++++++++++++++++++ EBAY ITEMS 4 SALE ++++++++++++++++++

Legislation that Fines Cops $15,000 for Interfering with Citizens who Film Them passes Colorado House

By John Vibes on April 23, 2015

0Share 0 0 0Reddit 0Tweet

image: http://tftppull.freethoughtllc.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/House-Bill-15-1290-PASSES-FILM-COPS.jpg


Denver, CO — A recently proposed bill in Colorado imposing legal penalties on police officers who interfere with citizens filming them could soon become law. The state’s House Of Representatives passed the bill this week, and it will now move on to vote in the Senate.

If it becomes law, the bill would reportedly require police officers to have someone’s consent or a warrant to physically take or destroy a persons camera or footage. If an officer violates this law, the victim would then be able to seek damages up to $15,000 plus attorney fees. This would also be the first law in the country that would guarantee civil damages to people who have their recording rights violated by police.

After passing in the House on Wednesday, Colorado House Bill 15-1290 will now make its way to the Senate for a final vote.

Police union officials are not happy about the bill, and they say that it treats officers unfairly and holds them to a standard that citizens are not held to, which is ironic because police typically behave as if they were above the law, and not subject to the same standards as everyone else.

“The CACP does not believe that the people who put their lives at risk every day should have different standards of liability than anyone else in government,” police union representative AnneMarie Jensen, said in a statement.

According to 7 News Denver,  Rep. Joe Salazar, co-sponsor of the bill, said House Bill 15-1290 has support from both Democrats and Republicans and is not intended to penalize police.

“It takes a very special person to be a police officer,” Salazar said. “We want to honor them, but at the same time, we have a few bad apples who need to be aware that their conduct now has major, major consequences.”

One of the incidents that caught the attention of Salazar was the case of Bobbie Ann Diaz. Diaz was trying to film what happened after police shot and killed 17-year-old Jessica Hernandez. 

As Diaz was trying to film the incident, she says an officer stopped her and threatened her with arrest if she continued to film.

“At that time, (the officers) put Jessie down and they were on their knees yelling at Brianna that she better not record. She better not,” Diaz said. “She got scared. She got intimated. These are big officers and she didn’t want to make things worse.”

Diaz didn’t know that she was protected by law to film the police as long as she wasn’t interfering with their investigation.

Only through shining light into the darkness, i.e., filming police encounters, will enough people finally see how corrupt and violent this system is becoming. Your right to film the police must be protected.

John Vibes is an author, researcher and investigative journalist who takes a special interest in the counter culture and the drug war. In addition to his writing and activist work he organizes a number of large events including the Free Your Mind Conference, which features top caliber speakers and whistle-blowers from all over the world. You can contact him and stay connected to his work at his Facebook page. You can find his 65 chapter Book entitled “Alchemy of the Timeless Renaissance”at bookpatch.com.

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/legislation-fines-cops-15000-interfering-citizens-film-them-passes-house/#bvA6Qh6AV2pbLqEO.99

April 27, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Gov. Contractors Intentionally Jailing The Poor For Profit Show Lawsuits


In May of 2014 Green [pled] guilty to possession of less than one ounce of marijuana. The court imposed a sentence of twelve months probation and a fine of $1,248.00. The conditions of probation included the requirement that he pay a $44 a month probation supervision fee, that he pay for and complete an alcohol and drug course within 120 days, and that he [perform] 140 hours of community  service.

Immediately after being sentenced, Green went to the Red Hills Community Probation Office as required, to check in and begin his probation sentence. Green met with an employee of Red Hills and after completing the necessary paperwork, Green was then told he was required to make an initial payment of $400.00. Green informed the Red Hills employee that he did not have $400.00 with him. He was then told if he failed to pay the initial payment right then he would be taken to jail immediately.and would not be released until he made the demanded $400.00 payment.  Since Green did not have the money, he was detained by the defendant, placed in a holding cell at the Grady County Courthouse and transported to the Grady County Jail. Green was then booked on the charge of “failure to make an initial payment of $400.00 against his fine, court cost or probation supervision fees.” Green was told that if he came up with the $400.00 he would be released. Essentially creating a bail situation for Green. At no time did the employee of Red Hills seek a warrant from the court in order to execute this action.  Green arranged for the $400.00 to be paid and he was released. At no time was the court or the prosecutor involved in these events.

More at refs. below:





April 26, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink

ISIS in Mexico / Jade Helm in USA — Collision Looms | It is now official

 It's Official Now - TSA Warns of Possible ISIS Attack on U.S. Soil

Somebody in the government appears to be finally taking notice of the story that came out about 10 days ago in alternative media that ISIS is close to US border in Mexico. Together with Jade Helm "occupation" of Southwest USA, this could be setting up the perfect storm -- ISIS to the South, homeland patriots to the north, and "outside" aggressors from the federal government providing a "target-rich environment."

More at refs.:





April 26, 2015 | Permalink

Sui Juris Court Angels Peoples Court of the Land Jurisdiction | Public Order

Sui Juris Court Angels Peoples Court of the Land Jurisdiction | Public Order

April 25, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink


I'd like to see more Americans pick up where we left off
with this challenge to the Senate's ratification of the ICCPR:


I really do think America is WAY OVERDUE for one or more
State Courts to tackle this "not self-executing" ruse and
declare it UNconstitutional, as we requested above.

Judge Harpool got cold feet:  there was no excuse
for ignoring a perfectly good MOTION FOR

See the sections which discuss "state and local governments" here:


Understanding (5):

"(5) That the United States understands that this Covenant shall be implemented by the Federal Government to the extent that it exercises legislative and judicial jurisdiction over the matters covered therein, and otherwise by the state and local governments; to the extent that state and local governments exercise jurisdiction over such matters, the Federal Government shall take measures appropriate to the Federal system to the end that the competent authorities of the state or local governments may take appropriate measures for the fulfillment of the Covenant."

Now read this Executive Order on "Federalism":


and this Executive Order on implementing Human Rights Treaties,

which expressly mentions the ICCPR:


Does the latter E.O. address whether or not
the ICCPR is "not self-executing"?


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964

http://supremelaw.org/crowd.funding.option.htm  (Join Us!)
http://supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308 https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-308)

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com> wrote:

April 24, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Supreme Court Tipping Their Hand: Congressional intent to transfer jurisdiction from constitutional to legislative courts, to emasculate the former

"... we cannot impute to Congress an intent now or in the future to transfer jurisdiction from constitutional to legislative courts for the purpose of emasculating the former."  [ !!! ]


But ... BUT  ... that is EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED!!

And, the Judiciary circa 1948 TRICKED CONGRESS
into approving abominations like the TWO Abrogation Clauses,
one at 28 USC 2072 and the other at 18 USC 3771.  Latter law was
later REPEALED and REPLACED with a statute dealing with the

rights of crime victims!


Did you also catch where they claimed 
special knowledge of the future?

"... now or in the future ...."
So, where and how exactly did the U.S. Supreme Court acquire special knowledge of the future
as of 1949??

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964

http://supremelaw.org/crowd.funding.option.htm  (Join Us!)
http://supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308 https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-308)


[begin quote]

It may be argued that the distinction between constitutional and legislative courts is meaningless if the latter may be invested with jurisdiction over the subjects of Art. III judicial power.

But there are limitations which insure the preservation of the system of federal constitutional courts distinct from legislative courts.

In the first place, a legislative court must be established under some one of the specific powers given to Congress, and it is unlikely that all of the subjects of the judicial power could be justified as an exercise of those powers. 22

Furthermore, we cannot impute to Congress an intent now or in the future to transfer jurisdiction from constitutional to legislative courts for the purpose of emasculating the former.

Chief Justice Marshall suggested another limitation in the Canter case, when he said that within the States, admiralty jurisdiction can be exercised solely by constitutional courts, although that limitation does not apply to the Territories.

It is at least open to question, therefore, whether all of the subjects of Art. III judicial power, or only federal question jurisdiction, may be transferred to legislative courts within the States.

