Greetings Mr. Hedges:
I cannot fault anyone for exploiting the Petition Clause
for political purposes.
Courts have held that commencing lawsuits to make political points
is likewise protected by the First Amendment.
"The authorities make it clear that the right of
petition protects attempts to obtain redress through
the institution of judicial proceedings as well as
through importuning executive officials and the
Legislature. It is equally apparent that the right
encompasses the act of filing a lawsuit solely to
obtain monetary compensation for individualized wrongs,
as well as filing suit to draw attention to issues of
broader public interest or political significance."
What bothers me, at the end of the day, is the rampant
double standards that have emerged in your lawsuit
against Obama et al.
Let me get right to the point: your co-plaintiffs strike me
as sharing a rather evident sympathy for socialism.
However, now that socialists have grabbed power in America,
why is it that these socialist sympathizers don't like the result?
I am particularly appalled at the abject negligence which
your associates have demonstrated for certain
supreme Laws in America.
It's one thing to stand on the Fourth Amendment --
a laudable principle indeed.
However, it does not ring true whenever those same
associates of yours consistently pretend that
some "ruling" by the Second Circuit will have any
merit whatsoever -- if and when it is issued by
known impostors whose manifold impersonations
are already well documented:
If you don't trust or believe any of the latter data,
then why don't you submit your own FOIA Requests?
I openly invite you to review the case law which
we carefully assembled here: these are not my words
but the standing decisions of courts which have
evidently exercised competent jurisdiction
to adjudicate the matters pending before them:
This next holding is one of my favorite decisions in this context:
one cannot become a
judge either de jure or de facto, and
such an individual is
without authority to act and
his acts as such are void until he has taken the prescribed oath.
[French v. State,
572 S.W.2d 934]
[Brown v. State,
238 S.W.2d 787]
I don't think I am reaching too far by amplifying
the latter decision as follows:
"ALL his acts as such are void going
all the way back to his first day on that job!"
There are other standing authorities which held
that such individuals cannot even get paid
until and unless they have executed proper
Oaths of Office.
As I see it, one of two things can happen, at this juncture:
(1) some printed and electronic document issues
from the bowels of the Second Circuit AGREEING
with one or more of your arguments;
(2) some printed and electronic document issues
from the bowels of the Second Circuit DISAGREEING
with one more of your arguments.
What makes you think that either one of these two
alternatives is worthy of anyone's time or consideration,
as long as other applicable Federal laws have been
routinely violated -- not only civilly, but also criminally?
Take, for example, the mandatory obligations imposed
by the statute at 28 U.S.C. 1691:
Has it occurred to you, and to any of your co-plaintiffs,
that posting such "sewer service" on the Internet
establishes probable cause that the suspects are
engaged in committing WIRE FRAUD?
In case you missed it, all Federal Court "orders" must
also display the Clerk's authorized signature and
the Court's official seal (see above).
How on earth can the Second Circuit comply with that
utterly simple requirement, as long as Ms. Wolfe has
no APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS in her legal custody,
and consequently can NOT delegate that task
to any subordinates aka "deputy clerks of court"?
Are you beginning to understand my frustration
with you and your co-plaintiffs in this matter?
Whenever he cannot succeed in ignoring me completely,
Mr. Chomsky now appears to prefer patronizing me
for harping on these points; so, his Department Chair
should discover my complaint in his email inbox,
first thing tomorrow morning -- if he does not discover it sooner.
(HINT: it's a "put-up-or-shut-up" proposal re: ethics)
Thank you for your consideration.
I do sincerely wish you and all of your associates
the best that life in contemporary America can offer
anyone with intentions similar to yours.
p.s. I do NOT appreciate, nor deserve,
the silent treatment -- particularly NOT
when the American People are being
targeted for extermination with
billions of hollow-point bullets.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
(Policy + Guidelines)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice