OBJECTION Re: you have to read Dr Orly Taitz MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT

From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Subject: OBJECTION Re: you have to read Dr Orly Taitz MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT
To: budskippy2000@yahoo.com
Cc: "SupremeLaw" <supremelaw@googlegroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 5:49 PM

OBJECTION:  said USDC does not enjoy original jurisdiction in FOIA enforcement cases:
it is a Territorial Tribunal with a Constitutional origin in the Territory Clause -- 4:3:2.
See Balzac v. Porto Rico (among many other similar cases).

Statutes conferring original jurisdiction must be STRICTLY construed (cites omitted):
the jurisdictional statute is 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B):

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/552.html (a)(4)(B)

On complaint, the district court of the United States in the district in which the complainant resides, or has his principal place of business, or in which the agency records are situated, or in the District of Columbia, has jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant.

[end quote]

The District Court of the United States ("DCUS") is a constitutional court
with an origin in Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

It was the Federal Court of original jurisdiction for 159 YEARS --
between 1789 and 1948.

The differences between the DCUS and the USDC reached the U.S. Supreme Court
several years ago:  O'Connor resigned and Rehnquist died soon after these pleadings
were filed WITH NO REBUTTALS BY ANY OF THE 129 OPPOSING PARTIES:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/cert.htm#drama
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/mandamus.2.htm

Also:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/opening.htm
e.g. Willy v. Coastal Corp. (rules of court cannot change Acts of Congress!  DUUH!! )

A newspaper-level discussion is here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/cracking.title.28.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/karmacts.htm


Taitz has no license to practice law, and neither did the "robe"
assigned to that case:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol2/criminal.complaint.4.htm


Are you just being political, because you don't seem to care
about the Law in America?  If the Law does matter to you,
then why are you enforcing it selectively, and letting Taitz
and Carter off the hook completely?



Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
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

___


On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 5:30 PM, <budskippy2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

...drum roll....and another win for the cute girl with the blond hair!!!!!
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/