NOTICE OF REFUSAL FOR CAUSES,
BY AFFIDAVIT
TO: Mr. Jay M. Goldman
dba Assistant General Counsel
c/o The State Bar of California
180 Howard Street
San Francisco 94105-1639
CALIFORNIA, USA
FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a);
Plaintiff/Appellant/Relator, #03-5070
Supreme Court of the United States
DATE: December 18, 2003 A.D.
SUBJECT: evidence of fraud in your letter dated Dec. 15, 2003 A.D.
Mr. Goldman:
Your letter dated December 15, 2003 A.D. is hereby refused for causes including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(1) the facts and laws as stated in my PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI and PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRITS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS have been certified under penalty of perjury; copies of both are attached, for your information;
(2) your letter is not certified;
(3) your letter was not accompanied by any PROOF OF SERVICE to any Proper Party(s) in the above entitled case;
(4) the SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE in question is valid, and it was properly served upon the Board of Governors of The State Bar of California via Registered United States Mail with return receipt requested and received by the Undersigned;
(5) the case in question was never dismissed by the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Judicial District of California, for all of the reasons stated in the pleadings listed at (1) above;
(6) the appeal was never denied by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, likewise for all of the reasons stated in the pleadings listed at (1) above;
(7) the Supreme Court of the United States has not yet served upon Me any writ or process that conforms to the mandatory requirements of the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 1691;
(8) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has not yet served upon Me any writ or process that conforms to the mandatory requirements of the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 1691;
(9) the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Judicial District of California has not yet served upon Me any writ or process that conforms to the mandatory requirements of the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 1691;
(10) two clerks allegedly employed by the Supreme Court of the United States have now failed to produce Oaths of Office upon receipt of proper DEMAND’s from Me for same; they are now under formal investigation on suspicion of impersonating federal officers, mail fraud, conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity, and entering false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001;
(11) all personnel alleging to be judges duly commissioned and seated on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit have now failed to produce Oaths of Office upon receipt of proper DEMAND’s from Me for same; they are now under formal investigation on suspicion of impersonating Article III judges, mail fraud, conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity, and entering false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001; and,
(12) My PETITION FOR REHEARING and My MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO PETITION FOR REHEARING were never denied by any writ or other process that conforms to the mandatory requirements of the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 1691.
If you have the gall to refer to any of the above verified facts as “due process of law”, you are quite obviously out of your mind, Mr. Goldman. Either that, or your pitiful failure to locate the pertinent facts and laws in this matter indicates to Me that you are not qualified to serve as an employee of The State Bar of California.
To the end of ensuring that all personnel of The State Bar of California do have all proper credentials required by Law in California State, I now incorporate by reference My NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR EXHIBITION OF OATH OF OFFICE demanding that you exhibit your Oath of Office to Me on or before 5:00 p.m. on Friday, January 2, 2004 A.D.
Do NOT ask Me for any further assistance in this matter, Mr. Goldman, until you have proven to My complete satisfaction that you have executed a proper Oath of Office yourself.
No one is above the Law in this country, Mr. Goldman. If no one has ever explained this to you before now, consider yourself properly and completely notified by this lawful NOTICE.
VERIFICATION
The Undersigned hereby verifies, 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, and that all attached documents are likewise 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).
To be perfectly frank with you, Mr. Goldman, your letter is a piece of garbage, and you know it.
Dated: December 18, 2003 A.D.
Signed,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.,
Plaintiff/Appellant/Relator:
Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.
Supreme Court of the United States, #03-5070
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/index.htm
U.S. Mail to:
Forwarding Agent
c/o UPS PMB #332
501 W. Broadway, Suite “A”
San Diego 92101
CALIFORNIA, USA
courtesy copies:
Office of the Chief Justice
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street, N.E.
Washington 20543
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA
Frederick K. Ohlrich
Clerk of the Supreme Court
Attention: R. Gilmore, Deputy Clerk
Supreme Court of California
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco 94102
CALIFORNIA, USA
Clerk of Court
Superior Court of California
P.O. Box 120128
San Diego 92112-0128
CALIFORNIA, USA
Board of Governors
Attention: Chief Executive Officer
The State Bar of California
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles 90015
CALIFORNIA, USA
attachments