FINAL NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR
PROOF OF APPOINTMENT AND DESIGNATION
TO: Mr. Jack L. Wagner, Clerk of Court
District Court of the United States
501 “I” Street, Suite 4-200
Sacramento 95814-2322
CALIFORNIA, USA
Mr. Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Director
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building
One Columbus Circle, N.E.
Washington 20544
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA
Mr. James S. Carroll, III, Assistant Director
Executive Office for United States Attorneys
Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Unit
600 “E” Street, N.W., Room 7300
Washington 20530
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Hon. Mary M. Schroeder, Chief Judge
c/o Cathy A. Catterson, Clerk of Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
P.O. Box 193939
San Francisco 94119-3939
CALIFORNIA, USA
FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Plaintiff/Appellant
Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.
Ninth Circuit docket #02-15269 and 372(c) #02-89005
DATE: September 1, 2002 A.D.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
To date, neither the office of the Clerk of the federal district court in Sacramento, California, nor the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts in Washington, D.C., nor the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., nor the State Bar of California, nor the Clerk of the California Supreme Court, has been able to produce any of the credentials which Mr. Dale A. Drozd (hereinafter “Mr. Drozd”) must have, in order for him to occupy the office of United States magistrate judge in Sacramento, California State.
I refer all of you specifically to the form letter I received from Mr. James S. Carroll, III, dated April 24, 2002, in which he appeared to err by alleging that My request sought public records which may be obtained from the clerk of the court. This appeared to be an error, because the U.S. Department of Justice (in the Executive Branch) is the legal custodian of all Presidential Commissions appointing federal judges to the bench, not any office in the Judicial Branch.
Thus, the clerk of court is not the legal custodian of any such Presidential Commissions. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 2104(a)(1)(A) and 2902(c).
On April 26, 2002 A.D., Mr. Drozd signed and filed another specious “order” in which he formally acknowledged My allegations that, in his case, no jurisdiction, no license, no oath, no certificate, and no commission have been produced by any personnel employed by any of the above federal offices to which this NOTICE AND DEMAND are now addressed.
And, in that specious “order” of April 26, 2002, Mr. Drozd offered absolutely no rebuttal(s) or denial(s) whatsoever that no (civil) jurisdiction existed, no license (to practice law) existed, no oath (of office) existed, no certificate (of oath) existed, and no (presidential) commission existed. I never consented to civil jurisdiction by any United States magistrate judges.
I refer you now to the cases which have held that a Presidential Commission is required for all judges of the Supreme Court, Circuit Courts, and District Courts. For Mr. Drozd to exercise any lawful authorities of a district judge, such as denying My MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT, the Law requires that he be commissioned by the President, and have a life-time appointment. Neither is the case, based on the official record before the Ninth Circuit at the present time. See the Appointments Clause in the U.S. Constitution (“2:2:2”).
So, I believe that sufficient evidence has already been
certified that Mr. Drozd is not now, and never was, a district judge.
The question remains, therefore, whether or not Mr. Drozd is now, or ever was, a United States magistrate judge. Please note well the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 631(a) requires that judges of each United States District Court shall appoint all United States magistrate judges; the statute at 28 U.S.C. 631(b)(1) requires each such magistrate judge to have been ‑‑ for at least five (5) years ‑‑ a member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a State.
Provided that they are qualified and duly appointed, a federal judge may then, and only then, designate such magistrate judges to conduct hearings and to submit to a judge proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B).
My demand for his certificate of oath, properly indorsed upon his license to practice law, was My earnest and good faith attempt to determine whether or not Mr. Drozd was ever qualified to be appointed to the office of United States magistrate judge, in the first instance. Evidently, Mr. Drozd was not so qualified.
Section 6067 of the California Business and Professions Code mandates that a certificate of oath shall be indorsed upon a license to practice law in the State of California. When no such certificate was produced by Mr. Drozd, nor by the State Bar of California, nor by the Clerk of the California Supreme Court, I was thereby entitled to conclude that Mr. Drozd was never qualified to be appointed to the office of United States magistrate judge, in the first instance.
To date, I have not requested any evidence that Mr. Drozd has been duly appointed or designated under 28 U.S.C. 631(a) or 636(b)(1)(B), respectively, because the matter of his qualifications came first. If he was never qualified, then no appointment or designation by any federal judge could have been valid, or lawful, in the first instance.
Nevertheless, before I satisfy the legal requirements imposed upon me by the federal criminal statute at 18 U.S.C. 4 (misprision of felony), and before I formally charge Mr. Drozd with impersonating a federal officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 912 (a felony), I wish to confirm, once and for all, whether or not certain documentary evidence exists.
Documentary evidence may indicate that a federal judge did attempt to appoint Mr. Drozd to the office of United States magistrate judge, and/or that a federal judge did attempt to designate Mr. Drozd to conduct hearings and submit findings of fact and conclusions of law in My case, now pending before the Ninth Circuit. I would regard such documentary evidence as a factor mitigating the charge I now intend to file against Mr. Drozd, for impersonating a federal officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. 912, and I do intend to supplement My Complaint of Judicial Misconduct with said evidence (if available).
Accordingly, I hereby demand the timely exhibition and certification of any and all documentary evidence that a federal judge did attempt to appoint Mr. Dale A. Drozd to the office of United States magistrate judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 631(a) (or any other lawful authority).
I also demand the timely exhibition and certification of any and all documentary evidence that a federal judge did attempt, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) (or any other lawful authority), to designate Mr. Dale A. Drozd to conduct hearings and submit findings of fact and conclusions of law in My case, now pending before the Ninth Circuit.
I am giving each of you a reasonable deadline of thirty (30) calendar days hence, which deadline is 5:00 p.m. on September 30, 2002 A.D., to produce the documentary evidence itemized above. Beyond that deadline, your silence will constitute fraud, pursuant to the court holding in U.S. v. Tweel, and it will also activate estoppel, pursuant to the court holding in Carmine v. Bowen (cites on the Internet).
Please be advised that I intend to file your answer(s), if any, in the Ninth Circuit docket assigned to My Complaint of Judicial Misconduct against Mr. Drozd, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 372(c). That docket number is #02‑89005. I also intend to testify to your silence, in the event that no answers are forthcoming from all of you, or any one of you.
Thank you for your timely professional consideration.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Plaintiff and Appellant
Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/index.htm
copies: Judge Alex Kozinski (supervising)
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
P.O. Box 91510
Pasadena 91109-1510
CALIFORNIA, USA
Hon. Jan Scully, District Attorney
Office of the District Attorney
County of Sacramento
901 “G” Street
Sacramento 95814
CALIFORNIA, USA
U.S. Mail care of:
Dr. John C. Alden, M.D., Eyewitness
350 – 30th Street, Suite 444
Oakland 94609-3426
CALIFORNIA, USA