NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR IDENTITY OF AUTHOR

TO: Office of the Presiding Judge

Superior Court of California

220 West Broadway

San Diego 92112-2724

CALIFORNIA, USA

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

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)

DATE: April 12, 2004 A.D.

SUBJECT: letter dated April 7, 2004 from

THE OFFICE OF COURT COUNSEL [sic] with “Encs.”

To All Personnel in this Office:

On Friday, April 9, 2004 A.D., I received Priority U.S. Mail with the letter described above (in original) and several documents which I had previously filed as the Plaintiff in the docket #GIC807057.

On good authority, after carefully examining it with the assistance of law enforcement, the letter in question is demonstrably false and fraudulent on its face, for all of the following reasons, to wit:

(1) it is not on official letterhead;

(2) it is not signed;

(3) its author is not identified;

(4) it contains several typographical errors;

(5) it contains false and misleading statements, e.g.:

(6) the Superior Court of California does have jurisdiction;

(7) case #GIC807057 was never removed into federal court;

(8) a MOTION TO BAR REMOVAL and a DEMAND FOR RULING on that motion are still pending and now long overdue (as evidenced by the list of documents itemized on pages one and two)

Furthermore, the documents enclosed with that letter were previously filed by this Plaintiff in case #GIC807057. When I transmitted them to the Clerk of Court via first class U.S. Mail, they were not punched with a 2-hole punch. A few of the documents which were returned to me were punched with a 2-hole punch, indicating that some or all of the returned documents had at one time been in the Clerk’s docket file, and were later removed from that docket file. Such an act of removing filed documents from the Clerk’s docket records constitutes criminal tampering with evidence and further evidence of felony mail fraud. See 18 U.S.C. 1341 (also a RICO predicate act).

Accordingly, formal DEMAND is hereby made of you positively to identify the author of the letter in question, and also all individual(s) responsible for transmitting that letter to me via Priority U.S. Mail postmarked April 7, 2004, and to do so no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, April 16, 2004 A.D.

Beyond that deadline, your silence will constitute fraud, pursuant to U.S. v. Tweel; your silence will also activate estoppel, pursuant to Carmine v. Bowen; and your silence will also give me probable cause to place all personnel in your Office under formal criminal investigation on suspicion of tampering with evidence, mail fraud, obstruction of justice, witness retaliation, and conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activities.

I attach herewith a sufficient number of documents conclusively to establish that the federal employees and unlicensed attorneys claiming to have “removed” case #GIC807057 are, in fact, named Defendants in the same case who lack the credentials required by State and federal laws; and this fact was previously known to your Office, to the Clerk of Court, and to personnel in Department 71, because they were all served with VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINTs executed by this Plaintiff against the very same federal employees and unlicensed attorneys.

Accordingly, it is preposterous in the extreme for anyone claiming to have adequate knowledge of case #GIC807057 to identify any of the named Defendants as “having jurisdiction” over this case, because of the monumental conflicts of interest involved.

Since when do racketeering defendants have any right to dismiss the civil RICO lawsuit in which they are being prosecuted? Someone in your office must believe that defendants can also preside as judge and jury upon that very same case.

If this is the low level of “skill” that exists in your Office, then all of you frankly deserve to spend some time in State prison, as far as I am concerned, because you should know better than to permit blatant tampering with the Clerk’s docket records in this case.

If you will please review the pertinent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, chiefly Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 207 U.S. 142, 148 (1907), you cannot escape confirming that the Petition Clause in the Bill of Rights is the right that is conservative of all other rights. As such, all complaints and other pleadings to State and federal courts are petitions to the government for a redress of grievances, protected by the First Amendment, and not allowing dubious intrusions of any kind whatsoever.

Therefore, anyone who would attempt in any manner to tamper with the Clerk’s records -- by removing a VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT -- is thus guilty of infringing ALL of my Rights, without any exceptions.

I would not normally use such strong language. However, ignorance of the law is no excuse, and ignorance of the facts and related allegations in this case is nothing other than gross criminal negligence, and evidence of aiding and abetting a conspiracy to engage in a well documented pattern of felony racketeering activities.

Thank you very much for your timely cooperation and professional consideration.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

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

Private Attorney General and Plaintiff

Superior Court docket #GIC807057

Notice to principals is notice to agents.

Notice to agents is notice to principals.