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

Greetings Mr. Hedges: The "Liberal Class" Is Not Dead -- They Remain Your Co-Plaintiffs ...

Expand Messages
  • Supreme Law Firm
    ... From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 6:07 PM Subject: Greetings Mr. Hedges: The Liberal Class Is Not Dead -- They Remain
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 24, 2013
    • 0 Attachment


      ----- Forwarded Message -----
      From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
      Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 6:07 PM
      Subject: Greetings Mr. Hedges: The "Liberal Class" Is Not Dead -- They Remain Your Co-Plaintiffs ...

      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.

      http://supremelaw.org/cc/dixianne/appeal9c.htm

           "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:

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

      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:

      http://supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions.htm


      This next holding is one of my favorite decisions in this context:

      Without taking the oath prescribed by law,
      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:

      http://supremelaw.org/stat/62/
      http://supremelaw.org/stat/62/28usc1691.case.law.htm
      http://supremelaw.org/stat/62/28usc1691.case.law.2.htm

      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"?

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/2906

      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.

      --
      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


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