However, when Brown apparently refused to pursue some of PAM's recent insanity with regard to that lawsuit, PAM turned on him and declared (as usual) that AG Brown is not even an attorney, since his oath of office is not printed on his license.MEMO
TO: Hon. Jerry Brown, Mayor
City of Oakland
One Frank Ogawa Plaza, 3rd Floor
Oakland 94612
CALIFORNIA, USA
FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Qualified Federal Witness, 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-1513, 1964
SUBJECT: request for assistance from your Office
Dear Mayor Brown:
The San Diego Union-Tribune ran a front-page article yesterday about your plans to campaign for the office of State Attorney General. Please accept our hearty encouragement and endorsement, simply because you will make an excellent Attorney General for California.
My activism and public interest litigation in recent years have exposed a number of pressing statewide issues which need your attention now, and definitely soon after you become our elected Attorney General for the State of California.
By way of introduction, enclosed are a few documents which you should study carefully yourself, and not merely refer to staff members for their review or summary recommendation(s).
First of all, in my copyright and trademark infringement case filed in the Federal District Court in Sacramento in the Fall of 1991, the University of California was a named Defendant. Four attorneys in the Office of the General Counsel for the Regents attempted to appear on behalf of U.C., but all four attorneys turned up without the licenses to practice law that are required by sections 6067 and 6068 of the California Business and Professions Code.
That case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, and all named Defendants and all of their UNlicensed attorneys either fell totally silent, or they formally waived their right to answer the briefs we filed at the high Court. Silence activates estoppel. Carmine v. Bowen.
More recently, the Federal District Clerk in Santa Ana issued a SUBPOENA to The State Bar of California, to produce certified copies of the licenses to practice law that are required of all State Bar members during the 10-year period beginning on January 1, 1994. The State Bar are now in contempt of court for failing properly to answer that SUBPOENA. It appears to us that all 200,000+ State Bar members are presently in open violation of sections 6067, 6068, 6126, 6127 and 6128 of the California Business and Professions Code (read crimes).
Because their missing licenses also implicated them in mail fraud, obstruction of justice and witness retaliation –- all of which are felony federal offenses and RICO predicate acts –- I performed my legal duties under 18 U.S.C. 4 by formally charging all four of U.C.’s attorneys in a VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT in my Civil RICO case, now pending before the Superior Court of California, docket #GIC807057.
Here is where things became extremely sticky. In the latter Civil RICO case, once again a flock of UNlicensed attorneys have attempted to create the illusion that this case was “removed” into the U.S. District Court in Sacramento. There, the same named Defendants have blatantly usurped jurisdiction, contrary to the original jurisdiction which the Superior Court already enjoys over Civil RICO actions. See Tafflin v. Levitt and Lou v. Belzberg.
Since when do civil defendants have any “right” to preside on the same case in which they are named defendants? That’s how bad things have become!
Why do I stress the criminality of pretending that the U.S. District Court in Sacramento summarily “disposed” of my Civil RICO case? The answer to that question can be found, in part, in the enclosed copy of my summary explanation to the Oregon Attorney General’s office.
Our work has exposed what now appears to be widespread infiltration of the federal judiciary by impostors who lack the required credentials, as proven in part by confirmation letters we have received from the U.S. Department of Justice in response to our FOIA requests.
In addition to the CRIMINAL COMPLAINT mentioned above, my office has now issued CITIZEN’S ARREST WARRANTs for all of the co-conspirators, with particular emphasis on all UNlicensed attorneys who attempted to appear on behalf of any named Defendants in either lawsuit.
Those ARREST WARRANTs were addressed to the San Diego County Sheriff, with copies recently mailed to local County Sheriffs where the suspects live and work. The Alameda County Sheriff thus received copies of our CITIZEN’S ARREST WARRANTs for the prompt apprehension and prosecution of each of the four UNlicensed attorneys in U.C.’s Office of General Counsel (see enclosed).
Mayor Brown, it should be obvious to anyone with your legal knowledge and extensive political experience, that my Right to a “day in court” -- to prosecute my Civil RICO case before a State jury of my peers -- is being systematically and now habitually obstructed by white-collar felony criminals. These criminals should now be promptly arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of all applicable State and federal laws, on the strength of my CRIMINAL COMPLAINTs and the supporting verified affidavits on file in both court cases.
Furthermore, I am not exaggerating one bit when I say that the combined damage total in both cases, plus applicable pre-judgment interest authorized by California State law (7% APR), now exceeds eight billion U.S. dollars ($8 BILLION USD) and it’s still climbing.
Can you help us? Surely, someone with your spirit for public service fully understands that I would never be able to spend such a huge sum on myself, nor would I ever want to.
In fact, I have already explained, in correspondence now widely disseminated via the Internet, that any financial sums a jury might agree to award me, will be dedicated to building a Supreme Law College and to establishing trust accounts for numerous charitable purposes. Perhaps the City of Oakland would be interested in hosting the main campus of this Supreme Law College, which has been a dream of mine for many years.
For example, my office recently intervened in the pension fund crisis now gripping the City of San Diego. This activism has made me aware that police departments around the State are also coming up short of funds for essential equipment, and for their own retirement accounts. Subscribers to our private email discussion list responded by describing our solution as “simply brilliant” (their words, not mine). Feel free to contact Deputy Mayor Michael Zucchet, for full details.
With such a large jury award at our disposal, I am sure that humanitarian generosity will easily become a foregone conclusion in this matter.
Mayor Brown, please give this introductory letter and all enclosed documents your prompt, sincere and professional consideration. If you are not available to contribute solutions in your official capacity, permit me to propose that the Supreme Law Firm retain you for private counsel in these important matters e.g. as a settlement negotiator and solution facilitator.
Similarly, to protect my Civil RICO case from any further bias and prejudice which appear to exist inside Department 71 here, I would give serious consideration to removing this case to the Alameda County Superior Court, on your recommendation.
Thank you for helping in any way you might find most suitable to the pressing needs of California and its many Citizens.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Qualified Federal Witness, 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-1513, 1964
enclosures
copies: Hon. Michael Zucchet, Deputy Mayor, City of San Diego
Hon. William Lansdowne, Chief of Police, City of San Diego
PAM also recently sent a letter to the San Diego Superior Court, asking that they inform him who is authorized to replace an allegedly recused judge in PAM's old AOL case. They responded with the following, which of course PAM "refused for cause":
PAM immediately started issuing his own arrest warrants.For many years, you have continued to correspond concerning the above closed case. Please cease and desist. The latest documents you submitted are listed below, and will be placed in the above-referenced case without action. As you know, the case was removed to federal court, venue was transferred, and a judgment entered three years ago. The federal court has also declined to accept your frivolous documents.
CITIZEN’S ARREST WARRANT
TO: Hon. Bill Kolender
San Diego County Sheriff
P.O. Box 939062
San Diego 92193-9062
CALIFORNIA, USA
FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
DATE: July 27, 2007 A.D.
SUBJECT: criminal conduct by Janis Lynn Sammartino as documented in verified documentary evidence filed in Superior Court of California, Clerk’s docket number #GIC807057
I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, Citizen of California State, Federal Witness and Private Attorney General, on My honor and under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (federal government), hereby warrant that probable cause exists to justify the immediate arrest and arraignment of Janis Lynn Sammartino on formal charges of conspiring to engage in a pattern of racketeering activities and related RICO “predicate acts” in connection with the above Civil RICO action, in violation of the criminal statutes at 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.
Pursuant to the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Miranda v. Arizona, Janis Lynn Sammartino has previously been informed, in writing transmitted via first class U.S. Mail, that she has the Right to remain silent; that she has the Right to effective assistance of Counsel; and that anything which she may say, or do, from that point forward, can and will be held against her in a court of Law.
I hereby verify also, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (federal government), that I am the victim of, and also an eyewitness to, the criminal violations enumerated above.
Please make all necessary arrangements to execute the arrest of Janis Lynn Sammartino, and/or to schedule on-site assistance to the victim for purposes of executing a proper Citizen’s Arrest, at a time and place convenient to the victim and to your office.
Thank you, in advance, for your immediate cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell
Private Attorney General, Superior Court #GIC807057
He sent identical "arrest" documents with regard to Michael Roddy of the California Superior Court. Then, the very next day, he started harassing the Clerk:NOTICE OF CITIZEN’S ARREST WARRANT
AND DEMAND FOR IMMEDIATE SURRENDER
TO: Janis Lynn Sammartino
Superior Court of California
P.O. Box 120128
San Diego 92112-0128
CALIFORNIA, USA
FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Plaintiff
Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.
Superior Court docket #GIC807057
DATE: July 27, 2007 A.D.
SUBJECT: CITIZEN’S ARREST WARRANT (copy attached):
California Penal Code § 837 et seq.
Greetings Ms. Sammartino:
I regret to inform you that you are now under arrest, pursuant to a proper and lawful CITIZEN’S ARREST WARRANT as authorized by § 837 of the California Penal Code, a copy of which WARRANT is attached.
Formal demand is hereby made of you to surrender without any further delay to the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, for booking and arraignment.
Formal demand is also hereby made of you immediately to cease and desist from any further obstruction of justice or any other crime in connection with the instant matter.
My VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, ON INFORMATION will follow shortly, formally charging you with conspiring to engage in a pattern of racketeering activities, including but not limited to aiding and abetting a protection racket and obstruction of justice in connection with Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., docket #GIC807057.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Plaintiff and
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.
Superior Court docket #GIC807057
copy: San Diego County Sheriffs
Clerk of Court
attachments
MEMO
TO: Kathy Bailey
Civil Clerk’s Office
Superior Court of California
330 West Broadway
San Diego 92101
CALIFORNIA, USA
FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
DATE: July 28, 2007 A.D.
SUBJECT: original jurisdiction of the Superior Court
Hello Ms. Bailey:
In the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Mason, 412 U.S. 391 (1973), the high Court ruled as follows:
And if the doctrine of stare decisis has any meaning at all, it requires that people in their everyday affairs be able to rely on our decisions and not be needlessly penalized for such reliance. Cf. Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258, 283 (1972); Wallace v. M'Connell, 13 Pet. 136, 150 (1839). [bold emphasis added]
In accord with that standing decision, therefore, enclosed please find four (4) judicial decisions which have all agreed that State courts have original jurisdiction of Civil RICO actions, like case number #GIC807057. The first case was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court; the second by the Ninth Circuit; the third by the Washington State Supreme Court; and the fourth by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania:
Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (1990)
Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730 (9th Cir. 1987)
Rice v. Janovich, 742 P.2d 1230 (Wash. 1987)
Village at Camelback v. Carr, 538 A.2d 528 (Pa.Super. 1988)
I am obliged, therefore, to demand that you cease and desist immediately from attempting to dictate false conclusions of law to me, or to anyone else, concerning a matter over which the Superior Court of California does enjoy original jurisdiction.
I can appreciate why you might not be aware of any of the standing decisions cited above, even if you were a duly licensed attorney. Those cases are not common knowledge, and I do not believe that they are required subjects taught in any law schools. Also, you have given me no reason to believe that you had ever read the INITIAL COMPLAINT in case number #GIC807057, where 2 of the above decisions are cited -- Tafflin v. Levitt and Lou v. Belzberg.
Moreover, there is a very good reason why personnel of the Clerk’s office are prohibited from attempting to give legal advice: the unsuspecting public can be damaged quite significantly if they should follow such advice, particularly when that “advice” is not correct.
You persisted in claiming yesterday that the Superior Court of California does not have jurisdiction of Civil RICO case #GIC807057.
In a separate MEMO, I will go into more details explaining exactly why it was that your efforts yesterday amounted to a vain attempt to dictate false conclusions of law to me.
Everybody deserves a second chance, and I do believe that our lengthy discussion yesterday was the first time you and I had ever met.
Nevertheless, the extensive accumulated damages I have already sustained in #GIC807057 now force me to exercise my rights and remedies to halt any further damages, and proceed with all deliberate speed to schedule my day in court i.e. the Superior Court.
If you had only asked the right question, you would have quickly learned that I have never had an opportunity to present any of my evidence and related claims to a jury of my peers. In point of fact, I haven’t even been allowed to come within 100 miles of a jury.
And, after being as polite as possible in a situation that justifiably angers most normal people who are not brainwashed by the garbage “legal advice” being issued by so many corrupt and unlicensed attorneys, I’m now convinced the obstruction of justice in my case has gone far enough and needs to stop immediately. See CBPC section 6067.
If you want to help me try my case before a jury of peers, I would welcome that help. On the other hand, if you choose instead to aid and abet the obvious obstruction that has already occurred and continued to occur yesterday and the day before yesterday, then please understand that the federal statute at 18 U.S.C. 4 creates a legal obligation in me to report such felony obstruction of justice to an officer in the civil or military authority of the United States (federal government). I have no intentions of violating that federal criminal statute. See also all “predicate acts” at 18 U.S.C. 1961.
Thank you for your professional consideration.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/p ... eneral.htm
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
