc

FROM:     Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
          Counselor at Law

DATE:     December 21, 1996

SUBJECT:  FOIA Request for Your Credentials


                          FORMAL NOTICE

Thank you for your letter dated December 17, 1996, concerning Our
FOIA request  for your  credentials, and  those of  two  of  your
employees.

The  blanket   FOIA  exemption   for  the  federal  judiciary  is
unconstitutional for  being overly  broad, in  violation  of  the
First Amendment,  the original  Thirteenth Amendment, and Article
VI, Clause  3 (Oath of Office) in the Constitution for the United
States of America, as lawfully amended ("U.S. Constitution").

Taken  together,   these  provisions  bar  federal  officers  and
employees from  exercising privileges  which are not specifically
enumerated in  the U.S. Constitution.  The FOIA cannot be used to
prevent discovery  and disclosure  of the requisite proof of your
authority (if any) to exercise the powers of the office you claim
to occupy.

We will,  however, stipulate that you have a fundamental Right to
protect the  privacy of  your signature,  for example, to prevent
forgeries.   The Appointment  Affidavits we have already received
from other  federal  officers  have,  at  times,  come  with  the
signature redacted.  This is acceptable to Us.


                             DEMAND

Please regard  this memo  as  a  formal  Notice  and  Demand  for
immediate production  of the oaths of office required of you, and
your employees,  by Article  VI, Clause, 3, and by 28 U.S.C. 951:
Oath of office of clerks and deputies.  See Supremacy Clause.


                       NOTICE OF DEADLINE

If you  do not produce and serve upon Me certified and admissible
copies of  these required oaths of office no later than 5:00 p.m.
on Tuesday,  December 31, 1996, We will be entitled to proceed on
the basis  of the conclusive presumption that you (and they) have
not executed  the requisite  oaths of office, and that you do not
lawfully occupy  the office(s)  you now  claim to  hold.  Silence
creates estoppel by acquiescence.  See Carmine v. Bowen.


Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Counselor at Law and federal witness
c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776
Tucson, Arizona state
Postal Zone 85719/tdc

email:    supremelawfirm@altavista.net

website:  http://supremelaw.com

copies:   Disclosure Officer
          Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
          One Columbus Circle, N.E.
          Washington, D.C.

          James E. Seibert
          U.S. District Court
          c/o P.O. Box 471
          Wheeling, West Virginia state

          Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.
          U.S. District Court
          c/o P.O. Box 471
          Wheeling, West Virginia state


                             #  #  #
      

Return to Table of Contents for

U.S.A. v. Looker