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

« Patriot Jack McLamb has passed away | Main | "The worst crime in American history"? Surely the man doth protest too much ... »

Private Attorney General OBJECTS Re: Judges not qualified + false and defamatory garbage about me

On Sunday, January 12, 2014 8:53 PM, "Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S." wrote:


Mr. Vogt:

I changed my name when I volunteered to search for missing children
in Tucson circa 1995-1997:

http://supremelaw.org/press/rels/kidnaps.htm

My "real name" -- to use your phrase -- is now Paul Andrew Mitchell.

If you don't like that, THAT'S JUST TOUGH!


Maybe you should try that approach with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar,
whose name was Lew Alcindor when we graduated from UCLA together,
June 1970.  Nobody seems to criticize him for changing his name,
so why are you being critical of me for changing my name?

 
A Private Attorney General does not need a license to practice law
and I'm frankly quite tired of having to repeat this fact so many times,
particularly for naive Americans who believe -- without question -- every last word
that happens to show up on their computer monitors!

I have been a Private Attorney General at least since 1992.
(see Rotella v. Wood, for an excellent Supreme Court authority)
 
I don't know where you got the rest of the garbage below:
perhaps you could do me the courtesy of citing your sources.

I have not filed "a number of frivolous lawsuits":

Again, whoever wrote that -- probably some liars
who refuse to identify themselves -- will be 
unable to cite those "frivolous lawsuits"
because they just don't exist.
 
 
I won a jury verdict against a Tucson accountant,
after he embezzled over $2,000 of mine.

I also sued 129 named Defendants who had
infringed my copyrights in "The Federal Zone", 
and the U.S. DOJ admitted to me in writing
that 3 High Court "robes" had no PRESIDENTIAL
COMMISSIONS in DOJ's custody:

http://supremelaw.org/copyrite/ginsburg/letter.2004-02-12.gif

DOJ is the designated legal custodian.

But, you didn't know that either, did you?


Finally, I do not "threaten" people:  I have provided
many suspects with NOTICES OF INTENT, and
occasionally a DEMAND TO CEASE AND DESIST,
but you don't seem to know the difference
between either of those and "threats".
 
I have never been charged with "threatening" anyone
and I have no criminal record whatsoever --
no felonies, no misdemeanors and no infractions --
ZERO!

YOU DIG, MISTER?


So, you are being rather sloppy with your
use of the English language, and you don't
appear to be the kind of person who 
bothers to look up legal words in any
respected legal dictionary either.


Perhaps you should go back to your lawyer,
and explain all of the above to that lawyer.



I frankly do not appreciate what you have dumped
on my table below, and I must now ask that you
stop doing so, because it borders on defamation.

Defamation is a crime.

If you got that garbage from Wikipedia,
those ANONYMOUS editors threatened
me with a knife when I tried to remove
their many false statements about me:

when I escalated, one of those "editors"
then tried to tell me that I was not the one
who had been threatened with a knife,
and that it was someone else who had
been threatened with a knife!

So, if your "source" is Wikipedia,
now you know the kind of people
you have trusted without question
and without looking before you leap.


GO FIGURE!

You've also made quite a statement
about yourself, whether you realize that
or not.


Goodbye and good luck:  I predict you're going to need it.

-- 
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 8:25 PM, Douglas Vogt <doug@vectorpub.com> wrote:
Dear Paul,
 
I search for your name and came up with this: you real name is Mitch Modeleski. So my questions for you is, send me a copy of your law license and where you graduated from law school.
 
High profile pseudo lawyers
Pseudolaw practitioners can fall into several categories, primarily laymen with no legal training or license who "advise" clients, and true lawyers that have embraced crank hood to push some particular pseudo law theory. From time to time one of these pseudo lawyers will gain press attention because their ideas are being used in increasing numbers, or in a high profile case, or because they themselves are being prosecuted.
...
Another example was that of Tony Davis and his International Legal Services business. Davis pretended he was a lawyer, though he was really just a convicted felon with no legal training. For fees ranging from $10,050 to $25,000 he promised to get anyone out of jail no matter what crime they committed or when based on a technicality he asserted made every conviction in the last 60 years null and void. True to form with most cranks and con men, while his theory was rejected outright by every level of the court system, he continued to claim that theories were correct until he was finally put out of business in 2010 thanks to a Texas court restraining order banning him from selling legal briefs or acting as a lawyer.[17] A similar pattern has occurred with Mitch Modeleski a/k/a Paul Andrew Mitchell and his "Supreme Law Firm", who has filed a number of frivolous lawsuits and threatened a number of people with baseless suits.[18]
 
________________
Very truly yours,
 
Douglas Vogt
Vector Associates
Publishers since 1977
12819 S.E. 38th St.
Suite 115
Bellevue, WA 98006
425-643-1131
 
 


From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. [mailto:supremelawfirm@gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 12:30 PM
To: Byron Wine
Cc: doug@vectorpub.com
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.
 
Concerning this matter:

http://www.obamaforgerybook.com/PDF_Files/Petition_to_Appeal_to_the_9th_district_court_11-24-2013.pdf

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