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]

TO:       Clerk of Court
          United States District Court [sic]
          110 South Fourth Street
          Minneapolis [zip code exempt]

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