Berg v. Obama: Subpoena Served on Kenyan Consulate General
According to the Repubx blog (a hat-tip to TheObamaFile.com as well), Philip Berg, Plaintiff and attorney in Berg v. Obama, along with criminal investigator Paul Andrew Mitchell, officially served the following subpoena with the Kenyan Consulate General in Los Angeles, CA.
The document shows that it was received on September 9, 2009 and Messrs. Berg and Mitchell expect a response by October 15, assuming that the Consulate doesn’t make a motion to quash:
.jpg)
.jpg)
The RepubX posting includes the delivery instructions for the above.
Here is Mr. Mitchell’s Notice of Intent to Serve:
TO: Hon. M. Nyambura Kamau
Consul General
Consulate General of Kenya in Los Angeles
Park Mile Plaza, Mezzanine Floor
4801 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles 90010
CALIFORNIA, USA
FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
DATE: August 2, 2009 A.D.
SUBJECT: intervention by United States ex rel. in
Berg v. Obama et al., Third Circuit Appeal No. 08-4443
Greetings Honorable Consul General:
My office legally represents the United States (Federal Government) at the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia, in the case of Berg v. Obama et al., Appeal No. 08-4443:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/nad02.htm
Please be advised that newly found evidence renders it appropriate formally to serve your good offices with a SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE, duly issued by the District Court of the United States for the Central District of California.
The purpose of this SUBPOENA will be to command your good offices to produce and permit inspection and copying of an authentic original of the attached CERTIFIED COPY OF REGISTRATION OF BIRTH of Barack Hussein Obama II on August 4, 1961 A.D., at Coast Provincial General Hospital in Mombasa, Republic of Kenya.
Please be aware that there is a separate District Court proceeding presently underway in the United States District Court for the Central District of California which also seeks to compel authentication of said REGISTRATION OF BIRTH: Keyes et al. v. Obama et al., case number 8:09-cv-82 (USDC, Los Angeles, California, USA).
For your convenience, we believe this is a valid link to a true and correct copy of the latest MOTION filed and served in the latter case:
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/kenyan-birth-motion-to-expedite-authentication.htm
Thank you very much for your timely and professional consideration.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
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
As the Notice says, this subpoena was sent to the Kenyan Consulate in response to Mr. Lucas Smith’s affidavit regarding the alleged Kenya Birth Certificate. It is interesting to note that, should the subpoena be duly acted upon, there could be a response confirming or denying the legitimacy of the birth certificate, or there could be a response that no such document exists. And, depending on the latter response, that could then mean that either the birth certificate isn’t legitimate or that Mr. Obama was not, in fact, born in Kenya.
I will again reiterate that retreiving a copy of Mr. Obama’s original 1961 birth certificate is only one major aspect of the eligibility saga. The other aspect is his already-admitted Kenyan/British citizenship at birth.
Now, if only we could see a receipt of the transaction that produced the alleged Hawaiian COLB!
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- The background:
- The questions:
-Phil
Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
POPPET says: YOU DO NOT NEED CONGRESS TO ARREST A USURPER, OR FRAUD WHO FALSIFIED DOCUMENT’S. THE FBI, U.S. MARSHALL OR ANY POLICE
OFFICER HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT.
Actually that is not true. The US Department of Justice determined in 1973 and reaffirmed in 2000 that the Constitutional separation of powers and the unique role of Congress in impeachment means that a sitting president cannot be indicted or arrested.
Read here and learn:
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/sitting_president.htm
fabricater: Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.
I tell you what, why don’t you take a moment and ask yourself why you think “Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.”
You seem to “know” this, but how do you know it? If you trace it back to the source, you will find that there is no source because the statement is completely false. In 1981 the State Department was advising US travelers to Pakistan that the visa they could get at the airport for free was only good for 30 days, and that they would find it difficult to renew.
Here, read it for yourself:
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/travel/cis/southasia/TA_Pakistan1981.pdf
Then go find those folks who lied to you and set them straight. And after that is done, perhaps you might begin to examine what else you have been lied to about. And you might also wonder why a rumor that has been blown for months is still circulating.
What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York, Jakarta , and Karachi ?
