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

Illinois Attorney General: "serving the public interest is established as the paramount obligation of the Attorney General"

http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/about/history.html


"Representation of the Crown [of England] is translated in our system to representation of the People 
thus, serving the public interest is established as the paramount obligation of the Attorney General."

...

In considering the powers of the Attorney General, the [Illinois] supreme court, in Fergus v. Russel, noted:

" * * *

* * * Under our form of government all of the prerogatives which pertain to the crown in England under the common law 
are here vested in the people ....


cf. Fergus v. Russel, 270 Ill. 304 (1915)


http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?357-Crown-as-the-People

e.g.:

"I thought it was common sense that the political powers of the King fell upon the People after kicking off the yolk of King George III."

___

When there is no adequate Federal remedy,
a State's common law is the rule of decision
PROVIDED and insofar as the same is NOT
inconsistent with the Constitution and laws

of the United States (federal government):


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1988

... but in all cases where they are not adapted to the object, or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against law, the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal cause is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, shall be extended to and govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the cause, and, if it is of a criminal nature, in the infliction of punishment on the party found guilty. 


Thus, the above statute also contemplates modifications
and changes to the common law, "as modified and changed
by the constitution and statutes of the State".

___



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)

July 15, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Confederate Flag removal / censorship topic and Congress' continued perpetration of racism in Federal law

"The Congress of Racism 1866"

 

by

 

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

 

Private Attorney General

 

 

With all of the talking heads in overdrive about Confederate flags

and other irresistible topics for the big media boys and girls,

it's useful to put the magnifying glass on each Congress

for perpetuating racism smack dab in the midst of Federal laws

even now codified in the U.S. Code.

 

Cases in point:  42 USC 1981 and 1982:

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1981

 

the same right ... as is enjoyed by white citizens

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1982

 

the same right ... as is enjoyed by white citizens

 

Gee, and you thought at least one Congress

might have repealed such repugnant comparisons

long before now?

 

WRONG!

 

The very origins of federal citizenship do

prove that the Congress of 1866 intended

to treat freed blacks differently -- by creating

a federal municipal franchise domiciled in D.C.:

 

http://supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/citizenship.for.dummies.htm

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/comments.on.citizenship.for.dummies.htm

 

Forget equal protection:  this cunning distinction is all about

maintaining two classes -- not equal, and not separate either!

 

And so, as the wagging tongues out-duel each other

in relevant and contemporary rhetoric, try to remember

that Congress could have proposed a much simpler solution:

 

after slavery was finally outlawed by the Thirteenth Amendment,

Congress could and should have allowed those Americans

to declare themselves States Citizens -- by registering as such

with their County Courts of general jurisdiction.

 

Do ya think a committee of bureaucrats could have designed a

form to facilitate same?  Do ya think?

 

Occam's Razor:  the simplest solution is always the best solution.

 

Don't expect Congress to propose simpler solutions

any time soon, however, because the majority of

federal lawmakers started their legal careers as

attorneys, and there's piles of money to be made

from extraordinarily complex legislation, and regulation,

like the Internal Revenue Code and its implementing rules

-- all growing by leaps and bounds.

 

Heck, we've even reached an historical high water mark,

now that both Houses of Congress routinely vote

on proposed laws without even reading them beforehand!

 

Didn't that lunatic from San Frantasia recently say

that she would read the law only after it was enacted?

 

"Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who's the fairest of them all?"

 

You know the nation is facing hard times when

narcissism saturates the Capitol Rotunda.

 

To ATTORN is to supervise the transfer of an estate

from the old lord to the new lord:  it is a term from

feudal law, circa the Middle Ages.

---

http://supremelaw.org/press/rels/congress.of.racism.htm

http://supremelaw.org/cc/knudson/judnot09.htm#dyett

http://supremelaw.org/authors/lyon/tdocws.htm

---

/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 Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 5:52 AM, JS wrote:
Is there anything to be able to point to re: the recent confederate flag removal madness that anyone would like to counter with information that can be brought to others attention when they search re: confederate flag on the internet? I don't recall seeing the topic discussed here.

