Posted on 08/02/2009 1:35:53 AM PDT by rxsid
Edited on 08/06/2009 12:10:02 AM PDT by John Robinson. [history]
Attorney Taitz filed a NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Expedite authentication, MOTION for Issuance of Letters Rogatory for authenticity of Kenyan birth certificate filed by Plaintiff Alan Keyes PhD.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/ (site has been the target of hackers, proceed with caution — John)
You must use HTML for formatting paragraphs, italics, bold, font size, etc.
For assistance see: HTML Help
DE
. There is no mention of NOT granting "NATURAL BORN STATUS" in the 1795 Naturalization Act to a child born outside the U.S.. Checked several references ( Wikipedia, National Archives, ect.) and they all said basically the same thing.
at the end of the sentence. Thats the HTML code to start a new paragraph. Make sure you use the <> symbols.
And by the way ... Welcome to Free Republic!
DE
I see that the HTML code didn’t print as it should.
The code is <> with a P in between the <>. This will force a new line.
Yes but VP Sarah Palin is qualified...
:)
What a mess...
Yes, but Sarah is not part of a treasonous scam...
Has this already been researched ?
From “ Dreams From My Father “ page 66
BHO Sr has come to Hawaii for a visit.
Apparently when Barry was 10 years old or had just turned 11.
Everyone piled into the car for a drive down memory lane.
Including a drive “ past the remodeled hospital where I was born.”
Greg:
You do not have to use HTML code for a paragraph if there is no other HTML in your reply. A simple space by pressing enter will create a paragraph. But, if any part of your reply contains HTML code (for instance if you posted a picture) you must use HTML code throughout.
The paragraph mark is a p surrounded by “carots” <> with no spaces. Like this < p>, except that there is no space between the carot and the p. It activates when you enter this code properly and it makes a paragraph space and the code you entered disappears.
It’s fun when you get the hang of it.
Code for a picture is < img src=”url found by right clicking on picture and copying properties from the drop down”> Again, there is no space between that first carot and the img. The only space in that phrase is between the img and src. The quotation marks must enclose the “properties”.
A link is formed by < A Href=”insert url here”>NAME OF LINK< /A>. Again, there is no space between the first carot in those phrases and what follows. The only space properly there is between A and HREF in the first phrase. THere is no space between < and /A> in the closing phrase. The quotation marks are important and must always enclose the URL, or it won’t work. The words outside the carots are the only words that will show in the final post. The HTML codes will activate your link so that the reader can click on it and it will take him/her directly to the article you want to highlight.
Practice a little bit and check your results in the preview box without posting. Pretty soon you will be so adept that you are posting paragraphs, links, pictures, etc. all the time.
Could you provide a link please. I cannot find anything on obamacrimes.com about this.
Thanks - DE
HTTP://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/Keny ... bpoena.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/thir ... ucasSmith/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/thir ... mith01.png
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/thir ... mith02.png
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/thir ... mith03.jpg
This is all of the links that I can find.
Apparently when Barry was 10 years old or had just turned 11.
Everyone piled into the car for a drive down memory lane.
Including a drive “ past the remodeled hospital where I was born.”
_____________________________________________________
Which hospital in hawaii was remodeled in 1971-3 ???
NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE
SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE
TO: Hon. M. Nyambura Kamau
Consul General
Consulate General of Kenya in Los Angeles
Park Mile Plaza, Mezzanine Floor
4801 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles 90010
CALIFORNIA, USA
FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
DATE: August 2, 2009 A.D.
SUBJECT: intervention by United States ex rel. in
Berg v. Obama et al., Third Circuit Appeal No. 08-4443
Greetings Honorable Consul General:
My office legally represents the United States (Federal Government) at the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia, in the case of Berg v. Obama et al., Appeal No. 08-4443:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/nad02.htm
Please be advised that newly found evidence renders it appropriate formally to serve your good offices with a SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE, duly issued by the District Court of the United States for the Central District of California.
The purpose of this SUBPOENA will be to command your good offices to produce and permit inspection and copying of an authentic original of the attached CERTIFIED COPY OF REGISTRATION OF BIRTH of Barack Hussein Obama II on August 4, 1961 A.D., at Coast Provincial General Hospital in Mombasa, Republic of Kenya.
Please be aware that there is a separate District Court proceeding presently underway in the United States District Court for the Central District of California which also seeks to compel authentication of said REGISTRATION OF BIRTH: Keyes et al. v. Obama et al., case number 8:09-cv-82 (USDC, Los Angeles, California, USA).