So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?
And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when
he passed through Customs and Immigration?
The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama’s citizenship a rather short and simple one.
Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A : Yes, by his own admission.
Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities.
1) He traveled with a U.S. Passport,
2) He traveled with a British passport, or
3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.
Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.
Conclusion:
When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.
If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof
that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims.
And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.
Whatever the truth of the matter,the American people need to know how he managed to become a “natural born” American citizen between 1981 and 2008.
Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.
Poppet says:
September 18, 2009 at 7:23 am
To Blacklion:
You need Congress to Impeach a President. True
Obama is Not a Legal President…No Document’s of Personal History
have been shown.
______________________________________________________________
I hate to tell you this but President Obama is the President. Once Congress certified the electoral college vote, it became official. You may want to read up on the Constitution. All of your wishing and praying won’t change that. All of the cases will get dismissed because of standing, meaning no court can remove the President, only Congress can. Think about it. With how many people there are in Congress that hate the President, you shouldn’t have any problems in finding at least one that will champion your cause and call for the President to be impeached because he is a “usurper” and not really President. How about Joe Wilson? I am sure he would love to join your cause.
Poppet says:
September 18, 2009 at 7:59 am
Blacklion:
You say,
“Thirdly President Obama was born in Hawaii, to a mother that was an American citizen.”
“Where is the proof that he was born in Hawaii?
By a proven forged COLB which not one person has testified is real?”
Where is the proof that he was not born in HI? The obvious fake Kenyan BC’s that have not been authenticated by a Kenyan govt or State department official as required by the rules of evidence? You keep forgetting that you need to prove that he is not eligible, not the other way around.
No one needs to testify that it is real. You like Orly don’t understand the rules of evidence. You have to prove that President Obama is not eligible and that his documents are forged. Not the other way around. It is that pesky thing called “innocent until proven guilty”…It applies in this case.
And who with the requisite background has proven that the HI COLB is fake or a fruad? Polarik? TechDude? Both were discredited with their methodolgy and backgrounds. Dr. Lines. She said that you could not make a conclusion without the document. Calling something a fake doesn’t make it one
Additionally the state of HI released a statement that stated in on uncertain terms that President Obama was born in HI. The statement of the required US and State official. What do you have?
“Hawaii Official’s only stated that they have a birth certificate
on file in accord with Hawaii Statutes. No mention of heritage.”
Heritige doesn’t matter. And the state of HI said that President Obama was born in HI.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.”
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf
Notice the born in HI part.
“Where is the proof that Stanly Ann Dunham was his biological
Mother.NONE. Was Obama “adopted”? ”
The COLB is proof. It is issued by the State of HI and states that Stanley Ann Dunham was President Obama’s mother. HI Re. Abercrombie knew Ms. Dunham and remembers her being pregnant. So unless you are now going to require that all Presidents take a DNA test to prove who their parents are, then that question is borderline ridiculous. I don’t seem to recall any other President being asked to prove that his Mother was his mother. Simpley amazing.
“Obama’s so called mother abandoned him to stay in Indonesia.”
That is one theory. The other may be that she wanted him to know his American heritige and to have a better opportunity by going back to his country of birth to go to school and get an education. Something that all parents want for their kids.
You have no proof that the President was adopted and it really doesn’t matter because it is irrelevant because he was born in the US.
“Dissecting a Post and adding statement’s in your form show’s
what you are….”
Which is what exactly?
“Are we not allowed to check Judge Land’s credential’s as well as Obama/Soetoro’s?”
To find out what exactly? You can check on Judge Land’s credentials all you want. I am sure they are on line. That is unless you don’t believe that he went to law school at Georgia and that he is really a judge. If so then you believe that he is “part of the conspiracy” also.
Blacklion:
You say,
“Thirdly President Obama was born in Hawaii, to a mother that was an American citizen.”
Where is the proof that he was born in Hawaii?
By a proven forged COLB which not one person has testified is real?
Hawaii Official’s only stated that they have a birth certificate
on file in accord with Hawaii Statutes. No mention of heritage.
Where is the proof that Stanly Ann Dunham was his biological
Mother.NONE. Was Obama “adopted”?
Obama’s so called mother abandoned him to stay in Indonesia.
Under Hawaii Statute a child must have a “parent” present with
legal authority in case of an emergency.
See HRS 578-2
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0578/HRS_0578-0002.htm
(c) Persons as to whom consent not required or whose consent may be dispensed with by order of the court.
(1) Persons as to whom consent not required:
(A) A parent who has deserted a child without affording means of identification for a period of ninety days;
(B) A parent who has voluntarily surrendered the care and custody of the child to another for a period of two years;
(C) A parent of the child in the custody of another, if the parent for a period of at least one year has failed to communicate with the child when able to do so;
(D) A parent of a child in the custody of another, if the parent for a period of at least one year has failed to provide for the care and support of the child when able to do so;
Social Services would have become involved
Sealed record’s are indication’s of an Adoption! Most likely
his so called Grandmother, Madelyn.
We want the TRUTH. Why doesn’t Obama simply allow ALL his
document’s to be verified?
You know he is lying, Why do you keep defending him?
Dan Smith, NY
To Blacklion:
You need Congress to Impeach a President. True
Obama is Not a Legal President…No Document’s of Personal History
have been shown.
YOU DO NOT NEED CONGRESS TO ARREST A USURPER, OR FRAUD WHO
FALSIFIED DOCUMENT’S. THE FBI, U.S. MARSHALL OR ANY POLICE
OFFICER HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT.
Dissecting a Post and adding statement’s in your form show’s
what you are…. Are we not allowed to check Judge Land’s credential’s as well as Obama/Soetoro’s?
I am authorized by 18 U.S.C. 1964 legally to represent the United States (Federal Government) as a Private Attorney General
Funny; 18 U.S.C. sec. 1964 says absolutely nothing about the appointment of private attorneys general.
Poppet says:
September 17, 2009 at 5:38 pm
As suggested, People should go over fact and procedure that
Paul Mitchell has graciously provided for all of us.
Really? We should listen to a guy that claims to be “the private attorney general of the US”? He is delusional. I did some research on him. Anyone that wants to know just Google his name.
R-E-A-D the “evidence, folder’s” below, then ask yourselves “Why”
does it seem that “Judge’s” who have not provided “All Credential’s”
as being duly and legally sworn in are being appointed to handle these case’s, could they be controlled by a higher authority, or are they self proclaimed above the law?
What are you talking about? The judge not providing his credentials and being legally sworn in? Are you confused? Judge Land was nominated by former President Bush and was appointed by the Congress of the United States. How did Mitchell get his so called position? He just created something that does not exist or is no recognized. So I would find it very difficult to listen to anything he has to say.
Mr. Mitchell is an EXPERT on Constitutional Law who also offer’s
valuable free reading at http://www.supremelaw.org
What makes him an expert on Constitutional Law? I was looking at his resume and did not find where he went to law school, clerked for a Judge, or wrote any legal articles that have been accepted by other lawyers or legal professionals….Did he provide you with any sort of authentic documentation that proves what he says? And could you tell us what other legal professionals refer to him as a legal source?
You both seem to be knowlegeable, but somehow I have a feeling
that you both need to get a room with each other.
I happen to have done some research which is why I am knowledgable on the situation.
If you both think that Obama meet’s Article II, section 1, clause
5…It’s okay by me…BUT PROVE IT IN A COURT OF LAW. Which is impossible.
Again you need to read the Constitution. It specifically designates the only way that the President can be removed, and that is by Congress. Secondly the Constitution does not define what is a natural born citizen. Thirdly President Obama was born in Hawaii, to a mother that was an American citizen. That makes him eligible under our Constitution. Additionally it is up to Orly and the others that believe in that stuff to prove that the President is ineligible, not for the President to prove that he is eligible. That was specifically mentioned in the order by Judge Land. The burden of proof is always on the Plaintiff to prove their case, not for the defendant to prove theirs. That is why you are innocent until proven guilty in this country.
My agenda is for the Constitution… What is your’s?
See above. I respect and support our US Constitution. And that is why unless Congress decides to impeach the President, he will remain as the President until 2013.
