Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

ACTUAL NOTICE to Embassy of China in D.C. Re: Private Attorney General's OBJECTIONS Re: selling out America! Read carefully!!!!!

Expand Messages
  • Supreme Law Firm
    ... From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 10:46 AM Subject: ACTUAL NOTICE to Embassy of China in D.C. Re: Private Attorney
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 21, 2013
    • 0 Attachment


      ----- Forwarded Message -----
      From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
      Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 10:46 AM
      Subject: ACTUAL NOTICE to Embassy of China in D.C. Re: Private Attorney General's OBJECTIONS Re: selling out America! Read carefully!!!!!

      ACTUAL NOTICE TO:

      Embassy of the People's Republic of China in the United States of America
      3505 International Place, N.W.
      Washington, D.C. 20008 U.S.A.
      Tel: +1-202-495-2266
      Fax: +1-202-495-2138


      Greetings Honorable Ambassador:

      You now have ACTUAL NOTICE of the following ...




      ---------- Forwarded message ----------
      From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@...>
      Date: Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 10:39 AM
      Subject: Private Attorney General's OBJECTIONS Re: selling out America! Read carefully!!!!!


      China will need to understand that the United States (Federal government)
      has already requested protection of a U.S. Bankruptcy Court:


      therefore
      , any attempt(s) to convey American assets to China
      -- or to any OTHER creditor of the United States, for that matter --
      will amount to contempt of Court, due to the AUTOMATIC STAY
      authorized by U.S. bankruptcy laws:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm

      See 11 U.S.C. 362, in chief:

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/362   (AUTOMATIC STAY !!! )


      operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of—
      ...

      (3) any act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate
      or to exercise control over property of the estate
      ;


      [end quote]


      Also, you should appreciate that WND is a pro-Zionist publication
      and also a Named Defendant in Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.:

      WND and its officer Joseph Farah both attempted to appear
      withOUT a licensed attorney:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/counsels.htm
        (search for "Farah" and "WorldNetDaily.com")

      http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/farah/

      http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/worldnetdaily.com/



      As such, both were IN DEFAULT as explained by the
      Ninth Circuit in U.S. v. High Country Broadcasting:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/high.country.broadcasting/
      http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/high.country.broadcasting/3.f3d.1244.htm


      A corporation may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel. Rowland v. California Men's Colony, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. 716, 721, 121 L.Ed.2d 656 (1993); see also 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1654. An attorney appeared for High Country in the district court for the limited purpose of filing an answer and cross-complaint. See CR 3. When it became apparent that Crisler (who was not a licensed attorney at that time) was attempting to represent High Country, the district court ordered High Country to retain counsel for the duration of the litigation. When High Country failed to do so, the district court entered a default judgment against it; this was perfectly appropriate.

      --
      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 Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Greg wrote:

      Read  carefully. Then think and plan carefully. Send this on to others of like  mindedness so that they too may be alerted if not warned.

      Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/obama-selling-out-america-literally/#lt2FJi2otwxiIp2b.99THE OTHER RUSH

      Selling out America – literally

      Exclusive: Erik Rush warns of reported deal with China to take over U.S. lands

      Published: 4 days ago by Erik Rush <http://www.wnd.com/author/erush/>  Email  <mailto:erush@...> | Archive <http://www.wnd.com/author/erush/>  Subscribe to feed <http://www.wnd.com/author/erush/feed>  
      Erik Rush is a columnist and author of sociopolitical fare. His latest book is "Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal - America's Racial Obsession." <http://superstore.wnd.com/s.nl/c.811217/id.1015/.f>  In 2007, he was the first to give national attention to the story <http://www.erikrush.com/obamination.htm>  of Sen. Barack Obama's ties to militant Chicago preacher Rev. Jeremiah Wright, initiating a media feeding frenzy. Erik has appeared on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes," CNN, and is a veteran of numerous radio appearances.More ? <http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/obama-selling-out-america-literally/#> Less ? <http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/obama-selling-out-america-literally/#>  

      Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

      – U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1

      Like a young burglar I once saw featured in a documentary who enrolled in technical college so that he could learn how to thwart any alarm system, Barack Obama studied Constitutional Law. Whether he holds any degrees as a result of having done so is unclear, since his academic records remain sealed; what’s clear is that he has masterfully circumvented countless constitutional provisions to date.

