BOX 193939,  SAN FRANCISCO,  CALIFORNIA 94119-3939/tdc.  MARK THE


1.   Complainant's name: Paul Andrew, Mitchell

     Address:            c/o 2509 North Campbell Avenue, #1776
                         Tucson [zip code exempt]
                         ARIZONA REPUBLIC

     Daytime telephone:  [redacted]
                         (leave message on voice mail)

2.   Judge or magistrate complained about:

     Name:               William D. Browning
                         United States District Judge

     Court:              United States District Court
                         Tucson, Arizona state

3.   Does this  complaint concern  the behavior  of the  judge or
     magistrate in a particular lawsuit or lawsuits?
          ( X ) Yes  (  ) No

     If "yes"  give the  following information about each lawsuit
     (use the reverse side if there is more than one):

     Court:              United States District Court

     Docket Number:      95-484-TUC

     Are (were) you a party or lawyer in the lawsuit?

          (   ) Party    ( X ) Counsel  (   ) Neither

     If party,  give the  name, address,  and telephone number of
     your Counsel:


         Judicial Complaint Against William D. Browning:
                          Page 1 of 6

     Docket numbers of any appeals to the Ninth Circuit:

          Notice of  appeal  was  filed  before  trial,  but  Mr.
          Browning refused  to stay  the trial,  and  ruled  that
          Notice of  Appeal could  not be  processed until  after
          sentencing.  Defendant Sheila Wallen objected timely.

4.   Have you filed any lawsuits against the judge or magistrate?

          (   ) Yes      ( X ) No  (Client has, however.)

     If yes,  give the  following information  about each lawsuit
     (use the reverse side if there is more than one):

     Court:    District Court of the United States
               Judicial District of Arizona

     Present status of suit:

          My client,  Sheila Terese  Wallen, served Formal Notice
          and Demand  upon  Judge  Alex  Kozinski  of  the  Ninth
          Circuit Court of Appeals, to prepare and present to the
          Chief Justice  of the  United States  a certificate  of
          necessity that  the Chief  Justice designate and assign
          temporarily a  competent and  qualified judge  from the
          Court of International Trade to perform judicial duties
          in the District Court of the United States, pursuant to
          authorities in  28 U.S.C.  293, 296,  297, 461(b),  and
          Evans v. Gore,  253 U.S. 245 (1920).  Her action cannot
          proceed without  a competent and qualified judge to sit
          on the District Court of the United States.

     Name, address, and telephone number of your Counsel:


     Court to which any appeal has been taken:

          (see above)

     Docket number of appeal:


     Present status of appeal:


5.   On separate  sheets of  paper, no larger than the paper this
     form is  printed on, describe the conduct or the evidence of
     disability that  is the subject of this complaint.  See rule
     2(b) and  2(d).   Do not  use more  than 5  pages (5 sides).
     Most complaints do not require that much.

          see attached

         Judicial Complaint Against William D. Browning:
                          Page 2 of 6

6.   You should either:

          (1)  check the  first box  below and  sign this form in
               the presence of a notary public;  or

          (2)  check the  second box  and sign  the form.  You do
               not need  a notary  public if you check the second

          ( )  I swear (affirm) that --

          (X)  I declare under penalty of perjury --

               I have  read rules  1 and  2 of  the Rules  of the
               Judicial Council  of the  Ninth Circuit  Governing
               Complaints of  Judicial Misconduct  or Disability,
               and the  statement made in this complaint are true
               and correct to the best of my knowledge.

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, and
Counselor at Law
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice

Executed on:  September 16, 1996

copies:   Judge Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit
          U.S. Marshals, Tucson, Arizona
          Federal Bureau of Investigation, Tucson, Arizona
          Attorney General, State of Arizona
          Governor Fife Symington, State of Arizona
          Sheila Terese Wallen, Arivaca, Arizona state

         Judicial Complaint Against William D. Browning:
                          Page 3 of 6

