Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
c/o MBE PMB #332
501 W. Broadway, Suite “A”
San Diego 92101
CALIFORNIA, USA
tel: (619) 234-5252 (msg)
fax: (619) 234-5272
In Propria Persona
All Rights Reserved
without Prejudice
JUDICIAL COUNCIL
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re Charge of ) No. 02-89005
)
Judicial Misconduct ) REFUSAL OF ORDER AND MEMORANDUM
) FOR FRAUD AND OTHER CAUSES,
) BY AFFIDAVIT:
)
___________________________________) 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
COMES NOW Paul Andrew Mitchell, Complainant in the above
entitled matter, to refuse this Council’s ORDER AND
MEMORANDUM filed in error on March 26, 2002, for causes including, but not
limited to, fraud upon this honorable Council and related fundamental errors.
There is no statute of limitations for fraud.
Complainant is not a “pro se litigant” [sic]. “Se” is a neuter Latin pronoun
with no application to Complainant whatsoever.
Complainant is not now, and never has been, “neuter” [sic] and He
appears in this and related cases In Propria Persona (in His Proper
Person). Cf. the Qualifications Clauses in the U.S.
Constitution.
The ORDER AND MEMORANDUM supra
is misleading, to say the least, because the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 636 does not
authorize any United States magistrate judges to preside in any capacity whatsoever
on the Article III District Court of the United States (“DCUS”).
The United States District Court (“USDC”) is a legislative tribunal
with a constitutional origin in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution. See Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S.
298, 312 (1922).
Statutes conferring original jurisdiction on federal
district courts must be strictly construed [cites in INFORMAL OPENING BRIEF].
There is absolutely no mention of the DCUS anywhere
in the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 636. The USDC is mentioned several times
in that statute, however.
A careful review of the docket sheet in Mitchell v. AOL
Time Warner, Inc. et al., Ninth Circuit appeal #02-15269,
does not reveal that any assigned Article III judge ever
referred that matter to Mr. Dale A. Drozd.
This Council again makes a plain error in this regard.
No ORDER OF REFERENCE was ever issued by the DCUS, or ever
executed, filed or served on any of the proper parties in that case. See APPELLANT’S
INFORMAL OPENING BRIEF for further discussion concerning the missing ORDER
OF REFERENCE. Cf. FRCP Form 34A.
Moreover, there is no Presidential Commission in evidence
to establish conclusively that Mr. William B. Shubb was duly appointed to
preside on such cases as Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.
in the DCUS for the Eastern Judicial District of California. See, for example, the Lanham Act at 60 Stat. 440.
Complainant made every effort, by means of a proper and
lawful request under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), to obtain a certified copy of said
commission from the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), because DOJ is the
legal custodian of same.
The FOIA creates a federal cause of action when properly
invoked. See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B)
(confers original jurisdiction on the DCUS).
No offices in the legislative or judicial
branches of the federal government are designated by law to be the legal
custodians of the Presidential Commissions of any federal judges.
And, DOJ was unable to produce a proper Presidential
Commission appointing Mr. William B. Shubb to the District Court of the United
States for the Eastern Judicial District of California.
The defendants in appeal #02-15269
never filed any proper motions to dismiss, because the attorneys they
hired to represent them failed to produce the credentials required by
California State laws.
See U.S. v. High Country Broadcasting, 3 F.3d 1244
(9th Cir. 1993) (entry of default judgment was proper when an
unlicensed corporate president attempted to represent his corporation in court).
In particular, proper SUBPOENA’s IN A CIVIL CASE commanded
certain of those attorneys to produce valid certificates of oath indorsed upon
their licenses to practice law in the State of California, as required by section 6067 of the California Business
and Professions Code (“CBPC”).
All of those attorneys, without exception, have failed
timely to exhibit the credentials required by CBPC section 6067. Their failure to do so has given this Council probable cause to
investigate all such attorneys for misdemeanor violations of CBPC section 6126,
and contempt of court in violation of CBPC section 6127.
Complainant’s proper and timely COMPLAINT did not object only
to the so-called findings and recommendations entered by Mr. Drozd. Complainant also itemized several other
specious “orders” which Mr. Drozd attempted to issue and enter ultra vires
and coram non judice. Thus, this
Council’s ORDER AND MEMORANDUM is quite
misleading.
Chief among these was his specious “order” filed Nov. 15,
2001, in which Mr. Drozd attempted ultra vires and coram non judice
to “deny” Complainant’s MOTION TO STRIKE ALL
PLEADINGS BY ATTORNEYS LACKING CREDENTIALS and also Complainant’s MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT AND
CHALLENGE TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS.
Said specious “order” was clearly conduct prejudicial to
the effective and expeditious administration of justice, but this Council’s
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM fails to mention the latter 2 MOTION’s.
Complainant never consented to civil jurisdiction by any
United States magistrate judges. For
this reason alone, Mr. Drozd never enjoyed any civil jurisdiction to
issue dispositive rulings on the latter 2 MOTION’s. His specious “orders” issued from the USDC also.
This Council’s failure to address the latter two MOTION’s
is all the more serious and prejudicial to Complainant, in light of the fact
that Mr. Drozd was likewise unable to produce any certificate of oath properly
indorsed upon his license to practice law in the State of California ‑‑
a legal prerequisite to the office of magistrate judge.
It follows necessarily from his failure to do so that Mr.
Drozd was never qualified to occupy the office of United States magistrate
judge, in the first instance.
The United States ex rel. Paul Andrew Mitchell has
now petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a
prerogative Writ in the nature of a Quo Warranto, to dispose of this
matter judicially, once and for all.
Complainant herein specifically denies that Mr. Dale A.
Drozd was ever duly appointed to preside as a United States magistrate judge on
the District Court of the United States (“DCUS”) for the Eastern Judicial
District of California, in Sacramento.
Complainant herein also specifically denies that Mr.
William B. Shubb was ever duly commissioned to preside as a United States
District Judge on the District Court of the United States (“DCUS”) for the
Eastern Judicial District of California, in Sacramento.
This Council’s ORDER AND MEMORANDUM filed on March 26, 2002
A.D., therefore, wrongly assumes facts that are simply not in evidence.
For all of the bona fide causes itemized and
justified above, Complainant now refuses said ORDER
AND MEMORANDUM.
Complainant now incorporates by reference Attachment “A”:
Authorities in re Presidential Commissions, as if set forth fully
here, e.g. Legerton v. Chambers, 163 P. 678, 32 Cal.App.
601 (1917).
Complainant also incorporates by reference Attachment “B”: Complainant’s MEMO to the Hon. Mary Schroeder,
Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, dated December 23, 2002 A.D.,
as if set forth fully here, with copies also of its separate attachments.
I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, Complainant 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: December
23, 2002 A.D.
Signed: /s/ Paul
Andrew Mitchell
____________________________________________________
Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Complainant In Propria
Persona
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):
REFUSAL OF ORDER
AND MEMORANDUM
FOR FRAUD AND
OTHER CAUSES,
BY AFFIDAVIT:
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
[Please see USPS Publication #221 for “addressing”
instructions.]
Dated: December
24, 2002 A.D.
Signed: /s/ Paul
Andrew Mitchell
____________________________________________________
Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Complainant In Propria
Persona
Authorities in re Presidential Commissions
Authorities in re Presidential Commissions
When person has been nominated to office by President, confirmed by Senate, and his commission signed by President, with seal of United States affixed thereto, his appointment is complete.
[U.S. v. LeBaron, 60 U.S. 73, 19 How. 73 (1856)]
[15 L.Ed. 525 (1856), bold emphasis added]
The commissions of judicial officers ... appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate ... shall be made out and recorded in the Department of Justice under the seal of that department and countersigned by the Attorney General.
[5 U.S.C. 2902(c), bold emphasis added]
Federal circuit and district judges are among the “other officers of the United States” required to be nominated by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
[Thomson v. Robb, 328 S.E.2d 136, 140, hn. 3]
[229 Va. 233 (Va. 1985)]
From this clause [2:2:2] the Constitution must be understood to declare that all offices of the United States, except in cases where the Constitution itself may otherwise provide, shall be established by law.
[U.S. v. Maurice, 2 Brock, U.S., 96]
[26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,747]
... [W]here the law requires a commission to be issued, the person selected is not entitled to the office until the commission issues, and he cannot be legally qualified by taking the required oath until he has received his commission.
[Legerton v. Chambers, 163 P. 678, 32 Cal.App. 601 (1917)]
[Magruder v. Tuck, 25 Md. 217]
[bold emphasis added]
The commission is in law prima facie proof of the right of the judge to enter on and perform the duties of his office.
[State v. Montague, 130 S.E. 838, 190 N.C. 841]
[Sylvia Lake Co. v. Northern Ore Co., 151 N.E. 158]
[242 N.Y. 144, cert. den. 273 U.S. 695]
It [commission] is the highest and best evidence of his right to the office until, on quo warranto or a proceeding of that nature, is annulled by judicial determination.
