« January 2013 | Main | March 2013 »

Another COUNTERFEIT credential for Benjamin H. Torrance dba Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of U.S. Attorney, SDNY

Teknosis needs your help. * Ways to help Teknosis

___
1) CIVIL INVESTIGATIVE REQUEST: 18 USC 1964 (Civil RICO) | Civil Number 14-3460-CV-S-MDH-P
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/11/civil-investigative-request-18-usc-1964-civil-rico-civil-number-14-3460-cv-s-mdh-p.html

(2) 11/05/2014 Paul Andrew Mitchell Civil Number 14-3460-CV-S-MDH-P order of Judge Harpool
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/11/11072014-paul-andrew-mitchell-civil-number-14-3460-cv-s-mdh-p-hearing.html

(3) 10-10-2014 #1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Quo Warranto filed by Paul Andrew Mitchell a/k/a/ Mitchell Paul Modeleski. (Attachment: # 1 Exhibit)(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/11/10-10-2014-1-petition-for-writ-of-habeas-corpus-and-quo-warranto-filed-by-paul-andrew-mitchell-aka-m.html

(4) 11/05/2014 ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE: ORDERED that: (1) plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); and (2) this case is transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming? RICO in itsef?! The US is worse than North Korea who now released their US held prisoners due to human rights violations?
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/11/11052014-order-transferring-case-ordered-that-1-plaintiff-is-granted-leave-to-proceed-in-forma-paupe.html

(5) 11/06/2014 PETITIONER'S MOTION for Court order filed by Paul Andrew Mitchell a/k/a/ Mitchell Paul Modeleski. (Attachment: # 1 Exhibit)(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 11/06/2014)
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/11/11062014-petitioners-motion-for-court-order-filed-by-paul-andrew-mitchell-aka-mitchell-paul-modelesk.html

(6) 11/06/2014 PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT filed by Paul Andrew Mitchell a/k/a/ Mitchell Paul Modeleski.(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 11/06/2014)
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/11/11062014-petitioners-exhibit-filed-by-paul-andrew-mitchell-aka-mitchell-paul-modeleskithoennes-cindy.html

Background:
Paul Andrew Mitchell has been bundled away by the US government
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/02/paul-andrew-mitchell-has-been-bundled-away-by-the-us-government.html

Post main:

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 3:36 PM
Subject: another COUNTERFEIT credential for Benjamin H. Torrance dba Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of U.S. Attorney, SDNY

 

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/torrance/
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/torrance/letter.2013-02-12/
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/torrance/letter.2013-02-12/affidavit.refused.jpg
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/torrance/letter.2013-02-12/affidavit.gif
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/torrance/letter.2013-02-12/page01.refused.jpg
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/torrance/letter.2013-02-12/page01.gif
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/torrance/letter.2013-02-12/page02.refused.jpg
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/torrance/letter.2013-02-12/page02.gif

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/torrance/letter.2012-12-07/
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/torrance/letter.2012-12-07/page01.gif

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/torrance/letter.2012-11-15/
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/torrance/letter.2012-11-15/page01.gif
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/torrance/letter.2012-11-15/page02.gif

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/torrance/foia.request.1.htm  (IN DEFAULT)


See also:
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/United.States.Notice.htm
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/opm/letter.2012-08-06/page01.gif (OPM's ADMISSION)
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/omb/letter.2012-08-23/page01.gif
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/omb/letter.2012-08-23/page02.gif (OMB's ADMISSION)
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/omb/letter.2012-08-23/page03.gif

-- 
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

February 20, 2013 | Permalink

More COUNTERFEIT credentials for Christopher A. Crofts dba United States Attorney, District of Wyoming

Teknosis needs your help. * Ways to help Teknosis

___

 

Post main:

 

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 3:28 PM
Subject: more COUNTERFEIT credentials for Christopher A. Crofts dba United States Attorney, District of Wyoming

 

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/crofts/

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/crofts/letter.2013-02-12/
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/crofts/letter.2013-02-12/affidavit.refused.jpg
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/crofts/letter.2013-02-12/affidavit.gif
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/crofts/letter.2013-02-12/commission.refused.jpg
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/crofts/letter.2013-02-12/commission.gif
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/crofts/letter.2013-02-12/page01.refused.jpg
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/crofts/letter.2013-02-12/page01.gif
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/crofts/letter.2013-02-12/page02.refused.jpg
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/crofts/letter.2013-02-12/page02.gif
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/crofts/letter.2013-02-12/page03.gif

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/crofts/letter.2012-11-15/
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/crofts/letter.2012-11-15/page01.gif
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/crofts/letter.2012-11-15/page02.gif

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/crofts/letter.2012-10-17/
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/crofts/letter.2012-10-17/page01.gif

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/crofts/foia.request.1.htm  (IN DEFAULT)


-- 
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

February 20, 2013 | Permalink

Another COUNTERFEIT credential for Ronald H. Weich, Legislative Affairs Division, U.S. Department of Justice

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Subject: another COUNTERFEIT credential for Ronald H. Weich, Legislative Affairs Division, U.S. Department of Justice

 

http://supremelaw.org/cc/weich/

http://supremelaw.org/cc/weich/letter.2013-02-05/
http://supremelaw.org/cc/weich/letter.2013-02-05/affidavit.refused.jpg
http://supremelaw.org/cc/weich/letter.2013-02-05/affidavit.gif
http://supremelaw.org/cc/weich/letter.2013-02-05/page01.refused.jpg
http://supremelaw.org/cc/weich/letter.2013-02-05/page01.gif

http://supremelaw.org/cc/weich/letter.2013-01-22/
http://supremelaw.org/cc/weich/letter.2013-01-22/page01.refused.jpg
http://supremelaw.org/cc/weich/letter.2013-01-22/page01.gif

http://supremelaw.org/cc/weich/letter.2013-01-15/
http://supremelaw.org/cc/weich/letter.2013-01-15/page01.refused.jpg
http://supremelaw.org/cc/weich/letter.2013-01-15/page01.gif

http://supremelaw.org/cc/weich/foia.request.1.htm  (IN DEFAULT)

-- 
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

February 20, 2013 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Private Attorney General's REPLIES Re: Got a sandwich? by Dinesh D'Souza

Teknosis needs your help. * Ways to help Teknosis

___

Update:

APPLICATION FOR DISQUALIFICATIONS: 28 USC 144 (containing AFFIDAVIT OF BIAS AND PREJUDICE & DEMAND FOR RECUSAL as well as NOTICE TO COUNSELS: USA v. Hill et al. & NOTICE OF ERRORS re: Harris & Harris, P.C.) - from Paul Andrew Mitchell USMCFP/Springfield
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/10/application-for-disqualifications-28-usc-144-containing-affidavit-of-bias-and-prejudice-demand-for-r.html

Post main:

 

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 1:48 PM
Subject: Private Attorney General's REPLIES Re: Got a sandwich? by Dinesh D'Souza

Greetings Cindy et al.:

I'm REALLY glad you posted this video:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/rEM4NKXK-iA?feature=player_detailpage


First of all, I recognize Dinesh as a very intelligent and very articulate 
human being, and I honor him for his ability to frame moral issues
so succinctly and so clearly.

Nevertheless, I did NOT hear one single reference to the supreme Law in America,
so allow me an opportunity to fill in that HUGE GAPING HOLE in his brief statements:


(1)  the whole issue of Federal "social welfare" legislation
arose back in the period of 1932-35, when the Congress tried to enact 
a metric tonne of such social welfare programs;  what happened?
Answer:  the Supreme Court struck down much of it, and
that was one of the main reasons why FDR resorted
to his "Court Packing" scheme -- to eliminate high Court obstacles
to FDR's socialist plans;


(2)  Social Security was allowed to remain, in part on the
basis of the FACT that it is Federal MUNICIPAL law, and 
as such it ONLY applies to areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction
like D.C., Guam, Virgin Islands, American Samoa and Puerto Rico:
we know this from "legal experts" in the Office of the Legislative Counsel
and the Congressional Research Service (both agreeing):

http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/kennell3.gif


(3)  it should already be very evident, from (1) and (2) above,
that the Constitution authorizes NO POWER for Congress
to compel Citizens of the States to participate in such
social welfare programs;  and, Dinesh is correct to place
emphasis on the "compulsory" nature of these programs;


(4)  you will also note, I hope, that the role of the State governments
in providing social welfare programs is rather conspicuous 
for its absence from the comments Dinesh made;


(5)  there IS another MAJOR MORAL ISSUE that arises from
the fact that the Federal government has a well documented
propensity to proliferate boated and inefficient bureaucracies
whose major raison d'etre (reason for existence) is to 
implement and regulate programs like the thousands of
studies which killed millions of dogs to prove that smoking
is a health hazard;  there were so many dogs killed by these
federal smoking studies that Congress needed to appropriate
funds to build a dog crematorium, to incinerate all those dogs
effectively euthanized by "compelling" them to inhale 
toxic cigarette smoke 24/7;


(7)  this brings us full circle to ask how much discretionary
money would be available, in the aggregate, if the Congress
were NOT allowed to waste so many BILLIONS of tax dollars
for so many THOUSANDS of programs whose main objectives
are to COMPEL social engineering at all levels of American society,
particularly when Congress does so by means of fraud e.g.
by re-defining "States" to mean something OTHER THAN 
the 50 States of the Union and doing so after the Supreme Court
specifically prohibited such re-definitions of terms that occur
in the U.S. Constitution;


(8)  an excellent example of (7) is the fraud that has been forced
upon churches throughout the country, by requiring them to apply
for 501(c)(3) "tax exemption", when it is now well known that
those churches had no legal obligation to request such exemptions
in the first place, and those same churches have no legal obligations
to require their paid employees to execute IRS Forms W-4,
and certainly not when those workers are NOT included
in the IRC's definition of "employee" in the first place:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm


(9)  therefore, a strong argument can be made that churches --
and the many members of their congregations -- would have
far more discretionary money at their disposals, if the
Federal income tax and the IRS simply did NOT exist
and if neither were being sustained secretly and fraudulently
to continue collecting interest payments payable to the
Federal Reserve Banks -- particularly when those very same Banks
have no desire to promote the welfare of the American People;


(10)  it should also be obvious from the above that the entire
American macro-economic situation would have far more
discretionary money at its disposal to purchase voluntary and 
private health insurance, PROVIDED that the Congress restricted
its legislation within the 50 States to the specific authorities
which are authorized to it by Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 thru 16
and 18:

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#1:8:1
...
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#1:8:16
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#1:8:18


(11)  I like to close such discussions with a moral comparison 
to the divisive issue of abortion:  if Congress restricted its
legislation on this issue to the federal zone, and allowed
the State Legislatures to make their own decisions 
on this issue, I predict with moral confidence that 
the Most High would allow States to flourish insofar
as they prohibited abortion, and the Most High would
punish States that permitted and encouraged abortion;


(12)  of course, impostors and dictators like Barry Soetoro
continue to believe, falsely, that Congress has PLENARY authority
to enact MUNICIPAL legislation that applies EVERYWHERE
inside the 50 States of the Union;  and, as we already know
with certainty, that belief is totally contrary to the intent
of the Framers and the essence of a Republican Form of
Government which the Congress is required to guarantee
to all 50 States of the Union but has failed to do so at least
since the end of the Civil War in the year 1865.


-- 
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 




On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Cindy Macdonald <macrealm6@gmail.com> wrote:
     SUBJECT:  Got a sandwich?
 
 
 
This was an on-stage discussion at a college ( taking questions from students), and the topic came to the topic of entitlements and the Christian perspective regarding same. One of the panelists was Dinesh D’Souza. THIS is the best explanation I have ever heard...
Here is a little discussion about sandwiches that is worth hearing:
 
 
Click here.
 

February 20, 2013 | Permalink

Re: Chris Hedges: The NDAA and the Death of the Democratic State - Truthdig

Teknosis needs your help. * Ways to help Teknosis

___

 

Post main:

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: Chris Hedges: The NDAA and the Death of the Democratic State - Truthdig

 

http://www.blacklistednews.com/VIDEO_-_Chris_Hedges%3A_NDAA_Lawsuit_Update/24190/0/0/0/Y/M.html

Chris Hedges at the hearing for the second court of appeals in the Hedges v Obama NDAA lawsuit. Hedges explains what has happened in the lawsuit to date, the next steps and what he sees in America’s upcoming future.  [end excerpt]




For a list of missing and/or defective credentials for
"robes" seated on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
see:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm#SECOND

i.e. click on "NAD" links:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/calabresi.guido/nad.missing.credentials.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/cardamone.richard/affidavit.refused.jpg

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/droney.christopher/affidavit.refused.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/droney.christopher/commission.refused.jpg

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/feinberg.wilfred/nad.missing.credentials.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/hall.peter/affidavit.refused.jpg

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/katzmann.robert/nad.missing.credentials.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/leval.pierre/nad.missing.credentials.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/livingston.debra/affidavit.refused.jpg

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/lohier.raymond/affidavit.refused.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/lohier.raymond/commission.refused.jpg

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/parker.barrington/nad.missing.credentials.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/pooler.rosemary/affidavit.refused.jpg

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/sack.robert/affidavit.refused.jpg

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/sotomayor.sonia/nad.missing.credentials.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/straub.chester/affidavit.refused.jpg

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/wesley.richard/affidavit.refused.jpg


http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/United.States.Notice.htm

-- 
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 

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>wrote:
But ... BUT ... Hedges et al. have done NOTHING
about all the missing credentials:
  REPEATING ...

>  the alternative media is abuzz with this week’s hearing on the constitutionality of the clearly unconstitutional NDAA


And, nobody except a few SupremeLaw subscribers, 
talks about Article VI, Section 3, NOT EVEN the alternative media:

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

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/  <-- see United States' NOTICE below

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/harwood/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/harwood/affidavit.refused.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/harwood/affidavit.gif
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/harwood/foia.request.1.htm  (IN DEFAULT)

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/torrance/foia.request.1.htm  (PAST DUE)

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm#SECOND

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/lohier.raymond/affidavit.refused.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/lohier.raymond/commission.refused.jpg

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/droney.christopher/affidavit.refused.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/droney.christopher/commission.refused.jpg

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/chin.denny/  (has all 4 required credentials)

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/letter.2012-11-19/page01.refused.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/letter.2012-11-19/page01.gif
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/letter.2012-11-19/page02.refused.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/letter.2012-11-19/page02.gif

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/letter.2012-10-01/transmittal.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/order.2012-10-02/page01.refused.jpg

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/United.States.Notice.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/opm/letter.2012-08-06/page01.gif (OPM's ADMISSION)
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/omb/letter.2012-08-23/page01.gif
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/omb/letter.2012-08-23/page02.gif (OMB's ADMISSION)
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/omb/letter.2012-08-23/page03.gif


-- 
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 

February 20, 2013 | Permalink

Private Attorney General's OBJECTIONS Re: The most important lawsuit in American history [sic] that no one in the mainstream media is talking about

Teknosis needs your help. * Ways to help Teknosis

___

 

Post main:

 

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Sent: Saturday, February 9, 2013 5:08 PM
Subject: Private Attorney General's OBJECTIONS Re: The most important lawsuit in American history [sic] that no one in the mainstream media is talking about

 

>  the alternative media is abuzz with this week’s hearing on the constitutionality of the clearly unconstitutional NDAA


And, nobody except a few SupremeLaw subscribers, 
talks about Article VI, Section 3, NOT EVEN the alternative media:

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

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/  <-- see United States' NOTICE below

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/harwood/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/harwood/affidavit.refused.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/harwood/affidavit.gif
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/harwood/foia.request.1.htm  (IN DEFAULT)

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/torrance/foia.request.1.htm  (PAST DUE)

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm#SECOND

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/lohier.raymond/affidavit.refused.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/lohier.raymond/commission.refused.jpg

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/droney.christopher/affidavit.refused.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/droney.christopher/commission.refused.jpg

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/chin.denny/  (has all 4 required credentials)

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/letter.2012-11-19/page01.refused.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/letter.2012-11-19/page01.gif
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/letter.2012-11-19/page02.refused.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/letter.2012-11-19/page02.gif

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/letter.2012-10-01/transmittal.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/order.2012-10-02/page01.refused.jpg

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/United.States.Notice.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/opm/letter.2012-08-06/page01.gif  (OPM's ADMISSION)
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/omb/letter.2012-08-23/page01.gif
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/omb/letter.2012-08-23/page02.gif  (OMB's ADMISSION)
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/omb/letter.2012-08-23/page03.gif


-- 
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 

On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Greg <entheos4214@nhvt.net> wrote:

Despite a mainstream media blackout on the topic, the alternative media is abuzz with this week’s hearing on the constitutionality of the clearly unconstitutional NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act). 

Basically, Section 1021 of the NDAA allows for the indefinite detention of American citizens without charges or a trial.  Journalist Chris Hedges and several others sued Obama on the grounds of it being unconstitutional.  Judge Katherine Forrest [an Obama appointee] agreed and issued an injunction on it.  This was immediately appealed by the Obama Administration to a higher court [the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 2nd District], which promptly issued a temporary stay on the injunction, meaning that the government could continue whatever it was already doing consistent with the Act’s authorizations...

On Feb. 7th, oral arguments began before the 2nd Circuit.  As Chris Hedges states in the interview linked below, if they win the case then it will likely be brought in front of the SupremeCourt within weeks.  On the other hand, if the Obama Administration wins and the Supreme Court refuses to hear the appeal [assuming the 2nd Circuit disagrees with Judge Forrest’s decision], Hedges states: “at that point we’ve just become a military dictatorship.”

Tangerine Bolen is one the lead plaintiffs in the suit against the government and she penned a powerful piece for the UK’s Guardian.  Here are some key quotes from an article she submitted on August 10, 2012:

I am one of the lead plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit against the National Defense Authorization Act, which gives the president the power to hold any US citizen anywhere for as long as he wants, without charge or trial
.

In a May hearing, Judge Katherine Forrest issued an injunction against it; this week, in a final hearing in New York City, US government lawyers asserted even more extreme powers – the right to disregard entirely the judge and the law. On Monday 6 August, Obama’s lawyers filed an appeal to the injunction – a profoundly important development that, as of this writing, has been scarcely reported
.

In the earlier March hearing, US government lawyers had confirmed that, yes, the NDAA does give the president the power to lock up people like journalist Chris Hedges and peaceful activists like myself and other plaintiffs. Government attorneys stated on record that even war correspondents could be locked up indefinitely under the NDAA.

Judge Forrest had ruled for a temporary injunction against an unconstitutional provision in this law, aft
er government attorneys refused to provide assurances to the court that plaintiffs and others would not be indefinitely detained for engaging in first amendment activities. At that time, twice the government has refused to define what it means to be an “associated force”, and it claimed the right to refrain from offering any clear definition of this term, or clear boundaries of power under this law.

This past week’s hearing was even more terrifying. Government attorneys again, in this hearing, presented no evidence to support their position and brought forth no witnesses. Most incredib
ly, Obama’s attorneys refused to assure the court, when questioned, that the NDAA’s section 1021 – the provision that permits reporters and others who have not committed crimes to be detained without trial – has not been applied by the US government anywhere in the world after Judge Forrest’s injunction.

Full article here: 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/10/ndaa-lawsuit-struggle-us-constitution

Next: Ben Swann from Full Disclosure does an EXCELLENT critique of the Feinstein/Lee Amendment, endorsed by Senator Rand Paul and promoted as a Congressional effort to prohibit full implementation of NDAA authority that would allow the President to authorize the arrest and detention without legalrepresentation or trial of American Citizens or resident aliens located in the United States – the amendment failed to get included in the 2013 version of the NDAA bill, but, as Swann explains, it didn’t matter anyway because it did not, in fact, prohibit anything!  See why this was just another faint attempt to appease, but not redress Citizen concerns about this unconstitutional abomination that one of this State’s Senators strenuously promoted shortly after her election to office...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWGcyatZt-A

Then: Ben Swann expands his explanation of the NDAA 2013 bill and explains why the Gohmert amendment, which purports to protect Habeus Corpus rights and secure other rights guaranteed under the Constitution, doesn’t actually do so. And, in case you don’t recall the discussion leading up the adoption of this horrific piece of legislation – it was Senator Kelly Ayotte that widely and aggressively promoted the misbegotten idea that the so-called “war on terror” is necessarily to be fought on American land (“a battlefield” in her words), as well as abroad. This concept opens the path for prosecution of military trials, via military or other tribunal courts (Article I or Article IV courts), which operate under different sets of rules that are often not constrained by Constitutional protections, as they would be in Article III courts...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6LPl0u9LlE


Now See Chris Hedges’ (the plaintiff’s) comments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsGJpTAsV8k
Sierra Adamson interviews Chris Hedges (plaintiff) at the hearing for the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd District in the Hedges v Obama NDAA lawsuit. Hedges explains what has happened in the lawsuit to date, the next steps and what he sees in America's upcoming future. 

And finally, those of Daniel Ellsberg – the Pentagon Whistleblower who helped bring down the criminal Nixon administration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRz-d1xPR7k
Daniel Ellsberg speaks at the press conference after the hearing for the second circuit court of appeals in the NDAA lawsuit, Hedges v Obama. He speaks about what is happening in the lawsuit, the erosion of the Bill of Rights and Bradley Manning. Daniel Ellsberg is a former United States military analyst turned whistleblower, most known for publishing the Pentagon Papers. 

The take-aways here – 
Americans MUST learn (again) what the Constitution is, what it says, and how to enforce it; and
They MUST lobby to get the NDAA rescinded; and
They MUST learn how to read the Statutes at Large AND proposed amendments made to them so they are able to detect subterfuges like those proposed by Feinstein and Gohmert; and
They must act to more fully comprehend ANY legislation that is unconstitutional,and act to it nullify at their State level; and
They MUST learn to keep abreast of what’s going on beyond the scope of what’s ‘covered’ in the wholly-owned corporate mainstream media. - to this end I recommend using The New American online as an excellent starting point [http://www.thenewamerican.com/], andhttp://www.zerohedge.com/

All the best,
- Greg

P.S. - we don’t have “constitutional rights” - we have constitutionally protected rights. Our rights are endowed by God, not the State nor any of its organs.

The information contained in this communication is PRIVATE between the sender and the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete/destroy the original message and any copy of it from your computer or paper files. 
-- 
Confidentiality Notice: This message (including any attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. sec 2510-2521. This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original. All rights and Remedies Reserved Without Prejudice. Non-Assumpsit.  28 U.S.C. 1746(1)

February 20, 2013 | Permalink

Re: U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. is also INFILTRATED ...

Teknosis needs your help. * Ways to help Teknosis

___

 

Post main:

 

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 7:10 PM
Subject: U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. is also INFILTRATED ...

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm#DCCIR

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/brown.janice/affidavit.refused.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/garland.merrick/affidavit.refused.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/griffith.thomas/affidavit.refused.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/henderson.karen/nad.missing.credentials.htm  (IN DEFAULT)
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/kavanaugh.brett/nad.missing.credentials.htm  (IN DEFAULT)
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/tatel.david/nad.missing.credentials.htm  (IN DEFAULT)

http://supremelaw.org/cc/obama/usdc-cdca/taitz/nad.oath.htm  (IN DEFAULT)
http://supremelaw.org/cc/obama/usdc-cdca/taitz/state.bar.record.1.htm
http://supremelaw.org/cc/obama/usdc-cdca/taitz/state.bar.record.2.htm



p.s.  Being a "Bar member" does NOT mean that 
one has a valid license to practice law in California:

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

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

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

-- 
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 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Orly Taitz <news@orlytaitzesq.net>
Date: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 5:36 PM
Subject: Breaking News! Demand for the US Court of Appeals, who recently ruled on constituti?onality of Obama appointmen?ts to rule on Obama's use of forged IDs and a stolen CT SSN, which makes all of his appointmen?ts and all of his orders unconstitu?tional


Press release! Taitz files a motion for reconsideration in the DC court of Appeals. If this court ooked at constitutionality of a couple of minor appointments by Obama, they can’t commit treason and engage in the cover up of Obama’s forged IDs, which make each and every appointment by Obama unconstitutional

Posted on | January 30, 2013 | No Comments
Press release
Law Offices of Orly Taitz
Attorney Taitz filed a motion for reconsideration in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Recently this court found a couple of Obama appointments to be violative of the U.S. Constitution, as they were made without the approval of the U.S. Congress, when the Congress was on a short brake and not on a recess. Taitz argued that this court cannot consider the US Constitution in overturning a couple of minor appointments by Obama and completely ignore the U.S. Constitution on the issue of the most egregious crime committed against the United States, specifically Obama’s use of a stolen CT Social security number 042-68-4425, which was never assigned to him according to E-Verify and SSNVS. Previously this court ruled that the release of the SS-5 application to the CT SSN 042-68-4425, which Obama is fraudulently using, should not be granted, as it is an invasion of privacy and there is no Public Interest in knowing whether Obama is a law abiding citizen or a criminal using a stolen Social Security number from a state, where he never resided.
In the current motion Taitz provided DC Court of Appeals with the sworn affidavits and results of research of investigators, Albert Hendershot, Susan Daniels, John Sampson, Neil Sankey and others, showing that Obama is using a Social Security number, which was assigned to Harry J. Bounel, born in 1890, immigrant from Russia, who resided during 1940 census at 915 Daly Ave, Bronx, State of New York. Bounel would have been 123 years old if he were to be alive today. Bounel is believed to be deceased, his death was never reported to the SSA or deleted from the database by a high ranking SSA official, there was a falsification of the electronic SSA record by the same official and this number was illegally and fraudulently assumed by Obama around 1976. The only remaining evidence of Bounel is the SS-5, original application on file. Commissioner of the Social Security, Bush Appointee Michael Astrue already defaulted in a related case in MS and announced that he will be leaving the SSA within days. Upon him leaving, his position will be given to an Obama appointee/accomplice and the SS-5 will be either destroyed or falsified or a replaced by a forgery, as it happened to the original application to the Selective Service, his mother’s 1965 passport record or immigration records for August 1-7 1961. As such, it it imperative that this court rules immediately and retrieves and discloses to the public the original application to Bounel’s Social security number, which Obama is fraudulently using. There is a motion for default judgment against the commissioner of Social Security Michael Astrue in a related case in the U.S. District court in MS. Astrue defaulted and did not provide an answer in November. Taitz is waiting for an order from the presiding Judge Henry Wingate for 3 months and is afraid that the order wil not be issued prior to Astrue’s scheduled departure from the SSA and his replacement by Obama appointee. There is a Motion in the 5th Court of Appeals to expedite the Default Judgment, but so far the courts do not move.
We are seeing a criminal enterprise running this nation and we did not find one single judge or court with honesty and integrity of character, who would end this crime of the century.
Over a 100 pages of the complaint and exhibits are below in a link on OrlyTaitzESQ.com will lead you to the dedicated page, click the second time and the PDF file will open). Additionally the motion and exhibits are posted on SCRIBD and the embed of SCRIBD is below.
As Taitz is doing this work pro bono and is subject to persecution by some in the Obama regime and some judges, donations are greatly appreciated to cover her expenses. You can donate through pay-pal on her web site OrlyTaitzESQ.com or by mailing a check to
Defend Our Freedoms/co Orly Taitz
29839 Santa Margarita, ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
This information is being forwarded to other courts, including the Supreme Court of the US, which will be hearing on February 15, 2013 in a conference of all 9 Justices a related case brought by Taitz.
Public is asked to write to the U.S. Congress by signing a petition on Taitz site OrlyTaitzESQ.com.
The public is asked to urge the courts to hear this matter on the merits in the open court. While one cannot influence the courts and ask to rule in certain way, the public is allowed to write to the above courts and ask to expedite those case, expedite the Default Judgment against the Commissioner of Social security, can ask to hear the cases on the merits in oral argument in open court by the Supreme Court of the U.S., U.S. District Court of Appeals and by other courts who have related cases in front of them. Also important is the fact that Chief Judge of the US Court of Appeals, David Sentelle, Reagan appointee, announced that he will be leaving too, and Obama replacement will surely deny the motion at hand and cover up all the evidence.
Each and every law abiding U.S. citizen is urged to assist Attorney Orly Taitz in bringing this matter in the open and making sure that Obama is removed from office and prosecuted to the full extent of the law for his use of forged IDs and a stolen Social Security number. Obama’s presidency and complicity of the high ranked officials and courts is the most egregious crime ever perpetrated against this nation.