For your convenience, we believe this is a valid link to a true and correct copy of the latest MOTION filed and served in the latter case:
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/kenyan-birth-motion-to-expedite-authentication.htm
Thank you very much for your timely and 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
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
EMERGENCY PETITION FROM THE UNITED STATES EX REL.
TO:
Hon. Judge Rosalyn Higgins (United Kingdom), President
Hon. Judge Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh (Jordan), Vice-President
International Court of Justice Peace Palace
Carnegieplein 2
2517 KJ The Hague
Netherlands
Telephone: 31 (0)70 302 23 23
Fax: 31 (0)70 364 99 28
FROM:
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Private Attorney General
appearing for the United States ex rel. in Berg v. Obama et al.,
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, USA
DATE:
October 26, 2008 A.D.
SUBJECT:
Berg v. Obama et al., Case No. 2:08-CV-04083 (RBS)
Greetings Honorable Judges:
Pursuant to authority conferred upon me by the United States statutes at Title 18 of the United States Code (“18 U.S.C.”), sections 1510, 1512-1513 and 1964(a), the United States has recently applied for leave to intervene, and for a Writ in the Nature of a Prohibition, in the above entitled case. See:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/intervention.prohibition.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/notice.of.intent.htm
The United States has also applied to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus to compel the latter District Court to rule on said APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE. See:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/mandamus.htm
As you know, the United States is also a State Party to two (2) Human Rights Treaties: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. See:
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/treaty/
The Plaintiff of record has now published informal notices on the Internet of his specific intent to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for emergency relief in this matter.
As matters of law, it is the position of the United States ex rel. that the Plaintiff of record, and the United States, both enjoy legal standing to litigate said case. See 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1346:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1345.html
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1346.html
For several years now, my office has been conducting an extensive investigation of required credentials that are now missing from numerous courts in the United States (Federal) Judicial system.
Of utmost importance, at this time, is the verified documentary evidence indicating that five (5) of the nine (9) “Justices” currently seated on the Supreme Court of the United States are presently lacking one or more of the several credentials required of them, by Law.
This evidence is readily accessible here on the Internet, for your convenience:
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/uoregon.edu/memo.ag01.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm
I now beg your sincere forgiveness for getting right to the point now:
Will you kindly authorize my office to commence an emergency civil case before your Court solely by means of electronic communications?
Our limited resources, and the time-sensitive nature of this bona fide Constitutional crisis, both justify a prompt and timely opinion from the International Court of Justice, even if only advisory in nature.
Please reply promptly via email to me at: supremelawfirm@gmail.com or alternatively at: supremelawfirm@msn.com
Thank you very much for your prompt and professional consideration.
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
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
c/o Forwarding Agent
501 West Broadway #A-332
San Diego 92101
CALIFORNIA, USA
Fax: (619) 232-2011 (use cover sheet)
All Rights Reserved
Without Prejudice
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE [sic], ) Case No. 2:08-CV-04083 (RBS)
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. )
)
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA et al., )
)
Defendants. )
-—————————————————)
)
United States ) NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPLY
ex relatione ) FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE
Paul Andrew Mitchell, )
)
Applicant. )
___________________________________)
COMES NOW the United States (“Applicant”) ex relatione Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America, Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness (hereinafter “Relator”) to notify this honorable Court of Applicant’s specific intent formally to apply for leave to intervene in the above entitled case, and to provide timely written Notice to all interested Parties of same.
The following meritorious issues warrant formal intervention by the United States (Federal government) at this time, to wit:
(1) Plaintiff of record is claiming the title of “Esquire”, which is a Title of Nobility prohibited by the original Thirteenth Amendment ratified circa 1819. Although the organic Constitution for the United States of America (hereinafter “U.S. Constitution”) did prohibit Titles of Nobility, the Framers omitted any penalty(s) for exercising same. The latter Thirteenth Amendment cured that omission by imposing two (2) penalties for exercising any Title(s) of Nobility i.e. a loss of one’s citizenship and a bar from ever holding office anywhere in the United States of America (read 50 States of the Union).
(2) Plaintiff also comes with a lengthy history of association with the legal profession in Pennsylvania. Applicant intends to show, with verifiable and irrefutable evidence, that the legal profession as a whole persists in perpetrating demonstrable falsehoods about such pivotal matters as the Qualifications Clauses in the U.S. Constitution as lawfully amended. Those falsehoods amount to fraud, chiefly because the Qualifications Clauses have never been amended.
Just to illustrate with one key passage, Plaintiff alleges incorrectly that Defendant Barack Hussein Obama must be a “natural born citizen” [sic]. Plaintiff also alleges that “Obama lost his U.S. citizenship” [sic]. First of all, the Qualifications Clauses spell “Citizen” with an UPPER-CASE “C”, not with a lower-case “c”. Secondly, the class of American People who are identified in the Qualifications Clauses as eligible to serve in the Office of President are not “U.S. citizens”, but Citizens of ONE OF the United States of America. The term “United States” in those Clauses means “States united”. See People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870).
Pablo De La Guerra was a Judge who signed the 1849 California Constitution, so he was in a position to know this important detail.
(3) There are presently two (2) classes of citizens under American Laws never repealed, not one (1) class. Those two classes are properly distinguished as “State Citizens” and “federal citizens”. And, of utmost relevance to the instant case, a Federal court has already held — correctly — that federal citizens were not even contemplated when the organic U.S. Constitution was first being drafted. See Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914.
(4) An unfortunate and far-reaching fraud has been perpetrated upon the entire American population because Congress chose instead to identify federal citizens with the wording “citizens of the United States”. Clearly, the only difference between the latter wording, and the wording found in the organic Qualifications Clauses, is the change from an UPPER-CASE “C” to a lower-case “c” in the term “Citizen”.
(5) The resulting confusion originates at least from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which first created this second class of federal citizens. Relator’s explanatory essay entitled “Before and After the Civil War” is attached hereto and hereby incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully here, to provide further clarification of the origins of this confusion. Members of the legal profession, such as the Plaintiff, are quite habituated to citing ridiculous legal rationalizations for this deliberate confusion, among the most notorious of which is “idem sonans” i.e. words and phrases sounding the same are to be treated as one and the same for all legal intents and purposes. The terms “Citizen of the United States” and “citizen of the United States” do sound identical when uttered verbally.
(6) Further exacerbating the deliberate confusion that originates in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, the so-called Fourteenth amendment was never properly ratified. See Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968) and State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d 936, 941 (1975), for starters. Even if it had been properly ratified, the language found in Section 1 is vague and deceptive. The term “United States” has three (3) legal meanings, each different from the other. See Hooven & Allison v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945). Relator has now proven, both in and out of court cases, that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” is properly understood to mean “subject to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress.” This is so because the 1866 Civil Rights Act is Federal municipal law.
(7) There is an enormous body of constitutional jurisprudence on which this honorable Court can and should rely to prove that Congress may not alter or re-define any term that is used in the U.S. Constitution without a properly ratified Constitutional Amendment. See Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920): 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. Relator has coined the unique term “Eisner Prohibition” to describe the bar imposed upon Congress by that holding in the Eisner decision — a bar which Congress violates routinely.
(8) Simply changing an UPPER-CASE “C” to a lower-case “c” violates not only the spirit but also the letter of the Eisner Prohibition supra. This is all the more obvious to anyone with a high school education by confirming the definition of “Federal citizenship” in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, to wit:
Rights and obligations accruing by reason of being a citizen of the United States. State or status of being a citizen of the United States. [emphasis added]
(9) The mere existence of that one legal definition is very condemning of the Congress that proposed the Fourteenth amendment. The term “federal citizen” could and should have been used instead of the deliberately confusing term “citizen of the United States” that now permeates numerous Federal statutes. Quod erat demonstrandum!
(10) Further to clarify and elaborate the points already made above, Applicant also attaches and incorporates by reference the following essays and research materials compiled by Relator:
(a) “A Collection of Court Authorities in re Two Classes of Citizens”;
(b) “State Citizens Cannot Vote”; and,
(c) key excerpt from Dyett v. Turner supra.
VERIFICATION
I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, hereby verify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (Federal government), that the above statement of facts and laws is true and correct, according to the best of My current information, knowledge, and belief, so help me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1). See Supremacy Clause (Constitution, Laws and Treaties are all the supreme Law of the Land).
Dated: September 4, 2008 A.D.
Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
______________________________________________
Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Private Attorney General
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (Federal government), that I am at least 18 years of age, a Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America, and that I personally served the following document(s):
NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPLY
FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE
by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United States Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed to the following:
Clerk of the Court (3x) Barack Hussein Obama (1x)
Attn: R. Barclay Surrick United States Senate
U.S. Courthouse 713 Hart Senate Office Building
601 Market Street Washington 20510
Philadelphia 19106-1797 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PENNSYLVANIA, USA
Federal Election Commission (1x) Democratic National Committee (1x)
999 “E” Street, N.W. 430 S. Capitol Street, S.E.
Washington 20463 Washington 20003
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA
Philip J. Berg, Esquire [sic]
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill 19444-2531
PENNSYLVANIA, USA
Dated: September 4, 2008 A.D.
Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
______________________________________________
Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Private Attorney General
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Over here, and the post above the one before mine.
Whoa .. trying to digest what this means.
Help!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.