Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [CCCC-USA] Private Attorney General in USA acknowledges U.S. Senator David Vitter for speaking out against Obama's eligibility

Expand Messages
  • Supreme Law Firm
    ... No, they did not! The Third Circuit is HEAVILY infiltrated with impostors. See all NAD links to missing and/or defective credentials here -- which
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 14, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      >  "we rejected almost identical claims in Berg"

      No, they did not!  The Third Circuit is HEAVILY infiltrated with impostors.
      See all "NAD" links to missing and/or defective credentials here --
      which investigated all U.S. Courts of Appeal:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm#THIRD

      http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/ambro.thomas/affidavit.refused.gif
      http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/barry.maryanne/affidavit.refused.gif
      http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/smith.brooks/affidavit.refused.gif

      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/judgment.2008-12-22/page01.refused.jpg

      http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/surrick.barclay/affidavit.refused.gif
      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/order.2008-10-27/page01.refused.jpg

      The OATH OF OFFICE is an absolute requirement imposed
      by Article VI, Section 3 in the U.S. Constitution, and various
      implementing Acts of Congress e.g. 5 U.S.C. 3331, 28 U.S.C. 453:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions.htm

      Without taking the oath prescribed by law,

      one cannot become a judge either de jure or de facto, and

      such an individual is without authority to act and

      his acts as such are void until he has taken the prescribed oath.

       

      [French v. State, 572 S.W.2d 934]

      [Brown v. State, 238 S.W.2d 787]


      Berg has standing under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985:
      Wadleigh v. NewhallGillespie v. Civiletti.

      The United States has standing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1345.

      See also the evidence,and SUBPOENA, to which Obama and his Counsel fell silent here,
      activating legal estoppel:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/nad02.htm  ("son of the soil")

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

      The multiple frauds arising from tampering with the Qualifications Clauses
      are explained in detail here:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/citizenship.for.dummies.htm
      http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/comments.on.citizenship.for.dummies.htm
      http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/correct.amendment.htm
      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/wsba/formal.challenge.to.constitutionality.htm


      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
      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



      From: Daniel Seigler <therealbeadweaver2002@...>
      To: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
      Cc: CCCC-USA@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wed, July 14, 2010 8:09:13 AM
      Subject: Re: [CCCC-USA] Private Attorney General in USA acknowledges U.S. Senator David Vitter for speaking out against Obama's eligibility

      Sir, with respect, i direct your attention to http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2010/100707/front_ThirdCircuit.html  which is pertinent due to the 5th paragraph which states "She wrote, “Appellants had ample notice that this appeal had no merit. They should have been aware that we rejected almost identical claims in Berg, as have courts in other jurisdictions.”  where SHE is Judge Dolores K. Sloviter.



      From: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
      To: paulandrewmitchell2004@...
      Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 2:22:53 PM
      Subject: [CCCC-USA] Private Attorney General in USA acknowledges U.S. Senator David Vitter for speaking out against Obama's eligibility

       

      Re:
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/9170746



      TO:
      Hon. David Vitter, Senator
      516 Hart Senate Office Building
      Washington 20510
      DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA


      Greetings Senator Vitter:

      I represent the United States ex rel. before the Third Circuit in Berg v. Obama et al.

      Please be informed that the following SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE is now IN DEFAULT:

      http://www.supremel aw.org/cc/ obama/third. circuit/subpoena /


      As required by 18 U.S.C. 4, the following VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT ON INFORMATION has also been lodged against Mr. Obama:

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


      If my office can be of any further assistance to you or your staff, please contact us via email (preferred):

      supremelawfirm@ gmail.com


      Thank you for speaking out against this proven impostor.


      Sincerely yours,
      /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
      Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
      http://www.supremel aw.org/decs/ agency/private. attorney. general.htm
      Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13
      http://www.supremel aw.org/support. policy.htm (Support Policy)
      http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm
      http://www.supremel aw.org/support. guidelines. htm (Policy + Guidelines)

      All Rights Reserved without Prejudice




    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.