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
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., ) MOTION TO
EXTEND TIME
) TO
PETITION FOR REHEARING:
Defendants/Appellees.)
-------------------------------) Supreme Court Rules 21, 44.
)
United States )
ex relatione )
Paul Andrew Mitchell, )
)
Intervenor. )
_______________________________)
COMES NOW Paul Andrew Mitchell, Appellant and Relator in the above entitled case (hereinafter “Mitchell”), to move this honorable Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 21 and 44, for a routine extension of time to petition for rehearing.
Mitchell hereby certifies that the stated grounds for His petition for rehearing shall be limited to intervening circumstances of a substantial or controlling effect and to other substantial grounds not previously presented, and that it shall be presented in good faith and not for delay.
Mitchell has now identified the following intervening circumstances which do appear to have a substantial or controlling effect:
(1) Pursuant to its lawful and proper intervention at the Ninth Circuit, the United States has now appeared ex rel. and attempted to move this Court for Writs of Mandamus (see Attachment “B”), in response to this Court’s summary denial of Mitchell’s PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
(2) The United States has also respectfully requested formal judicial notice by this honorable Court of Mitchell’s civil RICO case #GIC807057 in the Superior Court of California, and of His PLAINTIFF’S FIRST VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT ON INFORMATION filed in that case pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4, with a courtesy copy mailed to Associate Justice O’Connor.
(3) Mitchell has read newspaper reports that this Court has now agreed to review the Ninth Circuit’s recent rulings in the matter of the Pledge of Allegiance and the lawfulness of using the phrase “under God” in that Pledge. The attention of this Court is respectfully directed to Mitchell’s DEMAND FOR IMMEDIATE RECUSAL OF ALFRED T. GOODWIN for good causes itemized in that DEMAND. See Appendix 129.
(4) Mitchell has also recently confirmed that all Ninth Circuit Judges and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts are now refusing to exhibit the oaths of office that are required of all officers and employees of the Judicial Branch of the United States (federal government).
MOTION FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS NOW RAISES
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES
Mitchell is quite honored to have had the unique Privilege to appear as a Relator on behalf of the United States in the instant case, because it has provided all concerned with an opportunity to deliberate His 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.
The latter Covenant, in particular, was enacted with specific Reservations by the Congress of the United States, notably the Reservation which stipulates that this Covenant is “not self-executing”. See Declarations, section (1) in those Reservations.
These two treaties were rendered supreme Law of the Land by the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended.
Mitchell has already argued effectively that the stated intent of the Lanham Act at 15 U.S.C. 1127 is to provide remedies for violations of treaties such as those mentioned above.
The MOTION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRITS OF MANDAMUS by the United States has also given Mitchell good cause further to investigate the suggestion therein that 42 U.S.C. 1985 may also provide effective judicial remedies for violations of those treaties.
The latter civil statute could be used to correct the defect that arose in Mitchell’s Initial COMPLAINT from the fact that He presently appears to have no private rights of action to prosecute alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 1512, or 1513.
To that end, Mitchell has recently done additional research into the pertinent Statutes at Large, and court cases which have adjudicated various subsections of 42 U.S.C. 1985. For example, see Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 105 (1971): the Thirteenth Amendment is “an absolute declaration that slavery and involuntary servitude shall not exist in any part of the United States”:
And surely there has never been any doubt of the power of Congress to impose liability on private persons under 2 of that amendment .... Not only may Congress impose such liability, but the varieties of private conduct that it may make criminally punishable or civilly remediable extend far beyond the actual imposition of slavery or involuntary servitude.
From the discussion of this topic in Mitchell’s MOTION TO STRIKE ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE ‑‑ PART II, it is clear now that Mitchell erred, when first drafting his Initial COMPLAINT, by assuming that all sections of Title 42 were necessarily municipal law and not national law enforceable by State Citizens too.
Later, in doing research in support of said MOTION TO STRIKE, Mitchell discovered the Ninth Circuit’s published opinion in Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 641 (9th Cir. 1980) which clearly upholds civil standing to any person damaged by violations of equal protection of the Law, and of equal Privileges and Immunities under the Law.
In that case, the Ninth Circuit held that actions under 42 U.S.C. 1985 are derived from the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery and involuntary servitude, and cover all deprivations of equal protection and of equal Privileges and Immunities, regardless of their sources.
Such a holding provides a stark contrast to the holding in Wadleigh v. Newhall, 136 F. 941, 946 (C.C. Cal. 1905) namely, that standing under 42 U.S.C. 1983 is limited to federal citizens only, and is not available to State Citizens, like Mitchell, who are not also federal citizens by Right of Election (read “freedom of choice”).
Clearly, there are two (2) classes of citizens under Americans laws never repealed (not one class, and not three or more classes).
Delving deeper into the legislative history of 42 U.S.C. 1985, the research that Mitchell performed in support of the instant MOTION has confirmed a subtle yet telling anomaly in the textual changes that were introduced by the Revised Statutes of 1873.
Specifically, 42 U.S.C. 1985 derives from 17 Stat. 13-15, ch. 22, and later from Sec. 1980 of the Revised Statutes (1873), 18 Stat. 347, Part 2. The former statute at 17 Stat. 13, Section 2, reads in pertinent part:
... or shall conspire together for the purpose of in any manner impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen of the United States the due and equal protection of the laws, or to injure any person in his person or his property for lawfully enforcing the right of any person or class of persons to the equal protection of the laws ....
