Tuesday, November 18, 2008


Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) Justice David Souter has agreed that a review of the federal lawsuit filed by attorney Phil Berg against Barack
Hussein Obama
II, et al., which was subsequently dismissed for lack of standing is warranted. SCOTUS Docket No. 08-570 contains the details. A review of that docket and the Rule 10 of the Supreme Court makes abundantly clear that Justice Souter's granting of a review on the Writ of Certiorari is not a right entitled to citizen Phil Berg, but rather is a matter of judcial discretion based upon a compelling reason. That compelling reason is the Constitutional requirement that "No person except a natural born citizen ... shall be eligible to the office of President..." What this means is that on or before 1 DECEMBER 2008 Barack Hussein Obama II must respond to the writ of certiorari, and since the Berg v Obama case hinged primarily on the question of Obama's place of birth, it is almost inconceivable that Barack Obama will thumb his nose at the Justices of the Supreme Court and he is absolutely compelled to provide a vault copy his original birth
certificate
. Another very salient fact to consider at this time is that, despite all of the pronouncements of the print and broadcast media, Barack Obama is not yet the President-elect of the United States. Barack Obama can only become the President-elect after the Electoral College convenes on 15 DECEMBER 2008 in their respective state capitals around the nation and casts their votes to elect the President and the Vice President. As you can see this election day occurs two weeks after the required response to the Supreme Court granted Writ of
Certiorari
. The bottom line is this: the presidential election of 2008 remains an ongoing process, the outcome of which remains undetermined, and all talk about a potential Constitutional crisis in the United States are at least 36 days premature. The inevitable constitutional crisis regarding President-elect Obama, of course, revolves around his inability (or unwillingness) to produce an authentic Hawaiian birth certificate with the raised certificate stamp that the Federal
Elections Commission
can independently verify. Here are some of the unanswered issues hanging over the head of President-elect Barack Obama and the question of his American citizenship: · The allegation that Obama was born in Kenya to parents unable to automatically grant him American citizenship; · The allegation that Obama was made a citizen of Indonesia as a child and that he retained foreign citizenship into adulthood without recording an oath of
allegiance
to regain any theoretical American citizenship; · The allegation that Obama's birth certificate was a forgery and that he may not be an eligible, natural-born citizen; · The allegation that Obama was not born an American citizen; lost any hypothetical American citizenship he had as a child; that Obama may not now be an American citizen and even if he is, may hold dual citizenships with other countries. If any, much less all, of these allegations are true, the suit claims, Obama cannot constitutionally serve as president. · The allegations that "Obama's grandmother on his father's side, half brother and half sister claim Obama was born in Kenya," the suit states." Reports reflect Obama's mother went to Kenya during her pregnancy; however, she was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy, which apparently was a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight. Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew to Hawaii and registered Obama's birth." · The claim could not be verified by inquiries to Hawaiian hospitals, since state law bars the hospitals from releasing medical records to the public; Even if Obama produced authenticated proof of his birth in Hawaii, however, the suit claims that the U.S. Nationality Act of 1940 provided that minors lose their American citizenship when their parents expatriate. Since Obama's mother married an Indonesian citizen and moved to Indonesia, the suit claims, she forfeited both her and Barack's American citizenship.

From: Paul Andrew Mitchell

Subject: Re: Berg v. Obama et al.: Surrick has been caught committing an act of JUDICIAL FRAUD: statute headings have no legal force or effect

Date: Monday, November 17, 2008, 6:50 PM


Subject: Berg v. Obama et al.:
Surrick has been caught committing an act of JUDICIAL FRAUD:
statute headings have no legal force or effect


I believe I just caught Surrick in an overt act of judicial FRAUD:

Please note where he discusses the statute at 42 U.S.C. 1985(2) here:




Quoting: Section 1985(2) "creates a claim for conspiracy to intimidate witnesses, jurors or parties in a federal case." Now look at Cornell's copy of that statute here:

http://www4. law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1985.html (2)

The heading reads: Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror

BUT, statute headings have absolutely no legal force or effect, in law!


Now read the entire subsection 1985(2):

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror;

or

if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;

[end excerpt]


DO YOU SEE HOW THAT HEADING IS VERY MISLEADING,
PARTICULARLY WHEN IT IS COMPARED WITH THE FULL TEXT
OF 1985(2)??


In Gillespie v. Civiletti, the Ninth Circuit has already held that
section 1985 implements the Thirteenth Amendment banning
slavery and involuntary servitude. Does that holding sound
AT ALL as if it is limited to intimidating a party, witness or juror
in a federal case?

I DON'T THINK SO!!!


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)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 6:35 PM,
<Dansmith1954@aol.com>

wrote:
Thank You Paul! If Andy Martin get's dismissed, Berg, Keyes,
etc.. I will try to file my own "case".

Dan
In a message dated 11/17/2008 9:24:34 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, supremelawfirm@gmail.com writes:
Let's look at 42 U.S.C. 1985 for a moment:

http://www4. law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1985.html

(2)
... or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;


(3)
... If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws ....

... in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.

[end excerpt]


Notice the changing terminology above:

"any citizen"

"any person or class of persons"

"a citizen of the United States"


Despite the long complex sentences, I think these statutes
make it clear enough that Americans -- as individuals and as a group --
have a fundamental Right to Presidential Candidates who are qualified,
and to the Equal Protection of Laws which guarantee that Right,
such as the Natural Born Citizen Clause at 2:1:5:

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#2:1:5


For further discussion of Equal Protection of the Law,
as guaranteed by 2 Human Rights Treaties, see
this MEMORANDUM OF LAW:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/sanmarco/lawmemo.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

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)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell
Date: Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 6:00 PM
Subject: Berg v. Obama et al.: Plaintiff Phil Berg has standing to sue under 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1985 To: SupremeLaw
Cc: Supreme Law Firm , Byron Wine

Federal citizens have standing under 42 U.S.C. 1983, because it implements
the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which created federal citizenship for the first time.
Wadleigh v. Newhall, 136 F. 941 (CC Cal, 1905). See:


et seq.


Both State and federal citizens have standing under 42 U.S.C. 1985, because it
implements the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery and involuntary servitude.
Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637 (9th Cir. 1980). See:


et seq. -- Sincerely yours, /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) http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

1 comment:

Ted said...

Best explanation (following 2 you tube videos) I've seen for the total media blackout of what is the single greatest news event and domestic threat -- let's call it OBAMAGATE -- since the outbreak of the American Civil War and for the sincere prayers of the American people that the United States Supreme Court -- let's call it OUR LAST HOPE -- now to have the courage to save our great nation as we have come to know it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1spPrzvYWRI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8b_usFyLHQ