Time: Wed Aug 06 19:32:25 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA21746;
	Wed, 6 Aug 1997 19:32:44 -0700 (MST)
	by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA15190;
	Wed, 6 Aug 1997 19:30:35 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 1997 19:29:33 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Where are Janet Reno's credentials? (fwd)
References: <>

At 05:45 PM 8/6/97 -0700, you wrote:
>I understand the evidence problem.
>My question revolves around your method for procuring the
>evidence, which has not borne fruit.

Who told you that?  Are you trying to defend
Janet Reno here?  Your statement is false.

On the contrary, I have Appointment Affidavits
for about half the FOIA requests I have 
submitted;  only problem is, not one is
certified.  So, I certainly cannot enter
these into evidence, because I cannot 
certify them as true and correct, not on
my word, or under my own penalties of perjury.
Perjury is a serious matter;  I certainly don't
take it lightly.

If I don't require certified copies from the
Disclosure Officers, then I cannot certify what
I get from them, and the uncertified documents
are not admissible.  This issue came up in
Bill Benson's federal cases, in which he attempted
to enter into evidence the huge mass of evidence
he had assembled against the 16th amendment;
ruling: not admissible, because the evidence was not
certified.  End of story.

I encourage you to donate $25 to obtain
a copyrighted copy of Gilbertson's OPENING
BRIEF, in which we have developed this 
approach in detail.

Reno failed to answer Gilbertson's FOIA request
for her credentials, and a timely appeal for
same.  As far as his case is concerned, Reno was
not Attorney General, and we have the case law
to prove it.  Failure to qualify by taking 
the oath is grounds for ouster by Quo Warranto.
Moreover, there were no delegated officers to
authorize proceeding against him, as required by 
IRC 7401.  The case law on this point is crystal

That's the law;  I didn't make it.

/s/ Paul Mitchell

>A first amendment petition is one thing; a request under FOIA is
>another.  The FOIA request is limited by the letter of the law
>and the intent of Congress.

The intent of Congress is that, if the
document exists, Citizens have a right
to see the document.  When the document
is required by the Constitution, all the
more so must Citizens have a method to
compel production of documents which 
establish authority, one way or the 

Your logic here is too terribly confining, 
and the alternative is untenable, particularly
when the oath of office is required by
a constitutional provision.  Not one government
employee has used your reasoning as a defense
for failing to produce the oath.  Privacy has
been cited, but we have defeated that defense,
via the Oath of Office provision.

Constitutional matters are never frivolous or
trivial, and the Supremacy Clause governs
conflicts that may arise with statutes. 

>I'm certainly not as versed as you on FOIA, but I don't see
>Congressional intent to require the production of certified

This is a fundamental rule of evidence.

Either you get to see the original document, 
or you request certified copy(s) in lieu of same.

If the document(s) you request are
not certified, then you are not seeing
the documents -- just cheap imitations.

I don't know how to make this any
clearer.  I think you need to bone
up on the rules of evidence, otherwise,
you may as well forget about admitting
the requested documents into evidence,
where they really matter, where they
really belong.  Uncertified documents can
removed via a proper MOTION TO STRIKE,
and this MOTION should be granted if the 
documents are not certified.

They can sit in your desk drawer,
where they will do nobody any good.

If this is not enough for you to work with,
I am afraid I have other things to do.

Take your arguments into court, and see how
you fare, if you are that confident of your
position.  I have, several times!  :)

/s/ Paul Mitchell

Paul Andrew Mitchell                 : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA;  M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine

tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com   : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this

As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail