TO: Cathy A. Catterson, Clerk of Court (5x)

Tim Hom, Deputy Clerk (1x)

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

P.O. Box 193939

San Francisco 94119-3939



FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Appellant

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

Ninth Circuit appeal #02-15269


DATE: September 24, 2002 A.D.


SUBJECT: your letter dated September 6, 2002 A.D.

with deadline of September 16, 2002 A.D. (+ten days)



Greetings Tim and Cathy:


We are more than a little confused by your letter (see attached).


It was postmarked September 18, 2002 A.D., and yet the text informs us that we would have had ten (10) days from September 6 to present a statement setting forth the reasons why oral argument should be heard in this case.


My calculator tells me that the deadline for that statement was September 16, or two days before your letter was even mailed.


We have been very pleased with the consistent professionalism of your entire staff in this appeal, so we do hope that this was just a minor clerical error.


Was the date of your letter supposed to be September 16, 2002, perhaps (omitting 1 from 16 inadvertently)?


For your information, we will reserve our right to request oral arguments in the event that we decide to file a MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC. We would rather address oral arguments to a full panel, rather than to a smaller 3-judge panel.


Please advise, as needed. Thank you again for your consideration.



Sincerely yours,


/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell


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

Private Attorney General and Appellant


copy: Hon. Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit

(supervising, 18 U.S.C. 1964)


private benefactors and the Internet