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