Private Attorney General explains his objections to Lyndon LaRouche's campus representatives ...
- ----- Forwarded Message ----From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@...>
Sent: Thu, January 7, 2010 1:17:53 PM
Subject: Private Attorney General explains his objections to Lyndon LaRouche's campus representatives ...
Greetings Mr. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.:
To what are you loyal? I believe that is also the
title of one of your essays.
Although your campus activists were courteous at all times,
I took careful note that they cited the U.S. Constitution
as one of the many reasons why Mr. Obama should be
"impeached" (their words, not mine).
However, when I tried to engage them in a discussion
of the certified evidence that he was born in Mombasa, Kenya,
they appeared unwilling to listen, and insisted on repeating
the same points i.e. that it's "President" Obama's policies
to which your organization is objecting.
I heard them the first time: I am not deaf.
Do you give your activists ANY training in the Constitution,
Mr. LaRouche? One of the things I think you should stress to them
is that they could be terribly mistaken to assume that passers-by
at the University of Washington are totally ignorant of American Law.
The reason why I ask is, quite simply, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:
This is a provision of great constitutional and historical significance,
in part because it has never been amended (we checked and confirmed);
and, your activists might come off as painfully ignorant if they do
pretend that this provision does not matter in the slightest --
whether to them or to you.
If you and your political allies insist on ignoring this Law, for some reason
you and they don't seem willing to disclose, then please find or make time
to review this detailed recitation of the legal consequences of being
UNqualified for the Office of President:
Latter was filed in a Federal Bankruptcy Court here:
Perhaps Dr. Vieira's Harvard credentials mean more to you
than those of a recognized Private Attorney General who is a
principal in the United States' intervention in Berg v. Obama --
which stalled at the Third Circuit in Philadelphia when
2 of 3 Circuit "robes" turned up with counterfeit credentials.
Strictly on the merits, Obama cannot sign ANY Acts of Congress,
because he is simply not "President". Without that required
signature on all Bills that pass both Houses of Congress,
nothing that Congress "enacts" is law -- PERIOD!
That fatal deficiency applies equally to Executive Orders,
Nominations and Commissions of Judicial Officers,
Orders to officers and enlisted personnel of the
United States Armed Forces, and a host of related
"Executive Acts": ALL OF THEM ARE VOID.
I think you should correct this egregious error on all of your
campaign literature, because you are making a serious and
demonstrable mistake whenever and wherever you refer -- wrongly --
to Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro as "President" of anything.
Consequently, no "Health Reform Act" or similarly named Bill
can, or has been, enacted into Law, absent the signature of a
duly qualified President of the United States of America:
QED, Mr. LaRouche (quod erat demonstrandum).
/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)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice