martes, 04 de enero de 2011
Private Attorney General writes to Governor of Hawai'i re: The Qualification Clause for President

I got this in the  email, I do not

know Mr. Mitchell.

------------------------------------------------

From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Date: Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 10:56 AM

 Private Attorney General writes to Governor of Hawai'i re:

 The Qualification Clause for President

Cc: dboardman@seattletimes.com

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.
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 officeof 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
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,
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

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 14:11
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Comentarios
Añadir comentario