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 ++++++++++++++++++

« Shifty Powers' Memorial Service | Main | Vaccine-caused Disease: The 1918 Influenza Epidemic »

OBJECTION Re: you have to read Dr Orly Taitz MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT

From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Subject: OBJECTION Re: you have to read Dr Orly Taitz MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT
To: budskippy2000@yahoo.com
Cc: "SupremeLaw" <supremelaw@googlegroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 5:49 PM

OBJECTION:  said USDC does not enjoy original jurisdiction in FOIA enforcement cases:
it is a Territorial Tribunal with a Constitutional origin in the Territory Clause -- 4:3:2.
See Balzac v. Porto Rico (among many other similar cases).

Statutes conferring original jurisdiction must be STRICTLY construed (cites omitted):
the jurisdictional statute is 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B):

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/552.html (a)(4)(B)

On complaint, the district court of the United States in the district in which the complainant resides, or has his principal place of business, or in which the agency records are situated, or in the District of Columbia, has jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant.

[end quote]

The District Court of the United States ("DCUS") is a constitutional court
with an origin in Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

It was the Federal Court of original jurisdiction for 159 YEARS --
between 1789 and 1948.

The differences between the DCUS and the USDC reached the U.S. Supreme Court
several years ago:  O'Connor resigned and Rehnquist died soon after these pleadings
were filed WITH NO REBUTTALS BY ANY OF THE 129 OPPOSING PARTIES:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/cert.htm#drama
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/mandamus.2.htm

Also:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/opening.htm
e.g. Willy v. Coastal Corp. (rules of court cannot change Acts of Congress!  DUUH!! )

A newspaper-level discussion is here:

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

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


Taitz has no license to practice law, and neither did the "robe"
assigned to that case:

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


Are you just being political, because you don't seem to care
about the Law in America?  If the Law does matter to you,
then why are you enforcing it selectively, and letting Taitz
and Carter off the hook completely?




Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13
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, Jul 14, 2009 at 5:30 PM, <budskippy2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

...drum roll....and another win for the cute girl with the blond hair!!!!!
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/

Here is the motion filed yesterday before the hearing in Keyes et al v Obama et al

July 14th, 2009

Dr. Orly Taitz




==============================



Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

It looks like we won already and not just on any day, on Bastille day

July 14th, 2009

I didn’t even need to fight, the administration blinked and showed it’s cards, actually they showed that they have no cards to play, as they immediately revoked the order for major Cook. You can see below, the revocation is below, saying he doesn’t need to go.

What does it mean? It’s proof that we have a totally illegitimate commander in chief and they will cave in each and every situation. It means that from now on any member of the military, who doesn’t like any order , needs to call Dr. Taitz, ESQ and state that he doesn’t want to follow the order, a legal action  will  be initiated based on Obama’s illegitimacy in office and the military will cave in. It means that for the sake of covering up for Obama and fraud perpetrated, top brass of the US military is willing to undermine integrity of the military. This has to stop.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

U.S. ARMY HUMAN RESOURCES COMMAND

1 RESERVE WAY

ST. LOUIS, MO 63132-5200

AHRC-PLM-S                                                     14 JUL 2009

ORDERS  A-06-916551R

COOK STEFAN FREDERICK           EAD8              MAJ EN 155 54 7803

4207 HARBOR LAKE DRIVE                            W096AA

LUTZ FL 33558

THE FOLLOWING ORDER IS REVOKED OR RESCINDED AS SHOWN.

ACTION: REVOKE

July 14, 2009 in Current Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d3ac69e2011572065cbd970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference OBJECTION Re: you have to read Dr Orly Taitz MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT:

Comments

CHARGE -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE1huPYerp0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcitizenwells.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F07%2F12%2Fkerchner-v-obama-lawsuit-july-13-2009-washington-times-mario-apuzzo-obama-not-natur&feature=player_embedded

Posted by: ms. helga | Jul 15, 2009 11:09:50 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.