July 12, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Independence? Paul Andrew Mitchell, (Private Attorney General [P.A.G.]), on Truth vs. NEW$, Inc.

See and hear Paul speak @ http://seattlecommunitymedia.org/series/truth-vs-new-inc/episode/tvni-july-2-independence-paul-andrew-mitchell-pag

and all links at the end e.g.:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/comments.on.citizenship.for.dummies.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htm


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)

July 11, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Former International Court of Justice judge: Dick Cheney should face prosecution

from: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
reply-to: supremelaw@googlegroups.com
to: tbuergen@law.gwu.edu
cc: efield@law.gwu.edu,
SupremeLaw <supremelaw@googlegroups.com>
date: Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 1:28 AM
subject: Former International Court of Justice judge: Dick Cheney should face prosecution
mailing list: supremelaw.googlegroups.com
TO:
Hon. Thomas Buergenthal, Professor
George Washington University
 
Greetings Your Honor:

Thank you very much for your comments reported above.

FYI:  as part of our pro bono assistance to U.S. Coast Guard Investigations
at San Diego Harbor, we filed and served the following VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT,
ON INFORMATION, formally charging Bush / Cheney / Rumsfeld:

http://supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/vcc.htm
(see all Exhibits, in particular)

http://supremelaw.org/cc/libby/grand.jury.demand.htm
(no response(s) from Mr. Fitzgerald, however)


p.s. For your classes on comparative law and jurisprudence,
please also see our recent work formally challenging the

U.S. Senate's ratification of the ICCPR:

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/civil/iccpr/

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/civil/iccpr/draft/first.draft.htm
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/civil/iccpr/Executive.Order.13107.pdf
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/civil/iccpr/Executive.Order.13132.pdf

http://supremelaw.org/authors/buergenthal/
http://supremelaw.org/authors/buergenthal/Modern.Constitutions.and.Human.Rights.Treaties.page01.png
http://supremelaw.org/authors/buergenthal/page220.gif
http://supremelaw.org/authors/buergenthal/page221.gif
http://supremelaw.org/authors/buergenthal/page222.gif
http://supremelaw.org/authors/buergenthal/page223.gif


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

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

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

___

See also:

http://supremelaw.org/authors/buergenthal/

http://supremelaw.org/authors/seibert-fohr/

http://supremelaw.org/authors/carter/



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:08 PM
Subject: FYI: Please Forward to Judge Thomas Buergenthal: "The Petition Clause is violated by the non-self-executing Declaration of U.S. ICCPR Ratification"
To: pennyh@uw.edujafrank@uw.edu
Cc: lawdean@uw.edulawgroup-ACScompetition@law.upenn.educhallen@uw.edu

July 9, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Re: 4 USC 72

(no rebuttal(s) from any opposing party(s))


/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)

July 9, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Reading List: Constitutional Courts and Legislative Tribunals

Reading List:  Constitutional Courts and Legislative Tribunals


Prof. Emeritus Kenneth L. Karst, on the faculty of the UCLA Law School, 
has summarized the overall problem quite nicely as follows:
 
"In essence a legislative court is merely an administrative agency with an elegant name.  
While Congress surely has the power to transfer portions of the business of the federal judiciary 
to legislative courts, a wholesale transfer of that business would work a fundamental change 
in the status of our independent judiciary and would seem vulnerable to constitutional attack."

[Discussion of “Legislative Court”]
[in Encyclopedia of the American Constitution]
[New York, MacMillan Publishing Company (1986)]


"The cases dealing with the authority of Congress to create courts 
other than by use of its power under Art. III do not admit of easy synthesis."

NORTHERN PIPELINE CO. v. MARATHON PIPE LINE CO., 458 U.S. 50 (1982)
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/458/50.html


"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."

NATIONAL MUT. INS. CO. OF DIST. OF COL. V. TIDEWATER TRANSFER CO., 337 U.S. 582 (1949)
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/337/582.html



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

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/dcus.htm

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

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/court.conspiracy.exposed.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/microsoft/transmittal.htm

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

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/schwan/sedition.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/microsoft/transmittal.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/opening.htm#topic-e


Chronological List of U.S. Supreme Court cases:

http://supremelaw.org/cc/aol/cert.htm#sccases

More to the merits, legislative courts are not required to exercise 
the Article III guarantees required of constitutional courts.  See:

American Insurance v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 26 U.S. 511, 7 L.Ed. 242 (1828) 
(C.J. Marshall’s seminal ruling);  
Benner v. Porter, 50 U.S. 235, 242‑243 (1850);  
Clinton v. Englebrecht, 80 U.S. 434, 447 (1871);  
Hornbuckle v. Toombs, 85 U.S. 648, 655 (1873);  
Good v. Martin, 95 U.S. 90, 98 (1877);  
Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145, 154 (1878);  
The City of Panama, 101 U.S. 453, 460 (1879);  
Keller v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 261 U.S. 428 (1923);  
Federal Trade Commission v. Klesner, 274 U.S. 145 (1927);  
Swift & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 311 (1928);  
Ex parte Bakelite Corporation, 279 U.S. 438 (1929);  
Federal Radio Commission v. General Electric Co., 281 U.S. 464 (1930);  
Claiborne‑Annapolis Ferry Co. v. United States, 285 U.S. 382 (1932);  
O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516 (1933);  
Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962);  and, 
Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982).  

The U.S. Courts of Appeal are Article III federal courts [cites omitted here].

In Marathon supra, Justice Brennan for the plurality reasoned that Congress could 
create legislative courts without Article III protections in only three limited settings:  
(1) territorial courts, 
(2) courts martial, and 
(3) courts deciding disputes involving public rights that Congress created in the first instance.  

Thus, by treating the 50 States as federal Territories and 
by creating federal citizenship as a municipal franchise, 
Congress could effectively “broadcast” into those States 
a legislative court that routinely proceeds without Article III protections!  

See the 1866 Civil Rights Act, 14 Stat. 27‑30, April 9, 1866 A.D.  

In the legislative USDC, those protections are options, not mandates, 
particularly when the extension statutes supra are also routinely ignored.


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

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

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308 https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-308)
 
__
 
MS relays:
 
About U.S. Courts of Appeal. 
In Taylor v. McKeithen, 407 U.S. 191, 195 the Court ably informs us:

            "The Courts of Appeals are statutory courts, having the power to

            prescribe rules for  the conduct of their own business so long as those

            rules are consistent with applicable  law and rules of practice and

            procedure proscribed by this Court, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2071."

 ___
 
Re: 
"The Courts of Appeals are statutory courts, having the power to

  prescribe rules for  the conduct of their own business so long as those

  rules are consistent with applicable law and rules of practice and

  procedure proscribed by this Court, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2071."


>  applicable law and rules of practice and procedure proscribed by this Court

BUT, it can be shown that the latter statement
is quite misleading, if not deceptive, in point of Law:

Chiefly, the Abrogation Clause at 28 U.S.C. 2072(b)
is clearly unconstitutional:

http://supremelaw.org/cc/aol/interlocutory.judgment.htm

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. 

But, Acts of Congress conferring original jurisdiction
upon the Article III DCUS cannot be "amended" i.e. abrogated
by textual changes to Rules of Court:  Willy v. Coastal Corp.

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/opening.htm


In adopting rules, federal courts are not free to extend or restrict jurisdiction conferred by statute.

 

The FRCP must be deemed to apply to a particular Federal District Court civil proceeding only if the application of the rules will not impermissibly expand the judicial authority conferred on federal courts by the Federal Constitution’s Article III ‑‑ which describes the subjects over which federal courts have jurisdiction ‑‑ because the caveat that federal courts, in adopting rules, are not free to extend or restrict the jurisdiction conferred by a statute applies a fortiorito any effort to extend by rule the judicial power described in Article III of the Constitution.

 

[Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 112 S.Ct. 1076]

[117 L.Ed.2d 280 (USDC, S.D. Texas 1992), headnote 3]

[underlines and bold emphasis added]

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/503/131.html

But in Sibbach v. Wilson, 312 U.S. 1 (1941), we observed that federal courts, in adopting rules, were not free to extend or restrict the jurisdiction conferred by a statute. Id., at 10. Such a caveat applies a fortiori to any effort to extend by rule the judicial power of the United States described in Article III of the Constitution. The Rules, then, must be deemed to apply only if their application will not impermissibly expand the judicial authority conferred by Article III. 


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!)

July 8, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Please Help Our Satirical "Love Gov" Video Series Make History

Hi Juan,

I am writing to ask for your help in sharing with your colleagues—as well as in email, websites, blogs, social media, and other networks—the news of our very timely, bold, new satirical video series on liberty—Love Gov: From First Date to Mandate. Taking the video series “viral” will result in huge numbers of people—many of whom might otherwise not be open to such a message—gaining a powerful grasp of the problems of meddlesome government!

Premiering on YouTube this evening, Love Gov personifies the increasing folly, cost, and intrusiveness of government in the lives of everyone, especially the young.

This 5-part video series depicts the federal government as an overbearing boyfriend—Scott “Gov” Govinsky—who foists his “good intentions” on a hapless, idealistic college student, Alexis.  Each episode follows Alexis’s relationship with “Gov” as his intrusions wreak comic havoc on her life, professionally, financially, and socially. Alexis’s loyal friend Libby tries to help her see “Gov” for what he really is—a menace. But will Alexis come to her senses in time? Tune in to find out!

We believe that Love Gov is a funny and compelling way to help anyone understand the federal government’s expanding reach into our lives. It’s a lighthearted approach to reach audiences on a personal level and inspire them to learn more and take action.

Love Gov also connects viewers with our FREE MyGovCost mobile app, that enables anyone to estimate his or her lifetime federal tax liability and the assets that could have been accrued if the taxes were instead privately invested. Our MyGovCost app also allows users to learn more about the federal government’s follies, with numerous articles and other resources—with more "helpful" commentary (and surprises!) from "Gov".

Please help us spread the word and share this must-see video series with your colleagues, friends, family, and others. We are hoping Love Gov can make history by reverberating far and wide, and we would greatly appreciate your recommending the series in any of the following:

  • Website article or notice
  • Email alert
  • Blog posting
  • Social media (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube channel, etc.)

Please let me know if we may assist you in any way, and if you have any questions.

Thank you for your great help!

Best regards,

David

------
David J. Theroux
Founder and President
Independent Institute
100 Swan Way
Oakland, CA 94621-1428
(510) 632-1366
(510) 568-6040 Fax
dtheroux@independent.org
www.independent.org

​The Power of Independent Thinking​ 
Description: http://www.independent.org/images/logos/tii_logo_new_285x79.png

July 7, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Freedom Watch

The Federal Reserve has stripped the middle class of trillions of dollars of wealth through the hidden tax of inflation.
 
Michael Snyder
 

   *******************
 

"All good government is and must be republican. But at the same time, you can or will agree with me, that there is not in lexicography a more fraudulent word... Are we not, my friend, in danger of rendering the word republican unpopular in this country by an indiscreet, indeterminate, and equivocal use of it? [...] Whenever I use the word republic with approbation, I mean a government in which the people have collectively, or by representation, an essential share in the sovereignty... the republican forms in Poland and Venice are much worse, and those of Holland and Bern very little better, than the monarchical form in France before the late revolution."
 
~ John Adams
 
Source: John Adams to Samuel Adams, 18 Oct, 1789 in Works, VI:415,420-421
 
 
 
   *********************
 

Alabama Attorney Win Johnson to Governing Officials: Resist Federal Tyranny
http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/07/alabama-attorney-win-johnson-to-governing-officials-resist-federal-tyranny/#Ef759FFYpKZ1HivC.03
 

Oregon Bakers Fined and Issued Gag Order by Oregon Nazi-Like Elected Official
http://www.dcclothesline.com/2015/07/06/oregon-bakers-fined-and-issued-gag-order-by-oregon-nazi-like-elected-official/
 

United States is Being Turned Into A Communist Country
Hundreds of thousands of American servicemen and women have been injured and/or died on foreign shores to protect the freedoms enshrined in the above-cited two documents, especially the freedom to be represented through elected officials! Not to mention the thousands of soldiers who died in the American Revolution which was caused by the Crown taxing its citizens and not allowing them any say over how their money was spent!.......
http://www.newswithviews.com/iserbyt/iserbyt137.htm
by Charlotte Iserbyt
 

Five Laws to Repeal on Independence Day
http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=bf16b152ccc444bdbbcc229e4&id=e10639b110&e=48b01ad79b
 

Congress Must Protect Itself
From executive dictatorship, says Paul Craig Roberts.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/07/paul-craig-roberts/congress-must-protect-itself/
 

Why the Republican Party is equally guilty of Obamacare; Libertarians explain
https://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/why-the-republican-party-is-equally-guilty-of-obamacare-libertarians-explain?utm_source=iContact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Libertarian%20Party&utm_content=20150703+GENPR+Repubs+Guilty+of+Obamacare
 

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

July 7, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Pound Sand, Your Honor! More Americans Want States To Ignore Federal Courts

from: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
reply-to: supremelaw@googlegroups.com
to: SupremeLaw <supremelaw@googlegroups.com>
cc: GOVTSLAVES@protonmail.com
date: Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 10:41 PM
subject: Pound Sand, Your Honor! More Americans Want States To Ignore Federal Courts
mailing list: supremelaw.googlegroups.com
... particularly when federal (feudal) "robes" lack credentials that are required by
the Constitution and by Acts of Congress implementing the Oath of Office Clause:

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

http://supremelaw.org/rsrc/oaths/

http://supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions.htm


http://supremelaw.org/rsrc/laws.and.regs.htm


After all, they are People In Government Services:

http://supremelaw.org/rsrc/oaths/pigs.htm


 

 



Pound Sand, Your Honor! More Americans Want States To Ignore Federal Courts

http://govtslaves.info/pound-sand-your-honor-more-americans-want-states-to-ignore-federal-courts/

()  While dissenting from the recent Supreme Court decision rubber-stamping same-sex “marriage,” Justice Antonin Scalia warned his colleagues that with “each decision … unabashedly based not on law” the Court moves “one step closer to being reminded of [its] impotence.” And a new poll shows that another such step has in fact been taken, with more Americans supporting the idea that states should have the right to ignore federal court rulings. WritesRasmussen Reports, “A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 33% of Likely U.S. Voters now believe that states should have the right to ignore federal court rulings if their elected officials [dis]agree with them. That’s up nine points from 24% when we first asked this question in February. Just over half (52%) disagree, down from 58% in the earlier survey. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided.”

This shift is clearly influenced not just by Obergefell v. Hodges (the marriage ruling), but also a late June ObamaCare decision so contrary to the “Affordable Care Act’s” text that Justice Scalia lamented to the Court, “Words no longer have meaning.” Not surprisingly, there was an ideological divide among poll respondents. As Rasmussen also tells us, “Fifty percent (50%) of GOP voters now believe states should have the right to ignore federal court rulings, compared to just 22% of Democrats and 30% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Interestingly, this represents a noticeable rise in support among all three groups. Fifty percent (50%) of conservative voters share this view, but just 27% of moderates and 15% of liberals agree.”



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)

July 7, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink

"US Admits Paying Terrorists For Services Rendered In Syria," By Brandon Turbeville (June 30, 2015)

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/06/us-admits-paying-terrorists-for.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ActivistPost+%28Activist+Post%29


When researchers such as myself have reported that the United States is funding al-Qaeda, Nusra, ISIS and other related terror organizations in Syria, we were not kidding. 

Still, despite the fact that even the U.S. government itself has admitted that it was funding terrorists -– directly and indirectly through Saudi Arabia, the suggestion was met with disbelief, ridicule, or either entirely ignored. 

Now, however, the United States government has admitted that it funds terrorists on the ground in Syria yet again, this time placing an individual dollar amount on the assistance provided. 



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)

July 1, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink