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

Private Attorney General's OBJECTIONS Re: The most important lawsuit in American history [sic] that no one in the mainstream media is talking about

Expand Messages
  • Supreme Law Firm
    ... From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Sent: Saturday, February 9, 2013 5:08 PM Subject: Private Attorney General s OBJECTIONS Re: The most important
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 9, 2013
    • 0 Attachment

      ----- Forwarded Message -----
      From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
      Sent: Saturday, February 9, 2013 5:08 PM
      Subject: Private Attorney General's OBJECTIONS Re: The most important lawsuit in American history [sic] that no one in the mainstream media is talking about

      the alternative media is abuzz with this week’s hearing on the constitutionality of the clearly unconstitutional NDAA

      And, nobody except a few SupremeLaw subscribers,
      talks about Article VI, Section 3, NOT EVEN the alternative media:


      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/  <-- see United States' NOTICE below

      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/harwood/foia.request.1.htm  (IN DEFAULT)

      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/torrance/foia.request.1.htm  (PAST DUE)




      http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/chin.denny/  (has all 4 required credentials)




      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/opm/letter.2012-08-06/page01.gif  (OPM's ADMISSION)
      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/omb/letter.2012-08-23/page02.gif  (OMB's ADMISSION)

      Sincerely yours,
      /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
      Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
      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 Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Greg <entheos4214@...> wrote:

      Despite a mainstream media blackout on the topic, the alternative media is abuzz with this week’s hearing on the constitutionality of the clearly unconstitutional NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act).

      Basically, Section 1021 of the NDAA allows for the indefinite detention of American citizens without charges or a trial.  Journalist Chris Hedges and several others sued Obama on the grounds of it being unconstitutional.  Judge Katherine Forrest [an Obama appointee] agreed and issued an injunction on it.  This was immediately appealed by the Obama Administration to a higher court [the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 2nd District], which promptly issued a temporary stay on the injunction, meaning that the government could continue whatever it was already doing consistent with the Act’s authorizations...

      On Feb. 7th, oral arguments began before the 2nd Circuit.  As Chris Hedges states in the interview linked below, if they win the case then it will likely be brought in front of the Supreme Court within weeks.  On the other hand, if the Obama Administration wins and the Supreme Court refuses to hear the appeal [assuming the 2nd Circuit disagrees with Judge Forrest’s decision], Hedges states: “at that point we’ve just become a military dictatorship.”

      Tangerine Bolen is one the lead plaintiffs in the suit against the government and she penned a powerful piece for the UK’s Guardian.  Here are some key quotes from an article she submitted on August 10, 2012:

      I am one of the lead plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit against the National Defense Authorization Act, which gives the president the power to hold any US citizen anywhere for as long as he wants, without charge or trial

      In a May hearing, Judge Katherine Forrest issued an injunction against it; this week, in a final hearing in New York City, US government lawyers asserted even more extreme powers – the right to disregard entirely the judge and the law. On Monday 6 August, Obama’s lawyers filed an appeal to the injunction – a profoundly important development that, as of this writing, has been scarcely reported

      In the earlier March hearing, US government lawyers had confirmed that, yes, the NDAA does give the president the power to lock up people like journalist Chris Hedges and peaceful activists like myself and other plaintiffs. Government attorneys stated on record that even war correspondents could be locked up indefinitely under the NDAA.

      Judge Forrest had ruled for a temporary injunction against an unconstitutional provision in this law, aft
      er government attorneys refused to provide assurances to the court that plaintiffs and others would not be indefinitely detained for engaging in first amendment activities. At that time, twice the government has refused to define what it means to be an “associated force”, and it claimed the right to refrain from offering any clear definition of this term, or clear boundaries of power under this law.

      This past week’s hearing was even more terrifying. Government attorneys again, in this hearing, presented no evidence to support their position and brought forth no witnesses. Most incredib
      ly, Obama’s attorneys refused to assure the court, when questioned, that the NDAA’s section 1021 – the provision that permits reporters and others who have not committed crimes to be detained without trial – has not been applied by the US government anywhere in the world after Judge Forrest’s injunction.

      Full article here:

      Next: Ben Swann from Full Disclosure does an EXCELLENT critique of the Feinstein/Lee Amendment, endorsed by Senator Rand Paul and promoted as a Congressional effort to prohibit full implementation of NDAA authority that would allow the President to authorize the arrest and detention without legal representation or trial of American Citizens or resident aliens located in the United States – the amendment failed to get included in the 2013 version of the NDAA bill, but, as Swann explains, it didn’t matter anyway because it did not, in fact, prohibit anything!  See why this was just another faint attempt to appease, but not redress Citizen concerns about this unconstitutional abomination that one of this State’s Senators strenuously promoted shortly after her election to office... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWGcyatZt-A

      Then: Ben Swann expands his explanation of the NDAA 2013 bill and explains why the Gohmert amendment, which purports to protect Habeus Corpus rights and secure other rights guaranteed under the Constitution, doesn’t actually do so. And, in case you don’t recall the discussion leading up the adoption of this horrific piece of legislation – it was Senator Kelly Ayotte that widely and aggressively promoted the misbegotten idea that the so-called “war on terror” is necessarily to be fought on American land (“a battlefield” in her words), as well as abroad. This concept opens the path for prosecution of military trials, via military or other tribunal courts (Article I or Article IV courts), which operate under different sets of rules that are often not constrained by Constitutional protections, as they would be in Article III courts... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6LPl0u9LlE

      Now See Chris Hedges’ (the plaintiff’s) comments:
      Sierra Adamson interviews Chris Hedges (plaintiff) at the hearing for the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd District in the Hedges v Obama NDAA lawsuit. Hedges explains what has happened in the lawsuit to date, the next steps and what he sees in America's upcoming future.

      And finally, those of Daniel Ellsberg – the Pentagon Whistleblower who helped bring down the criminal Nixon administration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRz-d1xPR7k
      Daniel Ellsberg speaks at the press conference after the hearing for the second circuit court of appeals in the NDAA lawsuit, Hedges v Obama. He speaks about what is happening in the lawsuit, the erosion of the Bill of Rights and Bradley Manning. Daniel Ellsberg is a former United States military analyst turned whistleblower, most known for publishing the Pentagon Papers.

      The take-aways here –
      Americans MUST learn (again) what the Constitution is, what it says, and how to enforce it; and
      They MUST lobby to get the NDAA rescinded; and
      They MUST learn how to read the Statutes at Large AND proposed amendments made to them so they are able to detect subterfuges like those proposed by Feinstein and Gohmert; and
      They must act to more fully comprehend ANY legislation that is unconstitutional,and act to it nullify at their State level; and
      They MUST learn to keep abreast of what’s going on beyond the scope of what’s ‘covered’ in the wholly-owned corporate mainstream media. - to this end I recommend using The New American online as an excellent starting point [ http://www.thenewamerican.com/], and http://www.zerohedge.com/

      All the best,
      - Greg

      P.S. - we don’t have “constitutional rights” - we have constitutionally protected rights. Our rights are endowed by God, not the State nor any of its organs.

      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)


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