MEMO

 

TO:      Jack Stumsky

         Office of the District Attorney

         330 West Broadway

         San Diego 92101

         CALIFORNIA, USA

 

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

         Private Attorney General and Plaintiff

 

DATE:    April 9, 2004 A.D.

 

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

         Superior Court of California case #GIC807057

 

Dear Jack:

 

I am most appreciative of all the time and the excellent conversation I was privileged to have with you at the end of the day today.

 

The questions you asked were excellent, and I plan to give careful consideration to the many professional observations which you were generous enough to share with me.

 

I was particularly gratified to hear that your office places great weight on evidence that is available in documentary form.  I too prefer documentary evidence, whenever possible, e.g. affidavits verified under penalty of perjury.

 

It just so happens that, right after my recent productive meeting with 2 U.S. Marshals -- specifically to discuss my 2 court cases -- I felt obliged to assemble a small subset of the many documents which we have now filed in both my federal case, and in the case now pending before the Superior Court of California.

 

The enclosed documents cover a wide range of legal matters, but they do have one central theme in common: they provide documentary evidence that my federal case was obstructed by personnel in the Federal District Court in Sacramento, who have now failed to produce any of the credentials that are required of them by federal and State laws.

 

I was never permitted to try my case before a jury of my peers, as guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.

 

You may already know that the federal criminal statute at 18 U.S.C. 4 creates a legal obligation to report federal felonies to a judge or other officer of the United States.  Impersonating a federal officer is a felony violation of 18 U.S.C. 912.  Falsifying a matter within the jurisdiction of the judicial branch of the federal government is a felony violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001.  Mail fraud and obstruction of justice are both felony federal offenses and also RICO predicate acts, as itemized in the federal RICO statutes at 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.

 

To the end of partially documenting the facts proving that I have now been victimized by repeated violations of the statutes cited above, as well as numerous other State and federal criminal statutes, I am herewith enclosing two separate sets of documents, as follows:

 

Set 1 is the first of three identical sets of documents returned with the unsigned “mystery” letter which I showed to you today (attached).

 

Set 2 is the larger set of documents which I was already assembling for presentation to the County Grand Jury, and to your office.

 

Set 1 is now itemized as follows:

 

(a)           NOTICE OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, dated March 30, 2004 A.D.;

 

(b)           Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : Internet Table of Contents for Superior Court case #GIC807057;

 

(c)           Letter from U.S. Department of Justice dated Feb. 12, 2004 A.D. with copies of only 6 Presidential Commissions (not 9);  and,

 

(d)           SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE to The State Bar of California for all licenses to practice law, with oaths of office indorsed thereon by all members of The State Bar of California for the past ten (10) calendar years, the period allowed for RICO investigations.

 

Set 2 is now itemized as follows:

 

(a)           NOTICE OF FRAUD dated February 19, 2003 A.D., and NOTICE OF REFUSAL FOR CAUSES, BY AFFIDAVIT dated Dec. 18, 2003 A.D.;

 

(b)           PLAINTIFF’S FIRST VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT ON INFORMATION, Superior Court #GIC807057;

 

(c)           COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT AND DISABILITY against William B. Shubb, under 28 U.S.C. 372(c), dated Dec. 23, 2002 A.D.;

 

(d)           PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI, U.S. Supreme Court case number #03-5070 (see Page 12 of 31 in re: William B. Shubb);

 

(e)           PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRITS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, U.S. Supreme Court case number #03-5070;

 

(f)           Copies of correspondence from U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., in re: missing credentials of Stephen S. Trott, Ruther Bader Ginsburg, Clarence Thomas, and Stephen G. Breyer;

 

(g)           Supreme Law Library : Court Cases : Internet Table of Contents for U.S. Supreme Court case number #03-5070;  and,

 

(a)           Copy of email dated Mar. 9, 2004, reporting alleged statement by clerks of the U.S. District Courts in Sacramento and Fresno that William B. Shubb retired in the year 1990 (11 years before my federal case was filed), which needs further confirmation.

 

 

Allow me to detail just one specific incident which exemplifies the kinds of obstruction which I have consistently encountered at every step along the way in the federal court system, at all levels.

 

After filing my federal case on August 1, 2001 A.D., a man alleging to be a U.S. Magistrate was assigned to that case, but over my timely and repeated written objections.

 

After extensive wrangling with court personnel, I succeeded in proving that a Local Rule may not coercively refer all Pro Per cases to a U.S. Magistrate, particularly when all parties have not consented to a magistrate.  In my federal case, I never consented to a magistrate.

 

The consent of all parties is an absolute requirement of the Federal Magistrates Act.  I have fully documented the pertinent laws and cases in my detailed letter to Alex Kozinski, with particular emphasis on the Hajek case cited here:

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/kozinski.htm

 

As it turns out, one of the eligibility requirements for all full-time federal magistrates is that they must have been members of the State Bar in good standing for at least 5 years prior to becoming magistrates.

 

Bar members are not in good standing if they have not indorsed a certificate of oath upon their licenses.  This requirement is imposed by section 6067 of the California Business and Professions Code.

 

To put it bluntly, they have no licenses if they have not complied with the clear and constitutional requirements of this section of the State Bar Act.  And, sections 6068, 6126 and 6128 make it a misdemeanor to violate these provisions of that State Bar Act.