Finally, Ex parte Bakelite Corp., supra, has been read as suggesting that the jurisdiction of legislative courts is limited to matters which, while proper subjects of judicial determination, need not be so determined under the Constitution. 23

The least that may be said is that no decisions of this Court have suggested that legislative courts may take over the entire field of federal judicial authority.

[end quote]

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

April 22, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Re: if Pete Hendrickson understood Section 83(a)...

See "The title of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure."

See first paragraph under "FORMS":

Please forward that Press Release widely:
this affects all Federal prisoners too -- NO EXCEPTIONS.

p.s.  My name is not Moses, however, even though
I often feel as if I have been railing at Pharaoh for 
all 25 YEARS of my Court activism.  :)

Wouldn't it be appropriate if all of your subscibers were to write Mr. Stadtmueller, and commend him for his stance in apparently realizing his position as a non-article III judge, and refusing to hear criminal cases?  What has happened here is really monumental, has a  lot of potential, and should be broadcast to the four corners of the earth.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:31 AM, margy stuart <2410hirschman@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm in full agreement with not hiring an attorney

See full support for his decision here:

(this essay requires careful STUDY and several readings, NOT JUST ONCE!)

18 USC 3231 must be STRICTLY construed:


The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States. 

Willy v. Coastal Corp. held CORRECTLY that Rules of Court
may not expand or restrict original jurisdiction 
 conferred by such an Act of Congress!

The Supreme Court TRIED to amend that statute
by means of amendments to the Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure.

The SMOKING GUN is right here:



Before and After

June 25, 1948 A.D.

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964

http://supremelaw.org/crowd.funding.option.htm  (Join Us!)
http://supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308 https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-308)

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:31 AM, margy stuart <2410hirschman@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm in full agreement with not hiring an attorney
I'm in full agreement with not hiring an attorney, as when I did I ended up spending 25 months in the can.  I knew better than to do it but at the time, was too chicken to go into that article 4 court in propria pesona.  I have a good friend who was indicted and based his defense strictly on lack of legislative jurisdiction of Congress in the states, and not only won in the lower court, but had a portion of the title of the code he purportedly violated declared unconstitutional. I have copies of all of his filings,  but was too chicken to use it.  Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, so I'm thinking about it now and trying to decide how to go about it in these administrative courts.  In addition, I just found out that in the federal court here one of the so called "judges", beginning in 2009, has refused to take any more criminal cases, and hasn't.  This had caused quite a stir in some of the media.  Regardless of what excuse is given for this action, a more plausible reason might be that this particular man has learned the truth that his court is not an article III court, and he is not an article III  judge, so knowing he lacks judicial power, won't hear a criminal case.  If anyone wants to read about this further, his name is JP Stadtmueller, and info is at www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/54417857.html
And, after all of the time and research and litigation
in which the Hendricksons have been involved, 
that is already apparent.

Not only is 18 USC 4 implicated;  BUT ALSO
failure to pursue probable cause of these FELONIES
is implicating her ATTORNey in criminal negligence
and aiding and abetting those same FELONIES:
Furthermore, failing to provide effective assistance
of Counsel to Mrs. Hendrickson has the necessary
chiefly because attorneys are "officers of the Court"!!!
See Johnson v. Zerbst (Court is OUSTED OF JURISDICTION
when the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel is VIOLATED).
I regret that it is necessary for me to be so blunt,


Quod erat demonstrandum!


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964

http://supremelaw.org/crowd.funding.option.htm  (Join Us!)
http://supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308 https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-308)

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:14 AM, American Liberties <americanliberties@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

I agree timing is ALWAYS a major factor



From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. [mailto:supremelawfirm@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 1:57 PM
To: Christopher Chapman
Cc: SupremeLaw
Subject: Re: if Pete understood Section 83(a)...

Retaining a licensed attorney may NOT be in her best interests
most likely because attorneys will NOT prosecute the following questions:
Also, I honestly don't expect that she will be able to swing a
very big bat by basing her entire strategy on IRC 83:

don't get me wrong, it may be relevant, and very useful
and, I have a lot of respect for the work of David Myrland

Nevertheless, what you shared below calls for a full-blown criminal
investigation and appropriate VERIFIED CRIMINAL CROSS-COMPLAINTS,
For example, your description below already contains enough evidence
of FRAUD to justify an immediate Civil RICO CROSS-COMPLAINT

BUT ... her ATTORNey will probably NOT pursue same, because
ATTORNeys habitually resist "rocking the boat" for fear of being
sanctioned or having their licenses suspended.

See In re Telfair for the duties of criminal defense counsels:

they must be ZEALOUS in the defense of their clients,
even in the face of still opposition from any quarter,
despite obstruction and despite personal inconvenience
to the lawyer:


("As a representative of clients, . . . a lawyer [must] zealously assert[ ] the client's position under the rules of the adversary system"; "In all professional functions[,] a lawyer should be competent, prompt and diligent"); RPC-ABA, D.R. 1.3 ("A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client"); PPC-ABA, D.R. 1.3, comments 1 and 3 ("A lawyer should pursue a matter on behalf of a client despite opposition, obstruction or personal inconvenience to the lawyer, and take whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a client's cause or endeavor. A lawyer must also act with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client and with zeal in advocacy upon the client's behalf. . . . Perhaps no professional shortcoming is more widely resented than procrastination").

COUNT ONE:  suborning perjury (18 USC 1622, IRC 6065):

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1622  (FELONY Federal offense)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6065  (governs IRS Forms 1040 etc.)

COUNT TWO:  conspiracy to defame Mrs. Hendrickson (18 USC 241)

violations of treaties constitute violations of 18 USC 242 and 241:

as far as I know, she is neither a federal citizen nor a resident alien:
the term "U.S. Individual" on Form 1040 means ONLY federal citizens and resident aliens:

see IRC 7701(a)(1), 7701(a)(30), 26 CFR 1.1-1, and compare the identical definition
of "individual" at the Privacy Act, 5 USC 552a:


(2) the term “individual” means a citizen of the United States or 
an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;

cf. "Federal citizenship" in Black's Law Dictionary (i.e. "citizen of the United States")


Now that the correct legal meaning of "U.S. Individual" is
breaking over DOJ like a major crack in Hoover Dam,
they are acting like cranky 2-year-olds to discover that
one of their favorite little toys is BUSTED!

COUNT THREE:  willful misrepresentation (28 USC 530B), fraud on the Court

the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" is not a Proper Party and,
as such, U.S. Attorneys have no powers of attorney 
legally to represent "it":

(or similar CERTIFICATE) from her State's SOS and
use FREV Rule 201(c)(2) to require mandatory judicial notice
of same.

COUNT FOUR:  impersonating officers of the United States (18 USC 912):

Mrs. Hendrickson should IMMEDIATELY file and serve
FOIA Requests of all credentials required of the 
U.S. Attorney and Assistant U.S. Attorney(s) on her case:

NOTE WELL:  those "attorneys" NEVER execute the
second OATH required by 28 USC 544:



There is sound policy support for requiring the oath of office. It solemnizes the appointment and sensitizes the appointed person to the obligations and limitations of the office. Additionally, it formalizes the appointment and works an official notification that the appointed person represents the government of the United States in its prosecuting authority and binds that branch of government to the acts of the appointed individual. In terms familiar to the law of agency, the oath is evidence of actual authority of the attorney as agent and thereby avoids disputes which could be generated by reliance upon some apparent authority. 

Also, she must focus on Rules 1, 6 and 7 in the
Go to the signature page(s) on her "indictment" --
for starters -- and determine w/ FOIA Requests
if those "attorneys" signed her "indictment" and/or
stepped foot into a grand jury room withOUT
all required credentials:

Rule 1 defines "attorney for the government";
Rule 6 governs who can attend GJ hearings;
Rule 7 governs who can sign indictments.

And, lastly but of immense importance, 5 USC 2906
designates the Clerk of Court as the legal custodian
of the U.S. OPM Standard Form 61 APPOINTMENT
AFFIDAVITS required of ALL Federal Court officers:

if those "officers" REFUSE to produce evidence of same,
A case cannot even be assigned a Docket Number
if personnel dba Clerk and Deputy Clerks of Court
do not produce credentials OF WHICH THEY ARE
by 5 USC 2906.

(There is MUCH MORE, but that will get her started down the right road.)

/s/ Paul


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964

http://supremelaw.org/crowd.funding.option.htm  (Join Us!)
http://supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308 https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-308)
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Christopher Chapman <americanliberties@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
Tabling any disagreement with Pete’s way of handling the IRS code and forms this, the following, I cannot ignore I have to support Pete fullheartedly on this.
If the following is to be ignored then we are all in trouble!
This is a copy and paste of an email that I got from Pete Hendrickson.
One final note, if Pete understood Section 83(a) he probably would not be having this problem!
Commerce Twp., Michigan, April 22, 2015
A Michigan woman is calling on Governor Rick Snyder to intervene and protect her from being put in a federal prison after what she calls a crudely engineered criminal conviction for her refusal to comply with unlawful orders of a federal court—orders commanding her not just that she must testify, but what she must say.
 Doreen Hendrickson was charged two years ago with criminal contempt of court for refusing to comply with DOJ- and IRS-requested orders from a federal court in 2007. The court commanded Hendrickson to amend her freely-made tax returns for 2002 and 2003 with content dictated by the tax agency, by which she would be made to declare that all her earnings for those years are subject to the income tax.  She eventually did submit the amended returns, but with a declaration that she had been coerced. The DOJ told the judge that the IRS could not process her returns under those circumstances.
 The judge then ordered Mrs. Hendrickson to sign the dictated-content forms declaring under oath that she personally believes what she has been ordered to say,and to conceal the fact that the words are not her own. Such orders have never been made to an American before in history, whether in regard to a tax return or any other kind of document or testimony. “This is not a tax case.  This is about my right to be in charge of my own testimony, to speak my conscience, and to protect my own property interests in a legal contest, even when that contest is with my government,” Hendrickson says. “If the court can force me to amend my return, put numbers on it dictated by the IRS that I know aren’t correct, and make me hide the fact that I was coerced, then you might as well set fire to the Bill of Rights.”
 Mrs. Hendrickson has consistently said she doesn't believe that all of her earnings are, in fact, taxable-- a view the IRS itself took when first presented with her original returns, and which it has never contradicted over any agency official's signature. In fact, even now, many years since those original returns were filed and many years since Mrs. Hendrickson was ordered to change them, the United States Department of Treasury records continue to agree with Hendrickson's original figures.
 Mrs. Hendrickson has testified to her actual beliefs on affidavits and in live testimony under oath in every hearing and trial that has been held concerning the matter. The government has never produced any evidence to the contrary, always simply arguing that she ought to believe differently because the IRS wants her to, and because the judge appears to believe what Hendrickson is being ordered to say.
 Mrs. Hendrickson views the orders made to her to be violations of her right to control the content of her own speech, and of her right to due process, since the orders demand that she declare agreement with her adversary's position on the taxable character of certain kinds of earnings-- a matter which otherwise would likely be in dispute in future litigations between her and the United States.
 Mrs. Hendrickson also views the orders as a violation of her right to refuse to be a witness against herself, since being forced to declare something contradicting her prior-filed returns now would not only compel her to commit perjury today, but would amount to a declaration that her previously-made testimony was false.
 Mrs. Hendrickson strenuously argues that the orders she is accused of disobeying are unlawful, and therefore her refusal cannot be criminal contempt.  After all, the statute she is accused of violating,  specifically qualifies that it is disobedience of a lawfulorder that is punishable.
 The government attorneys and the judge that presided over her trials apparently agree. At the government’s urging the judge instructed Mrs. Hendrickson's jury that it must disregard the unlawfulness or unconstitutionality of the orders when deciding whether she was guilty of criminal contempt for resisting them.
 The judge also instructed the jury that it need not unanimously find that Hendrickson actually did either of the two distinct alleged acts of contempt with which she was charged—another unprecedented feature of her trial. The trial ended in November, 2013 in a hung jury, and the government then tried again in July of 2014.  At the close of the second trial, her jury, thus instructed, declared Mrs. Hendrickson to be guilty.
 On April 9, 2015, Judge Victoria Roberts of the U.S. District Court in Detroit sentenced Mrs. Hendrickson to 18 months in prison.  Mrs. Hendrickson was ordered to surrender herself into federal custody within 60 days—IF she submitted new amended returns with the government’s numbers and without any hint that they were coerced or disclaimed—otherwise, she would be forced to surrender within 30 days.  Thus, the court continues to pressure Mrs. Hendrickson not only to give up her civil rights, but to commit a felony by filing false tax returns.
 “This case is unprecedented.  Mrs. Hendrickson is appealing, and we are confident that the Sixth Circuit will do the right thing and see this trial and conviction as unsupportable in a free society,” said her attorney, Mark Cedrone of Philadelphia.  Fearing, however, that she will be made to suffer this penalty even while waiting for her appeal to be heard, Mrs. Hendrickson has asked Michigan's Governor Rick Snyder and Attorney General Bill Schuette to stand in vindication of her Constitutionally-secured rights between her and the federal officials.
Governor Snyder and AG Schuette have not yet responded to Mrs. Hendrickson's request.
 Contact information:
 Doreen Hendrickson
newsman "at" losthorizons.com
 Questions concerning the ongoing federal proceedings should be directed to Mrs. Hendrickson's counsel at mec "at"cedrone-mancano.com
A .pdf of this press release can be found athttp://losthorizons.com/4-22PressRelease.pdf

