Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris

c/o P.O. Box 370

Sunset Beach 90742



In Propria Persona


All Rights Reserved

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



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  It was the wish of the House of Representatives that the supersession clause be repealed and that a more circumspect substitution be made for it.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]



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



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 (notPro 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):




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



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



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



Karl Kleinpaste                    Ram Samudrala

P.O. Box 1551                      UW Micro Box 357242

Beaver Falls 15010                 Seattle 98195-7242



Laskin & Guenard                   Rivkin Radler, LLP

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

Sacramento 95814                   Santa Rosa 95401-4646



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

         (notPro Se” [sic])