[Thompson v. Holt, 52 Ala. 491]
[bold emphasis added]
Without taking the oath prescribed by law, one cannot become a judge either de jure or de facto, and such an individual is without authority to act and his acts as such are void until he has taken the prescribed oath.
[French v. State, 572 S.W.2d 934]
[Brown v. State, 238 S.W.2d 787]
Law requires the judge selected to take an oath of office.
[U.S. ex rel. Scott v. Babb]
[199 F.2d 804 (7th Cir. 1952)]
# # #
Complainant’s MEMO to Hon. Mary Schroeder,
Chief Judge, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Dated: December 23,
2002 A.D.
MEMO
TO: Hon. Mary Schroeder, Chief Judge
c/o Cathy A. Catterson, Clerk of Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
P.O. Box 193939
San Francisco 94119-3939
CALIFORNIA, USA
FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General and Plaintiff/Appellant
Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al. #02-15269
DATE: December 23, 2002 A.D.
SUBJECT: consensual reference of civil cases to a magistrate
Greetings Chief Judge Schroeder:
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours!
In the course of continuing research into the many issues of fact and law that have arisen in the above entitled case, I was pleasantly surprised to come across your informative dissent in the case of Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic, Inc. v. Instromedix, Inc., 725 F.2d 537 (9th Cir. 1984).
In your dissent in the latter case, you wrote, “Consensual reference of civil cases to a magistrate violates the Constitution.”
Arguendo, I would be very interested to know if you would also agree with the following propositions:
(1) non-consensual reference of civil cases to a magistrate violates the Constitution, i.e. no consent by parties;
(2) usurpation of civil cases by a magistrate violates the Constitution, i.e. without an ORDER OF REFERENCE; and,
(3) impersonating a magistrate in a civil case violates the Constitution, i.e. without the requisite credentials.
I am posing these additional situations, because each has now occurred in appeal #02-15269: all parties did not consent to a magistrate; there is no ORDER OF REFERENCE on record (see FRCP Form 34A); and, Mr. Drozd lacks the credentials required by California State laws.
I am very pleased to learn that you do regard the Constitution to be the controlling law in such situations.
Your prompt and professional reply will be most appreciated, and it will be served on all interested parties and also posted on the Internet, for our further edification.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General and Plaintiff/Appellant
U.S. Mail:
c/o MBE PMB #332
501 West Broadway, Suite “A”
San Diego 92101
CALIFORNIA, USA
copy: Judge Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit (supervising)
attachments:
NOTICE OF REFUSAL FOR CAUSE BY AFFIDAVIT, September 27, 2002 A.D.
FINAL NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR PROOF OF APPOINTMENT
AND DESIGNATION, September 1, 2002 A.D.
NOTICE OF REFUSAL FOR CAUSE
BY AFFIDAVIT
TO: Administrative Office of the United States Courts
Attention: Kathryn Marrone, Staff Attorney
Magistrate Judges Division
One Columbus Circle, N.E.
Washington 20544
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA
FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General and Plaintiff/Appellant,
Mitchell
v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.
Ninth Circuit appeal #02-15269
DATE: September 27, 2002 A.D.
SUBJECT: Formal Refusal of your letter dated September 18, 2002
Greetings Ms. Marrone:
In My FINAL NOTICE AND DEMAND dated September 1, 2002 A.D., I specifically required timely exhibition and certification of any and all documentary evidence that:
a federal judge did attempt to appoint Mr. Dale A. Drozd to the office of United States magistrate judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 631(a) (or any other lawful authority);
and that:
a federal judge did attempt, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) (or any other lawful authority), to designate Mr. Dale A. Drozd to conduct hearings and submit findings of fact and conclusions of law in My case, now pending before the Ninth Circuit.
Your letter of September 18, 2002 is fatally defective, for all of the following reasons, to wit:
(1) it is not certified under penalty of perjury (uncertified documents are not admissible);
(2) it does not exhibit evidence that a duly commissioned federal judge did lawfully appoint Mr. Dale A. Drozd to the office of United States magistrate judge (no such judge is identified anywhere in your letter of September 18, 2002); and,
(3) it does not exhibit evidence that a duly commissioned federal judge did designate Mr. Dale A. Drozd to conduct hearings and submit findings of facts and conclusions of law in My case, now pending before the Ninth Circuit (see ORDER OF REFERENCE, Form 34A in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).
