« Freedom Watch | Main | Freedom Watch »

QUESTION: Why are officials of the Ron Paul campaign totally ignoring Article VI?

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 1:55 PM
Subject: QUESTION: Why are officials of the Ron Paul campaign totally ignoring Article VI?

QUESTION:  
Why are officials of the Ron Paul campaign totally ignoring Article VI?


http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#6:3



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:14 PM
Subject: Private Attorney General comments re: Delegates v. RNC et al.
USDC/CDCA (Santa Ana), docket number #SACV-12-00927 DOC (JPRx)


http://arizona.lastchanceforliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Federal-Lawsuit-1.pdf


(1)  there are no properly licensed attorneys who are members of
The State Bar of California:

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/85912


(2)  all such UNlicensed attorneys have been formally charged here
with multiple State and Federal criminal offenses, as required
by the Federal criminal statute at 18 U.S.C. 4 (misprision of felony):

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


(3)  The State Bar of California are IN DEFAULT and IN CONTEMPT
of this SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/statebar/   
(PAST DUE and IN DEFAULT)


(4)  here are the pertinent laws from the State Bar Act in California
aka California Business and Professions Code ("CBPC"):

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/cbpc/
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/cbpc/6067.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/cbpc/6068.htm  (must obey 6067!)


(5)  here is a pleading which elaborates the meaning 
of key terms found in CBPC sections 6067 and 6068:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/contest.ehlers.htm


(6)  here is ONE-HALF of the one and only such "license"
that we have received, after formally commencing our investigation
in September 2001:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/rainmaker/azar/State.Bar.License.1.JPG

http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/subpoena/subpoenas.htm

But that attorney failed to produce the BACK SIDE:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/rainmaker/azar/nad.reverse.side.htm   
(PAST DUE and IN DEFAULT)

... where the certificate of oath must be indorsed 
("in dorso" in Latin means "on the back", as when
"indorsing" a standard bank check).


(7)  the USDCs in California are all heavily infiltrated with known impostors:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm#CDCA
(search for "carter.david")


(8)  the USDC in downtown Los Angeles is the HQ for a major cocaine
trafficking ring, implicating the Golden Triangle in Asia (Thailand/Burma/Laos) 
and now Afghanistan:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/wean/gary.wean.article.htm
(search for "Pregerson" -- Harry and son Dean -- all occurrences!)


(9)  "DOC" looks like David OCarter:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/carter.david/
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/carter.david/nad.certificate.htm
  
(PAST DUE and IN DEFAULT)

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/carter.david/state.bar.record.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/carter.david/state.bar.record.2.htm



(10)  Jean Pamela Rosenbluth is another "member" 
of The State Bar of California
who likewise lacks a valid license to practice law:


http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/167242

http://arizona.lastchanceforliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Federal-Lawsuit-1.pdf
 

This case has been assigned to District Judge David O. Carter and 
the assigned discovery Magistrate Judge is Jean P. Rosenbluth.


U.S. Magistrate Judges must have been 
members of a State Bar "in good standing"
for at least five (5) years:  see the Federal Magistrates Act.




(11)  the alleged "SUMMONS" in the above entitled case is also NOT VALID
because it lacks the Court's official seal, as clearly required by 28 U.S.C. 1691:

http://arizona.lastchanceforliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Federal-Lawsuit-1.pdf

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1691.html

http://www.supremelaw.org/stat/62/
 

http://www.supremelaw.org/stat/62/28usc1691.case.law.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/stat/62/28usc1691.case.law.2.htm




(12)  QUESTION:  Why are officials of the Ron Paul campaign totally ignoring Article VI?

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#6:3


-- 
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
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


___

Would you like to make a nice residual income? Get started today, join my team! Team up with Alex Jones' Infowars - Youngevity Business Team for ultimate health, wealth. A healthy body is a happy body!
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2012/04/join-my-youngevity-team-that-has-the-best-health-products-and-other-expanding-products-and-services-.html

Very informative video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-nZ9vv1EyM

 

 

July 2, 2012 in Current Affairs | Permalink