 

To make a long story shorter, Dale A. Drozd not only turned up without a proper license to practice law;  neither he nor anyone else in the federal judiciary was able to produce any Oaths of Office for him or for William B. Shubb either.

 

Thus, neither Dale A. Drozd nor William B. Shubb had any of the credentials that are required of them by specific federal laws which I invoked, and in good faith tried to enforce, in my federal case.

 

Well, Mr. William B. Shubb attempted to “adopt in full” the so-called findings and recommendations prepared by Mr. Dale A. Drozd, including an effort by both of them to deprive me of a timely INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT on my challenge to the constitutionality of the Rules Enabling Act.  See 28 U.S.C. 2072 in the United States Code.  That was a key MOTION of mine, now obstructed by these same federal impostors.

 

In light of these and numerous similar obstructions which happened also at the Ninth Circuit, I was obligated by the federal statute at 18 U.S.C. 4 (as cited above) to report the federal felonies to which I had now become a material witness, and obviously also a victim.

 

These federal offenses included, among others, impersonating a federal officer, mail fraud, retaliation against a federal witness, deprivation of fundamental Rights, conspiracy to deprive fundamental Rights, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activities.  Most of these are federal felonies.

 

I had to file similar charges against all defense attorneys who attempted to appear without licenses to practice law in the State of California.  As such, their clients never made proper appearances.

 

I had even obtained a number of SUBPOENAs from the Federal District Clerk in Sacramento, for the certificates of oath which all defense attorneys are required to indorse upon their licenses to practice law.

 

No such licenses were ever produced in response to those SUBPOENAs.  None!

 

As you go through all the enclosed documentation, bear in mind that the list of RICO predicate acts itemized at 18 U.S.C. 1961 shows exactly the kinds of allegations which I am permitted to make, and to prove, in a RICO case filed with the Superior Court of California.

 

I have proven that this Superior Court has original jurisdiction, as shown on that Court’s Civil Cover Sheet.  That jurisdiction authorizes this Court to adjudicate evidence of racketeering that occurred not only before the filing date of March 12, 2003, but also any evidence that the same named Defendants and their unlicensed attorneys have continued to commit racketeering violations further to obstruct this particular Civil RICO case after it was filed, e.g. mail fraud, obstruction of justice, witness retaliation, etc.

 

Now, to repeat a point which is terribly important and which I do believe I did mention to you, albeit briefly, it is these same unlicensed attorneys and federal impostors whom I am permitted to prosecute in a Civil RICO case, and whose felony federal offenses I am required by 18 U.S.C. 4 to report to appropriate officers.

 

The Civil RICO remedies could not be more specific when they address the predicate acts that are itemized at 18 U.S.C. 1961 and that fall under the Civil RICO statute at 18 U.S.C. 1964.  It is section 1964 which authorizes the Superior Court of California to exercise original jurisdiction over the RICO predicate acts itemized at section 1961.

 

My Initial COMPLAINT cites both the U.S. Supreme Court decision and the Ninth Circuit decision which agree that State courts have original jurisdiction of Civil RICO claims under 18 U.S.C. 1964.

 

Can you see how entirely impossible it is for me to obtain any justice or due process, when the very same people who are usurping federal jurisdiction over my Civil RICO case are now defendants in that same Civil RICO case?  That would be much like watching a murder defendant step into a black robe and dismiss all the charges against him, then calling that due process, and sending the jury home because the case has been “dismissed.”  Reductio ad absurdum, yes?  You bet!

 

I realize that there may be a lot of documents enclosed with this letter.  But, I am also reminding you that you did emphasize how important it is to your office that allegations be supported by relevant documentation.  And, I do know from extensive experience now that verified documents are even more valuable, for purposes of the criminal investigation that I do hope your office will now commence in this matter.

 

For myself, I cannot imagine a better documented case of extensive and ongoing criminal racketeering against someone who has made it his dedicated profession, and not merely his “hobby,” to understand and carefully to document the abominations that have become rather routine inside the federal court system throughout this once great nation.

 

It only stands to reason that another court of competent jurisdiction can and should be made available to conduct judicial review of the multitude of federal and State laws which are now routinely being violated by federal personnel, who stubbornly refuse to exhibit the credentials required by those very same laws.

 

Is this some kind of conspiracy?  You bet it is ... a BIG one!

 

Thus, I do hope you might also take the time to review the Initial COMPLAINT in my Civil RICO case (available on the Internet).  That COMPLAINT should be read with particular emphasis on the importance that I have attached to the PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION which I requested, specifically to prevent a bogus “removal” from stealing my RICO case and handing it back to the very same federal impostors who obviously have no other motive than to trash the case forever, because they are now defendants named in CRIMINAL COMPLAINTs required by 18 U.S.C. 4.

 

Jack, thank you, again, for your professional assistance in this matter.  I anxiously look forward to having further opportunities to present this evidence in greater detail to you and to others in your office.

 

 

Sincerely yours,

 

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

 

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

Private Attorney General and Plaintiff,

Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al. #GIC807057

Electronic Table of Contents at Internet URL:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol2/index.htm

 

enclosures:  see lists itemized above