Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0
HEIGHT=

Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Coffees from Youngevity
HEIGHT=

Coffees from Youngevity

Youngevity Be The Change

Youngevity Healthy Chocolate

GOFoods Youngevity

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.
HEIGHT=

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Ron Paul Forums
HEIGHT=

Ron Paul Forums

APFN Message Board
HEIGHT=

APFN Message Board

Leo Emil Wanta / Wantagate Links

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

« Ron Paul New Update 3-20-2009 | Main | Florida Judge Holds Non-Filer Not Guilty Of Crime!! | Ron Paul Wins! | Campaign for Liberty at the Daily Paul »

Federal "Robe" (NOT a Judge) Nancy G. Edmunds "Orders" Michigan Couple To Testify Against Themselves

Outstanding health products/opportunity for health and wealth http://beyondtangytangerine2dot0.wordpress.com/2014/06/22/dead-doctors-dont-lie-daily-radio-podcast-store/

___

Post main:

 

From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Subject: Federal "Robe" (NOT a Judge) Nancy G. Edmunds "Orders" Michigan Couple To Testify Against Themselves
To: "wrh@whatreallyhappened.com" <wrh@whatreallyhappened.com>
Cc: "SupremeLaw" <supremelaw@googlegroups.com>,paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo.com
Date: Friday, March 20, 2009, 11:15 AM

http://www.losthorizons.com/lawsuit.htm#Latest

WAKE UP, FOLKS!  The pattern is coming into focus:
in Federal income tax cases, IMPOSTORS are assigned to "preside".

GET IT NOW??

From WRH:


Judge Orders Michigan Couple To Testify Against Themselves

 

Judge [sic] Edmunds (described by The Ann Arbor News and The Grand Rapids Press as guilty of perverting justice in another recent case, as well) granted a DOJ- and IRS-requested “summary judgment” in a lawsuit attempting to force the Hendricksons to change sworn testimony on their tax returns in order to give the federal government a pretext for claiming the couple owed income taxes in 2002 and 2003.

 

Edmunds’ "order" is purely for the consumption of a gullible public and press. Forcing someone to change sworn testimony is not only outside the authority of any court (or anyone else) but attempting to do so is a violation of several different criminal statutes.

 

[end quote]


Yes, BUT ... Edmunds is lacking TWO (2) OF THE FOUR (4) REQUISITE CREDENTIALS:

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

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/edmunds.nancy/nad.missing.credentials.2.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/edmunds.nancy/

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/edmunds.nancy/foia.request.usdc.dmi.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/oaths/letter.2007-08-07.3/
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/oaths/letter.2007-08-07.3/letter01.gif
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/oaths/letter.2007-08-07.3/letter02.gif


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

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

 

March 21, 2009 in Current Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d3ac69e201156f2c4e06970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Federal "Robe" (NOT a Judge) Nancy G. Edmunds "Orders" Michigan Couple To Testify Against Themselves:

Comments

The comments to this entry are closed.