NOTICE OF REFUSAL, FOR CAUSES
TO: Waffa N. Salfiti
Custodian of Membership Records
The State Bar of California
180 Howard Street
San Francisco 94105-1639
CALIFORNIA, USA
FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
DATE: February 11, 2004 A.D.
SUBJECT: your letter dated January 13, 2005
Dear Waffa N. Salfiti:
Our Forwarding Agent delivered to us today your letter dated January 13, 2005, concerning the missing license to practice law that is now required of Mr. Michael Jules Aguirre by sections 6067 and 6068 of the California Business and Professions Code.
We do appreciate your attempt to comply with State law in this matter. However, we regret to inform you that your letter simply does not comply with the requirements for licenses to practice law, as expressly stated in section 6067 supra.
First of all, section 6067 requires that a “certificate” of oath be indorsed upon all licenses to practice law in the State of California.
Please confer at all available law dictionaries to confirm that the term “certificate” necessarily refers to a physical document, and never to a verbal authorization of any kind (e.g. birth certificate, stock certificate, certificate of authenticity).
Secondly, a certificate of “oath” must be indorsed upon all licenses to practice law. Section 6067 is quite clear in requiring licensed attorneys to take a solemn “oath” to support two significant bodies of Law: (1) the Constitution of the United States and (2) the Constitution of the State of California.
Thirdly, the term “indorse” derives from the Latin phrase “in dorso” which means “on the back”, as one might indorse a bank check “on the back side” and nowhere else, in order to be valid.
Finally, section 6067 clearly requires that the certificate of oath shall be indorsed upon the “license”.
Your letter does attempt to “certify” that Mr. Aguirre was admitted to The State Bar of California on December 18, 1974.
However, in light of all of the points summarized above, your letter does not constitute a proper or valid “license” on which Mr. Aguirre has indorsed a certificate of any oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California.
The back side of your letter is completely blank.
Your letter is signed by you on the front side; it is not “indorsed” i.e. “on the back” of anything.
Your letter is not indorsed (“on the back”) by Mr. Aguirre.
Your letter makes absolutely no mention whatsoever of any oath(s).
Your letter makes absolutely no mention whatsoever of the Constitution of the United States.
Your letter makes absolutely no mention whatsoever of the Constitution of the State of California.
Your letter does not exhibit any “certificate of oath” as that term occurs in section 6067 supra.
And, your letter does not exhibit the term “license” or even imply that it satisfies the clear requirements imposed upon all licenses to practice law by section 6067 supra.
It is quite clear that section 6067 is a “law of this state”, as the latter term is used and intended to be understood by section 6068 of the California Business and Professions Code.
Accordingly, as of 5:00 p.m. today, Mr. Aguirre’s failure to produce a valid license to practice law in the State of California will constitute probable cause for the People of California to charge him formally with violating sections 6126, 6127 and 6128 of the California Business and Professions Code (misdemeanor, contempt of court, and misdemeanor, respectively).
Please also be informed that The State Bar of California has now been served with a proper and lawful federal SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE. Said SUBPOENA commanded that State Bar to produce certified copies of all licenses to practice law with oaths of office indorsed thereon by all members of The State Bar of California during the ten (10) calendar years beginning on January 1, 1994 A.D. and ending on December 31, 2003 A.D., as required by section 6067 supra, and as authorized by the federal statute at 18 U.S.C. 1964(a) (Civil RICO).
True and correct courtesy copies of said SUBPOENA, PROOF OF SERVICE and related documents are enclosed, for your information. As someone who presently claims to be employed as a staff member of The State Bar of California in good standing, that SUBPOENA subjects you to the very same command issued by the Federal District Clerk in Santa Ana, California. Failure timely to comply with that SUBPOENA now subjects all staff of The State Bar of California to contempt charges.
We are also attaching a pleading which was entered into evidence in Superior Court of California docket #GIC807057, in San Diego county, because it contains correct citations to California State court cases which have adjudicated section 6067 supra.
Please see the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and the Federal Rules of Evidence, for further provisions governing the evidential effects of that pleading.
We are retaining the original of your letter as material evidence of Mr. Aguirre’s missing license to practice law.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator,
and Qualified Federal Witness, 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
copies: Mr. Michael Jules Aguirre, City of San Diego
San Diego City Council
San Diego Board of Supervisors
other law enforcement (see 18 U.S.C. 4, 1341, 1962)
Mr. John Van de Kamp, Director, The State Bar of California
attachments