February 20, 2013 in Current Affairs | Permalink

More Re: REALLY PAUL ? Fw: [apfn-1] Another Federal Court impostor turns up in Grinols et al. v Obama et al., so does Orly Taitz (no license to practice law in California)

Teknosis needs your help. * Ways to help Teknosis

___

 

Post main:

 

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: REALLY PAUL ? Fw: [apfn-1] Another Federal Court impostor turns up in Grinols et al. v Obama et al., so does Orly Taitz (no license to practice law in California)

 

Attorneys are "officers of the court" and
4 U.S.C. 101 requires all State judicial officers
to execute a proper OATH OF OFFICE:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/4/101.html

That IS Federal law, Ralph, and you are ignorant of same!!

See also:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/criminal.complaint.htm

LIST OF AUTHORITIES

Plaintiff cites the following authorities in support of His VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, to wit:  Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 73 (1932) (“attorneys are officers of the court”);  Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1546 (11th Cir 1993) (“All attorneys, as officers of the court ....”);  Pumphrey v. K.W. Thompson Tool Co., 62 F.3d 1128, 1130 (9th Cir. 1995) (see section “II.”);  “Let Us Be Officers of the Court,” by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen, 83 ABA Journal 94 (1997);  and FRCP Rule 1, Advisory Committee Notes, 1993 Amendments (“as officers of the court, attorneys share ....”).


This was a State Court Civil RICO action, Ralph!

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

State Courts have original jurisdiction in Civil RICO actions:

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/civil.rico.htm


The claims you make violate 18 U.S.C. 4:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/4.html

Latter is supreme Law, pursuant to the Supremacy Clause:
Rules of Court may NOT amend such a statute because
Acts of Congress can ONLY be amended by Congress,
not by the Executive and not by the Judiciary.

See Willy v. Coastal Corp., in chief.


KINDLY GO AWAY, Ralph:  you appear to be a charlatan,
keyboard commando, loose cannon, freeloader and 
rude interloper.

YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE 
TALKING ABOUT.



-- 
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 

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:34 AM, backflow.prevention@verizon.net <backflow.prevention@verizon.net> wrote:
Click Me!
Counselor AND OTHERS:
  
Mr Paul Mitchell IS unaware that Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and U.S. Magistrates MANUAL forbids a private citizen from filing criminal complaints in any Court.  Badge Carrying people can file a form AO-91 then get a warrant if OATH taken in Appearance before Judge or Magistrate who then signs witnessing Oath then issues WARRANT.  Mr. Mitchell cites TITLE 18 USC Section 4 which is Misprison of Felony stating that DEMANDS YOU PROVIDE SOMETHING ON THE BACK OF YOUR STATE ISSUED LICENSE..... Might be a State BAR requirement to sign some OATH but it is not a FEDERAL LAW !
  
Such is simply NOT TRUE PUTTING YOU AND COURTS AT JEOPARDY as Mr. Mitchell has never obtained a FEDERAL CRIMINAL COMPLAINT HEARING NO DOUBT because private citizens NOT BADGE CARRYING PEOPLE cannot get it through and appear before a Judge or Magistrate under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure low numbers SUCH AS 3,4,5,6,7,8 OR MORE which are specific.
 
Please consider FORGIVING the Slander and Defamation of Mr. Mitchell and if not remember to get Obama suits solved as statute of limitations will allow you to take legal action LATER Attorney Taitz.
 
You can block messages on your e-mail program from Mr. Mitchell to finish your work on Obama lawsuits as Counsel.
 
I have been super busy with the shooting deaths of male children black and white at the Dozier School for Boys in Marianna, Florida.  When I get finished helping various agencies FIND the bodies with bullets using Ground Penetrating Radar for burial locations in Escape Routes from THE WHITE HOUSE TORTURE CHAMBER AREA and advising USF teams plus Law Enforcement with Super Metal Detectors as used by treasure hunters then the FBI, DJJ, DOJ, FDLE and Jackson County Sheriff can open up many of the escape route areas to full exhumation and recovery of well over 49 bodies of black and white children killed by guards and others at this State Facility.  The GUARDS never removed the bullets from the bodies and simply dug shallow graves in specific areas to BURY THE VICTIMS. 
 
Sad but true plus these families need closure knowing where their children's bodies are located for proper burial not a hole in the ground with no stone or cover let alone NO DEATH CERTIFICATES OR MEDICAL EXAMINER AUTOPSY.  Exhumation will help close this chapter in American HISTORY and perhaps cause the Governor, Members of Congress and others to LOOK INTO SIMILAR STATE OPERATIONS NATIONWIDE !
 
Check E-MAIL for way to block messages from those who attempt to take up your time or let some volunteer screen the messages Orly.  Your COURT CASE is coming up with Supreme Court.  Nothing else is important other than your business and representations. We too have SKYPE.
 
ID ralphwhitleysr  when the Obama trials are over.
 
Ralph 
Former LEO
Tampa
020613 @ 11:31 AM Eastern
 
 
 
 
-------Original Message-------
 
From: Orly Taitz
Date: 2/6/2013 1:44:06 AM
Subject: Re: REALLY PAUL ? Fw: [apfn-1] Another Federal Court impostor turns up in Grinols et al. v Obama et al., so does Orly Taitz (no license to practice law in California)

February 20, 2013 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Orly Taitz was duly served with this APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR AMICUS CURIAE: Farrar et al. v. Obama (OSAH / Georgia #OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-215136-60-MALIHI)

Teknosis needs your help. * Ways to help Teknosis

___

 

Post main:

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: Paul Andrew MitchellB.A., M.S.
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 6:18 AM
Subject: Orly Taitz was duly served with this APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR AMICUS CURIAE: Farrar et al. v. Obama (OSAH / Georgia #OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-215136-60-MALIHI)

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/farrar/application.amicus.curiae.htm
(see PROOF OF SERVICE)


She now writes:


"I don't know, who this Paul Mitchell is ...."
 -- Orly Taitz, Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 10:44 PM


See also:

http://supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/subpoena/delivery.instructions.htm


 
Dr. Orly Taitz, SBN #223433 (1x)
26302 La Paz, Suite 211
Mission Viejo 92691
CALIFORNIA, USA


-- 
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

February 20, 2013 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Re: REALLY PAUL ? Fw: [apfn-1] Another Federal Court impostor turns up in Grinols et al. v Obama et al., so does Orly Taitz (no license to practice law in California) [1 Attachment]

Teknosis needs your help. * Ways to help Teknosis

___

 

Post main:

 

 

[Attachment(s) from Supreme Law Firm included below]

 


----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 4:49 AM
Subject: Re: REALLY PAUL ? Fw: [apfn-1] Another Federal Court impostor turns up in Grinols et al. v Obama et al., so does Orly Taitz (no license to practice law in California)

Ms. Taitz,

You and 200,000+ other "members" of The State Bar of California
have failed to produce any certificate of oath that is required to be
indorsed -- on the back -- of the license to practice law in California,
as expressly required by sections 6067 and 6068 of the California
Business and Professions Code:

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/cbpc/6067.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/cbpc/6068.htm


These statutes have been thoroughly documented in this pleading:

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


The front side ONLY of one such "license" is here
and also attached:

http://supremelaw.org/cc/rainmaker/azar/State.Bar.License.1.JPG
http://supremelaw.org/cc/rainmaker/azar/nad.reverse.side.htm  (IN DEFAULT)


A SUBPOENA to The State Bar of California for all such "licenses"
is now IN DEFAULT and that Bar are now IN CONTEMPT of 
this SUBPOENA:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/statebar/


Accordingly, as required by 18 U.S.C. 4, all 200,000+ "members"
of The State Bar of California were formally charged here
with multiple State and Federal offenses:

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


All "robes" seated on the California Supreme Court and
California Courts of Appeal are likewise IN DEFAULT:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/calcourts/


You are in fact also IN DEFAULT, after my office politely 
requested you to produce PROOF of your certificate of oath:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/usdc-cdca/taitz/nad.oath.htm (IN DEFAULT)


The investigation we are conducting into missing and defective credentials
is being assisted by the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C.
with the full knowledge of the U.S. Marshals Service:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/index.htm  (see letters from DOJ)


See also:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/United.States.Notice.htm


We have not "slandered" you:  we are telling the truth and
have been telling the truth. 

It is YOU are now IN DEFAULT, just like all the other criminal impostors
confirmed by the following carefully assembled MATERIAL EVIDENCE:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm


-- 
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 

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Orly Taitz <orly.taitz@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't know, who this Paul Mitchell is, but his actions are a total slander and defamation of character.
My license is current, no adverse actions against my license and I am not in default 
Mr. Mitchell owes me an apology
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 8:17 PM, backflow.prevention@verizon.net <backflow.prevention@verizon.net> wrote:
Click Me!
Guess YOU need to use California Bar Dot Org to verify your information.
  
Apologize perhaps ?  Attorney Taitz is SUPER BUSY right now Paul. 
  
VERIFY YOURSELF OR TAKE ME OFF YOUR E-MAIL LIST !
  
Ralph
Tampa
020513
 
 
 
 
-------Original Message-------
 
Date: 2/3/2013 7:48:11 PM
Subject: [apfn-1] Another Federal Court impostor turns up in Grinols et al. v Obama et al., so does Orly Taitz (no license to practice law in California)

February 20, 2013 in Current Affairs | Permalink