NOTICE OF REFUSAL FOR CAUSE,

BY AFFIDAVIT

TO: Mr. Thomas E. Ewing

dba Chief Administrative Law Judge [sic]

Oregon Office of Administrative Hearings

605 Cottage Street, N.W., Suite 201

Salem 97301

OREGON, USA

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

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

DATE: October 26, 2007 A.D.

SUBJECT: demonstrable error in your letter dated 10/19/2007

Greetings Mr. Ewing:

My office has received but not accepted your erroneous letter dated October 19, 2007. We hereby formally refuse and rebut that letter, chiefly because it contains the following demonstrably incorrect statement:

Currently there is no requirement for the administrative law judges to take an Oath of Office. [your second paragraph]

As is typical of the false claims that my office continues to receive from numerous impostors who have actively infiltrated State and Federal government offices around the nation, your letter fails to cite a single authority for your erroneous claim above.

On the other hand, my office has been engaged in an extensive investigation of that infiltration, dating back to a Federal grand jury case which I was authorized to litigate in Tucson, Arizona, in the Spring of 1996. See In Re Grand Jury Subpoena here for details:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/nlhc/

For your information and because ignorance of the facts is an excuse, the Oregon Department of Justice assigned a former employee to defend the University of Oregon in Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., but that employee also turned up without an OATH OF OFFICE:

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

http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/ferrari/

http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/uoregon.edu/

Thus, Messrs. Myers, Shepherd et al. are, or should be, well aware of all pertinent laws mandating an OATH OF OFFICE for all Oregon State government officers.

I will now enumerate the most important of those laws:

First and foremost, there is Article VI, Clause 3, in the Constitution for the United States of America, rendered supreme Law throughout Oregon State by virtue of the Supremacy Clause in that Constitution.

Secondly, there is the implementing Federal statute at 4 U.S.C. 101, which could not be any clearer, in our opinion:

Every member of a State legislature, and every executive and judicial officer of a State, shall, before he proceeds to execute the duties of his office, take an oath in the following form, to wit: “I, A B, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”

Whether you are in fact claiming to be an executive or judicial officer is, therefore, immaterial, because 4 U.S.C. 101 supra makes no exceptions for any of the elected or appointed officers of the three (3) branches of Oregon’s State government.

It is also quite possible that you are implying that the Oregon Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) is a de facto legislative tribunal. Nevertheless, the authorities above make no exception for such entities either; see also French v. State and Brown v. State:

Without taking the oath prescribed by law, one cannot become a judge either de jure or de facto, and such an individual is without authority to act and his acts as such are void until he has taken the prescribed oath.

[French v. State, 572 S.W.2d 934]

[Brown v. State, 238 S.W.2d 787]

While I am on the subject, the Separation of Powers among legislative, executive and judicial branches is rendered a fundamental Right of all Citizens of Oregon, and of all federal citizens inhabiting Oregon as well. See the Guarantee Clause and Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553 (1933) (“...separation of the powers, namely, that a power definitely assigned by the Constitution to one department can neither be surrendered nor delegated by that department, nor vested by statute in another department or agency.”)

This brings us to the clear requirement for an oath or affirmation to support the U.S. Constitution and de jure Oregon State Constitution, that is found in the current Oregon State constitution, to wit:

http://www.leg.state.or.us/orcons/orcons.html

ARTICLE XV -- MISCELLANEOUS

Section 3. Oaths of office. Every person elected or appointed to any office under this Constitution, shall, before entering on the duties thereof, take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States, and of this State, and also an oath of office. [emphasis added]

If you are having difficulties understanding the term “any office” as that term occurs above, let me suggest that you submit a formal request to the Oregon DOJ for an Attorney General Opinion explaining the meaning of that term to you and to all 64 of your colleagues who are similarly situated. I am making that suggestion in earnest, because we are not playing games here, Mr. Ewing.

With respect to Article XV above, it has now come to my attention that Oregon State really has two (2) State constitutions, only one of which has been declared Republican in Form by Act of Congress. Insofar as Article XV supra is found in a second Oregon State “constitution” which has not been so declared, that entire second “constitution” evidently violates the Guarantee Clause and, as such is null and void.

With or without Article XV above, the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution renders without standing any and all Oregon State constitutional provisions and statutes that conflict in any manner with 4 U.S.C. 101 and/or with Article VI, Clause 3 supra, to wit:

... the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [emphasis added]

The fact that you place “Ph.D.” and “J.D.” after your name really says nothing meaningful to me. In fact, “Juris Doctor” should mean that you are already familiar with the Law in America, unless you received that “degree” from another one of America’s numerous Lie Schools; that would help to explain your obvious ignorance of the Law.

In the final analysis, you are calling yourself a “Judge” doing business in Oregon State, and the Supremacy Clause very clearly refers to “the Judges in every State”. That means you and 64 other personnel currently employed by Oregon’s OAH as “Administrative Law Judges”.

Conclusion: Your letter dated October 19, 2007, is hereby formally refused for good causes explained and justified in detail above.

VERIFICATION

I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, 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 Supremacy Clause (Constitution, Laws and Treaties of the United States are all the supreme Law of the Land).

Dated: October 26, 2007 A.D.

Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

__________________________________________________________

Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Private Attorney General

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Sui Juris, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (federal government), that I am at least 18 years of age, a Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America, and that I personally served the following document(s):

NOTICE OF REFUSAL FOR CAUSE,

BY AFFIDAVIT

by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United States Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed to the following:

Mr. Thomas E. Ewing, Ph.D., J.D.

dba Chief Administrative Law Judge [sic]

Office of Administrative Hearings

605 Cottage Street, N.E., Suite 201

Salem 97301

OREGON, USA

Hon. Hardy Myers, Attorney General

Department of Justice

State of Oregon

1162 Court Street, N.E.

Salem 97301-4096

OREGON, USA

Hon. Ted Kulongoski, Governor

State of Oregon

160 State Capitol

900 Court Street

Salem 97301-4047

OREGON, USA

[See USPS Publication #221 for addressing instructions.]

Dated: October 26, 2007 A.D.

Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

__________________________________________________________

Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Private Attorney General