Teknosis: Berg v. Obama et al.: Berg Is Outraged: Obama & DNC file motion to delay discovery until after defendant's motion to dismiss is decided

« We've just seen a coup take place in the U.S. (with the bailout ). . . | Main | Berg v. Obama et al.: Berg's office responds to APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE by United States ex rel. Private Attorney General »

Berg v. Obama et al.: Berg Is Outraged: Obama & DNC file motion to delay discovery until after defendant's motion to dismiss is decided

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: Berg v. Obama et al.: Berg Is Outraged: Obama & DNC file motion to delay discovery until after defendant's motion to dismiss is decided
To: phantom421366@yahoo.com
Cc: SupremeLaw <supremelaw@googlegroups.com>, Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo.com>

Thank you Tim,

From my heart, and also from 18+ YEARS of court activism and litigation, the existence of a legal definition of "Federal citizenship" in Black's Law Dictionary, was one of the keys that opened Pandora's Box for me in this crucial area of Law.

Congress could and SHOULD have used the term "federal citizen" INSTEAD OF "citizen of the United States" to identify that second class of citizens which was created originally for freed Black slaves:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/before.and.after.htm

At first, I found it almost impossible to believe that Congress would engage in such deliberate and long-standing deceit, dating at least from the end of the Civil War.

THE TEST which I did perform, against my own scientific hypothesis, was to determine whether or not any State and Federal courts had ever admitted that two (2) classes of citizens exist, not just one class.

At first, that search was extremely difficult and time-consuming, because my initial failure to find such cases could be interpreted in one of two broad ways: either (1) there were no such cases, or (2) the cases that did exist were being hidden, deliberately.

It was a coin toss between those two explanations, for a very long time, and I became very discouraged during that time-consuming search.

Well, when I did finally come upon a few such cases, then it was almost as if a dam had burst: after that, numerous such cases started to surface.

This was no mean feat, because during that search I did NOT have the benefit of the Internet, which first came to my attention in December 1995.

Now, however, my office has assembled a rather revealing set of court cases, and legal references, which can leave absolutely no doubt about the
existence of two (2) classes:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htm
(scroll to the end for many more citations, and authorities)

This brings us to the Qualifications Clauses:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/quals.htm

As history would have it, California turned up some of THE most crucial authorities on this key point, e.g. Ex parte Knowles is one which many Americans still find hard to believe:

A citizen of any one of the States of the union, 
is held to be, and called a citizen of the 
United States, although technically and 
abstractly there is no such thing. [!!]

And, just as dramatic was our finding the correct construction of those Clauses by a former California State Judge, in People v. De La Guerra: i.e. "United States" in those Clauses means "States united".

And, in my opinion the holding in Pannill v. Roanoke is not only definitive, it is also dispositive on the relevant history here: federal citizens were not even contemplated with the organic Constitution was first being drafted:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htm#pannill

So, THE ISSUE for both Obama and McCain, at this pivotal point in American history, is the absolute legal requirement for them to demonstrate that each is a natural-born Citizen of ONE OF the States united:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/sanmarco/complain.htm#one-of

Neither can prove same, if the allegations filed to date in Berg v. Obama et al. are confirmed, and declared, to be correct, as matters of FACT and as matters of LAW.

Neither Kenya nor Panama were ever States of the Union.

And, those Qualifications Clauses have never been amended, notwithstanding relatively recent attempts to enact term limits for Members of Congress!

QED (quod erat demonstrandum): this is what has now been demonstrated.

I am going to take the liberty of sharing this reply, and your comments, as broadly as possible on the Internet, for several reasons e.g.: I believe the Internet needs to know whose side you are on; and, current scholarly work that has already been done to date on the Qualification Clause for the Office of President has surely become a key battleground in defense of the organic Constitution for the United States of America.

Thank you for all your commitment to those very same principles.

p.s. There is much additional (and free) reading at the links below my name here ...

http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13