      We know that there have been varying degrees of unconstitutionality on Obama’s part across such activities as the Fast and Furious gunrunning operation, Obamacare, the war in Libya, campaigning from the White House and recess appointments. President Obama has now demanded – yes, demanded – that he be allowed to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally, eschewing negotiations with Congress (money appropriations being the purview of the House), which is blatantly unconstitutional.

      Last week, using Vice President Joe Biden as proxy, he floated the trial balloon of his unilateral action toward neutralizing the Second Amendment. Bear in mind that this is a man who asserted years ago that he didn’t think people should own guns at all.

      Far more dangerous and terrifying than Obama’s utter disregard for the Constitution is the abject treason of this president; this also remains largely unknown due to the mass media. While Americans have been encouraged to perceive Obama as just another president muddling through during a challenging period (apart from his historic First Black President status), it doesn’t take much digging to determine the direction in which he is taking us.

      Throw in the testimony of proven, reliable sources some highly suspicious phenomena, and the situation becomes truly petrifying. It has already been reported in WND <http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/jihadis-training-in-your-neighborhood/>  and in Jihad Watch that jihadis are training on U.S. soil. If this is the case, why have they not been eradicated with extreme prejudice? Leaving aside the fact that Obama’s allegiance to the United States ought to supersede his soft spot for Muslims, perhaps the administration’s laxity here stems from something other than that affinity.

      Let me share that which was related to me via one international business interest with strong ties to the nations highlighted in the following scenario:

      According to this source, President Obama had a mid-level U.S. official meet with a Chinese officer in 2011 to find out if the Chinese were open to a land and resource swap for debt forgiveness. The upshot of this is that the Chinese are now engaging in experimental “farming” and “scientific” studies in several locations in the U.S. (in various states). The personnel involved are all Chinese military, and the plan is to use these as the base for the expansion of “land settlements” in payment of the U.S. debt to China.

      Also in 2011, the Bank of China reportedly sent a team to the U.S. to do land analysis and valuations based on resources that have been identified on federally held lands. The group was tasked to visit various preselected sites, including some on the Gulf of Mexico, and arrive at resource-based values between $2 trillion and $5 trillion (enough to satisfy America’s debt to China). According to this scenario, the issuing of new drilling licenses in the U.S. have been stopped on federally held land until the Chinese can be in position to take over new oil production.

      As reported on Jan. 14, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke urged U.S. lawmakers to lift the country’s borrowing limit, citing scant weeks until a potentially disastrous debt default. According to my source, the United Nations and the World Bank have been given signals that they will be called upon to broker the deal with America defaulting on debt that it cannot satisfy. This is not to be a fire sale, but is to appear as the great economic rescue plan for the U.S. Thus, it will be eagerly accepted by media-addled Americans and Obama supporters.

      So Obama has sold America out – literally – which will come as little surprise to many readers, this plan apparently being the brainchild of Obama’s senior adviser, Valerie Jarrett, and members of China’s Politburo Standing Committee. Thus, the under-reported but long-standing goals of Jarrett, Obama, David Axelrod and a host of communist Obama cronies to bring America under communist sway will finally come to fruition.

      Such activities have been rumored over the last couple of years, but had not been substantiated. However, this data has been verified by sources I know to be reliable; in fact, I have reported on their information previously, much to the consternation of the Chinese government.

      It is the Chinese who are pushing for the disarming of the American populace.
      They do not want to bear the brunt of the backlash from the American public when their work and aspirations are exposed. Three weeks ago, I was told that “this will happen in weeks, not months,” and it is now occurring.

