Time: Sun Nov 24 05:11:05 1996
To: gdoty@earthlink.net (Greg Doty)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: OMB number for Appointment Affidavit
Cc:
Bcc:
No, OMB is federal (Office of Management
and Budget). See the Paperwork Reduction
Act for details about OMB control numbers --
they must exhibit a number with a valid
expiration date (date cannot be past).
/s/ Paul Mitchell
At 10:47 PM 11/23/96 -0800, you wrote:
>Paul,
>
>Thanks.
>
>Just out of curiosity, is this form also used for state officials who are
>required to take an oath of office (judges in particular, possibly bar
>attorneys) to uphold the constitutions of the United States and of their
>particular state?
>
>Greg
>
>
>>[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
>>>>===========================================================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>===========================================================
>>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