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

« FW: INFO: This is why you are subject to an Income Tax . . . explained by The Informer | Main | Wikileaks / Cablegate / State Secrets (01/21/11) cablegate-201101212036.7z.torrent »

THE DEFINITION OF NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

Your title is not complete, Mr. Williams.

For starters please see:

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#2:1:5

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/citizenship.for.dummies.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/swornaff.htm#delaguerra


... and our recent letter to the Governor of Hawai`i:

The Honorable Neil Abercrombie

Governor, State of Hawai`i

Executive Chambers, 
State Capitol

Honolulu 96813
Hawai`i, USA

Subject:  The Qualification Clause for President

Greetings Governor Abercrombie:

An editorial in The Seattle Times today used the word "nonsense" to label numerous sincere efforts to challenge Barack Hussein Obama's claim to the Office of President of the United States of America.


Because I am one of the Principal Investigators currently representing the United States (federal government) ex rel. before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, in the case of Berg v. Obama et al., I occupy a somewhat unique position for having done more than most to investigate, and elucidate, the Qualification Clause for President and related Qualifications Clauses in the U.S. Constitution.

Governor, you need to know why our efforts should never be so rudely branded as "nonsense."  Here's why:


(1)  the U.S. Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford correctly held that Congress could not remove the legal obstacles identified in that decision solely by means of legislation enacted by that Body:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/citizenship.for.dummies.htm


(2)  in blatant violation of that holding, the Congress of 1866 attempted to sidestep that decision by enacting the 1866 Civil Rights Act instead, which is the historical origin of a second class of Americans who are now uniquely identified as federal citizens:

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/dict/federal.citizenship.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htm#pannill


(3)  it should be obvious to someone in your position, even if this is not obvious to the many yellow journalists that populate newsrooms all across America, that the 1866 Civil Rights Act was not a duly ratified Constitutional Amendment;  it couldn't be, because three-fourths (3/4) of the several States are required to ratify amendments according to Article V in the U.S. Constitution:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/comments.on.citizenship.for.dummies.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#5


(4)  accordingly, the Qualification Clause for President was not and could not be amended by that Act of Congress, and published history books unanimously confirm that this Clause has never been amended, in point of fact:

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


(5)  as such, that Qualification Clause still retains today the meaning it had when it was first ratified into supreme Law of our Land on June 21, 1788 A.D.:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/swornaff.htm#delaguerra
(the "United States" in these Clauses means "States united")


(6)  this means, chiefly, that federal citizenship did not exist in American laws prior to 1866, and that the Qualifications Clauses can and do refer to the one and only one class of State Citizens i.e. Citizens of ONE OF the States united, who were contemplated by the Framers who drafted those Clauses:

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


(7)  furthermore, there is a popular theory now circulating, both on and off the Internet, that the Law of Nations circa 1788 A.D. required that both parents be "Citizens" in order for anyone to be "natural born" and thus eligible for the Office of President;


(8)  because there was only one class of State Citizens in 1788 A.D., it necessarily follows that both parents needed to be State Citizens in order for their offspring to satisfy the Qualification Clause for President;


(9)  now, my office has actively involved the United States in this historically important debate, by confronting Defendant Barack Hussein Obama with verified facts, which neither he nor his Counsel of choice has opposed, refuted, denied or challenged in any manner whatsoever:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/


(10)  in particular, we have served a SUBPOENA upon the office of the Consul General of Kenya in Los Angeles, to which that office fell completely silent, thus activating legal estoppel in this matter:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/subpoena/


(11)  one of the Exhibits attached to that SUBPOENA was this CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH duly verified pursuant to the Federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 1746:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/subpoena/LucasSmith03.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/subpoena/LucasSmith01.png
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/subpoena/LucasSmith02.png


(12)  the United States also demanded mandatory judicial notice of the Official Report published by the National Assembly of the Republic of Kenya, and once again neither Obama nor any of his chosen Counsel did anything to challenge, deny or refute that Official Report:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/nad02.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/Kenya/National.Assembly.Official.Report.2008-11-05.pdf



It is the studied position of the United States ex rel. Paul Andrew Mitchell, Private Attorney General, that Defendant Barack Hussein Obama's silence has now activated legal estoppel against him in the case of Berg v. Obama et al.  See Carmine v. Bowen (silence activates estoppel).

Moreover, his silence can and should be construed as fraud, pursuant to U.S. v. Tweel
(silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal or moral duty to speak,
or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading).


Accordingly, my office was obligated by the Federal criminal statute at 18 U.S.C. 4
formally to charge Defendant Barack Hussein Obama as follows:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/vcc.htm


To put it bluntly, Governor, time has run out for Mr. Obama.  He has had numerous
opportunities to refute the verified facts as summarized above, but he chose to fall
silent instead.


Conclusion:  He does not legally occupy the Office of President of the United States of America.



Thank you for your continuing professional consideration.


--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
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

 


----- Forwarded Message ----
From: NewsWithViews.com News Alerts! <alerts@lists.newswithviewsalerts.com>
To: "Alerts @ newswithviewsalerts.com" <alerts@lists.newswithviewsalerts.com>
Sent: Wed, January 19, 2011 10:31:12 PM
Subject: [NWV Alerts] New Articles

January 20, 2011

Why is the right helping Obama rewrite the definition of natural born citizen?
Either way, Barack Hussein Obama is definitely in the White House unconstitutionally. Get your dictionary out and check for yourself. The legal scholars and self-appointed experts are lying to you. The dictionary shall set the truth free! You don’t need legal experts to tell you what those three little words mean, you just need Webster. Lawyers are still debating what the true meaning of “is” is. We already know the true meaning....
http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams125.htm
by JB Williams

January 20, 2011 in Current Affairs | Permalink