NOTICE OF FRAUD
TO: Office of the University President
Miami University of Ohio
FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
DATE: February 19, 2003 A.D.
SUBJECT: Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.
Greetings University President:
We regret that we must inform you that the following conclusions have now been certified under penalty of perjury in the official docket of the above entitled case:
(1) Mr. William B. Shubb was not lawfully appointed to occupy the office of United States District Judge;
(2) Mr. William B. Shubb was not lawfully appointed to preside on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California;
(3) Mr. William B. Shubb was never lawfully appointed to preside on the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Judicial District of California; and,
(4) Mr. William B. Shubb possessed no lawful authority to appoint U.S. magistrate judges, or to refer civil matters to the latter for findings of facts and conclusions of law.
Furthermore, there is no Presidential Commission now in evidence even remotely suggesting that Mr. William B. Shubb was ever lawfully appointed to preside on either federal court.
By law, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is the legal custodian of said Commission; DOJ has now confirmed that their offices have no such Presidential Commission in their possession (see enclosed).
Thus, copies of the alleged “ORDER” and “JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE” mailed to us by the Office of General Counsel at the Miami University of Ohio are evidence of fraud. Those copies assume facts which are not in evidence in the official record now before the Ninth Circuit.
If your University had chosen to answer the lawful SUMMONS issued by the District Court of the United States on September 18, 2001, its representatives would have become recipients of all pleadings and related affidavits that now constitute a legal part of that record.
However, that official record also indicates that your University never appeared and never answered our Initial COMPLAINT.
Said SUMMONS clearly stated that “judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint” [sic].
Accordingly, it is my duty to inform you that any further attempts by you and/or your Office of General Counsel to transmit other fraudulent documents to us via U.S. Mail, or by any other means, will be treated as proof of further predicate acts to racketeering and conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of the federal RICO laws at 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.
(“RICO” is the accepted legal acronym for the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.)
Mail fraud is a RICO predicate act. See 18 U.S.C. 1961(1)(B).
The federal statute at 18 U.S.C. 4 also imposes upon me a legal duty to report all felony federal offenses to a judge of the United States. I have no intentions of violating this latter criminal statute.
I routinely report felony federal offenses to the Hon. Alex Kozinski, now presiding on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with chambers in Pasadena, California. Judge Kozinski supervises all my litigation efforts, by tacit consent and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4.
We have enclosed pertinent hard copy excerpts from the docket above. Please feel free to access the identical electronic copies that we have made available on the Internet at the URL also shown above.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General and Plaintiff/Appellant
copy: Office of General Counsel, Roudebush Hall, Miami University
Office of the District Attorney, Sacramento, California
Judge Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit (supervising)
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, U.S. Supreme Court (supervising)
Dr. John C. Alden, M.D., Federal Witness
Notary Public, San Diego county, California
enclosures: excerpts from official docket