TO:       Thomas E. McCarthy, Foreman

          San Diego County Grand Jury

          Hall of Justice

          330 W. Broadway, Suite 477

          San Diego 92101-3830



FROM:     People of California ex rel.

          Paul Andrew Mitchell

          Private Attorney General and Plaintiff

          Superior Court of California #GIC807057


DATE:     May 4, 2004 A.D.


SUBJECT:  Grand Jury File # 2003/04-070



Dear Mr. McCarthy:


Late this afternoon, I received your letter dated April 30, 2004.  Thank you.


Please be informed that my MEMO dated May 3, 2004 A.D. with attachments was shipped to your office earlier today via United Parcel Service;  the latter package should arrive shortly.


I now incorporate my MEMO dated May 3, 2004 A.D., and all of its attachments, as if set forth fully here (that MEMO is attached).


I am writing this time to request your reconsideration of my Complaint dated April 12, 2004 A.D., for reasons including, but not limited to, all of the following:


(1)           Section 6067 of the California Business and Professions Code is very clear in requiring all members of The State Bar of California to have indorsed a certificate of oath upon their licenses to practice law;


(2)           in good faith, I have now provided your offices with citations proving that a license to practice law in California must be a physical document that exhibits each of the specific requirements as stated in section 6067;


(3)           within the governmental jurisdictions over which the Grand Jury does admit to having jurisdiction, as itemized in your letter dated April 26, 2004, government agencies employ numerous attorneys who must obey section 6067, or be in violation of sections 6068, 6126, 6127 and 6128 of the California Business and Professions Code (i.e. misdemeanors, contempt of court and possibly also mail fraud);


(4)           the overdue SUBPOENAs, which I have now certified and shared with you, have given the Grand Jury probable cause to conclude that no valid licenses have been properly indorsed by any current members of The State Bar of California;


(5)           in light of point (4), probable cause now exists to question whether or not any counsel(s) advising the Grand Jury have failed to obey section 6067 (including possibly yourself);


(6)           furthermore, as the U.S. Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit have both held, in standing decisions by those Courts, State courts have original jurisdiction of Civil RICO actions brought under 18 U.S.C. 1964(a);


(7)           specifically, 18 U.S.C. 1961(1)(A) refers to violations of the California Penal Code which also qualify as “predicate acts” to racketeering;  the Grand Jury necessarily has jurisdiction over all of the State law violations embraced by that federal RICO statute;


(8)           likewise, all of the federal offenses itemized at 18 U.S.C. 1961(1)(B) also fall with the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury, pursuant to Tafflin v. Levitt and Lou v. Belzberg.


I do not mean to be unnecessarily argumentative with this REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION.  However, in good faith I do believe I have already proven to you that the matters documented in my Complaint are properly within the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury.


Moreover, even though the statewide implications of section 6067 are evidently very far-reaching, this is no reason for the Grand Jury to shirk from its lawful duties as an essential government institution established to be a “watch dog” over the very kinds of abuses which I have now fully documented.


If you are claiming to be a member of The State Bar of California, I hereby request that you disclose same, in writing, due to the obvious conflict of interest that arises from that claim.



Thank you, once again, for your professional consideration.



Sincerely yours,


/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell


Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Private Attorney General and Plaintiff

Superior Court of California docket #GIC807057