Time: Sat Nov 23 20:02:12 1996 To: gdoty@earthlink.net (Greg Doty) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: OMB number for Appointment Affidavit Cc: Bcc: [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] MEMO TO: J. Kevin O'Brien, Chief Freedom of Information-Privacy Act Section Information Resources Division Federal Bureau of Investigation U.S. Department of Justice FROM: Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Counselor at Law DATE: August 24, 1996 SUBJECT: Kubic, Thomas J., et al. FOIAPA No. 411592 I have received but not accepted your letter date-stamped August 19, 1996. This is to inform you that I have refused said letter for fraud. The requisite credentials of all 633 federal agents who rotated in and out of the standoff with the Montana Freemen in Garfield county, Montana state, are a matter of public record. Specifically, their Appointment Affidavits are OMB-approved forms. For example, see OMB Approval No. 50-R0118, U.S. Government Printing Office: 1985-461-275/20152, Standard Form 61, Revised September 1970, U.S. Civil Service Commission, F.P.M. Chapter 295, 61-107. See Paperwork Reduction Act. We have sent numerous FOIA requests to the executive branch of the federal government, and we have received many Appointment Affidavits in response to said requests. Please take note of the fact that said Affidavits exhibit the oath of office required by Article VI, Clause 3, and 5 U.S.C. 3331. If any of the 633 alleged federal agents whose credentials are sought should feel it necessary to redact their signatures lines from said Appointment Affidavits, I will not object. I think it only proper that their signatures be protected against forgeries, don't you agree? We wouldn't want them to be the victims of any crimes. Sincerely yours, /s/ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Counselor at Law c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson, Arizona state email: pmitch@primenet.com copy: Attorney General Department of Justice At 11:26 AM 11/23/96 -0800, you wrote: >Paul, > >You wouldn't happen to know (without looking) the OMB form number of the >Appointment Affidavit for the IRS agents to sign. > >Greg > > >>It is a contract, because state >>and federal officials take an >>oath to support it, an obligation >>which they are presumed to shoulder >>knowingly, intentionally, and >>voluntarily. Furthermore, the >>beneficiaries are listed in the >>Preamble: they are the People >>and their Posterity. The oaths >>of office must be signed and >>recorded. See, for example, the >>pertinent forms within the House >>of Representatives pay office, to wit: >>"if you don't sign this form, you >>will not get paid." Pretty clear >>to me, particularly when 5 USC 3331 >>is an act of Congress requiring these >>oaths of office as a condition of >>federal employment. Even IRS agents >>are required to take the oath, on >>their Appointment Affidavits, an >>OMB-approved form. >> >>/s/ Paul Mitchell >> >> >> >>> >>>In reality it served at one time as an agreement to provide a coherent >>>money system between the several states, and was a nice agreement for the >>>cooperation and common defense for the states, but to assume that it >>>should have any realistic authority over me, my family, progeny, or even >>>my ancestors is absurd. And given the allowance of tender laws, the >>>document is more an instrument of tyranny than personal salvation. And >>>furthermore, just try to bring it up when you're being charged with >>>something in court and see how long the judge will listen to you without >>>convicting you of contempt. >>> >>>The Constitution is simply more statuory black letter maxim and irrelevant >>>in pure common law terms. Proof of this is that it forbids us to question >>>the validity of the public debt (Section 4, 14th AMendment), but we do >>>anyway, don't we? And why? Because we have individual consciences, because >>>we are sentient, questioning beings. Neither does it allow us to question >>>legislators for things they said on the floor of the House, but we do >>>anyway, don't we? A few words on paper prohibiting an inquisition of those >>>who purport to rule us aren't enough to quell an entire dynamic, are they? >>>Nor are they enough to secure our rights, either, are they? >>> >>>So if it is justice we are looking for, the Constitution's ashes would be >>>more welcome I think than its promotion for general reading. What we >>>really need is the ability to seek and find the principles of law as they >>>apply to each indvidual case. I would rather see people sitting on common >>>law juries than reading the Constitution. If you're going to read about >>>the real law, read Lysander Spooner, or Roscoe Pound, or John Marshall. Or >>>Alexis de Tocqueville. That's where you'll find justice, not in the >>>Constitution. >>> >>>We need common law indictments judged by common law juries, picked from >>>the country, at random, by lot. We need to put someone like Lon Horiuchi >>>on trial for murder in a common law court, or we need to indict Congress >>>for fraud in creating the Federal Reserve System, or examine Thomas >>>Paine's call for the death penalty for legislators who pass tender laws, >>>and do it by rules of the common law, just like the Constitution suggests. >>> >>>-jac >>> >>>On Sat, 23 Nov 1996 PATRIOTZ@aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> In accessing the competentcy of those who claim to be >>>> learned in the law (lawyers and judges), the following facts >>>> speak for themselves. >>>> >>>> * * * * * * * * * * * * * >>>> >>>> In October, 1924, [over 70 years ago] Dr. John J. Tigert, >>>> United States Commissioner of Education, made the challenging >>>> statement: >>>> >>>> "I do not believe there are more than a very limited >>>> number of persons, perhaps a hundred who really know >>>> what is in the Constitution of the United States." >>>> >>>> The report of the Committee on American Citizenship, presented >>>> at the meeting of the American Bar Association, Denver, Colorado, >>>> July 14-16, 1926, contained the following remarkable confession: >>>> >>>> "Lawyers are being graduated from our law schools by the >>>> thousands who have little knowledge of the Constitution. >>>> When organizations seek a lawyer to instruct them on the >>>> Constitution, they find it nearly impossible to secure one >>>> competent." >>>> Publishers forward, The Constitution Explained, Harry Atwood, >>>> 1927, presently produced by W.I.R., Carson City, Nevada. >>>> >>>> If constitutional illiteracy was the case in the first three, how much >>>> more despairing America is in the last decade of the twentieth >>>> century. It is a general condition for the nation at large, and in the >>>> midst of the ignorance, the nations fundamental law has been spoiled. >>>> The People lament this historic malady: >>>> (from the Oklahoma Writ of Mandamus): >>>> >>>> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * >>>> Question: If you want a lawyer who will help you defend your rights, >>>> Where are you going to find one??? >>>> >>>> Patriotz@aol.com (Ted Pedemonti) >>>> >>>> >>> >>>-jac >>> >>>jh@teleport.com >>> >>> HOW TO JOIN HAMMERNET >>> >>> Receive the most interesting e-mail and get to know the best writers on >>>the Internet. Saints and flamers, they're on the Hammernet! Hammernet >>>strives to address the most important issues of the day and provide a >>>forum for discussion. >>> >>> Here's how to join. >>> >>>Send an e mail message to: >>> >>> majordomo@teleport.com >>> >>>with the following in the text area of your message: >>> >>> subscribe hammernet-l >>> >>>and/or, for the digest version: >>> >>> subscribe hammernet-l-digest. >>> >>> It's as easy as that! (-l is a lower case L) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ><###'> >>> >>> >> >>=========================================================== >>Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com >>ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state >>=========================================================== >> >> >> > > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail