TO:       Jack L. Wagner

          Clerk of Court

          501 “I” Street, Suite 4-200

          Sacramento 95814-2322



FROM:     Paul Andrew Mitchell, Plaintiff/Appellant

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

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

          Ninth Circuit Appeal #02-15269 and 372(c) #02-89005


DATE:     December 30, 2002 A.D.


SUBJECT:  General Order 345, October 17, 1997



Dear Mr. Wagner:


Under separate cover we are mailing to you a courtesy copy of our detailed MEMO dated December 27, 2002 A.D. to Hon. Mary M. Schroeder, Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit.  Please read the instant MEMO in conjunction with the facts and laws detailed in that other MEMO.


In the course of continuing our earnest research to confirm the application and constitutionality of the Federal Magistrates Act, we now conclude that your Local Rule 72‑302(c)(21) violates the U.S. Constitution, it violates 28 U.S.C. 636, and it violates the clear holdings of the Ninth Circuit in Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic, Inc. v. Instromedix, Inc., 725 F.2d 537 (9th Cir. 1984) e.g. headnote 21: consent of all parties is essential to the constitutionality of the Federal Magistrates Act, and headnotes 4-6: the constitutional right here may be waived, and waiver must be freely and voluntarily undertaken.


Local Rule 72‑302(c)(21) refers to magistrates all cases in which the plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, including dispositive and non‑dispositive motions and matters.


In plain English, this Local Rule appears to authorize magistrates to rule on all dispositive motions submitted by all pro per plaintiffs, even if such plaintiffs never consented to a magistrate.  In other words, it appears to confer the judicial Power of the United States, as exercised by duly appointed Article III federal judges, upon all U.S. magistrates in the EDCA, Sacramento Division.


I remind you here, as I also reminded Mr. Shubb in my MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (docket #176) in some detail:


But, notwithstanding any provision of law (or rule) to the contrary, subsection 636(c)(1) clearly mandates the consent of all the parties:  “Upon the consent of the parties ...” (phrase is repeated twice).


And, notwithstanding any provision of law (or rule) to the contrary, subsection 636(c)(2) clearly mandates the consent of all the parties:    “[P]arties ... are free to withhold consent without adverse substantive consequences.”  “Rules of court ... shall include procedures to protect the voluntariness of the parties’ consent.”  [emphasis added]


I am attaching a copy of my MEMO to you dated February 11, 2002 A.D.  I now confirm that you never produced any signed Consent Forms from any of the proper parties in Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.


Our research also confirms the existence of a General Order 345 titled “In Re: Consent to Jurisdiction by U.S. Magistrate Judge.”  Quoting in pertinent part:


GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, the Judges of the Eastern District of California hereby adopt this General Order concerning the assignment of cases to U.S. Magistrate Judges.


If any party chooses not to consent, the case will be randomly assigned to a U.S. District Court Judge.  The case will remain with the previously assigned U.S. Magistrate Judge who will manage the progress of the action and rule on all non-dispositive motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and all dispositive motions by findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) in accordance with Local Rule 72‑304(c)(15) and (17) [not in Sacto.]  IT IS SO ORDERED.  Dated: October 17, 1997.


[bold emphasis added]


The copy of the Local Rules we purchased from your office does not contain a Local Rule 72‑304(c)(15) or a Local Rule 72‑304(c)(17) (see copy attached).  These two rules appear to be for Fresno only, because General Order 345 was written expressly to solve the crowded docket conditions then existing in Fresno.  Thus, I am persuaded by this to conclude that General Order 345 applies only to the Fresno Division.


Notice also that General Order 345 appears to conflict with Local Rule 72‑302(c)(21).  General Order 345 authorizes magistrates to rule on all dispositive motions by means of findings and recommendations only;  contrary to that, your Local Rule authorizes magistrates to rule on all motions submitted by all pro per litigants, whether dispositive or non‑dispositive.  Thus, Local Rule 72‑302(c)(21) now convinces me that it intentionally discriminates against pro per litigants.


In conclusion, please inform me of the correct procedures for obtaining a certified copy of General Order 345, as soon as possible.  Please also inform me of the correct procedures for obtaining a certified copy of any and all General Order(s) enacting the Local Rules for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division.  I do not find any such General Order in the Local Rules we purchased from your office.


