« September 2016 | Main | February 2017 »

Fwd: PLEASE FORWARD to Dr. Art Robinson: major problems with Peter DeFazio (Congressman, Roseburg, Oregon)

 

Greetings Dr. Robinson:

I have lived in Roseburg since January 2016, and
I am having very serious problems with Peter DeFazio.

Before I summarize, please know that one of
the 2 Trustees of my private estate has been a
long-time resident of Roseburg, and he can
verify everything I am sharing with you here
and now:
 
My office has been leading a Credential Investigation
at since August 2001, to acquire, archive and inspect
the credentials required of Federal officers and
employees by numerous Federal laws.

The evidence disclosed to us by the U.S. Department
of Justice grew to be such a huge embarrassment
for key suspects -- like many Federal "judges" --
IRS personnel conspired to target individuals like me,
in addition to conservative organizations and
Tea Party affiliates.

Although the latter organizations suffered long delays
processing their applications for tax-exempt status,
I was criminally targeted with malicious prosecution and
numerous related Federal felonies, all of which I was
required to report timely, to satisfy 18 U.S.C. 4:
 
I was falsely arrested in January 2014, moved 55 TIMES in 11 months,
3 times in solitary confinement, and tortured with threats
of forced administration of brain-damaging drugs at the
U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Missouri.

It's hard to say exactly why all charges were eventually dismissed
in December 2014:  while detained at USMCFP in Springfield,
I did succeed in commencing two (2) separate lawsuits
 
On the advice of our Trustee, I have now lodged a
Federal Tort Claim with the principal agency --
the U.S. Marshals Service, for "time only":
7,805 hours of false arrest and unlawful incarceration,
using an hourly rate authorized by the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals in New York State.
 
USMS "Policy Directives" make it very clear
that the USMS have legal custody of all federal inmates
and all inmate transportation, no exceptions.


How does Peter DeFazio enter into this sad picture?

Initially, he agreed to assist with the FOIA Requests
which I submitted to the USMS, for their credentials
and for all of my inmate transportation records.  But,
as the evidence started to pile up in his 3 offices
(Roseburg, Eugene, and the District of Columbia)
he abruptly changed his mind.
 
Our Trustee also wrote to Peter DeFazio with a polite
request for referrals to arbitration, mediation or
other alternative dispute resolution method ("ADR").

In reply, DeFazio promptly defamed me in a letter to our Trustee,
transmitted via U.S. Mail:  that was defamation, and mail fraud.
 
Our Trustee then objected in writing with a DEMAND TO
CEASE AND DESIST.

(This correspondence can be shared with you,
upon receipt of a written request for same.)
 
No, I am not mentally incompetent, just very intelligent,
very experienced, and very well informed as
the Principal Investigator of The Credential Investigation:

http://supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/credential.investigation.facts.and.laws.htm

I graduated from UCLA in 1970 and scored in the
top 10% of California college graduates on the GRE
(Graduate Record Exam).  I went on to get an M.S.
in Public Administration at U.C. Irvine in 1973.
 
We have provided DeFazio with extensive documentation,
including an email message that directly implicates
Lois G. Lerner with personnel of the IRS Chief Counsel's
Office who are presently obstructing my Federal Tort Claim.

IRS has absolutely no jurisdiction of that Federal Tort Claim!
 
If you don't already know about the "Lois Lerner Scandal"
just Google her name and get ready for a few shocks.

Judicial Watch have commenced lawsuits to compel
disclosure of her numerous email messages while
employed as a high-level IRS official e.g.

Google "Lois G. Lerner" "Mark S. Kaizen"
 
Although I was always in the legal custody of the
U.S. Marshals during my ordeal lasting 7,805 hours,
their General Counsel casually referred my Tort Claim
to the IRS Chief Counsel. 

High-level personnel of the latter office have now turned up
withOUT credentials!
We believe it is very revealing, and indicative of his
real posture towards American constitutional law,
that DeFazio returned that email evidence, even though
our mailing envelope was annotated:

"EVIDENCE:  DO NOT DESTROY"


By refusing to admit that evidence into the
custody of the U.S. House of Representatives,
DeFazio may have also violated several other
FELONY Federal statutes e.g. 18 U.S.C. 1001, 1519
(to name a few).
 
If you are interested in reviewing any of the
Exhibits attached to my pending Federal Tort Claim,


If I can be of any further assistance to you and/or your campaign,
either before or after Election Day 2016, please do not
hesitate to contact me here, preferably via email.

(I haven't used telephones for a long time, because
of all of the illegal wiretaps which Federal agencies
are now conducting without Court ORDERs.)

 
Allow me to suggest that you schedule an informal lecture,
perhaps 60 to 90 minutes, during which I will be happy to
brief your chosen audience with all of the relevant details
of The Credential Investigation, and all of the documentary
evidence, and pleadings, inspired by my 325-day ordeal.

A more ambitious idea is to schedule a 4-hour recorded lecture
on some convenient weekend, when interested people
are not at their regular jobs.
 
