"Self-Righteous Writings: 

The Abject Failures of Alternative Journalists,"

by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

All Rights Reserved

It is understandable when socialists and others who sympathize

with left-wing causes do routinely ignore the Rule of Law,

unless the Law can be championed to further their own

personal ambitions and self-serving interests.

It's becoming painfully obvious, on the other hand, that many

so-called conservative journalists are manifesting the same

double standards, albeit in more subtle ways.

This writer has spent the better part of 18 years assembling

evidence of missing and defective credentials for a large

number of Federal government personnel who claim

to occupy positions within the Federal Judiciary

and other agencies of the Federal government.

What is perhaps most amazing about that evidence is the

large number of letters we have received from the

U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C.

As the legal custodian of the PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSIONS

for all Federal Judges, DOJ is the Federal agency that is

legally obligated to disclose that credential whenever DOJ is

presented with a proper FOIA Request for a true and correct

copy of same.  DOJ has admitted that they do maintain an

"appointment file" for all such Judges.

Please contemplate fairly for a moment the situation that arises

whenever a FOIA Request should produce the four credentials

required of a dozen Federal "robes";  but, instead of producing

48 documents, DOJ replies with 24 documents.

It doesn't require a Ph.D. or rocket scientists to arrive at the

reasonable conclusion that 24 credentials are missing.

This is only simple arithmetic, not higher mathematics.

Making matters worse, it has often been the case that

many of the documents that are disclosed by DOJ

are defective in one way or another, sometimes exhibiting

errors and omissions that render those credentials

fatally defective.

To give you some idea of how sensitive this investigation

has become, this writer experienced extreme retaliation

on false charges -- brought for purposes of malicious

prosecution -- for having exposed so many well documented

impostors seated on the Federal courts.

The first public defender assigned to my defense

began our one and only meeting by confiding that

I would NOT be allowed to introduce any of DOJ's

letters in my own defense.

How's THAT for effective assistance of Counsel?

I promptly fired that attorney, because his statement

revealed his intent to collaborate with a painfully

obvious conspiracy to obstruct justice in my case.

It took me 11 months to be released, but not before

the black robe in Wyoming attempted to characterize

The Credential Investigation as a "pathological obsession"

(her words, not mine).

What does any of this have to do with alternative journalists,

you might ask?  Answer:  plenty! 

You might be tempted to believe that so-called conservative

Constitution-loving reporters and investigators would be

all over this story, given the far-reaching implications of

so many Federal prisoners who were denied due process

of law during their criminal trials, or worse during meetings

with a government attorney where they were pressured

to sign "plea bargains" waiving their right to appeal

and confessing to some lesser offense.

Yes, it is standard practice for government attorneys

to threaten defendants with much longer prison terms,

if those defendants choose trial by jury instead of

signing a "plea agreement".  This is extortion, however.

Opting for trial by jury is not a crime of any kind

but Federal defendants are obviously being punished

for choosing that option.

We have never been able to dispel our suspicion

that Federal government attorneys already know that

many Federal court "robes" preside on criminal cases

withOUT all of the requisite credentials.  That knowledge

may explain why so much pressure is exerted on

defendants to sign plea agreements.  But, proving that

suspicion has remained out of reach.

But, relevant reporting has just not happened.  And,

believe me when I say that I have tried earnestly

to expose numerous journalists to the large database

which has been created and maintained by expending

thousands of hours of our professional time on that one

project.

This problem of voluntary ignorance has also become

noticeably rampant among U.S. military veterans

who were required by applicable Federal laws

to execute a solemn oath to support the U.S. Constitution.

I have yet to encounter a single military veteran

who studied the U.S. Constitution during boot camp.

Some of those veterans are now amateur journalists

e.g. by posting videos on YouTube and elsewhere

on the Internet.

The Oath of Office Clause in that Constitution historically

pre-dates the Bill of Rights, and that Clause has never

been amended.  As such, it retains today the exact same

meaning which it had when it was first ratified into

supreme Law in America on June 21, 1788.

Other Clauses in the Constitution are relevant here,

such as the Appointments Clause and Recess Appointments

Clause.  Add to all of those Clauses the several Acts of Congress

and administrative Regulations which have implemented those Clauses.

I almost always hesitate to ask veterans if they

have rescinded their Oaths, because their conduct

after being discharged seems to imply that they have:

actions speak louder than words.

In closing, please understand that I am currently grateful

to the Most High for frequently helping me avoid certain disasters,

and for making my recent retirement a comfortable, safe and

secure one.

I do continue to fear for all journalists who have decided

to abandon the moral imperative of pursuing and maintaining

integrity in their own investigations and, of course, in their

own reporting of historical events as they happen.

I do not approve of a growing tendency among many writers

to speculate about the future, and then to expect their readers

to regard all such speculation as "news".  What "may" happen,

and what "could" happen, certainly do not rise to the level

of reportable history.  And, overuse of the term "bombshell"

to attract attention is so crass, it really deserves to be ignored

if not openly opposed.

As I have always made a habit of warning past clients,

claiming special knowledge of the future is fraught with risk.

Those rare individuals who can claim special knowledge

of the future, really should consider moving to Reno, or Las Vegas,

where such a unique talent will fill up their bank accounts

in no time at all!

Rain Man Two?

As for the majority who do not enjoy special knowledge of the future,

trying to reconcile all of their conflicting and mutually contradictory

prognostications has become, in the final analysis, a total waste of time.

Happy New Year, my fellow Americans. 

Let us pray earnestly that America will embrace the Rule of Law,

once and for all, sometime this year.