TO:      Superior Court of California

         Attn:  Hon. Janis Sammartino, Presiding

         P.O. Box 120128

         San Diego 92112-0128



FROM:    Paul Andrew Mitchell, Plaintiff


DATE:    October 1, 2003 A.D.


SUBJECT: Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.

         Superior Court docket #GIC807057


Greetings Your Honor:




The Clerk of the Superior Court has made a serious error by alleging to “cancel” my properly executed and properly served pleading entitled PLAINTIFF’S FIRST VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT ON INFORMATION (see enclosed), after the Clerk correctly filed same.


The Superior Court presently has pending before it this Plaintiff’s timely and properly served MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BARRING REMOVAL INTO FEDERAL COURT and also this PLAINTIFF’S DEMAND FOR RULING ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BARRING REMOVAL INTO FEDERAL COURT.  The Superior Court has yet to rule on said MOTION, after having scheduled a timely hearing on same.  My fundamental Right to due process of law now mandates a ruling by the Superior Court.


This case was never lawfully removed into any federal district court.  Thus, it is entirely misleading for anyone to allege that it has not been remanded [sic] back to the Superior Court.


All “attorneys” who attempted to appear on behalf of certain named Defendants in this case did so without the licenses to practice law that are required by section 6067 of the California Business and Professions Code (“CBPC”).  As such, they are also in violation of CBPC sections 6068, 6126 and 6128 (see CRIMINAL COMPLAINT enclosed).


Section 6067, in particular, mandates that a certificate of oath shall be indorsed upon all licenses to practice law in California.


The term “certificate” necessarily requires a physical document.  Confer at “certificate” in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.


The term “indorse” necessarily requires a physical document, because that term originates in the Latin phrase “in dorso”, which means “on the back” (as in the dorsal fin on the back of a fish).  Confer at “indorse” in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.


Section 6067 also specifically requires that a valid license to practice law must also exhibit an oath to support the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of California.


The “Bar Card” that was produced by one and only one of said attorneys did not make any mention whatsoever of any license(s), any oath(s), or any constitution(s).  It merely exhibited a “certificate” that the signer had paid his dues;  and, that one Bar Card, in particular, was not even indorsed by the holder.


Thus, “Bar Cards” do not constitute properly executed licenses to practice law in California.  The same is true of “State Bar Numbers”.


Moreover, the United States District Court (“USDC”) has now been proven to be a legislative, territorial tribunal which does not have any original jurisdiction over civil RICO actions authorized by the federal statute at 18 U.S.C. 1964(a).  Statutes conferring original jurisdiction on federal district courts must be strictly construed (see cites in OPENING BRIEF to the Ninth Circuit in the federal case).


This fundamental issue of original jurisdiction has been thoroughly investigated, briefed and proven in my PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT, now pending before the Supreme Court of the United States, docket #03-5070.  A copy of that PETITION has already been filed with the Superior Court, for your edification and to support my MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION supra.


All “attorneys” who attempted to appear at the U.S. Supreme Court did so by filing formal WAIVER’s of their clients’ right to answer that PETITION.  Therefore, the facts and laws as well stated in that PETITION have now become the “truth of the case”.  Also, silence activates estoppel, pursuant to the holding in Carmine v. Bowen.


Moreover, Ms. Irma E. Gonzalez has failed to produce a lawful oath of office, which is an absolute prerequisite before she can claim to exercise the powers and authorities of a federal judge.  Even if she had executed a valid oath of office, she is claiming to preside on the United States District Court, and not the Article III District Court of the United States (“DCUS”).


The latter Article III federal district court is the only federal court which enjoys original jurisdiction over civil RICO actions under 18 U.S.C. 1964(a).  However, as proven in my PETITION to the U.S. Supreme Court supra, the DCUS is presently vacant.


Therefore, Ms. Gonzalez exercises absolutely no jurisdiction whatsoever in the instant civil RICO case.  She also has a demonstrated conflict of interest, in violation of 28 U.S.C. 455.


If the Clerk of the Superior Court had bothered to read my VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, it would be obvious by now that I am obligated by 18 U.S.C. 4 to charge said unlicensed attorneys, and all their accomplices within the federal judiciary, with the several felony federal offenses itemized in that COMPLAINT.


To file my VERIFIED CRIMNAL COMPLAINT in the instant case, and then to err by alleging to “cancel” it, is tantamount to obstruction of justice.  Obstruction of justice is one of several felony federal offenses which are the subject of that CRIMINAL COMPLAINT;  it is also a RICO predicate act.  See 18 U.S.C. 1961.


If the Clerk of Court should persist in repeating this same mistake, after having received a copy of this NOTICE AND DEMAND, I will have few alternatives left but to charge the Clerk with the very same felonies which are itemized in said CRIMINAL COMPLAINT.





Accordingly, for all of the verified and demonstrable reasons already stated above, I hereby make my formal DEMAND that the enclosed PLAINTIFF’S FIRST VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT ON INFORMATION be filed forthwith in Superior Court docket #GIC807057, and that this honorable Superior Court of California take mandatory judicial notice of same.



Thank you, Your Honor, for your immediate attention to this important matter.



Sincerely yours,


/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell


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

Private Attorney General and Plaintiff


copy:  Clerk of Court