[bold emphasis added]
By carefully comparing the successor statute, we read in the pertinent part of the “Second” section:
... or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws ....
[bold emphasis added]
This Court will please take particular note of the fact that the Revised Statute supra clearly amended this statute by changing the phrase “any citizen of the United States” to read “any citizen” [sic].
Mitchell thus argues that such a change leaves little doubt that Congress must have intended to embrace State Citizens as well as federal citizens with this one important statutory amendment.
No other construction makes any sense, because there are only two (2) classes of citizens under American laws never repealed (not one, and not three or more).
Also relevant in this context is Mitchell’s confirmation that the conspiracy and disguise language of 42 U.S.C. 1985(3) was actually borrowed from the federal criminal statute at 18 U.S.C. 241.
The latter criminal statute was one of the principal bases for the allegations made in COUNT FOUR of Mitchell’s Initial COMPLAINT! The federal statute at 17 Stat. 13 is the parent of 42 U.S.C. 1985(3). See Griffin supra, 403 U.S. 99. And, the term “American citizens” is used in Griffin supra at 403 U.S. 100 (“deprivations which shall attack the equality of rights of American citizens”).
Further, in Griffin supra this Court observed that:
The language requiring intent to deprive of equal protection, or equal privileges and immunities, means that there must be some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirators’ action. The conspiracy, in other words, must aim at a deprivation of the equal enjoyment of rights secured by the law to all.
[403 U.S. 102, bold emphasis added, italics in original]
Other federal courts have echoed these same themes with complete and dramatic approval.
Odious class discrimination was the issue in Arnold v. Tiffany, 359 F.Supp. 1034 (USDC/CDCA 1973).
A conspiracy to discriminate because of one’s advocacy of rights of such an otherwise class-based group is sufficient under 42 U.S.C. 1985. Pendrell v. Chatham College, 386 F.Supp. 341 (USDC/WDPA 1974).
A dissident political group organized to effect or prevent political and social change is entitled to protection under 42 U.S.C. 1985(3). Stevens v. Rifkin, 608 F.Supp. 710, 722 (USDC/NDCA 1984).
The tolling principles of California law apply to 42 U.S.C. 1985. Donoghue v. County of Orange, 828 F.2d 1432, 1436 (9th Cir. 1987) (prior lawsuit tolls the statute of limitations when a litigant has several legal remedies and chooses to pursue only one in good faith). Mitchell pursued 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 1512, and 1513, because He was simply unaware that 42 U.S.C. 1985 was national and not municipal law.
Although Title 42 of the United States Code has not yet been enacted into positive law, Mitchell has confirmed that 42 U.S.C 1985 is an accurate re-statement of the parent Revised Statute supra.
COMPARABLE AMENDMENTS TO THE INITIAL COMPLAINT
CAN ALSO CORRECT DEFICIENCIES IN COUNT FIVE
This Court is again directed to Mitchell’s MOTION TO STRIKE ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE ‑‑ PART II. In Attachment “A”, please see all paragraphs under “UNFAIR COMPETITION CAN BE REDRESSED BY CALIFORNIA STATE LAW(S) AND COMMON LAW.”
In this context, the federal civil statute at 42 U.S.C. 1988 is entirely appropriate for incorporating the common laws of California, in order to permit an amended COMPLAINT to allege violations of Mitchell’s common law rights of publicity, false advertising, and dilution of His trademark in “The Federal Zone.” See, for example, section 22.2 in the California Civil Code (the common law is the rule of decision in all California courts).
Moreover, the discussion in Attachment “A” infra is particularly relevant to Mitchell’s well documented contention that legislative tribunals are responsible for “judge-made doctrines”. By logical extension of judge-made doctrines, Mitchell can sue a private school such as USC, yet He cannot sue U.C. Irvine for the very same act!
Mitchell now attaches His MOTION TO STRIKE ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE ‑‑ PART II and the United States’ MOTION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRITS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS and hereby formally incorporates same by reference to Attachments “A” and “B” infra, as if set forth fully here.
RULE 44 CERTIFICATE
Mitchell hereby certifies that any future petition for rehearing shall be limited to intervening circumstances of a substantial or controlling effect, or to other substantial grounds not previously presented, and that it shall be presented in good faith and not for delay.
Some of those substantial or controlling effects, and other substantial grounds, are now well documented in the discussion immediately above; or, they have already been well documented in prior pleadings that are in the official Record of the instant appeal but are still in the custody of the Circuit Clerk, e.g. Ninth Circuit docket #02‑89005 (see caption page supra, Page 1 of 13, line 22).
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 24, 2003 A.D.
Signed: /s/ Paul
Andrew Mitchell
__________________________________________________________
Printed: Paul
Andrew Mitchell, Relator/Appellant In Propria Persona
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 TO EXTEND
TIME
TO PETITION FOR
REHEARING:
Supreme Court Rules 21, 44
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 24, 2003 A.D.
Signed: /s/ Paul
Andrew Mitchell
__________________________________________________________
Printed: Paul
Andrew Mitchell, Relator/Appellant In Propria Persona
MOTION TO STRIKE ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE ‑‑ PART II
January 31, 2002 A.D.
(See Appendix 62)
MOTION
FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRITS
by
United States ex rel. Paul
Andrew Mitchell
Executed and Served:
October 14, 2003 A.D.