Time: Thu Aug 07 22:19:46 1997 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: <3.0.3.16.19970806164555.405f0e7e@pop.primenet.com> <3.0.3.16.19970806141429.30a7ac16@pop.primenet.com> <3.0.3.16.19970805191502.3f9fcf32@pop.primenet.com> <33D90868.4015D3E0@prodigy.net> <33D90868.4015D3E0@prodigy.net> <3.0.3.16.19970805191502.3f9fcf32@pop.primenet.com> <3.0.3.16.19970806141429.30a7ac16@pop.primenet.com> <3.0.3.16.19970806164555.405f0e7e@pop.primenet.com> 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 clear. That's the law; I didn't make it. /s/ Paul Mitchell http://www.supremelaw.com > >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 other. 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 >documents. 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 http://www.supremelaw.com ======================================================================== 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