c/o MBE PMB #332

501 W. Broadway, Suite “A”

San Diego 92101

CALIFORNIA, USA

tel: (619) 234-5252

fax: (619) 234-5272

In Propria Persona

without Prejudice

Superior Court of California

San Diego County

Paul Andrew Mitchell, ) Case No. GIC807057

)

Plaintiff, ) VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR

v. ) DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE

) RELIEF AND DAMAGES FROM

AOL Time Warner, Inc., ) RACKETEERING, CONSPIRACY

Adit Seth, ) TO ENGAGE IN A PATTERN OF

Alias “Dimitri”, ) RACKETEERING ACTIVITY,

Anthony L. Hargis, ) AND RELATED CLAIMS;

AOL Prime Host, )

Bob Isaacson, ) JURY DEMANDED:

Burntfork Rural Systems, )

C I Host, ) 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.;

California Institute of Technology, ) 18 U.S.C. 1964

Carnegie-Mellon University, ) (Civil RICO Remedies); and,

Carrie Malcolm, ) International Covenant on

Chris Hansen, ) Civil and Political Rights

Christopher Kankel, ) (enacted by Congress with

Clairvoyance Corporation, ) Specific Reservations)

Cornell University, ) in pari materia with the

Cosmic Awareness Communications, ) Supremacy Clause in the

Cybergate, Inc., ) U.S. Constitution.

Cyborganic Media, )

Dan Turkette, )

Daniel Levy, )

Daniel Schmidt, )

Darren B. Pocsik, )

Dave Alexander, )

David A. Evans, )

David Feustel, )

David Thorburn-Gundlach, )

David W. Starr, )

Donald D. Hoffman, )

Donald E. Wishart, )

Earthlink, Inc., )

Easylink Services Corp., )

Elizabeth Broderick, )

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, )

Eugene A. Burns, )

Florida Institute of Technology, )

Floyd W. Shackelford, )

Four Peaks Technology Groups, )

Gary L. Huss, )

George R. Boyce, )

Herbert Crawford, )

Image’FX Productions, Inc., )

Indiana University, )

Intac Internet Access Corporation, )

Internet Domain DEOXY.ORG, )

Internet Domain NEBONET.COM, )

Internet Online Services, )

Irvin H. Paugh, )

James H. Daugherty, )

James R. Bramson, )

Jason Scott, )

Jeff Head, )

Joe Szemiot, )

John L. Dortch, )

John Kechejian, )

Jonathan Steuer, )

Joseph E. Lepetich, )

Joseph Farah, )

Josh Bempechat, )

Justsystem Corporation, )

Justsystem Pittsburgh Research Center,)

Karl Kleinpaste, )

Kearney, Castillo & Blake, )

Larry Smith, )

Lawrence E. Condit, )

Leander Pearson, )

Lennert Leader, )

Lonnie G. Schmidt, )

Lynne Meredith, )

Mark Keller, )

Maui Global Communications, )

Miami University of Ohio, )

Michael McFarland, )

Midwest Internet Exchange, )

Mike McArthur, )

Mitchell A. Goodkin, )

Msen, Inc., )

Neil T. Nordbrock, )

Network Solutions, Inc., )

Northeastern University, )

ParabolaX Research Group, )

Parascope, Inc., )

Paul Southworth, )

Pennsylvania State University, )

Princeton University, )

Provide Net, )

Ram Samudrala, )

Randall J. Boe, )

Richard J. Harrington, )

Rob Martin, )

Ruffin Prevost, )

Scott Fahlman, )

Sean Strasburg, )

Sheila T. Wallen, )

Simple Network Communications, Inc., )

Snow Hill Enterprises, Inc., )

Sprawlnet.com, Inc., )

Stanford University, )

Stetson University, )

Steve Case, )

TEK Interactive Group, Inc., )

Telalink Corporation, )

Teresa Giordano, )

The Thomson Corporation, )

Thirteen Technologies, LLC, )

Thomson Financial Services, )

Todd R. Eigenschink, )

Tzolkin Corporation, )

University of Arkansas, )

University of California, )

University of Georgia, )

University of Kansas, )

University of Michigan, )

University of Oregon, )

University of Texas, )

University of Wisconsin, )

William D. Rippy, )

William Harrity, )

William M. Kemp, )

WorldNetDaily.com, Inc., )

X Mission, L.C., and )

Doe’s 121 thru 2,500, )

)

Defendants. )

______________________________________)

Page

INTRODUCTION 4

JURISDICTION 5

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 6

STRUCTURE AND INCORPORATION

OF PRIOR PLEADINGS AND EXHIBITS 7

PARTIAL LIST OF RICO PREDICATE ACTS

AND OTHER ACTS OF WITNESS RETALIATION 8

COUNT ONE 9

COUNT TWO 10

COUNT THREE 11

RELIEF REQUESTED:

