(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
CALIFORNIA,
USA
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 ...