Moreover, My original NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE did not request from you copy(s) of any signed oath(s) of office. I do, however, expressly reserve My fundamental Right to compel disclosure of any and all such oaths of office, pursuant to Article VI, Clause 3 (“6:3”) in the U.S. Constitution as lawfully amended.
Finally, as stated in My original NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 631(b)(1) requires each U.S. magistrate judge to have been ‑‑ for at least five (5) years ‑‑ a member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a State.
After My diligent and good faith efforts to obtain his certificate of oath indorsed upon his license to practice law in the State of California, as mandated by § 6067 of the California Business and Professions Code, all notified parties have failed to produce any such license, indorsement or certificate for Mr. Drozd, or any such license, indorsement or certificate executed by Mr. Drozd.
Therefore, I am now entitled to proceed on the basis of all the above, and to conclude therefrom, that Mr. Drozd was never a member in good standing of the State Bar of California and, consequently, he was never qualified to be appointed to the office of United States magistrate judge in the first instance.
His claim to the office of United States magistrate judge now assumes facts not in evidence.
Since you have had more than sufficient time to answer My NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE and/or to request clarification or additional time to answer, I now invoke the doctrine of estoppel against your office. From this point forward, I hereby assert My right to bar any future correspondence from your office in the matter of the credentials required by Law of Mr. Dale A. Drozd.
VERIFICATION
I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, Appellant 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: September
27, 2002 A.D.
Signed: /s/ Paul
Andrew Mitchell
___________________________________________
Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Sui Juris
Appellant In
Propria Persona (not “Pro Se”)
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):
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 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
CALIFORNIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA
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
CALIFORNIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA
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
CALIFORNIA, USA
Karl Kleinpaste Ram Samudrala
P.O. Box 1551 UW Micro Box 357242
Beaver Falls 15010 Seattle 98195-7242
PENNSYLVANIA, USA WASHINGTON STATE, USA
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
CALIFORNIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA
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
CALIFORNIA, USA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA
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
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA
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
CALIFORNIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA
[Please see USPS Publication #221 for “addressing”
instructions.]
Dated: September
27, 2002 A.D.
Signed: /s/ Paul
Andrew Mitchell
__________________________________________________
Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell,
Appellant In Propria Persona
FINAL NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR
PROOF OF APPOINTMENT AND DESIGNATION
TO: Mr. Jack L. Wagner, Clerk of Court
District Court of the United States
501 “I” Street, Suite 4-200
Sacramento 95814-2322
CALIFORNIA, USA
Mr. Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Director
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building
One Columbus Circle, N.E.
Washington 20544
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA
Mr. James. S. Carroll, III, Assistant Director
Executive Office for United States Attorneys
Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Unit
600 “E” Street, N.W., Room 7300
Washington 20530
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Hon. Mary M. Schroeder, Chief Judge
c/o Cathy A. Catterson, Clerk of Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
P.O. Box 193939
San Francisco 94119-3939
CALIFORNIA, USA
FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Plaintiff/Appellant
Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.
Ninth Circuit docket #02-15269 and 372(c) #02-89005
DATE: September 1, 2002 A.D.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
To date, neither the office of the Clerk of the federal district court in Sacramento, California, nor the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts in Washington, D.C., nor the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., nor the State Bar of California, nor the Clerk of the California Supreme Court, has been able to produce any of the credentials which Mr. Dale A. Drozd (hereinafter “Mr. Drozd”) must have, in order for him to occupy the office of United States magistrate judge in Sacramento, California State.
I refer all of you specifically to the form letter I received from Mr. James S. Carroll, III, dated April 24, 2002, in which he appeared to err by alleging that My request sought public records which may be obtained from the clerk of the court. This appeared to be an error, because the U.S. Department of Justice (in the Executive Branch) is the legal custodian of all Presidential Commissions appointing federal judges to the bench, not any office in the Judicial Branch.
Thus, the clerk of court is not the legal custodian of any such Presidential Commissions. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 2104(a)(1)(A) and 2902(c).
On April 26, 2002 A.D., Mr. Drozd signed and filed another specious “order” in which he formally acknowledged My allegations that, in his case, no jurisdiction, no license, no oath, no certificate, and no commission have been produced by any personnel employed by any of the above federal offices to which this NOTICE AND DEMAND are now addressed.
And, in that specious “order” of April 26, 2002, Mr. Drozd offered absolutely no rebuttal(s) or denial(s) whatsoever that no (civil) jurisdiction existed, no license (to practice law) existed, no oath (of office) existed, no certificate (of oath) existed, and no (presidential) commission existed. I never consented to civil jurisdiction by any United States magistrate judges.
