Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris

c/o P.O. Box 370

Sunset Beach 90742

CALIFORNIA, USA

In Propria Persona

without Prejudice

United States Court of Appeals

Ninth Circuit

Paul Andrew Mitchell, ) Appeal No. 02-15269

)

Plaintiff/Appellant, ) NOTICE OF CHALLENGE TO THE

) CONSTITUTIONALITY OF AN

v. ) ACT OF CONGRESS:

)

AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., ) 28 U.S.C. 2072(b);

) FRAP Rule 44

Defendants/Appellees.)

_______________________________)

COMES NOW Paul Andrew Mitchell, Plaintiff in the above entitled case, Citizen of California, Private Attorney General and Federal Witness, to challenge the constitutionality of the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 2072(b), and to provide formal written Notice to all interested Party(s) and to the Circuit Clerk, pursuant to Rule 44 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (“FRAP”).

Appellant hereby incorporates His MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT, AND CHALLENGE TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS, and His FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT AND CHALLENGE TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS, as previously filed in the official record of the District Court of the United States, as if both were set forth fully herein.

The legislative history of 28 U.S.C. 2072 contains evidence that the U.S. House of Representatives had serious doubts about its constitutionality as recently as 1988 A.D. An amendment in that year produced the present subsections (a) and (b). In his “Commentary on 1988 and 1990 Revisions,” author David D. Siegel writes:

The second sentence of the new subdivision (b) of section 2072 was a key player in the 1988 act. It’s the famous supersession clause, purporting to subordinate all “laws”, including Acts of Congress, to the rules promulgated under subdivision (a). It was the wish of the House of Representatives that the supersession clause be repealed and that a more circumspect substitution be made for it. (See page 3 of House Report 100-889, dated August 26, 1988, and Representative Kastenmeier’s comments on the subject at page 27-28.) But the Senate would not go along, and the amended section 2072(b) preserves the supersession clause without even a verbal alteration. Viewing the supersession clause as “unwise and potentially unconstitutional” in its permitting the rules to “trump” existing statutes, Representative Kastenmeier confessed his disappointment at the Senate’s refusal to go along with its repeal, which he called “the single most important reform” contained in the House Bill. (Congressional Record, October 19, 1988, H-10440).

[28 U.S.C.A. 2072, Historical and Statutory Notes]

[bold emphasis added]

REMEDY REQUESTED

Pursuant to FRAP Rule 44, the Circuit Clerk will kindly certify the fact of Appellant’s challenge herein to the United States Attorney General.

VERIFICATION

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: February 28, 2002 A.D.

Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

___________________________________________

Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Sui Juris

Plaintiff In Propria Persona (not “Pro Se”)

PROOF OF SERVICE

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):

NOTICE OF CHALLENGE TO THE

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS:

28 U.S.C. 2072(b); FRAP Rule 44

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

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

(oaths requested) (oaths requested)

727 Sansome Street 201 Sansome Street, 6^th Floor

San Francisco 94111 San Francisco 94104

CALIFORNIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA

Office of the General Counsel Paul Southworth

University of California 2018 N. New Hampshire Ave.

1111 Franklin Street, 8th Floor Los Angeles 90027

Oakland 94607-5200 CALIFORNIA, USA

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

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

3 Embarcadero Center, Ste. 1060 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

San Francisco 94111 Room 5614

CALIFORNIA, USA Washington 20530-0001

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA

Dated: March 1, 2002 A.D.

Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

__________________________________________________

Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Plaintiff In Propria Persona

(not “Pro Se” [sic])