Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0
HEIGHT=

Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Coffees from Youngevity
HEIGHT=

Coffees from Youngevity

Youngevity Be The Change

Youngevity Healthy Chocolate

GOFoods Youngevity

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.
HEIGHT=

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Ron Paul Forums
HEIGHT=

Ron Paul Forums

APFN Message Board
HEIGHT=

APFN Message Board

Leo Emil Wanta / Wantagate Links

++++++++++++++++++ EBAY ITEMS 4 SALE ++++++++++++++++++

« CHRISTOPHER STORY FRSA: OPERATIONS OF DVD, DACHAU AGAINST THE 'MAIN ENEMY' | Main | Barr's Lawsuit: An Exercise in Futility »

Berg v. Obama (USDC/EDPA): McCain Eligibility: United States ex rel. objects to ORDER DISMISSING ACTION in Robinson v. Bowen et al. (USDC/NDCA)

MEMO

TO:

Hon. William H. Alsup
United States District Judge
c/o Clerk of Court
450 Golden Gate Avenue, 16th Floor
San Francisco 94102
CALIFORNIA, USA

FROM:

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General (18 U.S.C. 1964) on behalf of
United States ex rel. in Berg v. Obama (USDC/EDPA)

DATE:

September 20, 2008 A.D.

SUBJECT:

plain errors in ORDER DENYING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND DISMISSING ACTION, Robinson v. Bowen et al., USDC/NDCA (San Francisco) docket number #C 08-03836 WHA


Greetings Your Honor:

On behalf of the United States appearing ex rel. in Berg v. Obama et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, I am writing to point out several plain errors in your ORDER supra.

Although the United States also finds faults in your paragraphs concerning the Plaintiff’s legal standing, this MEMO is confined to demonstrating the plain errors in that ORDER’s analysis of the Qualification Clause in question (2:1:5). We now quote each erroneous sentence and then follow with our reasons why each is erroneous:


“Article II left to Congress the role of defining citizenship, including citizenship by reason of birth.”

Congress cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised. See Eisner v. Macomber. As you know or should know, all 3 Qualifications Clauses have never been amended. As such, they retain today the meaning they had when they were first drafted and then ratified on June 21, 1788 A.D.

The case of Pannill v. Roanoke is definitive and dispositive in this context: federal citizens were not even contemplated as such when the organic Constitution was first being drafted. Moreover, the term “United States” in the Qualification Clause means “States united”. See People v. De La Guerra. The latter two cases are all you need to prove that candidates for the Office of President of the United States of America are not eligible unless they were State Citizens at birth, not federal citizens.

The latter class did not even exist until the 1866 Civil Rights Act!

Your error above is also revealed by your use of a lower-case “c” in the term “citizenship”, whereas you correctly quote the Qualification Clause as requiring every eligible candidate to be a “natural born Citizen” -- UPPER-CASE “C” in “Citizen”. The term “Citizen of the United States” in that Clause means “Citizen of ONE OF the States united”: this is the only meaning it can have, chiefly because there was only one class of State Citizens between 1788 and 1866 A.D.


“Many decades later, the Fourteenth Amendment set a floor on citizenship, overruled the Dred Scott decision, and provided that all born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, were citizens.”

This latter sentence is just loaded with legal and historical errors. First of all, the so-called Fourteenth amendment was never properly ratified. See Dyett v. Turner and State v. Phillips, for starters.

Secondly, a ratified Fourteenth amendment did not set any “floor” on the meaning of State Citizenship, chiefly because that proposal was merely declaratory of existing law. That “existing law” was the 1866 Civil Rights Act which created federal citizenship for the first time.

If you will please review the pertinent cases concerning this failed “amendment”, we predict that you should confirm that it did not change the meaning of “Citizen of the United States” as the latter term occurs in all 3 Qualifications Clauses (House, Senate and White House). There are plenty of such cases cited and discussed in Chapter 11 and Appendix “Y” in “The Federal Zone”, both here on the Internet:

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chaptr11.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/append-y.htm

Moreover, a ratified Fourteenth amendment did not and could not overrule the Dred Scott decision. That decision was not only correct, but it was never overruled subsequently by the U.S. Supreme Court, which is the only body that has authority to “overrule” one of its own standing decisions. A failed “amendment” can’t overrule anything!

Lastly, it wasn’t until 1945 that the U.S. Supreme Court finally admitted that “United States” has three (3) different legal meanings. Therefore, the term “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” can also have three different meanings. However, the correct meaning of that phrase, as found in the so-called Fourteenth amendment, was only recently clarified to mean “subject to the municipal jurisdiction of the Congress”. See our 31Q&A here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm#Q6

You also err by leaving out perhaps the single most important part of Section 1 of that failed “amendment”: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States” NOT State Citizens. Attempting to substitute the term “citizens” for “citizens of the United States” borders on fraud, because it fails to disclose what should have been disclosed in this context. Did a lie school grad draft your ORDER?

Yes, I realize now, after 18 years of intense research and litigation, that many Federal government officers and employees would very much like to see the entire population of the USA become and remain “subject to the municipal jurisdiction” of Congress.

Given the number of U.S. military bases that are now operating throughout the world, it also appears to me that Federal government officers and employees would very much like the whole world to become, and remain, “subject to the municipal jurisdiction” of Congress.

Nevertheless, the Law is quite otherwise, and being a duly commissioned U.S. District Judge your 2 Oaths of Office legally bind you to understand and apply that Law correctly. See 5 U.S.C. 3331 and 28 U.S.C. 453, both rendered supreme Law of the Land pursuant to the Supremacy Clause:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/alsup.william/

You have not done so, however. And, for that reason your ORDER of September 16, 2008, in the above entitled matter is plainly in error and should be vacated immediately, for all of the verifiable reasons documented above.

I hereby incorporate by reference, as if set forth fully here, the following Internet copies of pleadings filed recently by the United States ex rel. in Berg v. Obama et al.:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/intervention.prohibition.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/notice.of.intent.htm

Both are hyperlinked for the convenience of all.


Thank you for your professional consideration.


Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

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

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

September 20, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d3ac69e2010534c00e7b970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Berg v. Obama (USDC/EDPA): McCain Eligibility: United States ex rel. objects to ORDER DISMISSING ACTION in Robinson v. Bowen et al. (USDC/NDCA):

Comments

The comments to this entry are closed.