TO:       Ms. Bonnie Dumanis

          Office of the District Attorney

          330 West Broadway

          San Diego 92101



FROM:     Paul Andrew Mitchell, Plaintiff

          Superior Court of California #GIC807057


DATE:     June 24, 2004 A.D.


SUBJECT:  evidence of perjury as requested by the duty officer

          at the intake screening on June 23, 2004 A.D.


Greetings Ms. Dumanis:


On the good advice of Sgt. Martinez in the Court Services Bureau of the San Diego County Sheriffs, I took steps yesterday to schedule an appointment directly with you concerning evidence of perjury in the above entitled case.


The duty officer kindly met with me and expressed a need to see the actual evidence, before going any further in this matter.  Because I had only expected to schedule a meeting, I did not have that evidence with me, so I rushed to my office and returned with very little time for the duty officer to review it thoroughly.


After reading some of the material evidence and asking a few pertinent questions, the duty officer requested that I make copies and deliver them to your office, as soon as possible.


Enclosed herewith are the documents that are most relevant and material to the charge of perjury which I now wish to press against Lawrence E. Condit, alleging to be an Arizona attorney.  Mr. Condit has, to date, refused to produce any evidence of any license to practice law in California or in Arizona, however.


I would also like to take this opportunity to request that Mr. Jack Stumsky be excused from working on any matters that I now bring to your attention.  At my appointed meeting with him yesterday, his demeanor towards me was rude, unprofessional, and indicative of someone who had been persuaded to obstruct justice in my cases, and to fabricate a pretense of ignorance.


Last April 9, 2004 A.D., I initiated a separate but related complaint to him at your public counter on the 7th Floor.  We spoke for over 40 minutes, and his willingness to stay after 5:00 p.m. gave me reason to believe that he did understand the facts that I had presented to him.  It is now quite difficult for me to believe that his memory of that meeting has failed completely.


I followed that meeting with Mr. Stumsky by mailing several supporting documents to him, for his information (for example, see attached for an itemized list).  I now wish to request that you also take steps to remove all such documents from his custody, and to take them into your custody henceforth.  Those documents constitute material evidence in an ongoing criminal investigation for which I am responsible.


The U.S. Supreme Court must have been writing about deputies in his position, when they held that public prosecutorial resources are deemed to be inadequate to investigate and prosecute organized crime syndicates.  That inadequacy is the reason why Congress has authorized an award of triple damages to private attorneys general who step into that role.  See Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, 483 U.S. 143, 151 (1987), and the Civil RICO statute at 18 U.S.C. 1964.



Ms. Dumanis, I applaud your stated intent to restore integrity to the Office of the District Attorney, and I look forward to meeting with you at your earliest convenience to expand upon the evidence indicating that fraud and obstruction of justice have occurred in the Superior Court of California in your building.



Sincerely yours,


/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell


Paul Andrew Mitchell

Private Attorney General, Damaged Party and Plaintiff

Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al. (Civil RICO)

Superior Court of California #GIC807057


copy:  Sgt. Martinez, San Diego County Sheriffs