TO:       Clerk of Court

          Superior Court of California

          P.O. Box 120128

          San Diego 92112-0128



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

          Private Attorney General and Plaintiff

          Superior Court docket number #GIC807057


DATE:     July 27, 2006 A.D.


SUBJECT:  Sections 170.3(c)(1), 170.3(c)(3), and 170.3(c)(4),

          Code of Civil Procedure


Greetings Clerk of Court:


On June 9, 2006 A.D., I personally served upon Janis L. Sammartino a signed original of the enclosed VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE ASSIGNED TO CIVIL RICO #GIC807057, by depositing same in the private drop box for Ms. Sammartino as directed at the civil counter by a Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court.  The same VERIFIED STATEMENT was also served upon all parties via U.S. Mail on June 12, 2006 A.D.


The text of CCP section 170.3(c)(1) reads in pertinent part:


(c)(1)  If a judge who should disqualify himself or herself refuses or fails to do so, any party may file with the clerk a written verified statement objecting to the hearing or trial before the judge and setting forth the facts constituting the grounds for disqualification of the judge.  [bold emphasis added]


To date, Ms. Sammartino has failed to disqualify herself, failed to file a consent to disqualification, and failed to file any answer(s) to the above VERIFIED STATEMENT within ten (10) days as required by CCP 170.3(c)(3) (“within 10 days after the filing or service”).


Furthermore, I have not received any answer(s) from Ms. Sammartino or from your office, nor have I received any evidence that your office transmitted a copy of any answer(s) from Ms. Sammartino to each party or his or her attorney who has appeared in Civil RICO #GIC807057.


Accordingly, you are now required by State law at CCP 170.3(c)(4) to notify the person authorized to appoint a replacement of the recusal as provided in subdivision (a) of CCP 170.3:


(c)(4)  A judge who fails to file a consent or answer within the time allowed shall be deemed to have consented to his or her disqualification and the clerk shall notify the presiding judge or person authorized to appoint a replacement of the recusal as provided in subdivision (a).  [bold emphasis added]



Accordingly, the required conclusion of law is that Janis Sammartino shall be deemed to have consented to her disqualification.



Thank you for your immediate cooperation in this matter.





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:     July 27, 2006 A.D.



Signed:    /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell


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



copy:  Janis L. Sammartino (private drop box, Clerk’s office)