Replies

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)

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)

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,

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

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