Reader’s Here get tired of your asinine remark’s.
And some readers grow tired of you posting stuff that makes no sense. I only post the law. If that is asinine, then you need to reevaluate what your idea of the law is.
As suggested, People should go over fact and procedure that
Paul Mitchell has graciously provided for all of us.
R-E-A-D the “evidence, folder’s” below, then ask yourselves “Why”
does it seem that “Judge’s” who have not provided “All Credential’s”
as being duly and legally sworn in are being appointed to handle these case’s, could they be controlled by a higher authority, or are they
self proclaimed above the law?
Mr. Mitchell is an EXPERT on Constitutional Law who also offer’s
valuable free reading at http://www.supremelaw.org
I have been in contact with several Lawyer’s who were highly
impressed with his work……. Daniel Smith, NY
Below are remark’s by Paul Mitchell
> What is the end result you hope for from your (legal) actions?
I am authorized by 18 U.S.C. 1964 legally to represent the United States
So, IT needs legal Counsel
(Federal Government) as a Private Attorney General; therefore, it is not
correct to say that these are “my” legal actions: they are the legal actions
being pursued formally by the United States (technically a legal fiction
with no “heart”, no “lungs” and no “hands”
to represent IT whenever IT appears in Federal Court.
Now, on the merits:
the United States timely applied for a WRIT OF PROHIBITION just over one year ago,
i.e. BEFORE the 2008 General Election. That has always been the stated intent
of the United States appearing ex rel. in Berg v. Obama et al., now on appeal
to the Third Circuit in Philadelphia: appeal number #08-4443:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/notice.of.intent.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/intervention.prohibition.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/nad02.htm
Limited discovery has already been COMMANDED by the SUBPOENA.
It appears to my office that any ORDER TO COMPEL should issue
from the Third Circuit in Philadelphia — by a panel of duly credentialed
U.S. Circuit Judges. The latter Court is decidedly an Article III
constitutional court, and it has jurisdiction of Appeal No. 08-4443,
in part using Rules governing “newly found evidence”.
The United States ex rel. intends to apply to the USDC in Santa Ana
for leave (permission) formally to intervene, among other things
to argue and file evidence establishing that:
(1) the USDC has no original jurisdiction to enforce a FOIA Request,
because 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B) confers jurisdiction upon the Article III
District Courts of the United States, NOT upon the USDCs which have a
constitutional origin in the Territory Clause at 4:3:2
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/cert.htm#drama
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#4:3:2
(see Balzac v. Porto Rico, for a pertinent holding)
(2) Mr. Carter’s APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVIT lacks the required OMB control number:
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/carter.david/affidavit.gif
(3) Mr. Carter’s APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVIT and OATH OF OFFICE were both
“witnessed” by known impostor Terry J. Hatter, Jr.:
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/carter.david/oath.gif
(4) Carter, Hatter and Taitz have all been formally charged on allegations
that none ever had valid licenses to practice law in California:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol2/criminal.complaint.4.htm
(5) the USDC in Santa Ana is also suspected of obstructing this
APPLICATION FOR ORDER DISSOLVING THE IRS:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/giordano/dissolve.irs.htm
The latter APPLICATION was transferred without authority (ultra vires)
to “Dean D. Pregerson” at the USDC in downtown Los Angeles:
Pregerson has already been charged several times:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/giordano/criminal.complaint.2.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/bybee/criminal.complaint.htm
See also “Harry Pregerson” mentioned with son “Dean Pregerson”
in this statement by the late Gary Wean, former LAPD Detective:
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/wean/gary.wean.article.htm
These CIVIL MINUTES are fraudulent as a direct consequence
of Dean Pregerson’s missing credentials, confirmed by DOJ after the
VCCs above were lodged:
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/pregerson.dean/refusal.08-22-2002.gif
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/pregerson.dean/order.08-22-2002.gif
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm#CDCA
(see “NADs”)
(6) the Federal Judiciary are HEAVILY infiltrated:
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/uoregon.edu/memo.ag01.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm
… including also the Third Circuit in Philadelphia:
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm#THIRD
(see “NADs”)
(7) my office has done arguably more research on the Qualifications Clauses
than any other lawyer in America presently; here’s a very small sample:
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/quals.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/before.and.after.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/bohica.htm
(8) THE CONSPIRACY which Berg v. Obama et al. has slowly revealed
is the one which originated immediately after the Dred Scott decision
was issued in 1856. See Dyett v. Turner for a detailed recital of
pertinent historical facts:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/knudson/judnot09.htm#dyett
“Federal citizenship” is expressly defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as follows;
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/dict/federal.citizenship.htm
See also Chapter 11 in “The Federal Zone” for an extensive list of relevant authorities:
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chaptr11.htm
The term “United States” in those Qualifications Clauses
means “States united”:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/swornaff.htm#delaguerra
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
ch says:
September 17, 2009 at 1:55 am
My hope is that Judge Carter sees that Obama, by concealing a full birth certificate, has create an international game of “who has the document,” and is creating a military crisis of confidence. My hope is that Judge Carter, having served in military himself and seeing highly decorated officers as plaintiffs, raising serious questions about Obama and his behavior, that Judge Carter will bring all questions into a courtroom, and sort out fact from fiction. Orly does not have to prove where Obama was born. Obama does. If Africa destroys all evidence, lies, is complicit, it will not matter. Obama has to prove where he was born, to protect the confidence of the military in the chain of command, as they uphold their oath to protect the Constitution from people like Obama. I think Carter will treat Obama like a grownup, and not shelter him like his paid friends, and Orly’s weaknesses will be her strength, because her sincerity outshines the trickery and cleverness of the US attorneys and Richard Baum, Obama’s lead attorney and Eric Holder. It will be a legal game between the Judge and the lawyers for Obama. I do not think a Marine will take kindly to somebody playing games and hiding documents. Nope. I do not think so!
________________________________________________________________
It is amazing how the birthers are calling Judge Land a liberal activist judge or other colorful names. I wonder if you all realize that Judge Land was appointed by Republican George W. Bush and was recommended by GA. Senator Saxby Chambliss. Since he was recommended and nominated by 2 staunch Republicans, I seriouosly doubt that Judge Land is some sort of liberal or activist. He is from all of the cases you can review a fair and impartial judge that follows the law. We are a country of laws and cannot make up or ignore laws that we do not like or that get in our way.
So far since President Obama has been in office there has been no military “crisis of confidence” other than some officers deciding to risk ruining their careers by questioning orders. If there was this huge “crisis of confidence” as you claim, there would be more officers and enlisted men refusing to obey lawfully given orders.
You state “Orly does not have to prove where Obama was born, Obama does.”…You are wrong because that statement is legally incorrect. Orly is the one bringing the suit. She represens the plaintiff. She has the legal burden to prove to the Judge that the President was not born in Hawaii. President Obama has submitted a document that has been legally accepted, the COLB. You forget that by Congress certifying the electoral college vote, they certified that the President was indeed eligible and that all of his documentation was proper and in order. So for a Judge to go against that Orly would have to submit overwhelming proof that the President was not born in Honolulu and that the COLB is fraudulent. She does not have this proof, which is why she cannot win her lawsuit. The fake Kenyan BC’s are not even close to being admissible evidence, let alone enough to overcome the HI certified COLB and the statement by Dr. Fukino. And her silly evidence like the multiple Social Security numbers and addresses and Pakistan travel ban are just silly and don’t help her case. It actually hinders it.
As far as your other statements, I wish you luck. If you believe that “Africa” (it would actually be Kenya) will be hiding documents and that Judge Carter, just because he is a former Marine, will think that “Orly’s weaknesses will be her strength, because her sincerity outshines the trickery and cleverness of the US attorneys and Richard Baum, Obama’s lead attorney and Eric Holder”, then you may be in for a surprise. Orly’s weakness is that she does not know or understand the law or judical procedure. You are right in one aspect. Judge Carter will follow the law. However just be prepared for his following of the law not to lead to the results that you are hoping for.
TO BLACK LION & BOB You Do Not Have a Clue what is going on,
but are merely stooge’s without fact’s.
Where is an affidavit from factcheck or any person’s stating that
a Hawaii COLB for Obama being born there is Legally & Factually correct?
