PERSONAL PLEA FOR YOUR COOPERATION
TO: Honorable Consul General
Park Mile Plaza, Mezzanine Floor
4801 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles 90010
FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
DATE: October 18, 2009 A.D.
SUBJECT: SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE dated 9/9/2009 A.D.
answer due on October 15, 2009 A.D.
Greetings Consul General:
We need your help!
Your office was recently served with a SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE requiring you to answer with the following documentation:
Certified copies of a CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH of BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II in Mombasa on August 4, 1961 A.D.
Please allow me to explain the immense historic importance of your timely cooperation in this matter. I will try to do so without resorting to excessive amounts of legalese, in order to render this letter more easily understood by English speaking people everywhere in the world.
Having investigated the history of Citizenship in America for quite some time now, I have come to believe that a few key points will help to focus everyone’s attention on the controversy now before us. Ideally, that focus will result in identifying a timely and unanimous resolution.
First of all, if you are at all familiar with American history during the 19th Century, then you already know about the fate of Plaintiff Dred Scott after his petition for Habeas Corpus relief was rejected by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1856 A.D.
As a black slave, he was not eligible to claim the status of Citizen of Missouri because apartheid was the “law of the land” in America at that time. And, the law in question was the Constitution for the United States of America, which ratified a shocking compromise by referring to black slaves as “three-fifths of all other Persons”.
The Chief Justice who wrote the Supreme Court’s decision in that case went to great lengths to explain, and itemize, the many laws which rendered black slaves the “property” of their owners.
Even today, that decision remains the longest in the short history of American constitutional jurisprudence.
I have also come to believe that legal luminaries like Abraham Lincoln failed to read all of that long decision. If he had done so, Lincoln would have encountered the following pivotal paragraphs:
No one, we presume, supposes that any change in public opinion or feeling, in relation to this unfortunate [black] race, in the civilized nations of Europe or in this country, should induce the court to give to the words of the Constitution a more liberal construction in their favor than they were intended to bear when the instrument was framed and adopted.
Such an argument would be altogether inadmissible in any tribunal called on to interpret it.
If any of its provisions are deemed unjust, there is a mode prescribed in the instrument itself by which it may be amended; but while it remains unaltered, it must be construed now as it was understood at the time of its adoption.
It is not only the same in words, but the same in meaning, and delegates the same powers to the government, and reserves and secures the same rights and privileges to the citizen; and as long as it continues to exist in its present form, it speaks not only in the same words, but with the same meaning and intent with which it spoke when it came from the hands of its framers, and was voted on and adopted by the people of the United States.
Any other rule of construction would abrogate the judicial character of this court, and make it the mere reflex of the popular opinion or passion of the day.
This court was not created by the Constitution for such purposes.
Higher and graver trusts have been confided to it, and it must not falter in the path of duty.
[Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393]
[60 U.S. 709 (1856), emphasis added]
Of course there is no question now that those provisions were unjust. But, it is here that we encounter a clear fork in the road. Some continue to argue that the Supreme Court should have overturned slavery in 1856. Those who would promote this argument are not correct, however, for three very important reasons:
(1) the Congress cannot amend the Constitution;
(2) the President cannot amend the Constitution; and,
(3) the Courts cannot amend the Constitution either!
It is the Supreme Court’s clear and correct advice here which I believe Abraham Lincoln overlooked and thereby missed an historic opportunity of immense importance:
... there is a mode prescribed in the instrument itself by which it may be amended ....
Can you imagine how different things might have been in America, if Lincoln and his fellow lawyers had persuaded Congress to propose the following amendment to the Constitution instead?
The status of Citizen of one of the United States of America shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race.
That is the Amendment which would have correctly solved the problem that an unanimous Supreme Court documented in Dred Scott v. Sandford.
Instead of correctly solving the real problem in this manner, however, Lincoln and his allies launched into political attacks directed against the Supreme Court and its decision in that historic case. And, as we all know, a horrible Civil War ensued just 5 years after that decision was published, and only weeks after Lincoln was first inaugurated into the Office of President.
There are many Americans who now fear that a Second Civil War is imminent here. Why is that? Allow me to explain just some of the reasons for this well founded fear.
By the time the Civil War had ended, some truly “Radical” Republicans decided to address the problem, not by amending the Constitution as above, but by creating a second class of “federal citizens” who are, by definition, subject to the municipal authority of the Congress.
In other words, after the Thirteenth Amendment abolished both slavery and involuntary servitude, that Radical Congress gave freed blacks an awful choice: either become subject to the District of Columbia, or go back to Africa. That was quite a terrible insult, in retrospect, because the vast majority of blacks inhabiting the Southern States at that time were born there -- natural born there!
If hindsight is indeed 20/20, it’s now obvious that Congress attempted in vain to confuse this second class with the primary Class of State Citizens who have been recognized in the Constitution ever since it first became Law on June 21, 1788.
There was only one class of State Citizens between 1788 and 1866!
They are still recognized in the organic Constitution as “Citizens of the United States” meaning “Citizens of one of the States united by and under the Constitution for the United States of America”.
If you have any doubts about these well established historical facts, consider what Judge Pablo De La Guerra wrote here, when he was asked to explain the correct legal meaning of those Qualifications Clauses:
As it was the adoption of the Constitution by the Conventions of nine States that established and created the United States, it is obvious there could not then have existed any person who had been seven years a citizen of the United States, or who possessed the Presidential qualifications of being thirty-five years of age, a natural born citizen, and fourteen years a resident of the United States.
The United States in these provisions, means the States united.
To be twenty-five years of age, and for seven years to have been a citizen of one of the States which ratifies the Constitution, is the qualification of a representative.
To be a natural born citizen of one of the States which shall ratify the Constitution, or to be a citizen of one of said States at the time of such ratification, and to have attained the age of thirty-five years, and to have been fourteen years a resident within one of the said States, are the Presidential qualifications, according to the true meaning of the Constitution.
[People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870)]
And, more recently a Federal Court correctly ruled that federal citizens were not even contemplated when the organic Constitution was first being drafted:
... citizens of the District of Columbia were not granted the privilege of litigating in the federal courts on the ground of diversity of citizenship. Possibly no better reason for this fact exists than such citizens were not thought of when the judiciary article [III] of the federal Constitution was drafted. ... citizens of the United States ... were also not thought of; but in any event a citizen of the United States, who is not a citizen of any state, is not within the language of the [federal] Constitution.
[Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914]
Unfortunately for all subsequent generations of Americans right up to the present time, the Radical Congress that created a second class of “federal citizens” fully intended to entrap the entire nation with this very same ruse, and thereby render every American a second-class federal citizen.
That ruse was then exploited to foist an absolute legislative democracy upon the entire USA, in a manner totally contrary to the Guarantee Clause ensuring a Republican Form of Government instead. In this “democracy,” fundamental Rights have devolved into “options” which Federal Courts may enforce or not at their own arbitrary and capricious whim, and/or at the behest of corrupt foreign bankers who financed this scheme from the start, and continue to do so even today.
Thus, it is now very safe to say that the 1866 Civil Rights Act intended ultimately to enslave the entire nation, and that is exactly what has now happened. Americans have been rendered “debt slaves” to foreign banks who persist in making outrageous loans to the Congress, which Congress then turns around and dumps on the backs of the American People at Large.
How does this bring us to the present, and where does your SUBPOENA fit into this long and sordid history?
The answers are very simple: to be eligible for the Office of President of the United States of America, one must be “natural born” into the status of a Citizen of one of the 50 States. Because federal citizenship did not even exist when the Constitution was first ratified in 1788 A.D., federal citizens are by definition not eligible to occupy that Office.
That second class did not even exist when the Qualifications Clauses were first enacted, and those Clauses have never been amended! As such they retain today the very same meaning they had in 1788 A.D.
By answering your SUBPOENA with a bona fide REGISTRATION OF BIRTH of Barack Hussein Obama II in Mombasa on August 4, 1961 A.D., you will thereby settle once and for all the mounting controversy now swirling about his lack of eligibility for the Office of President.
And, I venture to foretell that you will also thereby make an undeniably significant contribution to World History by helping to put an immediate halt to the ongoing plans of corrupt foreign bankers to enslave not only this nation, but every nation on planet Earth without exception, including yours.
I do not exaggerate here.
As you must already know, many thousands of Americans have now made the ultimate sacrifices -- with their lives -- to ensure the blessings of liberty for Us and for their Posterity. Just find the time to view photographs of the many military cemeteries that dot the coastline of France, where American military forces are buried in great numbers, after liberating Europe from National Socialism read “Nazism.”
I am told that the opening scenes in the film Saving Private Ryan are the most realistic recreation of the Normandy Invasion ever produced. My father was in the first wave of U.S. Marines to hit Iwo Jima on his 26th birthday in February 1945 A.D. None of this is ancient history!
Honorable Consul General, the world has now suffered more than enough bloodshed. Help us to do the right thing, in a timely manner, hoping and praying as we do on a daily basis that the Most High will spare us from the awful scourge of a Second Civil War in this great land called America.
“O beautiful for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain, for purple mountain majesties above the fruited plain! America! America! God shed His grace on thee and crown thy good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea!”
You know what I mean, because your office is in Los Angeles: I grew up in Los Angeles. They tore my house down for the North Runway at LAX. I attended Queen of Angels Seminary in the San Fernando Valley, and I later graduated from UCLA with a degree in Political Science.
The eyes of the whole world are now upon us, my fellow Americans.
We must not falter in the path of duty.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice