Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris
c/o Forwarding Agent at:
350 – 30th Street,
Suite 444
Oakland 94609-3426
CALIFORNIA, USA
In Propria Persona
All Rights Reserved
without Prejudice
District Court of the United States
Eastern Judicial District of California
Paul Andrew
Mitchell, ) No. CIV.
S-01-1480 WBS DAD PS
)
Plaintiff,
) AUTHOR’S AFFIDAVIT CONTESTING
) DECLARATION OF WESLEY C.J.
EHLERS:
v. )
) 28 U.S.C. 1746(1)
AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)
COMES NOW Paul Andrew Mitchell, Plaintiff in the
above entitled case, Citizen of California, Private Attorney General and
Federal Witness, to contest
by Affidavit the DECLARATION OF WESLEY C.J EHLERS which was executed on November
5, 2001 A.D., at Sacramento, California, and filed in the United States
District Court, Eastern District of California.
Plaintiff
now testifies as follows:
Plaintiff
has received via first class U.S. Mail, but not accepted, a declaration by Mr.
Wesley C.J. Ehlers which makes the following two (2) statements:
(1) “I am an attorney licensed to practice before
the courts of the State of California and am admitted to practice in the United
States District Court, Eastern District of California.”
(2) “I declare under penalty of perjury under the
laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct.”
Plaintiff
has already made an earnest and timely attempt to obtain proof of Mr.
Ehlers’ license to practice law, by mailing to him a lawful demand for
exhibition of the certificate of oath and license required by Section 6067 of
the California Business and Professions Code.
See
Statutes of California, 1939, c. 34, p. 354, sec. 1, 53rd Session,
approved by the Governor on February 3, 1939 (“A certificate of oath shall
be indorsed upon his license.” [bold emphasis added])
Notwithstanding
his allegation above that he is licensed to practice, Mr. Ehlers has to date failed
to provide Plaintiff with any certified copies of said license.
Mr.
Ehlers has also failed to provide Plaintiff with any certified
copies of said certificate of oath.
Plaintiff
has studied Section 6067 supra and researched the legislative history of
this statute, and associated case law.
Plaintiff
thereby discovered that a California court has declared that Section 6067 is
constitutional. See Cohen v. Wright,
22 C. 293 (1863).
A
California court has also declared that the California Legislature does have a
right to impose on attorneys the oath required by Section 6067. See Ex parte Yale, 24
C. 241 (1864), 85 Am. Dec. 62 (1864).
Also,
a California court has ruled that courts have the power to inquire into the
existence of an attorney’s license, and to dispose the question summarily, upon
motion of the attorney of an opposing party to dismiss, founded upon the
affidavit of the person or party concerning whom the motion is made. See Clark v. Willett, 35 Cal. 534,
539.
Plaintiff
believes He is correct to infer from the holding in Clark v. Willett
that He also may file such a motion and affidavit, as a Proper Party proceeding
In Propria Persona.
Plaintiff
constructs Section 6067 to require that a valid oath of office be
indorsed upon a license to practice law in California.
Plaintiff
believes that the term “indorsed” as used in Section 6067 has the same meaning
as the act of endorsing a standard bank check, e.g. original blue-ink
signature, and not a typed or forged mark of any kind.
Plaintiff
believes He is correct to conclude, therefore, that Section 6067 requires each
and every license to practice law to be a physical document, like a
California driver’s license, and not merely the verbal or implied “permission”
of some governmental authority, e.g. verbal power of attorney.
Likewise,
Plaintiff believes He is correct to conclude that Section 6067 also requires
each and every certificate of oath to be a physical document, like a
California driver’s license, and not merely the verbal or implied
“certification” of some governmental authority, e.g. verbal power of
attorney.
Plaintiff
also believes He is correct to conclude that the term “certificate” as used in
Section 6067 requires the oath to be certified in proper form.
Plaintiff
sincerely believes that uncertified evidence is normally not admissible.
Furthermore,
Plaintiff has studied the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
Section
1746(1) clearly
requires verifications outside the “United States” to be made “under the
laws of the United States of America” [sic].
The
DECLARATION OF WESLEY C.J. EHLERS is made expressly “under penalty of perjury
under the laws of the United States” [sic].
The
“United States” and the “United States of America” are decidedly not one and
the same. See Eisner v. Macomber,
252 U.S. 189 (1920) (Congress cannot change terms used in the U.S.
Constitution.)
Said
federal statute expressly utilizes both terms, and uses them correctly
in contradistinction to each other.
Said
federal statute is also the only statute in all of Title 28 of the United States
Code (“U.S.C.”) where the term “United States of America” is used, as such.
The
term “United States” in section 1746 refers
to the federal government. See the Guarantee Clause, for example.
The
term “United States of America” in section 1746 refers
to the fifty (50) States of the Union, which correspond to the 50 stars on the
American flag. See Article II, Section 1, for
example (“President of the United States of America”).
Plaintiff,
therefore, believes He is correct to conclude that the DECLARATION OF WESLEY
C.J. EHLERS is demonstrably not certified in proper form.
Plaintiff
also believes that substance should prevail over form.
Accordingly,
the facts as stated above do give Plaintiff probable cause to believe that
Wesley C.J. Ehlers presently does not have a valid license to practice
before the courts of the State of California, and that he has not
indorsed the requisite certificate of oath upon any valid license.
Moreover,
the facts as stated above do give Plaintiff probable cause to conclude that
Wesley C.J. Ehlers is not lawfully admitted to practice in the United
States District Court, Eastern District of California, and that, in his
DECLARATION OF WESLEY C.J. EHLERS supra, it is likely that Wesley C.J.
Ehlers has now committed perjury, in fact.
The
DECLARATION OF WESLEY C.J. EHLERS also fails to state that he is admitted to
practice in the District Court of the United
States for the Eastern Judicial District of California, i.e. this
Court.
Plaintiff’s
Initial COMPLAINT
specifically petitions the latter Article
III Court, and not the Article IV United States
District Court (“USDC”). See Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298,
312 (1922), for a clear and unequivocal authority on this point.
In
the year 1997 A.D., Plaintiff authored Gilbertson’s OPENING BRIEF to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Topic “E” in that
OPENING BRIEF covers this point in some detail; it is found at Internet URL:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/opening.htm#topic-e
Accordingly,
in light of all the above, and contrary to the DECLARATION OF
WESLEY C.J. EHLERS supra, Plaintiff therefore believes He is correct
also to conclude that Mr. Ehlers does not have a valid license to practice
law before the courts of the State of California, and that Mr. Ehlers is also not
admitted to practice in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern
Judicial District of California, i.e. this Court.
Furthermore,
Plaintiff’s COUNT TWO
alleges Lanham Act
violations.
Plaintiff
has carefully studied the pertinent federal laws and believes He is legally
correct to conclude that the federal court with original jurisdiction to hear
claims arising under the Lanham Act was the
District Court of the United States (“DCUS”)
in 1946 A.D. and not the United States District Court (“USDC”). See 60 Stat. 440
(correctly cited in Plaintiff’s Initial
COMPLAINT, Page 29 of 43, line 11).
Plaintiff
believes He is correct in stating that California was admitted to the Union
circa 1849 A.D. and it was a State of the Union, and not a
federal Territory, in the year 1946 A.D.
According
to Plaintiff’s current information, knowledge, and belief, the Act of June 25,
1948, was the very first time that the United States District Court (“USDC”) ever existed anywhere
in California State. See 28 U.S.C. 132.
In
the year 1946 A.D., when the Lanham Act was first
enacted and two (2) years before the Act of June 25, 1948, the only
federal court with original jurisdiction to hear Lanham Act claims in
California was the DCUS, and not the USDC! 60 Stat.
440.
Plaintiff
has carefully reviewed the history of amendments to this latter statute, and believes
He is legally correct to conclude that the federal court with original
jurisdiction of Lanham
Act claims has remained unchanged in California and is still the
constitutional Article III District
Court of the United States (“DCUS”),
and not the legislative Article
IV United States District Court (“USDC”).
Lastly,
on December 14, 2001 A.D., Plaintiff witnessed the Clerk of Court issue numerous
SUBPOENAS IN A CIVIL CASE for the subscriber identities and activity logs of
certain named Defendants, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 512(h), and
for certain licenses to practice law with oaths of office endorsed thereon,
pursuant to Section 6067 of the California Business and Professions Code.
The
Clerk of Court issued one of the latter SUBPOENAS to Wesley C.J. Ehlers,
commanding him to produce and permit inspection and copying of his license to
practice law, with oath of office endorsed thereon, at the place, date and time
specified, namely: the DCUS, Sacramento, 10:00 a.m. on February 15, 2002 A.D.
On
December 18, 2001 A.D., Plaintiff mailed said SUBPOENA to Wesley C.J.
Ehlers via Priority U.S. Mail, with Delivery Confirmation.
Plaintiff
later confirmed delivery of said SUBPOENA at 8:29 a.m. on December 21, 2001
A.D., by accessing the website of the United States Postal Service at
http://www.usps.com.
Plaintiff
believes He is legally correct to expect that attorneys can be called upon to
testify, even though their testimony might establish violations of their oaths
of office (if any) and of their duties as attorneys. See Johnson v. State Bar of California, 52 P.2d 928, 4
C.2d 744 (1936).
Plaintiff
reserves His fundamental Right to amend or to supplement this Affidavit, at
future times and places of His choosing.
This
concludes Plaintiff’s Affidavit on this matter, at this time.
I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, Plaintiff in the
above entitled action, hereby verify under penalty of perjury, under the laws
of the United States of America, without the “United States”
(federal government), that the above statement of facts and laws is true and
correct, according to the best of My current information, knowledge, and
belief, so help me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
Dated: January 13, 2002 A.D.
Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
___________________________________________
Printed:
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A.,
M.S., Sui Juris
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):
AUTHOR’S AFFIDAVIT CONTESTING
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:
Clerk of Court (2
copies)
District Court of the United States
501 “I” Street, Suite 4-200
Sacramento 95814-2322
CALIFORNIA, USA
Courtesy copies to:
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 95814-1319 Sacramento 95814-4419
CALIFORNIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA
Curiale Dellaverson Hirschfeld Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart Oliver
Kraemer & Sloan, LLP & Hedges, LLP
(oaths requested)
(oaths requested)
727 Sansome Street 201 Sansome Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco 94111 San Francisco 94104
CALIFORNIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA
Dated: January 15,
2002 A.D.
Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew
Mitchell
__________________________________________________
Printed: Paul
Andrew Mitchell, Plaintiff In Propria Persona
(not “Pro Se” [sic])