Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

c/o UPS PMB #332

501 W. Broadway, Suite “A”

San Diego 92101

CALIFORNIA, USA

 

tel:  (619) 491-2659 (msg)

fax:  (619) 232-2011

 

In Propria Persona

In Forma Pauperis

 

All Rights Reserved

without Prejudice

 

 

Supreme Court of the United States

 

 

Paul Andrew Mitchell,          )  Supreme Court No. 03-5070

                               )  Ninth Circuit No. 02-15269

          Plaintiff/Appellant, )  28 U.S.C. 372 No. 02-89005 and

     v.                        )  DCUS No. CIV. S-01-1480 WBS DAD PS

                               )

AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.,  )

                               )

          Defendants/Appellees.)

-------------------------------)

                               )

In re:                         )  MOTION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRITS

United States                  )  IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS:

ex relatione                   )

Paul Andrew Mitchell,          )  All Writs Statute, 28 U.S.C. 1651;

                               )  Intervention, 28 U.S.C. 2403(a);

          Petitioner.          )  42 U.S.C. §§ 1985-1988;  and Rules

                               )  20, Rules of the Supreme Court, and

_______________________________)  201(d), Federal Rules of Evidence.

COMES NOW the United States (hereinafter “Petitioner”) ex relatione Paul Andrew Mitchell, Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America and Private Attorney General (hereinafter “Relator”) ‑‑ having already exercised its statutory right to intervene in the instant case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2403(a) ‑‑ to apply for Extraordinary Writs in the nature of Mandamus and for all other relief which this Honorable Court deems just and proper, and to provide timely written Notice to all interested Parties of same.  See Appendix 127.

In aid of this Court’s appellate jurisdiction, the United States hereby moves this Honorable Court for an ORDER to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, to show cause why Mandamus should not issue commanding said Circuit Court to perform specific duties owed to Appellant in the instant case, and directing the full restoration of Appellant to specific rights of which He has been illegally and systematically deprived by all inferior federal courts.

Exceptional historical circumstances now warrant the exercise of this Court’s discretionary powers, in part because adequate and appropriate relief cannot be obtained in any other form, or from any other court of the United States, at the present time.  Article III.

The existence of specific duties owed to Appellant, and the Circuit Court’s refusal to perform those duties, are quite thoroughly and clearly established by the official record now before this Court, and by the official record now before the Ninth Circuit.

This Court is now directed to the Index to Appendices which accompanied Appellant’s PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI.  That PETITION was summarily denied by this Court on October 6, 2003 A.D.  See the Table of Contents at Internet URL:

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/index.htm

For Appendix numbers, please refer in sequence to entries in that Table of Contents.  The United States now incorporates said PETITION by reference, as if set forth fully here.  See Appendix 151.

The specific duties to Appellant which the Ninth Circuit has refused to perform, or has refused to order lower courts to perform, can be easily confirmed by locating each occurrence of the term “DEMAND” in that Table of Contents, to wit:

 

1.               NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT OF A JUDGE OF THE COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE TO PRESIDE OVER THIS DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (Appendix 29 and 50 infra);

 

2.               AUTHOR'S FIRST NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE (31);  see Rule 201(d), Federal Rules of Evidence (i.e. “shall”);

 

3.               AUTHOR'S SECOND NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE (32);

 

4.               AUTHOR'S THIRD NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE (33);

 

5.               AUTHOR'S FOURTH NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE (37);

 

6.               AUTHOR'S FIFTH NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE (40);

 

7.               NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR PROOF OF FRAUD (49);

 

8.               FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR CERTIFICATE OF NECESSITY (50 and 29 supra);

 

9.               AUTHOR'S SIXTH NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE OF RELEVANT ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE (64);

 

10.           NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR EXHIBITION OF CERTIFICATE (73);

 

11.           NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR EXHIBITION OF PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSIONS (95);

 

12.           FINAL NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR CREDENTIALS REQUIRED BY LAW (101);

 

13.           FINAL NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR CREDENTIALS REQUIRED BY LAW (102);

 

14.           FINAL NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR PROOF OF APPOINTMENT AND DESIGNATION (114);

 

15.           DEMAND FOR IMMEDIATE RECUSAL OF PROCTER HUG (128);

 

16.           DEMAND FOR IMMEDIATE RECUSAL OF ALFRED T. GOODWIN (129);

 

17.           NOTICE AND DEMAND TO DOCKET MISSING ENTRIES (137);

 

18.           DEMAND FOR PROOF OF POWER(S) OF ATTORNEY (142);

 

19.           NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE (146);

 