 
Thank you, Dr. Robinson, for your earnest consideration.


Cc:  Larry Saccato, Trustee, Estate of Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

 
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Civil RICO: 18 U.S.C. 1964;
Agent of the United States as Qui Tam Relator (4X),
Federal Civil False Claims Act: 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq.

http://supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

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

October 18, 2016 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Private Attorney General comments re: WaPo: Private prison industry fights Justice Department directive to end the use of contract facilities

 
Our Comment posted today:

The Credential Investigation, launched by our office in August 2001, recently requested APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS for all BOP personnel going back 10 years -- the discovery window authorized by 18 USC 1961(5). 

Not a single credential was disclosed, and every one of those FOIA Requests is now PAST DUE and also IN DEFAULT. 

The Act of Congress at 5 USC 5507 bars federal officers from being paid, if they have not executed valid U.S. OPM Standard Form 61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS. 

Making matters worse, the electronic SF-61 published at OPM's Internet website is a known COUNTERFEIT:  no OMB control number;  no expiration date;  no citation to 5 USC 2903 (Authority to administer);  and the misleading claim"Prior editions not usable" when the only valid SF-61s pre-date August 2002. 

Many of those SF-61s were also "administered" by HR assistants not authorized to do so by 5 USC 2903. 

This whole mess is rendered even more serious by the Oath of Office Clause in the organic U.S. Constitution, which pre-dates the Bill of Rights and has never been amended.



http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/civil2/  (see FOIA1 thru FOIA10 sub-folders)


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Civil RICO: 18 U.S.C. 1964;
Agent of the United States as Qui Tam Relator (4X),
Federal Civil False Claims Act: 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq.

http://supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

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

'Supreme Law Firm' via SupremeLaw

3:43 PM (7 hours ago)
 
to Supreme
 
 
 
 
 
p.s.  Case in point, the SF-61 for Sally Q. Yates is
another COUNTERFEIT:
 


 
 
 
 
Our Comment posted today:

The Credential Investigation, launched by our office in August 2001, recently requested APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS for all BOP personnel going back 10 years -- the discovery window authorized by 18 USC 1961(5). 

Not a single credential was disclosed, and every one of those FOIA Requests is now PAST DUE and also IN DEFAULT. 

The Act of Congress at 5 USC 5507 bars federal officers from being paid, if they have not executed valid U.S. OPM Standard Form 61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS. 

Making matters worse, the electronic SF-61 published at OPM's Internet website is a known COUNTERFEIT:  no OMB control number;  no expiration date;  no citation to 5 USC 2903 (Authority to administer);  and the misleading claim"Prior editions not usable" when the only valid SF-61s pre-date August 2002. 

Many of those SF-61s were also "administered" by HR assistants not authorized to do so by 5 USC 2903. 

This whole mess is rendered even more serious by the Oath of Office Clause in the organic U.S. Constitution, which pre-dates the Bill of Rights and has never been amended.



http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/civil2/  (see FOIA1 thru FOIA10 sub-folders)


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Civil RICO: 18 U.S.C. 1964;
Agent of the United States as Qui Tam Relator (4X),
Federal Civil False Claims Act: 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq.
 

http://supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

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

October 18, 2016 in Current Affairs | Permalink

MEDIA'S PHONY GROPER ALLEGATIONS FALLING LIKE DOMINOES Common Democrat tactic used to slander, destroy opponents unravels

MEDIA'S PHONY GROPER ALLEGATIONS FALLING LIKE DOMINOES

Common Democrat tactic used to slander, destroy opponents unravels


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/medias-phony-groper-allegations-falling-like-dominoes/#vfjR0HukLCxfrVGr.99

October 18, 2016 in Current Affairs | Permalink

United States District Court (USDC) has no criminal jurisdiction whatsoever

The Yalta Conference at end of WWII is a MAJOR CLUE ... USDC has no criminal jurisdiction whatsoever

One essential component of the MAJOR THEORY we are pursuing
goes like this:

World War II was contrived to make money for Daddy Warbucks
and family (War Bucks, get it??)  WWI had already poured
huge sums into their coffers, so they knew how lucrative
another "world war" would be for them. 

The U.S. debt to the bankers had jumped
from $1 Billion before WWI to $25 Billion after WWI.
 
I wasn't paying attention during a lecture given by one of
my fellow seminarians, I believe it was Junior Year High School
at Queen of Angels Seminary in San Fernando, California:
the focus of his lecture was the Yalta Conference.

Now, consider this:  at Yalta we see photos of
FDR, Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin --
very famous photographs.
 
By the time that Conference started, the defeat
of the German Wehrmacht (military machine) was in sight:
February 4-11, 1945.  Germany formally surrendered on May 7, 1945
-- just 3 months later.
 
What we do NOT see in any of those historical photos
are the bankers, hiding behind the scenes like
the Wizard of Oz (oz = gold, get it?)