         Attachment to Complaint of Judicial Misconduct

1.   Mr. Browning agreed -- before trial, on record, and before a
     gallery of  witnesses -- to guarantee all of Sheila Wallen's
     fundamental Rights  during said  trial.   He then refused to
     allow Her  to enjoy the assistance of Her Counsel of Choice,
     by ordering Mr. Paul Andrew Mitchell to the back seat of the
     gallery, where  Mr. Mitchell  was forced  to stay during the
     entire course  of  the  trial  and  was  prevented  by  U.S.
     Marshals from  communicating with Miss Wallen.  Mr. Mitchell
     was allowed  to speak  with Miss  Wallen only  during recess
     periods.   Mr. Browning  had  been  previously  briefed,  in
     detail, as  to the  holding of  the U.S.  Supreme  Court  in
     Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 468 (1938), which held that
     a criminal  defendant  is  entitled  to  the  assistance  of
     Counsel at  every step  in the proceedings, and if the trial
     court fails  to ensure  that this assistance is available at
     every step  in the  proceedings, then  the trial court ousts
     itself of  jurisdiction.   Mr. Browning  did not  care about
     this Supreme Court precedent;  Mr. Browning does not believe
     that  U.S.   Supreme  Court   decisions   have   any   legal
     significance.   Denial of effective assistance of Counsel is
     a criminal deprivation of a fundamental Right under color of
     law, in  violation of 18 U.S.C. 242, and perjury of oath, in
     violation of  18 U.S.C. 1621.  In My opinion, this matter is
     serious enough to be brought to the attention of a qualified
     federal grand  jury, one  whose members  are chosen randomly
     from a  pool that  includes State  Citizens  too,  not  just
     federal citizens.

2.   When  presented   with   an   Affidavit   of   Circumstances
     Surrounding the  Arrest of  Sheila Wallen,  and also  with a
     comprehensive  Motion  to  Stay  Proceedings  pending  final
     resolution   of    Sheila   Wallen's    challenge   to   the
     constitutionality of  the Jury  Selection and  Service  Act,
     complete with  a very  detailed  Sworn  Statement  of  facts
     supporting  said   Motion,  Mr.   Browning  received   these
     pleadings at approximately 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday afternoon,
     July 17,  1996;  Mr. Browning then ruled on these pleadings,
     wrote his  Order on  the same  day, placed his Order in U.S.
     Mail, and it was delivered to Sheila Wallen's post office 70
     miles away  in Arivaca, Arizona, by 11:00 a.m. the following
     morning, Thursday, July 18, 1996.  It was impossible for Mr.
     Browning to  have read  all of  these pleadings  in such  an
     extremely short period of time.  Furthermore, Mr. Browning's
     Order ruled  that Wallen's  Affidavit was  hearsay, and that
     there was  nothing in the Stay Motion and accompanying Sworn
     Statement of  any legal  significance, despite the fact that
     the latter  pleadings  contained  numerous  authorities  and
     rulings by  the United  States Supreme  Court.  For example,
     see U.S.  v. Mason,  412 U.S.  391, 399-400  (1973), to wit:
     nobody should be punished unnecessarily for relying upon the
     decisions of  the U.S.  Supreme Court.   Refusing  to file a
     proper and  correctly executed  Affidavit  violates  Federal
     Rules of  Evidence, Rule  201(d), Mandatory Judicial Notice,
     and constitutes  obstruction of  justice in  violation of 18
     U.S.C. 1506.   Miss  Wallen's Affidavit contained proof that
     the  alleged   officers  of   the  United  States  proceeded
     criminally  to   trespass  upon  Wallen's  private  property
     without a  valid warrant  to search and seize said property,
     and to  arrest Her  without a  valid warrant for Her arrest.
     This Affidavit also contained material evidence which proves
     the lack of jurisdiction of the United States District Court
     over which  Mr.  Browning  presided,  since  a  warrant  was
     absolutely necessary to execute the search, seizure & arrest
     in the  first instance;   without  said warrants, Browning's
     court was  denied jurisdiction over the subject matter.  See
     Rule C  of the  Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and
     Maritime Claims.   This  Affidavit also contains evidence of
     threats, duress,  extortion, and  coercion by  said  alleged
     agents of  the United  States, all in violation of 18 U.S.C.
     872 (extortion),  making Mr. Browning an accessory to all of
     these crimes after the fact, in violation 18 U.S.C. 3.  This
     matter should  be brought  before a  competent and qualified
     federal grand jury.