20.           FORMAL NOTICE OF PERTINENT LAW AND DEMAND TO OBEY PERTINENT LAW, to Circuit Clerk (149);  and,

 

21.           FORMAL NOTICE OF PERTINENT LAW AND DEMAND TO OBEY PERTINENT LAW, to District Clerk (150).

 

Other specific duties to Appellant which the Ninth Circuit has refused to perform, or has refused to order lower courts to perform, can be gleaned from the issues raised on the record but not itemized above, to wit:

 

22.           the Circuit Clerk failed to docket Appellant’s proper complaint of judicial misconduct against Mr. William B. Shubb, lodged pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 372(c);  see Appendix 132;

23.           the Circuit Clerk failed to certify to the U.S. Attorney General Appellant’s proper and timely challenge to the constitutionality of certain Acts of Congress affecting the public interest, specifically the Abrogation Clause at 28 U.S.C. 2072(b) and the Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 869 et seq.;  see Appendix 94;

24.           the Circuit Clerk also failed to certify the United States’ intervention in the instant case for presentation of all admissible evidence and for arguments on the question of the constitutionality of said Acts of Congress;  see Appendix 127;

25.           to date, the Register of Copyrights has failed to process Appellant’s two (2) complete applications for formal registration of the electronic shareware editions of “The Federal Zone,” and the Ninth Circuit also erred by “denying” Appellant’s MOTION FOR ORDER ENJOINING FURTHER INACTION BY THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS;  see Appendix 80 and 97 (Kleinfeld & Gould lack Oaths);  and,

26.           the Ninth Circuit failed to order any injunctive relief, preliminary or otherwise, to halt the continuing wrongs that now severely damage Appellant as a direct result of the Appellees’ specific misconduct as adequately alleged in Appellant’s Initial COMPLAINT.  See Appendix 1, 2, 3, 4, 16, 21, 86, 108, 109, 112.

 

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended, the United States respectfully requests formal judicial notice of Appellant’s related civil case as filed in the Superior Court of California on March 12, 2003 A.D. for civil RICO remedies, docket number #GIC807057.

On September 18, 2003 A.D., Appellant filed in that case His PLAINTIFF’S FIRST VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT ON INFORMATION, pursuant to His specific legal duty under 18 U.S.C. 4.  A courtesy copy of said CRIMINAL COMPLAINT has already been mailed to Hon. Justice O’Connor, in the latter’s supervisory capacity over the Ninth Circuit.

Finally, the United States also requests this Honorable Court to take formal judicial notice of all WAIVER’s now filed in the instant case.  Silence activates estoppel, Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906).

 

THE RECORD EXHIBITS EVIDENCE

OF EQUAL PROTECTION VIOLATIONS

In Appellant’s MOTION TO STRIKE ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE ‑‑ PART II, this Court will kindly direct its undivided attention now to the heading there entitled “PLAINTIFF HAS NO STANDING TO SUE UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1983.”  Appendix 62.

It is clear, from the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637 (1980), that 42 U.S.C. 1985 was enacted and codified to implement the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery and involuntary servitude.  As such, that statute has a national scope, not a municipal scope.  Thus, as a Citizen of California who is not also a federal citizen, Appellant does enjoy standing under § 1985.

Accordingly, the United States argues that 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986 do provide effective civil remedies for damages alleged in COUNTS THREE and FOUR of Appellant’s Initial COMPLAINT, without necessarily compromising any of His objections to becoming a federal citizen.

Moreover, the United States is likewise interested in further deliberating Relator’s claims to having been deprived of all private rights of action to enforce the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  Again, see COUNTS THREE & FOUR in the Initial COMPLAINT;  and 18 U.S.C. 4.

Not only was the Lanham Act enacted with an explicit legislative intent to enforce treaty rights.  See 60 Stat. 443 (15 U.S.C. 1127).  The specific legal obligations arising from 42 U.S.C. 1986 also appear to bind all Honorable Justices of this Supreme Court, notwithstanding the traditional discretion which Congress and the U.S. Constitution have each conferred upon this high Court.  See also 42 U.S.C. 1988.

 

REMEDY REQUESTED

Accordingly, all premises having been duly considered here, the United States now moves the Honorable Justices of this Supreme Court for an ORDER to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to show cause why Extraordinary Writs of Mandamus should not issue, commanding that Circuit Court to perform ‑‑ with all deliberate speed ‑‑ all duties owed to Appellant as specifically itemized above, beginning with a Certificate of Necessity from Circuit Judge Kozinski.

The United States moves for said ORDER, on the strengths of this MOTION and of the official records that are now before this Court and the Ninth Circuit below, to reinstate a cause erroneously dismissed.

 

VERIFICATION

I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, Relator and Appellant in the above entitled action, hereby verify 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, according to the best of My current information, knowledge, and belief, so help me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).

 

Dated:   October 14, 2003 A.D.

 

Signed:  /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

         __________________________________________________________

Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Relator/Appellant In Propria Persona


PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (federal government), that I am at least 18 years of age, a Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America, and that I personally served the following document(s):

 

MOTION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRITS

IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS:

All Writs Statute, 28 U.S.C. 1651;

Intervention, 28 U.S.C. 2403(a);

42 U.S.C. §§ 1985-1988;  and Rules

20, Rules of the Supreme Court, and

201(d), Federal Rules of Evidence

 

by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United States Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed to the following:

 

Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley    DeForest Koscelnik Yokitis & Kaplan

(failed to exhibit oaths)         (failed to exhibit oath)

1001 Marshall Street               3000 Koppers Building

Redwood City 94063                 436 Seventh Avenue

CALIFORNIA, USA                    Pittsburgh 15219

                                   PENNSYLVANIA, USA

 

Murphy Austin Adams Schoenfeld LLP  Pillsbury Winthrop LLP

(failed to exhibit oaths)          (failed to exhibit oaths)

P.O. Box 1319                       400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1700

Sacramento 95812-1319               Sacramento 95814-4419

CALIFORNIA, USA                     CALIFORNIA, USA

 

Curiale Dellaverson Hirschfeld     Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver

Kraemer & Sloan, LLP               & Hedges, LLP

(failed to exhibit oaths)          (failed to exhibit oaths)

727 Sansome Street                 201 Sansome Street, 6th Floor

San Francisco 94111                San Francisco 94104

CALIFORNIA, USA                    CALIFORNIA, USA

 

Office of the General Counsel      Paul Southworth

(failed to exhibit oaths)          2018 N. New Hampshire Ave.

University of California           Los Angeles 90027

1111 Franklin Street, 8th Floor    CALIFORNIA, USA

Oakland 94607-5200

CALIFORNIA, USA

 

Karl Kleinpaste                    Ram Samudrala

P.O. Box 1551                      UW Micro Box 357242

Beaver Falls 15010                 Seattle 98195-7242

PENNSYLVANIA, USA                  WASHINGTON STATE, USA

 

Laskin & Guenard                   Rivkin Radler, LLP

(failed to exhibit oath)           (failed to exhibit oaths)

1810 South Street                  1330 N. Dutton Ave., #200

Sacramento 95814                   Santa Rosa 95401-4646

CALIFORNIA, USA                    CALIFORNIA, USA

 

Harvey Siskind Jacobs LLP          Office of Solicitor General

(failed to exhibit oaths)          950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

3 Embarcadero Center, Ste. 1060    Room 5614

San Francisco 94111                Washington 20530-0001

CALIFORNIA, USA                    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA

 

Register of Copyrights             Steinhart & Falconer LLP

Library of Congress                (failed to exhibit oaths)

101 Independence Avenue, S.E.      333 Market Street, 32nd Floor

Washington 20559-6000              San Francisco 94105-2150

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA          CALIFORNIA, USA

 

Matheny Sears Linkert & Long LLP   Latham & Watkins

(failed to exhibit oaths)          (failed to exhibit oaths)

P.O. Box 13711                     633 West Fifth St., Ste. 4000

Sacramento 95853-4711              Los Angeles 90071-2007

CALIFORNIA, USA                    CALIFORNIA, USA

 

Courtesy copies:

 

Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski        Clerk of Court (5x)

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals     Attention:  Cathy Catterson

P.O. Box 91510                     Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Pasadena 91109-1510                P.O. Box 193939

CALIFORNIA, USA                    San Francisco 94119-3939

                                   CALIFORNIA, USA

 

Clerk of Court                     Hon. Norman L. Vroman

Attention:  Jack L. Wagner         District Attorney

501 “I” Street, Suite 4-200        County of Mendocino

Sacramento 95814-2322              100 North State Street

CALIFORNIA, USA                    Ukiah 95482

                                   CALIFORNIA, USA

 

[Please see USPS Publication #221 for “addressing” instructions.]

 

 

Dated:   October 14, 2003 A.D.

 

 

Signed:  /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

         __________________________________________________________

Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Relator/Appellant In Propria Persona


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment “A”:

 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT

ON INFORMATION

 

Superior Court of California, San Diego

Docket #GIC807057

 

September 18, 2003 A.D.