Thank you for your timely professional consideration.



Sincerely yours,


/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell


Paul Andrew Mitchell

Private Attorney General and Plaintiff/Appellant


copy:  Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder, Ninth Circuit

       Judge Procter Hug, Ninth Circuit

       Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, Ninth Circuit

       Judge Stephen S. Trott, Ninth Circuit

       Judge Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit (supervising)

       Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Supreme Court (supervising)

       Hon. William B. Shubb, USDC, Sacramento

       Hon. Dale A. Drozd, USDC, Sacramento

       Dr. John C. Alden, M.D., eyewitness




(1)  copy of MEMO to Jack L. Wagner, February 11, 2002 A.D.

(2)  copy of Local Rule 72‑302(c)(21), EDCA/Sacramento

(3)  copy of Local Rule 72‑304, EDCA/Sacramento


I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (federal government), that I am at least 18 years of age, a Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America, and that I personally served the following document(s):




December 30, 2002 A.D.


by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United States Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed to the following:


Judge Alex Kozinski (supervising)  Clerk of Court (5x)

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals     Attention:  Cathy Catterson

P.O. Box 91510                     Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Pasadena 91109-1510                P.O. Box 193939

CALIFORNIA, USA                    San Francisco 94119-3939

                                   CALIFORNIA, USA


Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley    DeForest & Koscelnik

(failed to exhibit oaths)         (failed to exhibit oath)

1001 Marshall Street               3000 Koppers Building

Redwood City 94063                 436 Seventh Avenue

CALIFORNIA, USA                    Pittsburgh 15219

                                   PENNSYLVANIA, USA


Murphy Austin Adams Schoenfeld LLP  Pillsbury Winthrop LLP

(failed to exhibit oaths)          (failed to exhibit oaths)

P.O. Box 1319                       400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1700

Sacramento 95812-1319               Sacramento 95814-4419



Curiale Dellaverson Hirschfeld     Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver

Kraemer & Sloan, LLP               & Hedges, LLP

(failed to exhibit oaths)          (failed to exhibit oaths)

727 Sansome Street                 201 Sansome Street, 6th Floor

San Francisco 94111                San Francisco 94104



Office of the General Counsel      Paul Southworth

(failed to exhibit oaths)          2018 N. New Hampshire Ave.

University of California           Los Angeles 90027

1111 Franklin Street, 8th Floor    CALIFORNIA, USA

Oakland 94607-5200



Karl Kleinpaste                    Ram Samudrala

P.O. Box 1551                      UW Micro Box 357242

Beaver Falls 15010                 Seattle 98195-7242



Laskin & Guenard                   Rivkin Radler, LLP

(failed to exhibit oath)           (failed to exhibit oaths)

1810 South Street                  1330 N. Dutton Ave., #200

Sacramento 95814                   Santa Rosa 95401-4646



Harvey Siskind Jacobs LLP          Office of Solicitor General

(failed to exhibit oaths)          950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

3 Embarcadero Center, Ste. 1060    Room 5614

San Francisco 94111                Washington 20530-0001



Register of Copyrights             Steinhart & Falconer LLP

Library of Congress                (failed to exhibit oaths)

101 Independence Avenue, S.E.      333 Market Street, 32nd Floor

Washington 20559-6000              San Francisco 94105-2150



Matheny Sears Linkert & Long LLP   Latham & Watkins

(failed to exhibit oaths)          (failed to exhibit oaths)

P.O. Box 13711                     633 West Fifth St., Ste. 4000

Sacramento 95853-4711              Los Angeles 90071-2007



Courtesy copies:


Clerk of Court                  Hon. Sandra Day O’Connor (supervising)

Attention:  Jack L. Wagner      Supreme Court of the United States

501 “I” Street, Suite 4-200     One First Street, Northeast

Sacramento 95814-2322           Washington 20543-0001



[Please see USPS Publication #221 for “addressing” instructions.]



Dated:   January 3, 2003 A.D.




Signed:  /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell


Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Relator/Appellant In Propria Persona