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

« Re: "300 Miles to the Gallon!" by William G. Shepherd (Collier's magazine for October 5, 1929) | Main | Patriot Jack McLamb has passed away »

Paul Andrew Mitchell is interested in giving talks on the judicial fraud issues at local meetings in SeaTac area

On Sunday, January 12, 2014 4:18 PM, "Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S."  wrote:

>  Are you located in the Puget Sound area?  

Yes, in Seattle, right next to Lake Union and south of UW.


>  Would you be interested in giving a talk on the judicial fraud issues you research at a local meeting or meetings in the near future?

Yes!  

BEST WAY would be to forward some introductory reading
to your members and other interested SeaTac-area people,
BEFORE the scheduled talk.  

That way, they can come better prepared,
instead of hearing about this the first time
at that talk.

e.g. here are the results to date for Washington State's Federal "robes":

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


Also, this next NOTICE explains the reasons why the OPM SF-61 (Standard Form 61)
available at OPM's website is a COUNTERFEIT:

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/United.States.Notice.htm
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/opm/letter.2012-08-06/  (OPM's admission)
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/omb/letter.2012-08-23/  (OMB's admissions)
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/omb/letter.2013-01-25/  (OMB's admissions)


Then, if the audience is open to the "next level", 
(start reading at "SUMMARY OF KEY EVENTS"
re: deteriorating situation at USDC in downtown Seattle)


My strongest suits are the Internal Revenue Code
and Title 28 of the U.S. Code, so perhaps 2 or more
talks would be needed to cover all of this next material too
e.g.:

http://supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm

http://supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm

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

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

http://supremelaw.org/cc/makarian/  (successful test)

http://supremelaw.org/cc/microsoft/  (another successful test)

-- 
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
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 Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Scott Shock <ssshock@comcast.net> wrote:
Paul,
 
Thank you for passing this on.  Are you located in the Puget Sound area?  Would you be interested in giving a talk on the judicial fraud issues you research at a local meeting or meetings in the near future?  I think our C4L group would be interested, and our Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights group definitely would be as well.
 
Best,
Scott Shock
Seattle Campaign for Liberty
 
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. [mailto:supremelawfirm@gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 3:14 PM
To: Scott Shock

Subject: Re: "300 Miles to the Gallon!" by William G. Shepherd (Collier's magazine for October 5, 1929)
 
FYI:  wanders far off the Subject:
but contains topics for future lecture(s) ...
 
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: "300 Miles to the Gallon!" by William G. Shepherd (Collier's magazine for October 5, 1929)
To: Byron Wine <byronw1@verizon.net>
Cc: doug@vectorpub.com

According to In Re GJ Application, one of the remedies which
Vogt could be pursuing is to serve his verified evidence
upon the Office of the U.S. Attorney, and then to 
petition for MANDAMUS compelling that Office
to convey said evidence to a Federal Grand Jury
:
NOTE WELL I wrote "Federal Grand Jury" and
NOT a "panel of federal citizens impersonating
a duly convened Federal Grand Jury" !!!
 
That being said, you also need to appreciate the
fact that my office has already investigated
certain personnel in that Office, and they too
turned up with fatally defective OPM SF-61
APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS
:

http://supremelaw.org/cc/nagy/durkan/
http://supremelaw.org/cc/nagy/durkan/letter.2013-09-25/
http://supremelaw.org/cc/nagy/durkan/letter.2013-09-25/affidavit.refused.gif
Then, there is the HUGE matter of one William M. McCool,
 
McCool's missing credentials also implicate the entire
USDC in Seattle in an obvious failure to prove jurisdiction,
chiefly because 28 U.S.C. 1691 is always violated
(impostor McCool can NOT delegate any authorities)
1691 has been on the books since June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 945:

http://supremelaw.org/stat/62/62stat945.gif
 
Ignorance of this law is no excuse for violating it!
 

Furthermore, EVEN IF Vogt got as far as getting an
ORDER compelling the Office of U.S. Attorney
to convey his evidence to a Federal Grand Jury,
the Federal Jury Selection and Service Act is
unconstitutional because it discriminates against
State Citizens -- by requiring all grand jurors to be
federal citizens.  Such a blatant instance of
"class discrimination" has already been held
to be unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court:

http://supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/opening.htm#topic-a
The "decision" in the latter appeal was UNPUBLISHED
but just 3 years later that same Circuit Court ruled
that UNPUBLISHED Circuit Court opinions are
Hey, Byron, YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP --
IT'S ALREADY THAT SCREWED UP!!
 
 
 
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 1:33 PM, <byronw1@verizon.net> wrote:
Paul,
Thanks for your analysis, Do you mind if they are forwarded to Mr. Vogt?
 
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: "300 Miles to the Gallon!" by William G. Shepherd (Collier's magazine for October 5, 1929)
 
Hello Byron,
Nice to hear from you again.
 
Mr. Vogt has committed serious errors of omission
chiefly by ignoring Article VI, Section 3 in the U.S. Constitution
and all of the Acts of Congress which have implemented
that Fundamental Right, chiefly 5 U.S.C. 3331 and
28 U.S.C. 453.

Note well where the above Petition refers to "Honorable Judge James L. Robart".
Well, he's not a "Judge" and he's not "Honorable" either!

http://supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions.htm
(legal implications of such missing and/or defective credentials)
 
In point of Fact, Mr. Robart has already failed to produce all
four (4) VALID credentials that are required of all Federal
District Judges:  we already know this because we
already did the necessary research and due diligence,
which were actively assisted by the U.S. Department of Justice:
(latter is IN DEFAULT for reasons explained infra)
 
Latter OPM SF-61 is now proven to be a COUNTERFEIT form,
for all of the reasons fully explained in this 
NOTICE OF MISSING AND/OR DEFECTIVE CREDENTIALS
filed and served at the USDC / Southern District of New York:

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/
http://supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/United.States.Notice.htm
 
Mr. Vogt is also appealing to the Ninth Circuit,
but that Court is likewise infiltrated by many
known impostors:

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

Don't stop there.  Same is true of the U.S. Supreme Court:

http://supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm
(see all "NAD" and "SBN" links)

The overlap of Federal "robes" in California with
all past and present "members" of The State Bar of California
is quite extensive too:  each such "member" now owes the
U.S. Treasury $9 MILLION USD minus our Management Fee
of $60,000 per "member":
To put it bluntly, Byron, we've been doing our best
to make the entire nation fully aware of all of these
missing and fatally defective credentials, but even alternative
"journalists" refuse to confront the hard evidence which
we have been placing right under their noses:
yes, all they need to do is tilt their heads back a little bit,
and the evidence will be right under their noses!

I therefore find it necessary to conclude that these journalists,
both mainstream AND alternative, really have no love for the
truth
 and, consequently they are blinded by a strong delusion
that has been imposed upon them by the Most High --
as predicted for them in the New Testament.

p.s.  On the merits, Citizens do have standing to prosecute such complaints
e.g. by invoking 18 U.S.C. 1964 (Civil RICO) and/or 42 U.S.C. 1985

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1985

... the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages 
occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
Surrick was just TOO LAZY to read all of 42 U.S.C. 1985, and
he ruled on the basis of what he saw in the STATUTE HEADING,
but statute HEADINGs have no legal force or effect whatsoever!
1985 obviously confers standing, and it also implements
the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery and involuntary
servitude.  Gillespie v. Civiletti
 
 
You see, Byron, the pathetic jerks who now populate the Federal Judiciary
designate one such jerk to fabricate some arbitrary "legislative precedent" [sic]
and then the remaining such jerks simply cite that garbage "precedent"
as a quick and convenient way of flushing such perfectly valid COMPLAINTs.
They are "legislative" because the USDCs in America are legislative tribunals,
not constitutional courts:

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

http://supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/court.conspiracy.exposed.htm
(exact same "abrogation clause" in the Federal Criminal Code!)
 
 
The "robe" in Berg v. Obama et al. committed the exact same error,
but that doesn't stop subsequent jerks from citing his error
as "good" case law, nor does it motivate any of these jerks to
acknowledge and correct any such errors.

One last (major) thing:  U.S. Attorneys have no discretion in the matter:
they must convey a VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 
to a lawfully convened grand jury.  At least this one "robe"
got that right, for a change:

http://supremelaw.org/cc/libby/grand.jury.demand.htm
http://supremelaw.org/decs/in.re.gj.application/
Obama has already been charged with multiple Federal FELONIES:

http://supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/vcc.htm
Because Eric H. Holder, Jr. also lacks valid credentials,
I communicate all of the above to you in my capacity
as Acting U.S. Attorney General in Fact:

http://supremelaw.org/cc/sebelius/holder/arrest.warrant.htm
http://supremelaw.org/cc/sebelius/holder/letter.2010-06-09/affidavit.refused.JPG

Yep!  Truth certainly is stranger in fiction!  

But, this you already know.

-- 
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
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 Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 11:07 AM, <byronw1@verizon.net> wrote:
Hi Paul, thanks for the plug and information.
You might find this http://www.obamaforgerybook.com/  interesting.  Mr. Vogt tried to report a federal crime, judge finding that he does not have standing.
 
 
On 01/10/14, Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.<supremelawfirm@gmail.com> wrote:
 

January 13, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink