1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
c/o Forwarding Agent
501 West Broadway #A-332
San Diego 92101
CALIFORNIA, USA
37
COMES NOW the United States (“Applicant”) ex relatione Paul Andrew
38
Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America,
39
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness
40
(hereinafter “Relator”) to notify this honorable Court of Applicant’s
41
specific intent formally to apply for leave to intervene in the above
42
entitled case, and to provide timely written Notice to all interested
43
Parties of same.
44
45
Fax: (619) 232-2011 (use cover sheet)
All Rights Reserved
Without Prejudice
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE [sic],
)
)
Plaintiff
)
)
v.
)
)
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
-----------------------------------)
)
United States
)
ex relatione
)
Paul Andrew Mitchell,
)
)
Applicant.
)
___________________________________)
Case No. 2:08-CV-04083 (RBS)
NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPLY
FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE
The following meritorious issues warrant formal intervention by
the United States (Federal government) at this time, to wit:
Notice of Intent to Apply for Leave to Intervene:
Page 1 of 6
(1)
1
Plaintiff of record is claiming the title of “Esquire”,
2
which is a Title of Nobility prohibited by the original Thirteenth
3
Amendment ratified circa 1819.
4
the United States of America (hereinafter “U.S. Constitution”) did
5
prohibit Titles of Nobility, the Framers omitted any penalty(s) for
6
exercising same.
7
by imposing two (2) penalties for exercising any Title(s) of Nobility
8
i.e. a loss of one’s citizenship and a bar from ever holding office
9
anywhere
10
Union).
(2)
11
in
the
Although the organic Constitution for
The latter Thirteenth Amendment cured that omission
United
States
of
America
(read
50
States
of
the
Plaintiff also comes with a lengthy history of association
12
with the legal profession in Pennsylvania.
13
with verifiable and irrefutable evidence, that the legal profession as
14
a whole persists in perpetrating demonstrable falsehoods about such
15
pivotal matters as the Qualifications Clauses in the U.S. Constitution
16
as
17
because the Qualifications Clauses have never been amended.
18
lawfully
Just
amended.
to
Those
illustrate
with
Applicant intends to show,
falsehoods
one
key
amount
to
passage,
fraud,
Plaintiff
chiefly
alleges
19
incorrectly that Defendant Barack Hussein Obama must be a “natural
20
born citizen” [sic].
Plaintiff also alleges that “Obama lost his U.S.
21
citizenship” [sic].
First of all, the Qualifications Clauses spell
22
“Citizen”
23
Secondly,
24
Qualifications Clauses as eligible to serve in the Office of President
25
are not “U.S. citizens”, but Citizens of ONE OF the United States of
26
America.
27
united”.
with
the
an
class
UPPER-CASE
of
American
“C”,
not
People
with
who
a
are
lower-case
identified
in
“c”.
the
The term “United States” in those Clauses means “States
See People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870).
Notice of Intent to Apply for Leave to Intervene:
Page 2 of 6
Pablo De La Guerra was a Judge who signed the 1849 California
1
2
Constitution, so he was in a position to know this important detail.
(3)
3
There
are
presently
two
(2)
classes
of
citizens
under
4
American Laws never repealed, not one (1) class.
5
are properly distinguished as “State Citizens” and “federal citizens”.
6
And, of utmost relevance to the instant case, a Federal court has
7
already
8
contemplated
9
drafted.
10
(4)
held
--
correctly
when
the
--
organic
that
federal
U.S.
Those two classes
citizens
Constitution
were
was
not
first
even
being
See Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914.
An unfortunate and far-reaching fraud has been perpetrated
11
upon the entire American population because Congress chose instead to
12
identify federal citizens with the wording “citizens of the United
13
States”.
14
the wording found in the organic Qualifications Clauses, is the change
15
from an UPPER-CASE “C” to a lower-case “c” in the term “Citizen”.
Clearly, the only difference between the latter wording, and
(5)
16
The resulting confusion originates at least from the 1866
17
Civil Rights Act, which first created this second class of federal
18
citizens.
19
Civil War” is attached hereto and hereby incorporated by reference, as
20
if
21
origins of this confusion.
Members of the legal profession, such as
22
the
quite
habituated
to
23
rationalizations
this
deliberate
confusion,
24
notorious of which is “idem sonans” i.e. words and phrases sounding
25
the same are to be treated as one and the same for all legal intents
26
and purposes.
27
of the United States” do sound identical when uttered verbally.
set
Relator’s explanatory essay entitled “Before and After the
forth
fully
Plaintiff,
are
for
here,
to
provide
further
clarification
citing
of
ridiculous
among
the
the
legal
most
The terms “Citizen of the United States” and “citizen
Notice of Intent to Apply for Leave to Intervene:
Page 3 of 6
(6)
1
Further
exacerbating
the
deliberate
confusion
that
2
originates in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, the so-called Fourteenth
3
amendment was never properly ratified.
4
266, 270 (1968) and State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d 936, 941 (1975), for
5
starters.
6
in Section 1 is vague and deceptive.
7
three (3) legal meanings, each different from the other.
8
Allison v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945).
9
in
and
See Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d
Even if it had been properly ratified, the language found
out
of
court
cases,
that
The term “United States” has
See Hooven &
Relator has now proven, both
the
phrase
“subject
to
the
10
jurisdiction of the United States” is properly understood to mean
11
“subject
12
because the 1866 Civil Rights Act is Federal municipal law.
(7)
13
which
to
the
municipal
jurisdiction
of
Congress.”
This
is
so
There is an enormous body of constitutional jurisprudence
14
on
this
honorable
15
Congress may not alter or re-define any term that is used in the U.S.
16
Constitution
17
See Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920):
18
legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its
19
power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can
20
be lawfully exercised.
21
Prohibition” to describe the bar imposed upon Congress by that holding
22
in the Eisner decision -- a bar which Congress violates routinely.
without
Simply
a
Court
can
properly
and
should
ratified
rely
to
Constitutional
prove
that
Amendment.
Congress cannot by
Relator has coined the unique term “Eisner
23
(8)
24
violates
25
Prohibition supra.
26
school education by confirming the definition of “Federal citizenship”
27
in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, to wit:
not
only
changing
the
an
spirit
UPPER-CASE
but
also
“C”
the
to
a
letter
lower-case
of
the
“c”
Eisner
This is all the more obvious to anyone with a high
Notice of Intent to Apply for Leave to Intervene:
Page 4 of 6
1
2
3
4
Rights and obligations accruing by reason of being a citizen of
the United States.
State or status of being a citizen of the
United States. [emphasis added]
5
(9)
The mere existence of that one legal definition is very
6
condemning of the Congress that proposed the Fourteenth amendment.
7
The term “federal citizen” could and should have been used instead of
8
the deliberately confusing term “citizen of the United States” that
9
now permeates numerous Federal statutes.
10
Quod erat demonstrandum!
(10) Further to clarify and elaborate the points already made
11
above,
Applicant
also
attaches
and
incorporates
by
reference
12
following essays and research materials compiled by Relator:
the
13
14
15
16
(a)
“A Collection of Court Authorities in re Two Classes of
Citizens”;
(b)
“State Citizens Cannot Vote”;
17
(c)
key excerpt from Dyett v. Turner supra.
and,
18
19
VERIFICATION
20
I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, hereby verify, under penalty of
21
perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the
22
“United
23
facts and laws is true and correct, according to the best of My
24
current information, knowledge, and belief, so help me God, pursuant
25
to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
26
Treaties are all the supreme Law of the Land).
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Dated:
States”
(Federal
government),
that
the
above
statement
of
See Supremacy Clause (Constitution, Laws and
September 4, 2008 A.D.
Signed:
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
______________________________________________
Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Private Attorney General
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Notice of Intent to Apply for Leave to Intervene:
Page 5 of 6
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
2
I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, hereby certify, under penalty of
3
perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the
4
“United States” (Federal government), that I am at least 18 years of
5
age, a Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America, and that I
6
personally served the following document(s):
NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPLY
FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE
7
8
9
10
by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first
11
class United States Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed
12
to the following:
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Clerk of the Court (3x)
Attn: R. Barclay Surrick
U.S. Courthouse
601 Market Street
Philadelphia 19106-1797
PENNSYLVANIA, USA
Barack Hussein Obama (1x)
United States Senate
713 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington 20510
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Federal Election Commission (1x)
999 “E” Street, N.W.
Washington 20463
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA
Democratic National Committee (1x)
430 S. Capitol Street, S.E.
Washington 20003
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA
Philip J. Berg, Esquire [sic]
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill 19444-2531
PENNSYLVANIA, USA
Dated:
September 4, 2008 A.D.
Signed:
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
______________________________________________
Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Private Attorney General
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Notice of Intent to Apply for Leave to Intervene:
Page 6 of 6