Yahoo! Mail Print  -  Close Window
From: "Paul Andrew Mitchell" <>
Subject: [SLL] Referral to DOJ/Sacramento, State of California in re: #GIC807057
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 16:53:15 -0700 (PDT)

(latter is due Friday, April 16, 2004 A.D. at 5:00 p.m.)
Table of Contents:
TO:  Deputy Attorney General
       State of California
       Department of Justice
       P.O. Box 85266
       San Diego 92186-5266
Greetings Mr. Price:
I have received your letter addressed to me, and dated April 12, 2004 A.D.
Thank you VERY MUCH for your prompt and professional assistance.
In the matter of Superior Court #GIC807057, it is apparent that the
Wisconsin Department of Justice has attempted to appear on behalf
of the University of Wisconsin.  And, the Counsels to the Regents
of U.C. have attempted to appear on behalf of the University of
California, as the latter likewise did in my federal case:
Thus, as of my latest updates to the Internet Table of Contents
for #GIC807057 (see above), I am now proceeding on the basis
of available powers of attorney that your office does NOT represent
any of the named defendants in this Superior Court case now
pending in San Diego county, in downtown San Diego city.
I delivered my latest correspondence in person, due to the fact that
a County Deputy District Attorney did observe that certain matters
(that we were discussing privately) should normally be brought
to the attention of your office, and I wanted you to be informed as
promptly as possible.
Depending on my progress with the San Diego County D.A.'s office,
we may be contacting you again in the future, if the facts of the case
do warrant such a referral.
Meanwhile, I do appreciate the referral to Sacramento DOJ, and I will
look forward to hearing from them, after they have had an opportunity
to conduct a proper review of the bona fides in this matter.
In closing, please appreciate how easy it is to submit a federal
Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request for the Presidential
Commissions of any federal judges.
I must admit that it required some time to isolate the federal laws
which identify the legal custodian of those Commissions:
Now that those laws have been located and confirmed, the FOIA officers
in the U.S. DOJ in Washington, D.C. are cooperating FULLY, whenever
they receive a proper FOIA request from me for the Commission of
any federal employee claiming to occupy any office which requires one
(district, circuit, and Supreme Court judges).
FYI: The Supreme Law Library has a copy of the excellent
Citizen's Guide to the FOIA and Privacy Act here:
(once THE most popular publication of the Government Printing Office,
while it was still in print)
What we find most interesting is that U.S. DOJ will doubly confirm
if and when any federal "robe" turns up without the requisite Presidential
Commission.  The second letter typically re-confirms the first letter,
after the first letter reports a missing Commission.
There are no comparably clear statutes which identify the legal
custodian of the Oaths of Office of all federal judges, however,
although experience indicates that they are presently in the custody
of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts ("AO") in
Washington, D.C.  Thus, I have to date not been as successful
at compelling discovery of their Oaths.  For example, not a single
"judge" on the Ninth Circuit has yet disclosed any Oath of Office,
after they received a proper NOTICE AND DEMAND for same
from me.  See:
Those Ninth Circuit "robes" allegedly decided to decline en banc review
of my federal appeal, but withOUT issuing any order(s) which conformed
to the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 1691:
In summary, all so-called "orders" which were issued in my federal
case do, quite frankly, assume facts not in evidence, and the FOIA
clearly recognizes that any Citizen has a right to use the FOIA
to discover such credentials withOUT needing to prove relevance
or materiality.  On this latter point, see the Bibliography in the
Citizen's Guide in the Supreme Law Library supra.
Thank you again for your prompt assistance.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Private Attorney General
copy:  email list of paid subscribers, echo back
hard copy:  Deputy District Attorney, County of San Diego
p.s.  I may re-send this message, if any of the URL's
contain typographical errors.  We are looking for
email software which makes this cross-checking
more efficient:  for now, I must copy such messages
to myself, then check the links after they have been
transmitted.   Paul out ...

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th