      So much for our curiosity as to why in the midst of our economic woes, Obama is so vigorously capitalizing on the Sandy Hook massacre to advance what will certainly be draconian and unconstitutional measures relative to firearms. Obama’s gun-control plan includes at least 23 different executive actions <http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/obama-plan-assault-weapon-ban-universal-background-checks/>  – bypassing Congress and prompting at least one GOP lawmaker to suggest impeachment proceedings if Obama acts in this manner.

      At this juncture, I think that impeachment is incredibly unlikely despite his treason, given what he has succeeded in getting away with under the noses of the Republican leadership. As I have been informed, there are key Republican leaders who are aware of what is transpiring between China and the Obama administration. These have been sold the notion that America is bankrupt, but that they can work with our debtors to see that an equitable settlement is reached.

      The question to which this gives rise, of course, is: Equitable for whom?

      Is this the precursor to the Second American Revolution, or have gun sales gone through the roof for no apparent reason and toward no apparent objective (such as “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”)? Are heretofore sane, sober citizens of this republic taking leave of their senses en masse, or are they quietly and methodically preparing to stop our Union, to which thousands have given their lives, from being torn asunder?

      I lean toward the latter. God help us all, and God bless America.

      Receive Erik Rush's commentaries in your email

      BONUS: By signing up for Erik Rush's alerts, you will also be signed up for news and special offers from WND via email.

      Name* FirstLast

      Email*
      Where we will email your daily updates

      Postal code*
      A valid zip code or postal code is required


      Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/obama-selling-out-america-literally/#lt2FJi2otwxiIp2b.99


      The information contained in this communication is PRIVATE between the sender and the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete/destroy the original message and any copy of it from your computer or paper files.
      --
      Confidentiality Notice: This message (including any attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. sec 2510-2521. This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original. All rights and Remedies Reserved Without Prejudice. Non-Assumpsit.  28 U.S.C. 1746(1)



      --



      --



    • Supreme Law Firm
      ... From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 11:28 AM Subject: Re: ACTUAL NOTICE to Embassy of China in D.C. Re: Private Attorney
      Message 2 of 3 , Jan 21, 2013
      • 0 Attachment


        ----- Forwarded Message -----
        From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
        Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 11:28 AM
        Subject: Re: ACTUAL NOTICE to Embassy of China in D.C. Re: Private Attorney General's OBJECTIONS Re: selling out America! Read carefully!!!!!

        Please be certain to keep us appraised of any response you may receive from the Chinese. That will be most interesting!


        We are talking here primarily, but not exclusively, about United States bonds
        ("securities") which were issued by the United States Department of the Treasury
        and then purchased by a variety of "creditors".

        The FACT that this DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY
        has been filed -AND- served on all regional Federal Reserve Banks
        necessarily invokes the Full Faith and Credit Clause
        AND the Federal Rules of Evidence.

        If it becomes necessary to supplement that DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY
        specifically to declare insolvency with respect to United States bonds that were
        purchased by the government of China and/or any of the People of China,
        THAT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH RELATIVELY LITTLE DIFFICULTY.

        As such, ANYONE who attempts to sidestep these governing laws,
        regulations and rules is running headlong into a CONTEMPT OF COURT
        proceeding -- whether this happens tomorrow, a week from now,
        or AT ANY TIME IN THE FUTURE is totally irrelevant.


        The AUTOMATIC STAY has been a feature of U.S. Bankruptcy law
        for a long time:  as such, NO ONE can claim ignorance of these laws:
        NO ONE!!

        http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/362
          (click on "Notes")

        cf.  Pub. L. 95–598, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2570


        And, once a "creditor" has been served with ACTUAL NOTICE
        of the DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY, THEN that "creditor"
        cannot claim ignorance of that FACT either!!



        Furthermore, both Messrs. Holder and Geithner have turned up
        with FATALLY DEFECTIVE credentials:

        http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/sebelius/holder/letter.2010-06-09/affidavit.refused.JPG
        http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/sebelius/holder/letter.2010-06-09/affidavit.GIF

        http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/sebelius/geithner/letter.2010-04-21/affidavit.refused.jpg
        http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/sebelius/geithner/letter.2010-04-21/affidavit.gif

        The situation facing ALL federal employees with such fatally defective credentials
        has also been formally filed and duly served here:

        http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/
        http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/United.States.Notice.htm

        http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/opm/letter.2012-08-06/page01.gif  (ADMISSION !!! )
        http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/omb/letter.2012-08-23/page01.gif
        http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/omb/letter.2012-08-23/page02.gif
          (ADMISSION !!! )
        http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/omb/letter.2012-08-23/page03.gif



        ONCE AGAIN, the latter NOTICE is governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence
        and the Full Faith and Credit Clause.



        Accordingly, as a matter of Law, I have more lawful authority,
        as a  nationally recognized Private Attorney General,
        than both Holder and Geithner (combined):  18 U.S.C. 1964



        As you already know or should know, the Paperwork Reduction Act effectively
        creates a "Right to Inspect" all OPM SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS
        for compliance with that PRA:  when no OMB control number is displayed
        on Page 1 at the upper right-hand corner, THE FORM IS THEREBY
        RENDERED A COUNTERFEIT also known as a "bootleg request"
        which belongs in the nearest trash can BY INTENT OF CONGRESS.



        --
        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 Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Greg <entheos4214@...> wrote:
        Paul,

        Please be certain to keep us appraised of any response you may receive from the Chinese. That will be most interesting!

        Thanks,
        Greg
        The information contained in this communication is PRIVATE between the sender and the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete/destroy the original message and any copy of it from your computer or paper files.
        --
        Confidentiality Notice: This message (including any attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. sec 2510-2521. This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original. All rights and Remedies Reserved Without Prejudice. Non-Assumpsit.  28 U.S.C. 1746(1)




        On 1/21/13 1:46 PM, "Paul Andrew Mitchell" <supremelawfirm@...> wrote:

        ACTUAL NOTICE TO:

        Embassy of the People's Republic of China in the United States of America
        3505 International Place, N.W.
        Washington, D.C. 20008 U.S.A.
        Tel: +1-202-495-2266
        Fax: +1-202-495-2138


        Greetings Honorable Ambassador:

        You now have ACTUAL NOTICE of the following ...



        ---------- Forwarded message ----------
        From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@...>
        Date: Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 10:39 AM
        Subject: Private Attorney General's OBJECTIONS Re: selling out America! Read carefully!!!!!


        China will need to understand that the United States (Federal government)
        has already requested protection of a U.S. Bankruptcy Court:

        therefore
        , any attempt(s) to convey American assets to China
        -- or to any OTHER creditor of the United States, for that matter --
        will amount to contempt of Court, due to the AUTOMATIC STAY
        authorized by U.S. bankruptcy laws:

        http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm

        See 11 U.S.C. 362, in chief:

        http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/362   (AUTOMATIC STAY !!! )


        operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of—
        ...

        (3) any act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate
        or to exercise control over property of the estate;

        [end quote]


        Also, you should appreciate that WND is a pro-Zionist publication
        and also a Named Defendant in Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.:

        WND and its officer Joseph Farah both attempted to appear
        withOUT a licensed attorney:

        http://www.supremelaw.org/counsels.htm
          (search for "Farah" and "WorldNetDaily.com")

        http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/farah/

        http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/worldnetdaily.com/


        As such, both were IN DEFAULT as explained by the
        Ninth Circuit in U.S. v. High Country Broadcasting:

        http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/high.country.broadcasting/
        http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/high.country.broadcasting/3.f3d.1244.htm

        A corporation may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel. Rowland v. California Men's Colony, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. 716, 721, 121 L.Ed.2d 656 (1993); see also 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1654. An attorney appeared for High Country in the district court for the limited purpose of filing an answer and cross-complaint. See CR 3. When it became apparent that Crisler (who was not a licensed attorney at that time) was attempting to represent High Country, the district court ordered High Country to retain counsel for the duration of the litigation. When High Country failed to do so, the district court entered a default judgment against it; this was perfectly appropriate.

        --


      • Supreme Law Firm
        ... From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 11:57 AM Subject: Re: ACTUAL NOTICE to Embassy of China in D.C. Re: Private Attorney
        Message 3 of 3 , Jan 21, 2013
        • 0 Attachment

          ----- Forwarded Message -----
          From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
          Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 11:57 AM
          Subject: Re: ACTUAL NOTICE to Embassy of China in D.C. Re: Private Attorney General's OBJECTIONS Re: selling out America! Read carefully!!!!!

          And, not to beat on a dead horse, nevertheless the general question of the
          overall solvency or insolvency of the United States (Federal government)
          cannot be finalized -- either by reorganization or liquidation -- until and unless
          this next INVOICE FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR RESTITUTION
          is settled to the complete satisfaction of the United States:

          http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/zakheim/invoice.2.htm

          The latter is not only PAST DUE but also IN DEFAULT,
          and we have not even begun to add any interest amounts
          to the principal balance, as authorized by all applicable Federal statutes:

          http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/sec/McDermott/letter.2011-07-05/NOTICE.OF.INTENT.htm
          http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/sec/letter.2011-06-30/page01.JPG


          For example, the government of China might do well to
          investigate the practical potential of attaching ("lis pendens") and then
          recycling all fissionable nuclear materials currently in the possession
          and/or control of Israel's reactor at Dimona,  in the Southern Negev Desert:

          this, because Israel has been fabricating nuclear weapons with
          the $2.3 Trillion the Mossad helped steal from the Pentagon and with
          plutonium stolen by the Russian Mafia from former Soviet nuclear stockpiles
          located in the Ural Mountains:

          http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/vcc.htm  (see Exhibit "H"):
          http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/thomas/pluto.txt 


          NOTE WELL:  the starting principal amount was almost $7 TRILLION USD (Item (3))
          when the AUTOMATIC triple damage multiplier is included.

          As such, that is an ACCOUNT RECEIVABLE by the Treasury of the United States
          which DIRECTLY affects the bottom line of any balance sheet we might consider
          when examining the Federal government's overall financial situation.

          The AUTOMATIC triple damage multiplier is expressly authorized by 18 U.S.C. 1964(c):
          ("
          shall recover threefold the damages")

          http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1964


          The Management Fee is separately accruing 7% simple interest APR (no compounding).

          --
          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 Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@...> wrote:
          Please be certain to keep us appraised of any response you may receive from the Chinese. That will be most interesting!


          We are talking here primarily, but not exclusively, about United States bonds
          ("securities") which were issued by the United States Department of the Treasury
          and then purchased by a variety of "creditors".

          The FACT that this DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY
          has been filed -AND- served on all regional Federal Reserve Banks
          necessarily invokes the Full Faith and Credit Clause
          AND the Federal Rules of Evidence.

          If it becomes necessary to supplement that DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY
          specifically to declare insolvency with respect to United States bonds that were
          purchased by the government of China and/or any of the People of China,
          THAT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH RELATIVELY LITTLE DIFFICULTY.

          As such, ANYONE who attempts to sidestep these governing laws,
          regulations and rules is running headlong into a CONTEMPT OF COURT
          proceeding -- whether this happens tomorrow, a week from now,
          or AT ANY TIME IN THE FUTURE is totally irrelevant.


          The AUTOMATIC STAY has been a feature of U.S. Bankruptcy law
          for a long time:  as such, NO ONE can claim ignorance of these laws:
          NO ONE!!

          http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/362
            (click on "Notes")

          cf.  Pub. L. 95–598, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2570


          And, once a "creditor" has been served with ACTUAL NOTICE
          of the DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY, THEN that "creditor"
          cannot claim ignorance of that FACT either!!



          Furthermore, both Messrs. Holder and Geithner have turned up
          with FATALLY DEFECTIVE credentials:

          http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/sebelius/holder/letter.2010-06-09/affidavit.refused.JPG
          http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/sebelius/holder/letter.2010-06-09/affidavit.GIF

          http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/sebelius/geithner/letter.2010-04-21/affidavit.refused.jpg
          http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/sebelius/geithner/letter.2010-04-21/affidavit.gif

          The situation facing ALL federal employees with such fatally defective credentials
          has also been formally filed and duly served here:

          http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/
          http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/United.States.Notice.htm

          http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/opm/letter.2012-08-06/page01.gif  (ADMISSION !!! )
          http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/omb/letter.2012-08-23/page01.gif
          http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/omb/letter.2012-08-23/page02.gif
            (ADMISSION !!! )
          http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/omb/letter.2012-08-23/page03.gif



          ONCE AGAIN, the latter NOTICE is governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence
          and the Full Faith and Credit Clause.



          Accordingly, as a matter of Law, I have more lawful authority,
          as a  nationally recognized Private Attorney General,
          than both Holder and Geithner (combined):  18 U.S.C. 1964



          As you already know or should know, the Paperwork Reduction Act effectively
          creates a "Right to Inspect" all OPM SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS
          for compliance with that PRA:  when no OMB control number is displayed
          on Page 1 at the upper right-hand corner, THE FORM IS THEREBY
          RENDERED A COUNTERFEIT also known as a "bootleg request"
          which belongs in the nearest trash can BY INTENT OF CONGRESS.



          --
          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 Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Greg <entheos4214@...> wrote:
          Paul,

          Please be certain to keep us appraised of any response you may receive from the Chinese. That will be most interesting!

          Thanks,
          Greg
          The information contained in this communication is PRIVATE between the sender and the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete/destroy the original message and any copy of it from your computer or paper files.
          --
          Confidentiality Notice: This message (including any attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. sec 2510-2521. This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original. All rights and Remedies Reserved Without Prejudice. Non-Assumpsit.  28 U.S.C. 1746(1)




          On 1/21/13 1:46 PM, "Paul Andrew Mitchell" <supremelawfirm@...> wrote:

          ACTUAL NOTICE TO:

          Embassy of the People's Republic of China in the United States of America
          3505 International Place, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20008 U.S.A.
          Tel: +1-202-495-2266
          Fax: +1-202-495-2138


          Greetings Honorable Ambassador:

          You now have ACTUAL NOTICE of the following ...



          ---------- Forwarded message ----------
          From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@...>
          Date: Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 10:39 AM
          Subject: Private Attorney General's OBJECTIONS Re: selling out America! Read carefully!!!!!


          China will need to understand that the United States (Federal government)
          has already requested protection of a U.S. Bankruptcy Court:

          therefore
          , any attempt(s) to convey American assets to China
          -- or to any OTHER creditor of the United States, for that matter --
          will amount to contempt of Court, due to the AUTOMATIC STAY
          authorized by U.S. bankruptcy laws:

          http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm

          See 11 U.S.C. 362, in chief:

          http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/362   (AUTOMATIC STAY !!! )


          operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of—
          ...

          (3) any act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate
          or to exercise control over property of the estate;

          [end quote]


          Also, you should appreciate that WND is a pro-Zionist publication
          and also a Named Defendant in Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.:

          WND and its officer Joseph Farah both attempted to appear
          withOUT a licensed attorney:

          http://www.supremelaw.org/counsels.htm
            (search for "Farah" and "WorldNetDaily.com")

          http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/farah/

          http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/worldnetdaily.com/


          As such, both were IN DEFAULT as explained by the
          Ninth Circuit in U.S. v. High Country Broadcasting:

          http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/high.country.broadcasting/
          http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/high.country.broadcasting/3.f3d.1244.htm

          A corporation may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel. Rowland v. California Men's Colony, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. 716, 721, 121 L.Ed.2d 656 (1993); see also 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1654. An attorney appeared for High Country in the district court for the limited purpose of filing an answer and cross-complaint. See CR 3. When it became apparent that Crisler (who was not a licensed attorney at that time) was attempting to represent High Country, the district court ordered High Country to retain counsel for the duration of the litigation. When High Country failed to do so, the district court entered a default judgment against it; this was perfectly appropriate.

          --



          --



        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.