         Judicial Complaint Against William D. Browning:
                          Page 4 of 6

3.   As of 5:00 p.m. on Friday, August 30, 1996, Mr. Browning had
     failed to  answer Wallen's Final Notice and Demand for Proof
     of Power,  Standing, and  Jurisdiction in  the  Particulars.
     His failure  to do so is competent evidence that neither he,
     nor the  court over which he was presiding, had any criminal
     jurisdiction whatsoever to proceed over the case before him.
     Specifically, Miss  Wallen demanded:   (1)  proof  that  the
     alleged U.S.  Attorneys who  were prosecuting Her had powers
     of attorney  to represent  the Plaintiff  "UNITED STATES  OF
     AMERICA";   (2) proof  of  the  statutory,  regulatory,  and
     constitutional authority  which grants legal standing to the
     "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" to bring a criminal action before
     a "UNITED  STATES DISTRICT  COURT";   and (3)  proof of  the
     statutory, regulatory,  and constitutional  authority  which
     grants jurisdiction  to a  "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT" as
     opposed to a "DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES" to hear a
     criminal case against a Union State Citizen when the alleged
     crime was  committed inside  the state  zone and outside the
     federal  zone.    It  is  a  principle  of  law  that,  once
     challenged, the  one asserting  jurisdiction must prove that
     jurisdiction exists  as a matter of law.  The proponent of a
     rule carries  the burden  of proving  its application in the
     instant case.  See 5 U.S.C. 556(d).  For judicial support of
     this principle,  see  in  particular  the  following  cases:
     Hagans v. Lavine,  415  U.S. 533;   Griffin v. Matthews, 310
     F.Supp. 341,  423 F.2d  272;   McNutt v. G.M., 56 S.Ct. 789,
     80 L.Ed  1135;   Basso v. U.P.L.,  495 F.2d 906;  Thomson v.
     Gaskiel, 62  S.Ct. 673, 83 L.Ed 111;  Albrecht v. U.S.,  273
     U.S. 1;   Louisville  R.R. v. Motley, 211 U.S. 149, 29 S.Ct.
     42.   Proceeding without  jurisdiction, particularly after a
     formal notice and demand for proof of jurisdiction have been
     completely ignored,  is a  criminal denial of due process of
     law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and 18 U.S.C. 242.
     This  matter  should  be  brought  before  a  competent  and
     qualified federal grand jury.

         Judicial Complaint Against William D. Browning:
                          Page 5 of 6

4.   Mr. Browning  also "DENIED"  two pleadings  by  Miss  Wallen
     filed in  the form  of a  Notice and  Demand  for  Mandatory
     Judicial Notice,  pursuant to  Rule 201(d)  of  the  Federal
     Rules of  Evidence.   A  federal  judge  has  absolutely  no
     discretion in  the matter of mandatory judicial notice.  The
     rule itself  is very clear on this point:  "when MANDATORY."
     Refusing to file material evidence, and proper and correctly
     executed demands  for  mandatory  judicial  notice  of  said
     evidence, violates  Federal Rules  of Evidence, Rule 201(d),
     Mandatory Judicial  Notice, and  constitutes obstruction  of
     justice in  violation of  18 U.S.C.  1506.   Miss Wallen was
     forced to refuse Mr. Browning's DENIAL Order for fraud.  The
     proper  method  for  excluding  said  evidence  is  for  the
     opposing party  to move  the court  to strike  the evidence;
     this was  not done by the opposing party, or by any of their
     officers, agents,  or employees.   Claiming to have "DENIED"
     Miss Wallen's  Notices and  Demands for  Mandatory  Judicial
     Notice, absent  a proper  Motion to  Strike by  the opposing
     party, is proof that Mr. Browning engaged in the practice of
     law, a high misdemeanor in violation of 28 U.S.C. 454.  This
     matter should  be brought  before a  competent and qualified
     federal grand jury.

5.   Criminal conduct  by a  United States  District Judge, while
     presiding over any case, whether it be civil or criminal, is
     conduct  which   is  prejudicial   to  the   effective   and
     expeditious administration  of the  business of  the federal
     courts.  "No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert
     its  full   authority  to   prevent  all  violation  of  the
     principles of  the  Constitution."    Harlan  dissenting  in
     Downes v. Bidwell,  182  U.S. 244 (1901), emphasis added.  A
     competent and  qualified federal  grand jury should be given
     the opportunity  to investigate probable criminal conduct by
     William D.  Browning in  this case, and in others of which I
     am aware.

         Judicial Complaint Against William D. Browning:
                          Page 6 of 6

                             #  #  #

Return to Table of Contents for

Judicial Complaint against William D. Browning