TO:        Cathy Catterson, Clerk of Court

           Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

           P.O. Box 193939

           San Francisco 94119-3939

           CALIFORNIA, USA


FROM:      Paul Andrew Mitchell, Plaintiff/Appellant

           Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.

           Ninth Circuit Appeal No. 02-15269

           DCUS Sacramento #CIV. S-01-1480 WBS DAD PS


DATE:      March 25, 2002 A.D.



and required attachments



Greetings Cathy Catterson and Staff:


With this letter, we are transmitting the following documents to your professional care and custody:


(1)           APPELLANT’S INFORMAL OPENING BRIEF (16 originals)

(2)           EXCERPTS OF THE RECORD (5 sets of 4 volumes)

(3)           Exhibits A-1 thru L-11, inclusive (1 set, hard copy)


Please inform everyone concerned that a very important feature of this case is the electronic evidence.  In order to preserve that evidence intact, we carefully organized electronic files at the Supreme Law Library on the Internet, including all pleadings authored by this writer.  See Internet URL:




We are also very pleased to announce that a “paperless” option is now available to the Court, and to all litigants.  The combination of Microsoft WORD 2000 and Internet Explorer Version 6.0 (“MSIE”) allows users to activate View | Print Layout in MSIE.  This option will render pleadings identical to the laser-printed originals, including also line numbers automatically generated along the left margin (but for .doc files only).


Given the pivotal, strategic importance of browser software, we urge the Court to consider expanding its Experiment on Electronic Briefs to include also this “paperless” implementation (see your Notice dated June 14, 2001).  The etiquette of the Internet has made it possible to shift the print burden to the reader.  A single Internet copy also serves to standardize all pleadings posted in the Supreme Law Library:  by using the Internet, everyone will be accessing identical versions of these documents.  We also discovered that Adobe Acrobat has bugs.


Although we were not required to attach Exhibits A‑1 thru L‑11, we did have an extra copy on hand, and wanted to transmit a complete set of excerpts for the convenience of the Court and Staff.  You have my assurance that this extra set should be identical to the corresponding Exhibits filed with the district court (we printed 3 sets for the district Clerk, but they only needed 2 sets).  Please inform me immediately if any clerical discrepancies are discovered (e.g. machine collation errors).


Although this appeal is formally “in abeyance” at this time, per ORDER of Christine Hill (filed on February 22, 2002 A.D.), we have kept to the original Briefing Schedule for three reasons:


(1)           I must now attend to other professional obligations;


(2)  this interim provides an excellent opportunity for your Staff to isolate any deficiencies in our paperwork, and also for us to make all recommended changes in advance of the revised Briefing Schedule;  and,


(3)  Appellees will be provided additional time to do research and to prepare their responses (if any).


Cathy, I am very grateful that the Most High and living God has given me this challenging opportunity to appeal my case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


This Court has done more work on federal jurisdiction than all other Circuits.  We anxiously look forward to exercising the judicial Power of the United States here, proceeding in constitutional mode, as guaranteed by Article III in the Constitution for the United States of America.



Thank you very much for your consideration.



Sincerely yours,


/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell


Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Private Attorney General and Appellant


enclosures:  OPENING BRIEF (16 copies total)

             NOTICE:  Court Experiment on Electronic Briefs

             website Table of Contents (see URL above)


attachments  (under separate cover)




Copy ____ of 16