Time: Sun Nov 16 07:43:23 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA23351;
Sun, 16 Nov 1997 07:40:27 -0700 (MST)
by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA24124;
Sun, 16 Nov 1997 07:39:24 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 07:39:46 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in toolbar] (by way of Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar])
Subject: SLS: administrative Notice and Demand for oath(s) of office
[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
c/o Rural Route 1, Box 140
Battle Lake [zip code exempt]
MINNESOTA STATE
NOTICE AND DEMAND
TO: Disclosure Officer
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building
One Columbus Circle, N.E.
Washington [zip code exempt]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
TO: Clerk of Court
United States District Court [sic]
110 South Fourth Street
Minneapolis [zip code exempt]
MINNESOTA STATE
Dear Federal Officers:
This is My formal Notice and Demand that you produce the
certified documents requested in the Freedom of Information Act
("FOIA") requests and appeals which I have previously submitted
to you, copies of which are attached hereto and incorporated by
reference as if set forth fully herein. I am requiring the
production of these documents no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday,
April 4, 1997 (date highlighted to render it conspicuous).
I submit to you that the blanket FOIA exemption for the federal
judiciary is overly broad and therefore unconstitutional for
exhibiting an obvious conflict with the Oath of Office provision
in the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully
amended ("U.S. Constitution"). See Article VI, Clause 3.
The Framers of the U.S. Constitution would never have required
the oath of office for all federal and state employees, and then
allowed said oaths to be kept "secret" under some frivolous claim
to privacy. Although I can see many cases in which federal
employees are rightfully covered by provisions of the Privacy
Act, their oath of office should not be exempt. Accordingly, I
hereby challenge the constitutionality of the blanket FOIA
exemption for the federal judiciary.
I will stipulate here that copies of their individual signatures
can and should be redacted, to protect them from the possibility
of forgeries, based on their actual blue-ink signatures. For
your information, numerous Appointment Affidavits have already
been released by agencies of the federal government, with
signatures redacted.
Nevertheless, I still require certified copies of the redacted
oaths of office, in order to establish, as a matter of fact, that
the persons in question do hold lawful title to the offices which
they now claim to occupy. Please be advised also that I have
requested other documents, in addition to credentials.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Executed on: _________________________________
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Everett C. Gilbertson
______________________________________________
Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris
Citizen of Minnesota state
(expressly not a citizen of the United States)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
attachments: FOIA requests and appeals previously submitted
# # #
===========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA; M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email: [address in toolbar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best 06
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone 07
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 10, non-proportional spacing.] 13
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail