Monday, December 8, 2008


[UPDATE 12:23 PM The main stream media should stop saying SCOTUS refused to hear the case. It was distributed for conference on Nov. 19. They had the issue before them for for sixteen days. Yes, they didn't take it to the next level of full briefs and oral argument. But they certainly heard the case and read the issues. The media is failing to acknowledge that. The case and issues were considered. Getting the case to the full Court for such consideration was my goal. I trust the Supreme Court had good reason to deny the application. Despite many attempts to stop their full review, my case was placed on their desks and into their minds. Please remember that. It's important for history to record that.]

Almost immediately after the paper hit the streets of Chicago Monday morning, requests started coming in for interviews from print, broadcast and on-line news outlets, including several clear- channel (reserved frequency, high-wattage AM) radio stations from around the country. It’s been non-stop all week. Here is a link to an audio recording of a brief interview with WGN, Chicago’s leading 50,000 watt, clear-channel radio station.

My application was denied. The Honorable Court chose not to state why.

Wrotnowksi v. Connecticut Secretary of State is still pending as an emergency application resubmitted to the Honorable Associate Justice Antonin Scalia as of last Tuesday. I worked extensively on that application and it includes a more solid brief and a less treacherous lower Court procedural history.

After six days, it’s interesting that Scalia neither denied it nor referred it to the full Court.

My case may have suffered from the NJ Appellate Division Judge having incorrectly characterized my original suit as a “motion for leave to appeal” rather than the “direct appeal” that it actually was. On Nov. 21 I filed official Judicial misconduct charges with the NJ Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, and I updated SCOTUS about that by a letter which is part of SCOTUS Docket as of Nov. 22. The NJ Appellate Divison official case file is fraudulent.

On the chance that SCOTUS was looking at both my case and Cort’s case, I must stress that Cort’s case does not have the same procedural hang up that mine does. It may be that without a decision on the Judicial misconduct allegation correcting the NJ Appellate Division case file, SCOTUS might have been in the position of not being able to hear my case as it would appear that my case was not before them on the proper procedural grounds.

I did file a direct appeal under the proper NJ Court rules, but the lower Court judge refused to acknowledge that and if his fraudulent docketing was used by SCOTUS they would have a solid procedural basis to throw mine out.

I don’t know if it’s significant that Cort’s case was not denied at the same time as mine. His case argues the same exact theory - that Obama is not a natural born citizen because he was a British citizen at birth.

All eyes should now be closely watching US Supreme Court Docket No. 08A469, Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz.

If Cort’s application is also denied then the fat lady can sing. Until then, the same exact issue is before SCOTUS as was in my case. Cort’s application before SCOTUS incorporates all of the arguments and law in mine, but we improved on the arguments in Cort’s quite a bit as we had more time to prepare it.

I was in a rush to get mine to SCOTUS before election day, which I did do on Nov. 3.

Cort’s case has a much cleaner lower court procedural history.

I’m not trying to play with people’s minds here. SCOTUS has not updated Cort’s docket and until they do there can be no closure. I was expecting, if they didn’t grant certiorari, that they would deny both cases at the same time so as to provide closure to the underlying issue. I hate to read tea leaves, but Cort’s application is still pending. That’s all we can really say with any certainty.

Court declines Obama birth case
MSNBC - 36 minutes ago
The US Supreme Court has declined to take up a case that questioned whether President-elect Obama met the Constitution's requirement that only a ...

OBJECTION Re: Is a Washington, DC news conference showcasing anti-Obama scam artists?

Monday, December 8, 2008 9:10 AM
To: paulandrewmitchell

> "Likewise, over the past 200 years Courts have developed procedures for petitioning them. Sending letters to judges is not one of them. Once again, the purveyors of paranoia are misleading the public, by falsely claiming that the "right to petition" allows them to harass judges. It does not."

This paragraph is very misleading, because it is intended
to persuade the reader that Americans have no right to
write letters to judges. And, that is absurd!

Reductio ad absurdum
(in Latin), which all hot-shot JDs should
already understand!

Equating letters to judges with "harassment" is also absurd.

Yes, a letter written to a judge is not a formal petition e.g. MOTION
by one of the Proper Parties in a lawsuit pending before
that judge; and, for that reason, the judge has no obligation
to rule or act upon such a letter, as is the case when a
proper MOTION or COMPLAINT is timely filed, served and pending
before that judge.

BUT, writing letters to judges is protected by the First Amendment,
and as such it is ABSOLUTELY PROTECTED in America!!

So, I must emphatically dispute Mr. Martin's paragraph above; and,
whenever I see such misleading statements, I stop reading because
I will probably find more of the same, if I decide to waste my time
reading more.

"Speech is absolutely protected!" says former Judge Andrew Napolitano.


And, I will defend Mr. Martin's fundamental Right to Freedom of Speech
EVEN WHEN I have good reason to conclude that he is just plain wrong too!

p.s. When is Mr. Martin planning to confront all the evidence
proving that the Federal Judiciary are heavily infiltrated?

Start here:

then follow the links from there ... 03-16.htm

Wouldn't he like to know what happened to this procedurally proper
(also see all attached Exhibits near the end)

Mr. Martin, Phil Berg is the
WRONG TARGET for your invectives!

http://www.supreme commissions/sct.foia.commissions.htm

In my honest opinion, we should ALL be harassing ALL THESE IMPOSTORS!!

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13 (Home Page) (Support Policy) (Client Guidelines) (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

Court won't review Obama's eligibility to serve
The Associated Press - 48 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be ...

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Obama Nationality Case
Washington Post, United States - 14 minutes ago
By Robert Barnes The Supreme Court this morning unceremoniously declined to hear an emergency appeal from a man who claimed President-elect Barack Obama is ...

Supreme Court turns down case challenging Obama's citizenship
Baltimore Sun, United States - 14 minutes ago
The Supreme Court today turned down an emergency appeal asking the justices to consider whether President-elect Barack Obama is a "natural born citizen," ...

No comments: