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

Private Attorney General writes to Governor of Hawai'i re: The Qualification Clause for President

Expand Messages
  • Supreme Law Firm
    Subject: Private Attorney General writes to Governor of Hawai i re: The Qualification Clause for President The Honorable Neil Abercrombie
 Governor, State of
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Subject:
      Private Attorney General writes to Governor of Hawai'i re: The Qualification Clause for President



      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. Constitution:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/comments.on.citizenship.for.dummies.htm
      http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#5


      (4)  accordingly, the Qualification Clause for 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 office
      of the Counsel 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 duly verified pursuant to
      the Federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 1746:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/subpoena/LucasSmith03.jpg
      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/subpoena/LucasSmith01.png
      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/subpoena/LucasSmith02.png


      (12)  the United States also demanded 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, deny or refute that
      Official Report:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/nad02.htm
      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/Kenya/National.Assembly.Official.Report.2008-11-05.pdf



      It is the studied position of the United States ex rel. 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 consideration.


      --
      Sincerely yours,
      /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
      Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
      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


    • Supreme Law Firm
      Subject: Private Attorney General writes to Governor of Hawai i re: The Qualification Clause for President Re:
      Message 2 of 2 , Jan 3, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Subject:
        Private Attorney General writes to Governor of Hawai'i re: The Qualification Clause for President

        Re:
        http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?afid=1&aid=40806789


        ---------- Forwarded message ----------
        From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@...>
        Date: Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 10:56 AM
        Subject: Private Attorney General writes to Governor of Hawai'i re: The Qualification Clause for President
        To: oip@...
        Cc: dboardman@...


        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. Constitution:

        http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/comments.on.citizenship.for.dummies.htm
        http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#5


        (4)  accordingly, the Qualification Clause for 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 office
        of 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 duly verified pursuant to
        the Federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 1746:

        http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/subpoena/LucasSmith03.jpg
        http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/subpoena/LucasSmith01.png
        http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/subpoena/LucasSmith02.png


        (12)  the United States also demanded 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, deny or refute that
        Official Report:

        http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/nad02.htm
        http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/Kenya/National.Assembly.Official.Report.2008-11-05.pdf



        It is the studied position of the United States ex rel. 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 consideration.


        --
        Sincerely yours,
        /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
        Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
        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




        --


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