I refer you now to the cases which have held that a Presidential Commission is required for all judges of the Supreme Court, Circuit Courts, and District Courts. For Mr. Drozd to exercise any lawful authorities of a district judge, such as denying My MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT, the Law requires that he be commissioned by the President, and have a life-time appointment. Neither is the case, based on the official record before the Ninth Circuit at the present time. See the Appointments Clause in the U.S. Constitution (“2:2:2”).
So, I believe that
sufficient evidence has already been certified that Mr. Drozd is not now, and
never was, a district judge.
The question remains, therefore, whether or not Mr. Drozd is now, or ever was, a United States magistrate judge. Please note well the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 631(a) requires that judges of each United States District Court shall appoint all United States magistrate judges; the statute at 28 U.S.C. 631(b)(1) requires each such magistrate judge to have been ‑‑ for at least five (5) years ‑‑ a member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a State.
Provided that they are qualified and duly appointed, a federal judge may then, and only then, designate such magistrate judges to conduct hearings and to submit to a judge proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B).
My demand for his certificate of oath, properly indorsed upon his license to practice law, was My earnest and good faith attempt to determine whether or not Mr. Drozd was ever qualified to be appointed to the office of United States magistrate judge, in the first instance. Evidently, Mr. Drozd was not so qualified.
Section 6067 of the California Business and Professions Code mandates that a certificate of oath shall be indorsed upon a license to practice law in the State of California. When no such certificate was produced by Mr. Drozd, nor by the State Bar of California, nor by the Clerk of the California Supreme Court, I was thereby entitled to conclude that Mr. Drozd was never qualified to be appointed to the office of United States magistrate judge, in the first instance.
To date, I have not requested any evidence that Mr. Drozd has been duly appointed or designated under 28 U.S.C. 631(a) or 636(b)(1)(B), respectively, because the matter of his qualifications came first. If he was never qualified, then no appointment or designation by any federal judge could have been valid, or lawful, in the first instance.
Nevertheless, before I satisfy the legal requirements imposed upon me by the federal criminal statute at 18 U.S.C. 4 (misprision of felony), and before I formally charge Mr. Drozd with impersonating a federal officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 912 (a felony), I wish to confirm, once and for all, whether or not certain documentary evidence exists.
Documentary evidence may indicate that a federal judge did attempt to appoint Mr. Drozd to the office of United States magistrate judge, and/or that a federal judge did attempt to designate Mr. Drozd to conduct hearings and submit findings of fact and conclusions of law in My case, now pending before the Ninth Circuit. I would regard such documentary evidence as a factor mitigating the charge I now intend to file against Mr. Drozd, for impersonating a federal officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. 912, and I do intend to supplement My Complaint of Judicial Misconduct with said evidence (if available).
Accordingly, I hereby demand the timely exhibition and certification of any and all documentary evidence that a federal judge did attempt to appoint Mr. Dale A. Drozd to the office of United States magistrate judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 631(a) (or any other lawful authority).
I also demand the timely exhibition and certification of any and all documentary evidence that a federal judge did attempt, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) (or any other lawful authority), to designate Mr. Dale A. Drozd to conduct hearings and submit findings of fact and conclusions of law in My case, now pending before the Ninth Circuit.
I am giving each of you a reasonable deadline of thirty (30) calendar days hence, which deadline is 5:00 p.m. on September 30, 2002 A.D., to produce the documentary evidence itemized above. Beyond that deadline, your silence will constitute fraud, pursuant to the court holding in U.S. v. Tweel, and it will also activate estoppel, pursuant to the court holding in Carmine v. Bowen (cites on the Internet).
Please be advised that I intend to file your answer(s), if any, in the Ninth Circuit docket assigned to My Complaint of Judicial Misconduct against Mr. Drozd, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 372(c). That docket number is #02‑89005. I also intend to testify to your silence, in the event that no answers are forthcoming from all of you, or any one of you.
Thank you for your timely professional consideration.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Plaintiff and Appellant
Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/index.htm
copies: Judge Alex Kozinski (supervising)
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
P.O. Box 91510
Pasadena 91109-1510
CALIFORNIA, USA
Hon. Jan Scully, District Attorney
Office of the District Attorney
County of Sacramento
901 “G” Street
Sacramento 95814
CALIFORNIA, USA
U.S. Mail care of:
Dr. John C. Alden, M.D., Eyewitness
350 – 30th Street, Suite 444
Oakland 94609-3426
CALIFORNIA, USA