Excuse me, but the correct construction of the Qualification Clause for President
is the KEY POINT which is being actively suppressed by the entire governmental "system"
Placing a solitary focus on some obviously fake "birth certificate" is one way
of maintaining that near total silence concerning the correct intent of the Framers
who drafted that Qualification Clause. And, I remain convinced that it
NOT require 21 MONTHS to determine that any electronic birth certificate
is a forgery.
"Fraud" is correctly defined in Black's Law Dictionary as a failure to
what SHOULD have been disclosed!
What is NOT being disclosed in this ongoing debate?
There is not one class of citizens in America, but two. And, there was no such
thing as a "citizen of the United States" as such, prior to the 1866 Civil Rights Act:
(If you don't agree with any of the courts cited in the latter document,
then take it up with them.)
Therefore, it necessarily follows that Americans who are presently qualified
for the Offices of Senator, Representative and President are NOT eligible
to vote or to serve on juries of any kind, and those who are eligible to vote and
serve on juries, are not qualified to serve in the Offices of Senator,
Representative or President:
The root cause of this seriously flawed situation was the decision
to ignore one of the key holdings in the Dred Scott decision,
namely, that the U.S. Supreme Court has never had authority to
amend the U.S. Constitution, and neither has the Congress of the
United States or its Executive Branch:
Therefore, the attempt to circumvent Article V with an Act of Congress --
specifically the 1866 Civil Rights Act -- must now be regarded as
direct violation of that correct holding; and, it necessarily follows that
the 1866 Civil Rights Act was and still is unconstitutional for that reason alone.
Congress is NOT free to ignore standing decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court!
Congress was not free to remove the obstacles identified in the Dred Scott decision
solely by means of Federal legislation enacted by that Body. See Article V.
The way it has propagated itself throughout numerous Statutes at Large
is further proof of the serious legal situation, and frauds, which resulted from
the creation of "federal citizenship" in 1866:
examine IRS Form 1040: the title of that Form is expressly
intended ONLY for "U.S. Individuals" read federal citizens and
resident aliens! 26 CFR 1.1-1; 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(2).
Your vain attempts to reduce this debate to the level of ad
argumentation deserves to be ignored completely, chiefly because
of all the above.
p.s. Arpaio's office
was served with pertinent documentation
on the correct construction of the Qualification Clause for President,
but I have not seen or heard ONE WORD from his "posse"
concerning that correct construction! The implications are
very far-reaching: just to illustrate, anyone who was incarcerated
as a result of a verdict issued by a panel of federal citizens,
and/or an "indictment" issued by a panel of federal citizens,
was deprived of due process of law in the first instance.
Jury Selection and Service Acts which expressly discriminate
against State Citizens are obviously unconstitutional for
exhibiting prohibited class discrimination, and the historical
facts are now clear that State Citizens are the ONLY Americans
who are qualified to serve as Senator, Representative or President.
Since federal citizenship did NOT even exist when the
Qualifications Clauses were first ratified, and since those Clauses
have never been amended, it is logically impossible for any federal
citizens to qualify for those key Offices. Those Clauses retain today
the meaning and intent which they had when
they were first ratified
into supreme Law on June 21, 1788.
That Obama aka Barry Soetoro's parents were both State Citizens
now assumes facts not in evidence. If they ever voted, even once,
they certified under penalties of perjury that they were federal citizens,
NOT State Citizens.
Quod erat demonstrandum!
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
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 +
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
From: rec9ticu3li71 <rec9ticu3li71@...>
To: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: Private Attorney General complains to Joyce Riley about Arpaio's 21-MONTH investigation ...
Hey !! Joyce;
NO TAX DOLLARS were used on the Arpio INVESTIGATION; They all acclaim the investigation was done on their own time; You see they knew there would be COMPREHENSIVE PROGRSSIVE LIBERAL like yourself, that would be out to discredit anyone that put forth any semblance of TRUTH. I myself knew he was a fake/phony; I saw through his rhetoric immediately, and I did the needed research on the 'THING". Just the name alone should have been a deterrent where this individual was concerned, but the SHEOPLE were too lazy to do their home work. Isn't APATHY just wonderful when one wants to ignore the happenings around them Let see: "oh that can't happen in AMERICA SYNDROME"
--- In Freedoms_Darkness@yahoogroups.com, Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@...> wrote:
Forwarded Message -----
> From: "Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S."
> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 6:56 PM
> Subject: Private Attorney General complains to Joyce Riley about Arpaio's 21-MONTH investigation ...
> So, Joyce,
> It has taken Arpaio's office TWENTY-ONE MONTHS to determine
> that an electronic birth certificate is fraudulent?
> And, how much taxpayer money has now been spent
> determining that this one birth certificate is fraudulent?
> At that pace, hell will freeze over, then thaw, then freeze over again,
> repeating that cycle for another 10,000 years, before these
> bureaucrats in Arizona get off their
butts and charge Obama
> with multiple FELONIES.
> To be quite honest about this, from your interview with Mr. Zullo
> it sounds to me as if all these well armed Sheriffs are actually
> too cowardly to charge Obama and/or request warrants for
> his arrest.
> How much courage do they have, when they are NOT armed?
> My advice to them is this: cash in their bank accounts,
> travel to all cemeteries on the Coast of France,
> and kiss the ground at every one where American
> soldiers are interred -- for having the courage to
> free Europe from fascism on D-Day in 1944.
> (Veterans of that invasion will tell you that
> "Saving Private Ryan" is very faithful to the landing.)
> If these "sheriffs" don't have at least that amount of courage,
> they should hang it
up and start pushing brooms and
> cleaning toilets for the remainder of their days.
> Sorry to be so blunt, but my father was in the first
> wave of U.S. Marines to hit Iwo Jima, and he carried
> his wounded buddy 3 miles back to the landing beach
> after taking a shrapnel hit to his face:
> And, these pansie-ass "cops" are starting to disgust me, frankly:
> (Tucson Int'l Airport = Mafia-controlled conduit)
> p.s. My office already did charge Obama, back in April 2010:
> http://supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/subpoena/ (IN DEFAULT)
> "Not invented here syndrome" is a very poor excuse for
> the Oath of Office Clause in the organic U.S. Constitution.
> Sincerely yours,
> /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
> Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
> 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