« Freedom Watch | Main | REFUSED FOR CAUSE: Really important! Hope you all do it! »
Private Attorney General's OBJECTIONS Re: Supreme Court issues order Lindsey Springer complied with order of March 8, 2010
----- Forwarded Message ----From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
To: Lindsey Springer <gnutella@mindspring.com>
Cc: SupremeLaw <supremelaw@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sat, April 3, 2010 9:58:57 AM
Subject: Private Attorney General's OBJECTIONS Re: Supreme Court issues order Lindsey Springer complied with order of March 8, 2010
OBJECTION!
Direct from U.S. DOJ -- the designated legal custodian:
http://www.supremelaw.org/
http://www.supremelaw.org/
http://www.supremelaw.org/
http://www.supremelaw.org/
http://www.supremelaw.org/
http://www.supremelaw.org/
http://www.supremelaw.org/
http://www.supremelaw.org/
All of the above are PAST DUE and IN DEFAULT.
See also:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/
... as required by 18 U.S.C. 4.
Those with SBNs above were also formally charged here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/
... including of course O'Connor, Kennedy and Breyer.
Accordingly, a legal quorum requires at least 6 who are duly credentialed;
thus the Supreme Court of the United States is now legally vacant:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/
("The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of
a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices,
any six of whom shall constitute a quorum.")
EVEN IF these impostors should rule in your favor,
such a "decision" is totally worthless as a matter of Law.
Lindsey, why are you ignoring this evidence
and/or NOT doing your own FOIA Requests
for the 4 credentials required of all such
Court personnel?
DO YOU HAVE SOME KIND OF BEEF WITH ARTICLE VI?
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/
HONESTLY!!
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/
http://www.supremelaw.org/
http://www.supremelaw.org/
http://www.supremelaw.org/
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Lindsey Springer <gnutella@mindspring.com> wrote:
Lindsey Springer here and for those of
you paying
attention I wished to convey that I have once again satisfied all the
obligations the Supreme Court usually only requires Attorneys to satisfy
regarding their order of March 89, 2010.
| No. 09-8701 | ||||
| Title: |
| |||
| Docketed: | January 25, 2010 |
| ~~~Date~~~ | ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| Jan 21 2010 | Petition for a writ of mandamus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 24, 2010) |
| Feb 12 2010 | Waiver of right of respondent to respond filed. |
| Feb 18 2010 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 5, 2010. |
| Feb 24 2010 | Response to petition from respondent Oscar Stilley filed. (Distributed) |
| Feb 27 2010 | Supplemental brief of petitioner filed. (Distributed) |
| Mar 8 2010 | The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until March 29, 2010, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court. |
| Mar 29 2010 |
Petitioner complied with order of March 8, 2010.
Thank you to each of you. I
could
not be where I am in this situation without you. Lindsey
Springer
4.3.10
|
April 3, 2010 in Current Affairs | Permalink