Answer: NEVER WILL BE
Too many “Statutes” which I posted before might prevent that.
HRS 578 – Adoption (index) ( use “next or “previous”)
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0578/HRS_0578-.htm
HRS 578-02
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0578/HRS_0578-0002.htm
HRS 578-08
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0578/HRS_0578-0008.htm
HRS 578-09
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0578/HRS_0578-0009.htm
HRS 578-14 and see 14.5
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0578/HRS_0578-0014.htm
HRS 578-15
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0578/HRS_0578-0015.htm
HRS-587 GUIDE
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0587/HRS_0587-.htm
Use this to search Hawaii Statute’s: (revised statute’s)
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/hrs/searchhrs.asp?query=HRS+578-15&currpage=1
HRS 575 Desertion
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0575/HRS_0575-.htm
CHAPTER 574 NAMES
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0574/HRS_0574-.htm
CHAPTER 587
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/hrs/searchhrs.asp?query=HRS+587&currpage=1
Chapter 587 Child Protective Act
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0587/HRS_0587-.htm
Plus, when “birth certificate’s” are SEALED, it usually mean’s an adoption
took place. 338-20 , 20.5 and other’s have “sealed” in them.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0020.htm
Oh don’t forget: FALSE STATEMENT’S & FRAUD
us code title 18 part 1 – crimes
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I.html
chapter 47
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_47.html
False Officer or employee of the government
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000912—-000-.html
Fraud 1028
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001028—-000-.html
Fraud accessing computer’s, electronic mail
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001037—-000-.html
Seal’s 1017
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001017—-000-.html
oath, certificate..1016
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001016—-000-.html
statement’s false, 1001
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001001—-000-.html
18 chapter 15, statute 287
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=1001&url=/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000287—-000-notes.html
DID YOU NOT READ “NATIONAL ASSEMBLY REPORT FROM KENYA?
YOU BOTH FAILED AT ATTEMPT’S TO DIS-CREDIT ANYONE!
R-E-A-D-
EVIDENCE:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/Kenya/National.Assembly.Official.Report.2008-11-05.pdf
Obvious you have not read “new evidence”
Black Lion & Bob, ARE YOU LAWYER’S? or pretend to be expert’s?
You both seem to be knowlegeable, but somehow I have a feeling
that you both need to get a room with each other.
If you both think that Obama meet’s Article II, section 1, clause
5…It’s okay by me…BUT PROVE IT IN A COURT OF LAW. Which is impossible.
My agenda is for the Constitution… What is your’s?
Reader’s Here get tired of your asinine remark’s.
Dan Smith, NY United States Hero, U.S. Silver Lifesaving Medal
My hope is that Judge Carter sees that Obama, by concealing a full birth certificate, has create an international game of “who has the document,” and is creating a military crisis of confidence. My hope is that Judge Carter, having served in military himself and seeing highly decorated officers as plaintiffs, raising serious questions about Obama and his behavior, that Judge Carter will bring all questions into a courtroom, and sort out fact from fiction. Orly does not have to prove where Obama was born. Obama does. If Africa destroys all evidence, lies, is complicit, it will not matter. Obama has to prove where he was born, to protect the confidence of the military in the chain of command, as they uphold their oath to protect the Constitution from people like Obama. I think Carter will treat Obama like a grownup, and not shelter him like his paid friends, and Orly’s weaknesses will be her strength, because her sincerity outshines the trickery and cleverness of the US attorneys and Richard Baum, Obama’s lead attorney and Eric Holder. It will be a legal game between the Judge and the lawyers for Obama. I do not think a Marine will take kindly to somebody playing games and hiding documents. Nope. I do not think so!
Is this real or disinfo?
@da verg: ” My proposal is that we get 1000 to 10,000 or more of these marchers who are sick of this regime and file a class action lawsuit.”
I have another proposal: it’s called an “election.”
10,000 more marchers, eh?
The number of people who voted for Barack Obama was 66 million. He defeated 7 opponents in the primaries, and crushed his Republican opponent by a percent margin of 53-46.
If you want to reverse the results of this election, it will be in subversion of the United States Constitution. And if you dare try and subvert the United States Constitution, it will happen over my dead body. If overturning election results is a hobby of yours, move to Zimbabwe or something and stay the hell out of my country.
I am sick of this BS. Here’s my idea.
Let me know what you think and if it is doable. I am not a lawyer. WE just had over a million people march, and they are sick of it too. Did anyone take down contact information? Emails? Twitter? My proposal is that we get 1000 to 10,000 or more of these marchers who are sick of this regime and file a class action lawsuit. We get a reputable constitutional attorney to represent us.
The key elements of our case would be :
-OBama Saotao lied during the campaign duping people into thinking he was a natural born citizen when he wasn’t and isn’t. By his own words, by his grandmother’s words, by his own mother’s words in divorce papers, and by various reports from Kenya on his birth there.
- We have damages from the bills he has signed in the form of mental anguish for abortions performed by his executive orders, $33,500 each from the stimulus bill (imagin the amount if we had 10,000 people that’s over 33 million dollars). We also have damages in form of loss of life and other harm due to the mismanagement on the war in Afganistan).
We stick to the Constitution and throw in all the points everyone has made here on the board.
This is just a summary. When do we start? Do we have a chance? I can , in the words fo the imortal Fred G. Sanfor- coordinate the effort. IF I get the information. And some help.
What do you say?
da verg // September 16, 2009 at 8:14 pm
the suit would be against Osaotao and
pelosi and the DNC
as well as Congress.
Our representatives are not listening to us.
remember the Columbo episode with Sal Mineo, the one about diplomatic immunity, Berg should be asked to view this episode, it may effect this worthless pursuit.
in other news, the BC Lucas produced has no explicit place of birth on it, that’s a first, every BC I have seen shows a place of birth, besides in Kenya BC records are not maintained in hospitals, it’s in there law.
He has legally and “rightly” intervened on Berg’s case.
No Mitchell hasn’t — this is his M.O. (to file as a “private attorney general” in cases that have nothing to do with him).
My take on this move is that Berg is attempting to become relevant again.
Berg has nothing to do with this; Mitchell is (nonconsensually) bootstrapping onto Berg’s case.
Update on Rhodes v. Good: TRO denied, case dismissed, sanctions threatened.
Mr. Mitchell has a colorful history to say the least. However he is not the private attorney general of the United States. Whether or not he is delusional I will leave up to people that have googled his name and what he has done.
As far as the legality of this move goes, it is not going to get very far. First of all as most people with a legal background know serving a subpoena on a consulate is worthless. The threat of a subpoena is that failing to comply with it puts you under the threat of sanctions by the court, including contempt. Since a consulate is immune from sanction, there is no requirement that they comply. The appropriate way to get discovery from a foreign government is through the Hague Convention or a letter rogatory.
However even sending an letter rogatory would probably not do much since the US and Kenya have not treaty on this. Also I believe that Orly sued Kenya or the ambassador in one of her many suits so they may not respond because they have already been sued in this matter.
Also take a look at the subpoena. For instance he makes the claim that “To my knowledge, no one has (yet) charged Lucas Smith with perjury, nor has anyone certified any contrary evidence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746″. First of all Mr. Smith was convicted of the crime of forgery, which would make his testimony dubious without an corrobating evidence. And secondly as the plaintiff he has to provide the evidence to prove his case, the defendant is not required to provide contrary evidence to contradict his clients’ allegations. Mr. Mitchell also states the “CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH which Lucas Smith has already VERIFIED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746.” That means nothing either. Mr. Smith only submitted an affidavit along with his fake Kenyan BC. This evidence was not verified by any court or objective third party. So his claim is meaningless.
My take on this move is that Berg is attempting to become relevant again. He does not expect the Kenyans to respond to his so called subpoena. But he can use them not responding to make the claim that if Lucas Smith’s so called Kenyan BC was really a fake, then the Kenyans would have no problem showing up in court and stating that. Basically he would be saying that because they haven’t discredited the Kenyan BC, then the Kenyan BC is probably real. Of course that theory would not stand up in court but Berg does not plan on going to court. He likes the court of public opinion. So that he can make the claim that the Kenyan gov’t is in cahoots with President Obama to supress all of his so called records.
It is Paul Mitchell “Serving” the subpoena not Orly.
Paul Mitchell previously gave ” Notice of Intent” to
serve a subpoena to the Kenyan Embassy.
(I believe twice)
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/Kenya/intent.to.subpoena.htm
Paul Mitchell has been on this issue since day one.
He has legally and “rightly” intervened on Berg’s case.
Mitchell is a well known authority on the subject matter.
LOOK at his website at http://www.Supremelaw.org His work is
outstanding.
I have been reading Paul Mitchell’s material for quite
some time looking at detail’s of procedural law, etc..
We can “all” learn from his impressive experience..Dan Smith,NY
Below are portion’s of e-mail’s I have recieved from Mr. Mitchell
Subject:
SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE: USPS Track & Confirm,
Detailed Results for Label/Receipt Number RE184168898US
In point of Law, service of such documents is legally effective
on the postmark date, which means that the SUBPOENA
has already been served, effective September 9, 2009 A.D.
Moreover, the United States appearing ex rel. at the Third Circuit in Philadelphia
has a procedural option now to re-open its appeal in Berg v. Obama et al.
on the basis of “newly found evidence”.
In point of FACT, there were no rebuttal(s) filed in response
to this AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE AND
DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/nad02.htm
… chiefly this Official Report by the National Assembly of the Republic of Kenya:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/Kenya/National.Assembly.Official.Report.2008-11-05.pdf
That lack of any rebuttal(s) is all the more significant in light of the
formal ENTRY OF APPEARANCE by one of Obama’s attorneys –
Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/entry.of.appearance.lavelle/
(all of those email addresses are bouncing now)
We may get lucky and the Consulate General of Kenya in Los Angeles
will simply show up and certify the CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH which Lucas Smith
has already VERIFIED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746. That kind gesture would
certainly save everyone a lot of time otherwise required judicially to compel their
compliance with this SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE.
To my knowledge, no one has (yet) charged Lucas Smith with perjury,
nor has anyone certified any contrary evidence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746.
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/subpoena/subpoena.kenya.ambassador.1.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/subpoena/delivery.instructions.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/subpoena/delivery.instructions.doc
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
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/subpoena/intent.to.subpoena.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/subpoena/intent.to.subpoena.doc
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/subpoena/subpoena.kenya.ambassador.2.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/subpoena/subpoena.kenya.ambassador.3.jpg
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
posted by Dan Smith, NY
Of course, in this case, he’s acting as the “server” for the subpoena.
No, he’s not. Mitchell thinks he represents the United States in Berg v. Obama as “private attorney general.” (Please draw your own conclusions about the state of Mitchell’s mental health.)
There is nothing to indicate that this actually was authorized by Berg, who would know that there’s no discovery on appeal.
As Justin Riggs has indicated, Mitchell has a history of pulling such stunts, none of which have been successful.
And the Kenyan government will most likely just ignore this, as there is absolutely no way for a nonparty to enforce a subpoena in case where there is no discovery.
(To answer the inevitable: the court clerk is required to issue a subpoena if asked to do so; if clerks had the discretionary authority to not do so, clerks would be hauled in front of judges all the time, and the court doesn’t want that.)
Unless I missed something there is no such thing as a “Private Attorney General” of the United States. Additionally in the so called subpoena he states the following…
“My office legally represents the United States (Federal Government) at the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia, in the case of Berg v. Obama et al., Appeal No. 08-4443:”
Does Mr. Mitchell really think he is an officer of the court? Does he really think that he is the “Private Attorney General of the US”? I am not sure but I don’t see this getting very far. The only recognized Attorney General of the US is Eric Holder….
Justin W. Riggs,
Pretty interesting stuff, huh? That’s how I got the link on him.
Of course, in this case, he’s acting as the “server” for the subpoena. And, he can say pretty much whatever he wants; if the Consulate squashes, it won’t mean much.
-Phil
the Kenyan consulate members enjoy diplomatic immunity priveledge,i don’t see why they would comply unless they WANTED to.
Google Paul Andrew Mitchell.