DEMAND FOR PROOF OF
POWER(S) OF ATTORNEY
TO: Specific Named Defendants
FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Plaintiff/Appellant
DATE: February 21, 2003 A.D.
SUBJECT: Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.
Ninth Circuit appeal #02-15269
On December 14, 2001 A.D., the federal District Clerk in Sacramento, California, issued lawful SUBPOENA’s to certain defense counsel who were retained in the above entitled case, for the certificates of oath that are required to be indorsed upon all licenses to practice law in the State of California.
A reasonable deadline of sixty (60) calendar days was provided for production of all certificates, and also all licenses to practice law, that were commanded by those SUBPOENA’s.
As of February 15, 2002 A.D., not one certificate of oath was docketed or served upon me via U.S. Mail, or by any other means.
Also, not one license to practice law was docketed or served upon me via U.S. Mail, or by any other means, on or before that deadline.
Nor have any of either documents been docketed or served upon me subsequent to that deadline of February 15, 2002 A.D.
In light of their failures to produce the documents that are required by section 6067 of the California Business and Professions Code (“CBPC”), I have now formally charged the attorneys in question with misdemeanors in violation of CBPC section 6126. They are also suspected now of contempt of court ‑‑ for violating CBPC section 6127, and sanctions may have accumulated for a full year already.
These extraordinary events have also given me probable cause to conclude that they are now abusing U.S. Mail ‑‑ by continuing to transmit documents in envelopes bearing text and other marks by which they intend to convey the false and misleading notion that they are properly licensed to practice law in the State of California.
Mail fraud is a predicate act to racketeering, pursuant to the list of RICO predicate acts that are itemized at 18 U.S.C. 1961(1)(B).
Therefore, please be advised that I will now refuse all future mail from all unlicensed attorneys, unless you indicate to me in writing that you have expressly authorized specific unlicensed attorneys to send and receive U.S. Mail on your behalf, despite their failure to exhibit the requisite credentials.
It has become an extraordinary and also unnecessary burden for me to enforce CBPC section 6067 against each and every defense attorney in this case, in addition to all other tasks required of me.
I believe that the burden is now upon you: (1) to confirm whether or not any candidates for counsel are properly licensed, (2) to do so before you retain them, and (3) to do so before you consummate any other contract(s) for their professional services. Caveat emptor!
Accordingly, if you do retain any new counsel to represent you in the above entitled case, I will henceforth require that you transmit to me a certified copy of that counsel’s properly indorsed license to practice law, and that you do so before that counsel attempts to make any formal court appearances on your behalf. I do not believe that I need to define legal representation any further here.
If any counsel should attempt to appear on your behalf without your first having transmitted that certified copy to me, I will regard such an omission as evidence of your willful and premeditated complicity in their misdemeanor violation(s) of CBPC section 6126, and also in their contempt(s) of court in violation of CBPC section 6127.
I believe this procedure will be fair and equitable to all concerned.
I certainly wish to obviate situations that might implicate you directly in any further RICO predicate acts. However, I am unable to conceive of any better way to proceed without also increasing my costs of this lawsuit, and my other consequential damages, at the same time.
In the long run, this procedure should also minimize liabilities all around, and that is an admirable objective which I have attempted consistently to achieve from the very start of this case.
In closing, I take leave to recommend that you make contact with all underwriters who may have already been paid to indemnify you or your unlicensed counsel(s) for specific claims of legal malpractice, such as fraud and misrepresentation. I remain open to the possibility of a 4-way structured settlement which yields funds payable directly by those underwriters to me and/or my assigns in this matter.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General and Plaintiff/Appellant
copies: Judge Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit (supervising)
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Supreme Court (supervising)
Dr. John C. Alden, M.D., eyewitness