April 22, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Private Attorney General Praises U.S. District Judge Joseph Peter Stadtmueller, USDC/EDWI, for his courageous stance on criminal jurisdiction


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  April  22, 2015 A.D.

Private Attorney General Praises U.S. District Judge Joseph P. Stadtmueller, USDC/EDWI, for his courageous stance on criminal jurisdiction of the Federal Courts

A Private Attorney General and Agent of the United States under the False Claims Act
has now openly praised U.S. District Judge Joseph P. Stadtmueller for his courageous
stance concerning criminal cases erroneously lodged in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., has spent the past 25 years as an American court
activist, documenting verifiable proof that the United States District Courts ("USDC")
have no criminal jurisdiction whatsoever.

The story first surfaced in his civil copyright case against 129 named Defendants,
commenced in the Article III District Court of the United States in August 2001.

That case reached the U.S. Supreme Court on appeal, and there 48 UNlicensed
attorneys either fell silent, or formally waived their clients' right to answer these
two pleadings written by Mitchell:



One of the key pleadings in that case was this Press Release, which disclosed
the serious fallacy in a subsection of the Rules Enabling Act called the Abrogation clause:


Subsequently, a private client retained Mitchell to investigate whether or not
the same problem exists in sections of Title 18, the Federal Criminal Code.

Mitchell promptly confirmed the exact same problem in a second Abrogation Clause
that was later removed from Title18, and replaced with a statute dealing with the

rights of crime victims:

Mitchell was informed, for the first time today, of the courageous position
now taken by U.S. District Judge Joseph P. Stadtmueller.  According to a 
story reported in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: 

"[Judge Stadtmueller] has stopped taking new criminal cases and is passing off cases he already had 
in a move legal experts are calling highly unusual and perhaps unprecedented nationally."
Judge Stadtmueller certainly deserves the open support and admiration of all Americans
for standing upon the truth and taking the right actions in light of the total absence
of criminal jurisdiction in any of the U.S. District Courts, which were "broadcasted"
into the 50 States under false and fraudulent pretenses on June 25, 1948.

In point of Law, the U.S. Supreme Court has already held -- correctly -- that
Rules of Court may not expand or restrict original jurisdiction already conferred
by Acts of Congress:  on the merits, strictly construed as it should be
18 U.S.C. 3231 conferred original jurisdiction upon the Article III District Courts
of the United States ("DCUS'), NOT upon the Article IV United States District Courts

The Act of Congress effectively "broadcasting" the USDCs into the 50 States
does not even mention the constitutional origins of those Courts, unlike
other Acts of Congress establishing the U.S. Tax Court, Court of Claims
and Court of International Trade.
Mitchell's work has already identified amendments to the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure which attempted to change 18 U.S.C. 3231 retroactively.

Of course, all such "retroactive" legislation is expressly prohibited by the
U.S. Constitution, and the Separation of Powers also prohibits the
U.S. Supreme Court from making any Laws.  That Power to make law
is reserved to the Congress of the United States by Article I.

Although Congress may create "tribunals" using its Article I power,
Congress may only create "Courts" pursuant to Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
Further documentation of this enormous problem and its far-reaching consequences
can be found in the Supreme Law Library at www.supremelaw.org on the Internet.

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964

http://supremelaw.org/crowd.funding.option.htm  (Join Us!)
http://supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308 https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-308)

April 22, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink

from Paul Craig Roberts: "A Gleam of Hope: Cracks in the Empire" (News From Antiwar.com)


Ever since its initial proposal by China as an alternative to the IMF and the World Bank, both of which are dominated by the United States, the proposed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) has been a target of heavy lobbying by the US, which has been warning allies and client states it would be strongly in their best interests not to join.

The US effort is also becoming a colossal failure, as nations across the region, as well as European powers, are flocking to the China-led bank, and seemingly everyone of note on board at this point.

In recent weeks, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Australia all joined, over US objections. South Korea was then heavily lobbied by the US, warned to “think twice” about what it did, but has joined as well.

In the end, the AIIB seems set to become an international lender of no small influence, and much more than China even suggested when it first proposed it.

The US lobbying seems not only to have failed, but had the opposite effect, and is getting almost everybody united behind the bank.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: PaulCraigRoberts.org <newsletter@paulcraigroberts.org>
Date: Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 10:03 AM
Subject: A Gleam of Hope: Cracks in the Empire
To: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>

A Gleam of Hope:  Cracks In The Empire





I just saw an update on this and it looks like it is right on.  see: http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-global-liquidity-squeeze-has-begun.html.




Let all Americans pause and contemplate the far-reaching implications
of our FRN Recall Proposal aka "BURN THE FRN":



And, now let us begin to restore some fiscal sanity
by collecting these two outstanding INVOICEs
payable to the Treasury of the United States;




Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964

http://supremelaw.org/crowd.funding.option.htm  (Join Us!)
http://supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308 https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-308)


April 21, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Freedom Watch

If you look at a “U.S. dollar”, it actually says “Federal Reserve note” at the top.  In the financial world, a “note” is an instrument of debt.
Michael Snyder


“Let your gun accompany you on your walks, the heft will do you well and it will ward off evildoers.”
- Thomas Jefferson –


America's Coming Crackup
Nelson Hultberg
Freedom Watch

Tyranny is Back in Style
Now that the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts have been gutted in both Indiana and Arkansas, and it’s still a function of government to force Christians to take part in activities that outrage their consciences, the Loving Left seeks new worlds to conquer. They’ve tasted blood, and now they want flesh.......
by Lee Duigon

Even the 3rd Amendment is Dead: Police “Forcibly Occupied Home to Gain Tactical Advantage Against Suspect”
Mac Slavo

Christians Are Being Systematically Purged From The U.S. Military
By Michael Snyder

By Chuck Baldwin

Notes From an Engineer – ObamaCare Realities

Has the Next President Already Been Chosen—and is the election just going through the motions?
There are some informed sources that feel that next year's presidential "race' has already had the winner decided and the election is just an elaborate sham to fool the gullible public.
By Al Benson Jr.

Letter: A few reasons to despise Abraham Lincoln

On Abraham Lincoln and the Inversion of American History
By Boyd Cathey 

The Don Fanucci of American Politics
(Or: The Real Cause of the American 'Civil War')
By Thomas DiLorenzo

Targeting Civilians
By Thomas DiLorenzo
September 17, 2001

We Are All Jeffersonians
By Brion McClanahan 

Was Jefferson a “Scientific Racist”?
By M. Andrew Holowchak 

Thomas Jefferson, Conservative
By Clyde Wilson

Tommy, We Hardly Knew Ye
By John Devanny

Mark Skousen's FREEDOM FEST!
Las Vegas, July 8-11th, 2015 
It promises to be their biggest show yet. 

Please like my Freedom Watch Facebook page and share it with friends: 

April 21, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink