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

« The "United States" (Federal government) is not a corporation | Main | Break the Matrix: 5 Simple Ways to Save Money in this Recession (by Opting Out...) »

OBJECTION Re: OBAMA'S BIRTH ISSUE..SHELDON = "stuck on stupid"?

From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Subject: OBJECTION Re: OBAMA'S BIRTH ISSUE..SHELDON = "stuck on stupid"
To: "Byron Wine" <byronw1@verizon.net>
Cc: "SupremeLaw" <supremelaw@googlegroups.com>
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 7:02 AM

Byron,

Have you ever heard the term "stuck on stupid"?


>  A private corporation doesn't have to abide by the original Constitution related to being a "natural born" person. If they want a Japanese born person to be their president, it would be legal. Does this end all the silliness related to Obama's eligibility?


Absolutely ridiculous:  a corporation's charter cannot contemplate
a violation of Law: that will nullify such a charter just as quickly
as a "contract" that contemplates a violation of the law.


A contract is null and void if it contemplates violation(s) of the Law.

The fastest way to dismiss this garbage is to demonstrate
the section of the Act of 1871 which extended the
Constitution into D.C.:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/intentm3.filed.htm#1871
http://www.supremelaw.org/stat/16/16stat426.gif  (Sec. 34, last sentence)


Two Constitutions?

No, Byron.  When I point out errors to these "luminaries",
they almost never respond.  For example, D.C. was
incorporated by Congress in 1871, but it is not a
"private corporation" any more than numerous other
municipal corporations, like county governments, are "private".


The trademarked name of this new corporation formed in 1871 was, THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

No.  I have read that entire Act, and it does not incorporate the "United States"
or "THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT". 

It incorporated the District of Columbia.


By comparison, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA incorporated twice
in Delaware, but both Delaware corporations have been revoked
by the Delaware Secretary of State:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.inc/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.corp/

Since then, another corporation has been chartered in Delaware,
called THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC.:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.inc/THE.UNITED.STATES.OF.AMERICA.JPG

The latter is STILL not the Federal Government:  it can't be!
The Federal Government is domiciled in the District of Columbia,
but D.C. and the United States are NOT one and the same
(this should be obvious to everyone, but it's not, sadly!)

The following is my rebuttal yesterday to this widespread garbage:


http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/bellringers_corner/hello_central/news.php?q=1249493928



Greetings,

Please see U.S. v. Cooper Corporation, for starters:

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/us-v-usa.htm


In 1871 Congress did expressly incorporate the District

of Columbia, but D.C. and the "United States" are not

one and the same.  In that Act of 1871, Congress also

expressly extended the U.S. Constitution into D.C.:


http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/intentm3.filed.htm#1871


 

In United States v. Cooper Corporation, 312 U.S. 600 (1941),

the Supreme Court wrote:


http://laws.findlaw.com/us/312/600.html

 

"We may say in passing that the argument that the

United States may be treated as a corporation

organized under its own laws, that is, under the

Constitution as the fundamental law, seems so strained

as not to merit serious consideration ."

[end quote]


Incidentally, in that Act of 1871, Congress expressly
extended the entire U.S. Constitution into D.C.

Terribly nagging little detail, that!



We tracked down your widespread falsehood here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/reply.to.brief.for.appellee.htm


The “government” did not bring this suit.  The U.S. Department of Justice has no powers of attorney legally to represent any one of the 50 States of the Union, nor all of them collectively.  28 U.S.C. 547.  The 50 States of the Union are already quite adequately represented legally by their respective State Attorneys General.  28 U.S.C. 530B.

Moreover, in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), the Supreme Court prohibited Congress from re-defining any terms used in the Constitution for the United States of America (“U.S. Constitution”).  At 28 U.S.C. 1746, both “United States” and “United States of America” occur in correct contradistinction to each other (inside one is outside the others).  28 U.S.C. 1746 is the only statute in all of Title 28 where the term “United States of America” occurs as such.

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic] did incorporate twice as such in the State of Delaware, but certified evidence now before this Court shows that both foreign corporations have been revoked by the Delaware Secretary of State.  Neither foreign corporation was ever registered with the New Mexico Secretary of State either!  (See “Certificate”!)

Even if one or the other were not revoked, DOJ would still not have any powers of attorney legally to represent a foreign Delaware corporation.  Congress never appropriated funds for DOJ to do so.


Finally, Congress has never incorporated either the “United States” or the “United States of Americaas such.  See U.S. v. Cooper Corporation, 312 U.S. 600 (1941).  It appears that Chief Justice John Marshall was responsible for fabricating the myth that “The United States of America” are a corporation.  See Dixon v. The United States, 1 Marsh. Dec. 177, 181 (1811).  However, without citing any actual legislative authority for that proposition, Marshall’s statement is merely dictum that was later cited in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1856), at the definitions of “Union” and “United States of America”.  In any event, Dixon has been overruled by Cooper supra because Dixon was decided by a Circuit Court in a case on which C.J. Marshall presided.

[end quote]

The punishment for false teachers and teachers of falsehood
is rather severe.  See Books of Jude and 2 Peter.


--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness:  18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 6:42 AM, Byron Wine <byronw1@verizon.net> wrote:
Two Constitutions?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 12:27 AM
Subject: OBAMA'S BIRTH ISSUE..SHELDON

August 13, 2009 in Current Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d3ac69e20120a4f135ec970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference OBJECTION Re: OBAMA'S BIRTH ISSUE..SHELDON = "stuck on stupid"?:

Comments

The comments to this entry are closed.