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 ++++++++++++++++++

« Berg v. Obama et al.: Berg Is Outraged: Obama & DNC file motion to delay discovery until after defendant's motion to dismiss is decided | Main | Federal Grand Jury Receives Material Evidence of Extensive Federal Court Infiltration »

Berg v. Obama et al.: Berg's office responds to APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE by United States ex rel. Private Attorney General

From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Subject: Berg v. Obama et al.: Berg's office responds to APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE by United States ex rel. Private Attorney General
To: philjberg@obamacrimes.com
Cc: "SupremeLaw" <supremelaw@googlegroups.com>, "Supreme Law Firm" <paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo.com>, phantom421366@yahoo.com
Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 7:51 PM

Subject:  Berg v. Obama et al.
Berg's office responds to APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE
by United States ex rel. Private Attorney General


>  congress [sic] has issued a non binding

> resolution, Senate Resolution 511,

> McCain was found to be a "natural born"

> citizen [sic] and eligible to serve as

> United States president [sic].

Thank you, Lisa. 

I do believe "Congress" should always be spelled with an UPPER-CASE "C", just as "Citizen of the United States" in all 3 Qualifications Clauses
should also be spelled with an UPPER-CASE "C", not a lower-case "c".

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

Similarly, "President" should also be spelled with an UPPER-CASE "P".
Not once is it spelled incorrectly as you have done above:
please confirm same for yourself here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm

The United States ex rel. Paul Andrew Mitchell, Private Attorney General,
informally OBJECTS to your substantive yet erroneous claim(s) above,
as follows:

A Resolution is not an Act of Congress:
compare 1 U.S.C. 101 and 1 U.S.C. 102:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/101.html
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/102.html

As such, you are correct when you refer to any such Resolution as "non-binding".

(For example, the Tonkin Gulf RESOLUTION was not an Act of Congress either;  and, therefore, it was not a legal Declaration of War by the Congress that voted in favor of that Resolution.)

And, even if Congress had opted for 1 U.S.C. 101 instead, 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:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=252&invol=189

This and similar holdings are the main reasons why the 1866 Civil Rights Act did create a second class of "federal citizens" -- entirely different from the primary class of State Citizens aka "Citizens of ONE OF the States united".

Cf.  "Federal citizenship" in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.


That Act did not and could not alter or amend any of the Qualifications Clauses in any manner whatsoever; and, in point of verifiable fact, those Clauses have never been amended, despite relatively recent efforts to enact
term limits for House members.

The term "United States" in all 3 Qualifications Clauses means "States united".  People v. De La Guerra:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/swornaff.htm#delaguerra
(Hon. Pablo De La Guerra was a California Judge at that time, so he was in a position to know the Law on this point.)

As it was the adoption of the 
Constitution by the Conventions of
nine States that established and
created the United States***, it is
obvious there could not then have
existed any person who had been
seven years a citizen of the United
States***, or who possessed the
Presidential qualifications of being
thirty-five years of age, a natural
born citizen, and fourteen years a
resident of the United States***.
The United States*** in these
provisions, means the States united.

To be twenty-five years of age, and
for seven years to have been a
citizen of one of the States which
ratifies the Constitution, is the
qualification of a representative. To
be a natural born citizen of one of
the States which shall ratify the
Constitution, or to be a citizen of
one of said States at the time of
such ratification, and to have
attained the age of thirty-five
years, and to have been fourteen
years a resident within one of the
said States, are the Presidential
qualifications, according to the true
meaning of the Constitution.


[People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311,
337 (1870)]

[emphasis added]


The proper construction of the Qualification Clause for President is "Citizen of ONE OF the States united":

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

Chapter 11 in "The Federal Zone" cites more controlling historical precedents concerning the clarifying phrase "one of" e.g.:

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chaptr11.htm

The language employed by the convention was less careful than that which had been used by Congress in July of the same year, in framing the ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory.  Congress had made the qualification rest upon citizenship of "one of the United States***," and this is doubtless the intent of the convention which framed the Constitution, for it cannot have meant anything else.

 

[Studies in Constitutional Law:]

[A Treatise on American Citizenship]

[by John S. Wise, Edward Thompson Co. (1906)]

[emphasis added]



Now, of key importance is that Panama has never been a State of the Union.


Our 2 pleadings in Berg v. Obama et al. to date cover most of the remaining, controlling authorities e.g. Pannill v. Roanoke:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htm#pannill
(federal citizens were not even contemplated when the organic Constitution was first being drafted)

Accordingly, notwithstanding any Congressional Resolution(s), whether recent or otherwise,  the position of the United States ex rel. is that Mr. McCain is not and was not a "natural born Citizen of the United States" as the latter term occurs in the Qualifications Clauses (read "Law"), summarized here:

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

>  It may behoove you to spend some time in a law library.


I am also frankly disappointed that you have not cited any more standing authority(s) to support Mr. Berg's legal position vis-a-vis Messrs. McCain and Obama.

Have you not read both pleadings filed and served to date by the United States ex rel., and have you not confirmed each of the pertinent authority(s) cited in those pleadings?

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

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


In point of fact, I have already spent hundreds of man-hours of research time in numerous law libraries, assembling every citation I could find that is even remotely pertinent, and relevant, to the proper construction and common understanding of the Qualification Clauses for President, Senator and Representative.

I honestly believe it is Mr. Berg who should be spending more time in a Law Library -- one that has not been corrupted with missing citations and deliberate falsifications concerning the relevant American Constitutional jurisprudence.

Thank you, anyway, for the courtesy shown by your message below.



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
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

___

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 7:02 PM, <philjberg@obamacrimes.com> wrote:

Mr. Mitichell,

Thank you for your information.  We have received your motion to intervene, however, the Judge has not ruled on the matter.

It may behoove you to spend some time in a law library.  McCain took his issue to congress has issued a non binding resolution, Senate Resolution 511, McCain was found to be a "natural born" citizen and eligible to serve as United States president.

Obama is a completely different matter.  As of this date, it is believed Obama is still a citizen of Indonesia and here illegally.

Lisa

Phil's Assistant

LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG

Quoting Paul Andrew Mitchell :
Pannill v. Roanone
should have been
Pannill v. Roanoke
(fixed below)

---------- 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 decide
To: phantom421366@yahoo.com
Cc: SupremeLaw <supremelaw@googlegroups.com>, Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo.com>

Additional ref: http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2008/10/berg-v-obama-et-al-berg-is-outraged-obama-dnc-file-motion-to-delay-discovery-until-after-defendants-motion-to-dismiss.html

October 7, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d3ac69e20105356b9a1d970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Berg v. Obama et al.: Berg's office responds to APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE by United States ex rel. Private Attorney General:

Comments

The comments to this entry are closed.