DEMAND TO CONVEY CRIMINAL COMPLAINT TO GRAND JURY

NOTICE AND DEMAND TO CONVEY

VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, ON INFORMATION

TO LAWFULLY CONVENED FEDERAL GRAND JURY

TO: Patrick J. Fitzgerald

Office of Special Counsel

1400 New York Ave., N.W., 9th Fl.

Washington 20530

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA

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

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

c/o 501 West Broadway #A-332

San Diego 92101

CALIFORNIA, USA

DATE: December 1, 2006 A.D.

SUBJECT: USA v. Libby, USDC/D.C. Criminal No. 05-394 (RBW)

Greetings Mr. Fitzgerald:

In the course of reviewing standing court decisions which have been issued in litigation involving the federal criminal statutes at 18 U.S.C. sections 1504 and 3332, my office was very pleased to discover the correct and well documented decision In re Grand Jury Application, 617 F.Supp. 199 (USDC/SDNY 1985).

We regard this decision as binding judicial precedent throughout the judicial district of New York State, and therefore in lower Manhattan. See 28 U.S.C. 112.

A few of the most pertinent abstracts, as published in the United States Code Annotated (“USCA”) and United States Code Service (“USCS”), now follow, to wit:

Private litigant may obtain writ of mandamus to compel U.S. attorney to present facts concerning alleged criminal wrongdoing to grand jury.

By enacting 18 U.S.C. 3332(a) ... Congress intended to remove prosecutor’s discretion in deciding whether to present information to grand jury; he retains discretion with respect to how he acts and what he recommends concerning that information.

Plaintiffs were entitled to writ of mandamus to compel U.S. Attorney to present facts concerning alleged criminal wrongdoing of certain named defendants to grand jury, considering that grand jury statute [18 U.S.C. 3332(a)] gave plaintiffs a clear right to relief sought, that U.S. Attorney had duty to do the act in question, and that no other adequate remedy was available.

[bold emphases added]

Litigants in pending civil suit had standing to seek writ of mandamus to compel U.S. Attorney to present facts concerning alleged criminal wrongdoing of certain named defendants to grand jury, as 18 USCA 3332(a), providing that any attorney appearing on behalf of the United States before grand jury who receives information concerning alleged offense from any other person, shall, if requested by such other person, inform grand jury of such alleged offense, created a duty on part of U.S. Attorney that ran to the litigants.

18 U.S.C. 3332(a) creates a right in every person to have information known by them concerning organized crime to be presented to grand jury.

In order to grant a request for mandamus, a court must find: a clear right in plaintiff to relief sought; a plainly defined and peremptory duty on part of defendant to do the act in question; and no other adequate remedy available.

[bold and underlined emphases added]

This erudite decision also does an excellent job of documenting the relevant Legislative History of 18 U.S.C. 3331 et seq., to wit:

Citizens would be accorded the right to contact the jury, through the foreman, regarding any alleged criminal act. ...

Act [at 3331(a)] created new sections requiring the appointment of special grand juries in all judicial districts with over four million inhabitants.

During the House Hearings, Edward L. Wright presented the views of the American Bar Association, which were essentially embodied in the Act in its final form.

[bold and underlined emphases added]

As reported In re Grand Jury Application supra, Mr. Wright wrote:

It is our belief that the prosecutor should properly be vested with the responsibility of professionally screening allegations of criminal misconduct. At the same time, we recommend that there be built into the process a safeguard that will require the prosecutor to give an accounting of his screening.

House Hearings at 541

[bold emphasis added]

In his holding in that case, the judge ruled as follows:

Since the U.S. Attorney has been requested to present certain information to the grand jury he must do so. I will not relieve him of a duty which Congress has seen fit to impose.

DEMAND FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE

Accordingly therefore, Mr. Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the United States (federal government) appearing ex rel. Paul Andrew Mitchell, Private Attorney General, hereby makes its formal DEMAND that you convey our previously lodged VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, ON INFORMATION, formally charging Messrs. George W. Bush, Donald H. Rumsfeld, Richard B. Cheney and Does 1 thru 100 with multiple felony federal offenses, to a lawfully convened federal grand jury forthwith.

DEADLINE FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE

Your specific performance and detailed compliance with the holding, as detailed In re Grand Jury Application supra, must be demonstrated by confirming same in writing to the following mailing location no later than midnight on the evening of December 31, 2006 A.D.:

Supreme Law Firm

c/o Forwarding Agent

501 West Broadway #A-332

San Diego 92101

CALIFORNIA, USA

Thank you, Mr. Patrick J. Fitzgerald, for your timely and professional cooperation in this historic matter that now affects so many millions of inhabitants of planet Earth.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

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

Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and

Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm

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

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)