What I strongly suspect happened at Yalta was
some kind of secret "deal" which FDR consummated
with the banks:

The United States was running out of money,
and it needed lots more to finish off Japan,
particularly if a land invasion of Japan
was decided necessary to end WWII.

So, I do believe that FDR secretly accepted
massive loans from the international bankers,
in return for agreeing to turn American Courts
into collection agencies.

This plan or "scheme" had been hatched
even BEFORE the United States entered WWII --
with a RESOLUTION and NOT an Act of Congress,
mind you!

The evidence of this timing is found in the
history of revisions to Titles 18 and 28
of the U.S. Code.
 
As such, the lucky men and women who
were allowed to stay home, back in D.C.,
went to work quietly re-writing the entire
Federal Criminal Code (Title 18) and
the entire Judiciary Code (Title 28).

Both were eventually revised, codified
and enacted into positive law on the
same day -- June 25, 1948 -- one right
after the other in the Statutes at Large:
where the Title 18 revision ends
the revision of Title 28 begins --
no other pages in between the two!
 
I was only 4 DAYS old on that day.

Thus, with these historical facts in sharp focus,
it makes perfect sense that the Federal Courts
effectively "morphed" into legislative tribunals
with an unstated purpose of collecting interest
payments on behalf of world bankers who
financed the end of WWII.

Remember also that the United States was secretly
bankrupted by FDR et al. in 1933.

As such, FDR's solution to paying off war debts
was obviously different from Pres. Lincoln's approach --
greenbacks!
 
And, the debts which the United States agreed to pay
were engineered as COMPOUND INTEREST:
interest accruing on interest. 

Ah, what magic!!  I'm sure U.S. creditor banks were thrilled.
 
Unfortunately for that conspiracy, the U.S. Supreme Court
has now held -- correctly -- that Rules of Court may NOT
expand or restrict original jurisdiction already conferred
upon Federal District Courts by prior Acts of Congress:
Willy v. Coastal Corp.

We have now proven that the switch from DCUS to USDC
was ATTEMPTED by means of amendments to the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure, and Federal Rules of Evidence.

If you know what to look for, the Congress tried to
make this appear AOK by adding an "Abrogation Clause"
to the Rules Enabling Act:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2072

(b)  Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right.
All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect
after such rules have taken effect.

That Abrogation Clause is obviously unconstitutional:
the Supreme Court may not make law, and Congress
may not delegate law-making authority to 9 black robes.
 
A similar Abrogation Clause was also added to the
Title 18 revision, at the former 18 U.S.C. 3771;
however, that statute was later repealed and
replaced with a different statute dealing with
Crime Victims' Rights ("CVRA").

It's highly unusual for a section in the
U.S. Code to be repealed and then
REPLACED with entirely different text
but retaining the same section number!
 
Now that the Abrogation Clause in Title 28
has been proven to be unconstitutional,
the holding in Willy v. Coastal Corp. bars
all United States District Courts from
claiming any criminal jurisdiction whatsoever.

We know full well that they do make that claim,
but they cannot prove it!
 
The general rule in all Federal jurisprudence
is that statutes conferring original jurisdiction
upon Federal District Courts must be STRICTLY
construed.  Just read it for yourself and
confirm that section 3231 granted criminal jurisdiction
to the Article III DCUS:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3231

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.

Check out this extra ZINGER, in the Notes under that section:

Senate Revision Amendment

The text of this section was changed by Senate amendment.

See Senate Report No. 1620, amendment No. 10, 80th Cong.

 

There is no evidence of any vote by the U.S. House of Representatives,

and no evidence of any Presidential signature on that "Senate amendment".

As such, this "Senate amendment" is further evidence of a

fraudulent attempt to tamper with section 3231, so as to

make it APPEAR that the USDC had been conferred with

criminal jurisdiction, when such a claim simply cannot be

sustained in light of Willy v. Coastal Corp. and the

obvious unconstitutionality of the Abrogation Clause

still found at 28 USC 2072(b).

 

Further reading:  Hovind was released
soon after this MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
was filed and served in his case:

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hovind/recon1.htm


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Civil RICO: 18 U.S.C. 1964;
Agent of the United States as Qui Tam Relator (4X),
Federal Civil False Claims Act: 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq.

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 Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:23 AM, SoundSignal <soundsignal@comcast.net> wrote:

October 17, 2016 in Current Affairs | Permalink

In-depth story of Bill Clinton's shunned and banished son, Danney Williams (Full interview)

In depth story of Bill Clinton's banished son, Danney Williams

Banished - Bill Clinton's 'Son' Speaks Out - Please Share.

Hillary Banished Me From My Father: Bill Clinton's 'Son' Speaks

Bill Clinton's Estranged 'Son' Breaks His Silence (Full interview) 

October 12, 2016 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Fact-Check: Yes, Hillary Clinton Did Laugh In Interview After Successfully Defending a Child Rapist

http://www.breitbart.com/live/second-presidential-debate-fact-check-livewire/fact-check-yes-hillary-clinton-laugh-successfully-defending-child-rapist/

 

October 10, 2016 in Current Affairs | Permalink