ON COUNT ONE 12

ON COUNT TWO 14

ON COUNT THREE 16

SUMMARY OF DAMAGES 19

JURY DEMAND 20

LIST OF EXHIBITS 20

VERIFICATION 21

INTRODUCTION

This is a complex civil action for RICO remedies authorized by the federal statutes at 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.; for declaratory and injunctive relief; for actual, consequential and exemplary damages; and for all other relief which this honorable Superior Court deems just and proper under all circumstances which have occasioned this Initial COMPLAINT. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1964(a) and (c) (“Civil RICO”).

The primary cause of this action is a widespread criminal enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity across State lines, and a conspiracy to engage in racketeering activity involving numerous RICO predicate acts during the past ten (10) calendar years.

The predicate acts alleged here cluster around criminal copyright infringement, trafficking in certain goods bearing counterfeit marks, tampering with and retaliation against a qualified Federal Witness, interstate transportation of stolen property, obstruction of justice, obstruction of criminal investigations, obstruction of State and local law enforcement, peonage and slavery. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2319, 2320, 1512, 1513, 2315, 1503, 1510, 1511 and 1581-1588 respectively.

Other RICO predicate acts, although appearing to be isolated events, were actually part of the overall conspiracy and pattern of racketeering activity alleged herein, e.g. mail fraud and bank fraud. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1344, respectively.

The primary objective of the racketeering enterprise has been to inflict severe and sustained economic hardship upon Plaintiff, with the intent of impairing, obstructing, preventing and discouraging Plaintiff from writing, publishing, investigating and conducting judicial activism as a qualified Private Attorney General.

JURISDICTION

This honorable Superior Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to the civil RICO remedies at 18 U.S.C. 1964, and the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (1990), and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, hn. 4 (9^th Cir. 1987) (California State courts have concurrent jurisdiction of civil RICO claims).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 1, 2001 A.D., Plaintiff filed a federal lawsuit in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Judicial District of California (“DCUS”), in Sacramento, alleging five separate counts:

(1) copyright infringement;

(2) trademark infringement;

(3) deprivation of fundamental Rights;

(4) conspiracy to deprive fundamental Rights; and,

(5) unfair competition under California State laws.

That case is now on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where it presently awaits a ruling on Appellant’s MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC and a parallel ruling on an APPLICATION FOR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF A QUO WARRANTO by the United States ex rel.

In anticipation of probable obstruction by federal officers and employees of the United States District Court in Sacramento (“USDC”), Plaintiff reserved COUNT SIX: Civil RICO for adjudication by this Superior Court of California. This action is COUNT SIX+, in effect.

The obstruction anticipated by Plaintiff has now occurred in that federal case, in part by impersonation of Article III federal judges in violation of 18 U.S.C. 912 (a federal felony) and of numerous Ninth Circuit precedents in re civil jurisdiction of U.S. magistrate judges.

As such, federal officers and employees are now among the probable causes that threaten further continuation of the severe economic hardship and other wrongs described above.

It is also apparent to Plaintiff, who hereby makes a formal offer to prove, that the instant action should not be removed into the Article III DCUS because the DCUS is presently vacant, nor should it ever be removed into the Article IV USDC because of demonstrable bias and prejudice among officers and employees of the USDC.

STRUCTURE AND INCORPORATION

OF PRIOR PLEADINGS AND EXHIBITS

Exhibits in the federal case supra were organized by upper‑case letter and number, i.e. Exhibit A‑1 is the SHAREWARE POLICY, thru and including Exhibit L‑11: the Published OPINION of the Ninth Circuit in A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9^th Cir. 2001).

A complete List of Exhibits in the federal case is found at the end of Plaintiff’s THIRD SUPPLEMENT. See Exhibit N‑4 infra.

Plaintiff now designates Exhibit M‑1 as the Table of Contents for the federal case as presently published in the Supreme Law Library at Internet URL:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/index.2003-03-01.htm

Exhibits M‑2 et seq. will be held in reserve for important documents that are expected to issue from the federal case at future times and places as yet unknown to Plaintiff.

Thus, Exhibits lettered A thru M are reserved for the federal case supra; Exhibits lettered N thru Z are reserved for this case.

Exhibits N‑1 thru N‑138 inclusive correspond in sequence to the numbered entries in the Table of Contents at Exhibit M‑1, now frozen to fix the correspondence between those entries and Exhibit numbers.

This Court is encouraged to use computers to access all pleadings and electronic evidence already published in the Supreme Law Library.

Plaintiff now formally incorporates Exhibits A‑1 thru and including N‑138 by reference, as if all were set forth fully here.

Plaintiff now recommends that the Court branch at this point to review the following Exhibits: N‑1, N‑2, N‑3, N‑4, N‑16 and N‑21. These Exhibits correspond to Plaintiff’s federal COMPLAINT, and His FIRST, SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH and FIFTH SUPPLEMENT’s, respectively.

PARTIAL LIST OF RICO PREDICATE ACTS

AND OTHER ACTS OF WITNESS RETALIATION

Particular attention of this honorable Court is now drawn to Exhibits L‑6, D‑46 and D‑47.

Exhibit L‑6 is the legislative history of the Anticounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act of 1996 (“ACPA”), reproduced from the House Congressional Record dated June 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1386, July 2, 1996.

The ACPA is particularly relevant to the instant case, because it elevated copyright and trademark infringement to the status of RICO predicate acts, and cited superb reasons for doing so.

An excellent discussion of the legal implications of the ACPA, in the context of other applicable federal laws, can be seen in Exhibit N‑124: LETTER TO JON MUMMOLO, Washington Square News, Nov. 9, 2002.

Exhibit D‑46 is a partial list of Documented Retaliations which Plaintiff had suffered prior to the date on which the federal case was first filed (August 1, 2001 A.D.)

Exhibit D‑47 is a subset of those Documented Retaliations which also qualify as one or more of the RICO Predicate Acts that are itemized at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1)(B), (1)(D), and (5).

Plaintiff now testifies that the partial list of acts and events now documented in Exhibits D‑46 and D‑47 constitutes probable cause for granting all relief requested infra in the instant COMPLAINT.

Moreover, further acts and events occurred after August 1, 2001, which also qualify as RICO predicate acts that constitute further probable causes for all the relief requested infra.

For example, Plaintiff herein alleges that obstruction of justice did in fact occur whenever Plaintiff was deprived of specific relief from the federal district courts in Sacramento, California.

COUNT ONE:

Acquisition and Maintenance of an Interest in and Control of

an Enterprise Engaged in a Pattern of Racketeering Activity:

18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(5), 1962(b)

Plaintiff now re-alleges each and every allegation as set forth above, and hereby incorporates same by reference, as if all were set forth fully herein. Substance prevails over form.

At various times and places partially enumerated in Plaintiff’s documentary material, all Defendants did acquire and/or maintain, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of a RICO enterprise of individuals who were associated in fact and who did engage in, and whose activities did affect, interstate and foreign commerce, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(4), (5), (9), and 1962(b).

During the ten (10) calendar years preceding March 1, 2003 A.D., all Defendants did cooperate jointly and severally in the commission of two (2) or more of the RICO predicate acts that are itemized in the RICO laws at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1)(A) and (B), and did so in violation of the RICO law at 18 U.S.C. 1962(b) (Prohibited activities).

Plaintiff further alleges that all Defendants did commit two (2) or more of the offenses itemized above in a manner which they calculated and premeditated intentionally to threaten continuity, i.e. a continuing threat of their respective racketeering activities, also in violation of the RICO law at 18 U.S.C. 1962(b) supra.

Pursuant to the original Statutes at Large, the RICO laws itemized above are to be liberally construed by this honorable Court. Said construction rule was never codified in Title 18 of the United States Code, however. See 84 Stat. 947, Sec. 904, Oct. 15, 1970.

Respondeat superior (principal is liable for agents’ misconduct: knowledge of, participation in, and benefit from a RICO enterprise).

COUNT TWO:

Conduct and Participation in a RICO Enterprise

through a Pattern of Racketeering Activity:

18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(5), 1962(c)

Plaintiff now re-alleges each and every allegation as set forth above, and hereby incorporates same by reference, as if all were set forth fully herein. Substance prevails over form.

At various times and places partially enumerated in Plaintiff’s documentary material, all Defendants did associate with a RICO enterprise of individuals who were associated in fact and who engaged in, and whose activities did affect, interstate and foreign commerce.

Likewise, all Defendants did conduct and/or participate, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of said RICO enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(4), (5), (9), and 1962(c).

Pursuant to 84 Stat. 947, Sec. 904, Oct. 15, 1970, the RICO laws itemized above are to be liberally construed by this honorable Court. Said construction rule was never codified in Title 18 of the United States Code, however. Respondeat superior (as explained above).

COUNT THREE:

Conspiracy to Engage in a

Pattern of Racketeering Activity:

18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(5), 1962(d)

Plaintiff now re-alleges each and every allegation as set forth above, and hereby incorporates same by reference, as if all were set forth fully herein. Substance prevails over form.

At various times and places partially enumerated in Plaintiff’s documentary material, all Defendants did conspire to acquire and maintain an interest in a RICO enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(b) and (d).

At various times and places partially enumerated in Plaintiff’s documentary material, all Defendants did also conspire to conduct and participate in said RICO enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) and (d).

See also 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(4), (5) and (9).

During the ten (10) calendar years preceding March 1, 2003 A.D., all Defendants did cooperate jointly and severally in the commission of two (2) or more of the predicate acts that are itemized at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1)(A) and (B), in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d).

RELIEF REQUESTED

Wherefore, pursuant to the statutes at 18 U.S.C. 1964(a) and (c), Plaintiff requests judgment against all named Defendants as follows:

ON COUNT ONE:

1. That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find that all Defendants, both jointly and severally, have acquired and maintained, both directly and indirectly, an interest in and/or control of a RICO enterprise of persons and of other individuals who were associated in fact, all of whom engaged in, and whose activities did affect, interstate and foreign commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(b) (Prohibited activities).

2. That all Defendants and all their directors, officers, employees, agents, servants and all other persons in active concert or in participation with them, be enjoined temporarily during pendency of this action, and permanently thereafter, from acquiring or maintaining, whether directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any RICO enterprise of persons, or of other individuals associated in fact, who are engaged in, or whose activities do affect, interstate or foreign commerce.

3. That all Defendants and all of their directors, officers, employees, agents, servants and all other persons in active concert or in participation with them, be enjoined temporarily during pendency of this action, and permanently thereafter, from committing any more predicate acts in furtherance of the RICO enterprise alleged in COUNT ONE supra.

4. That all Defendants be required to account for all gains, profits, and advantages derived from their several acts of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(b) and from all other violation(s) of applicable State and federal law(s).

5. That judgment be entered for Plaintiff and against all Defendants for Plaintiff’s actual damages, and for any gains, profits, or advantages attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962(b), according to the best available proof.

6. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff treble (triple) damages, under authority of 18 U.S.C. 1964(c), for any gains, profits, or advantages attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962(b), according to the best available proof.

7. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff all damages sustained by Plaintiff in consequence of Defendants’ several violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962(b), according to the best available proof.

8. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff His costs of the lawsuit incurred herein including, but not limited to, all necessary research, all non‑judicial enforcement and all reasonable counsel’s fees, at a minimum of $150.00 per hour worked (Plaintiff’s standard professional rate at start of this action).

9. That all damages caused by all Defendants, and all gains, profits, and advantages derived by all Defendants, from their several acts of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(b) and from all other violation(s) of applicable State and federal law(s), be deemed to be held in constructive trust, legally foreign with respect to the federal zone [sic], for the benefit of Plaintiff, His heirs and assigns.

10. That Plaintiff have such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper, under the circumstances of this action.

ON COUNT TWO:

1. That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find that all Defendants have associated with a RICO enterprise of persons and of other individuals who were associated in fact, all of whom did engage in, and whose activities did affect, interstate and foreign commerce in violation of the RICO law at 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) (Prohibited activities).

2. That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find that all Defendants have conducted and/or participated, directly or indirectly, in the affairs of said RICO enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of the RICO laws at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(5) (“pattern” defined) and 1962(c) supra.

3. That all Defendants and all of their directors, officers, employees, agents, servants and all other persons in active concert or in participation with them, be enjoined temporarily during pendency of this action, and permanently thereafter, from associating with any RICO enterprise of persons, or of other individuals associated in fact, who do engage in, or whose activities do affect, interstate and foreign commerce.

4. That all Defendants and all of their directors, officers, employees, agents, servants and all other persons in active concert or in participation with them, be enjoined temporarily during pendency of this action, and permanently thereafter, from conducting or participating, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of any RICO enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of the RICO laws at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(5) and 1962(c) supra.

5. That all Defendants and all of their directors, officers, employees, agents, servants and all other persons in active concert or in participation with them, be enjoined temporarily during pendency of this action, and permanently thereafter, from committing any more predicate acts in furtherance of the RICO enterprise alleged in COUNT TWO supra.

6. That all Defendants be required to account for all gains, profits, and advantages derived from their several acts of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) supra and from all other violation(s) of applicable State and federal law(s).

7. That judgment be entered for Plaintiff and against all Defendants for Plaintiff’s actual damages, and for any gains, profits, or advantages attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) supra, according to the best available proof.

8. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff treble (triple) damages, under authority of 18 U.S.C. 1964(c), for any gains, profits, or advantages attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) supra, according to the best available proof.

9. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff all damages sustained by Plaintiff in consequence of Defendants’ several violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) supra, according to the best available proof.

10. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff His costs of the lawsuit incurred herein including, but not limited to, all necessary research, all non‑judicial enforcement and all reasonable counsel’s fees, at a minimum of $150.00 per hour worked (Plaintiff’s standard professional rate at start of this action).

11. That all damages caused by all Defendants, and all gains, profits, and advantages derived by all Defendants, from their several acts of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) supra and from all other violation(s) of applicable State and federal law(s), be deemed to be held in constructive trust, legally foreign with respect to the federal zone [sic], for the benefit of Plaintiff, His heirs and assigns.

12. That Plaintiff have such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper, under the full range of relevant circumstances which have occasioned the instant action.

ON COUNT THREE:

1. That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find that all Defendants have conspired to acquire and maintain an interest in, and/or conspired to acquire and maintain control of, a RICO enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(5), 1962(b) and (d) supra.

2. That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find that all Defendants have conspired to conduct and participate in said RICO enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(5), 1962(c) and (d) supra.

3. That all Defendants and all their directors, officers, employees, agents, servants and all other persons in active concert or in participation with them, be enjoined temporarily during pendency of this action, and permanently thereafter, from conspiring to acquire or maintain an interest in, or control of, any RICO enterprise that engages in a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(5), 1962(b) and (d) supra.

4. That all Defendants and all their directors, officers, employees, agents, servants and all other persons in active concert or in participation with them, be enjoined temporarily during pendency of this action, and permanently thereafter, from conspiring to conduct, participate in, or benefit in any manner from any RICO enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(5), 1962(c) and (d) supra.

5. That all Defendants and all their directors, officers, employees, agents, servants and all other persons in active concert or in participation with them, be enjoined temporarily during pendency of this action, and permanently thereafter, from committing any more predicate acts in furtherance of the RICO enterprise alleged in COUNT THREE supra.

6. That all Defendants be required to account for all gains, profits, and advantages derived from their several acts of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) supra and from all other violation(s) of applicable State and federal law(s).

9. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff all damages sustained by Plaintiff in consequence of Defendants’ several violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) supra, according to the best available proof.

10. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff His costs of the lawsuit incurred herein including, but not limited to, all necessary research, all non‑judicial enforcement, and all reasonable counsel’s fees, at a minimum of $150.00 per hour worked (Plaintiff’s standard professional rate at start of this action).

11. That all damages caused by all Defendants, and all gains, profits, and advantages derived by all Defendants, from their several acts of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) supra and from all other violation(s) of applicable State and federal law(s), be deemed to be held in constructive trust, legally foreign with respect to the federal zone [sic], for the benefit of Plaintiff, His heirs and assigns.

12. That Plaintiff have such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper, under the full range of relevant circumstances which have occasioned the instant action.

SUMMARY OF DAMAGES

Summary of Reasonable Counsel’s Fees: TBA

Summary of Consequential Damages: TBA

Summary of Actual Damages (partial list):

unpaid professional invoices: $ 108,350.00

triple damage multiplier (3x): $ 325,050.00

triple damage multiplier (3x): $491,400,000.00

trademark infringements, actual: $163,800,000.00

triple damage multiplier (3x): $491,400,000.00

---------------

Subtotal: $1,310,833,400.00

Summary of Punitive Damages (3x): $3,932,500,200.00

TOTAL DAMAGES (minimum): $5,243,333,600.00

The damage matrix is three‑dimensional: for each Defendant, there are actual, consequential, and punitive damages (3 columns) on each of three counts (3 rows).

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable to a jury lawfully convened.

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1961(9), Plaintiff now formally incorporates His documentary material by reference to all of the following Exhibits, as if set forth fully here, to wit:

Exhibit “A” with Cover Sheets

Exhibit “B” with Cover Sheets

Exhibit “C” with Cover Sheets

Exhibit “D” with Cover Sheets

Exhibit “E” with Cover Sheets

Exhibit “F” with Cover Sheets

Exhibit “G” with Cover Sheets

Exhibit “H” with Cover Sheets

Exhibit “I” with Cover Sheets

Exhibit “J” with Cover Sheets

Exhibit “K” with Cover Sheets

Exhibit “L” with Cover Sheets

Exhibit “M” with Cover Sheets

Exhibit “N” with Cover Sheets

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). See the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended (hereinafter “U.S. Constitution”).

Dated: March 12, 2003 A.D.

Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

___________________________________________

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

JURISDICTION

JURY DEMAND

LIST OF EXHIBITS