c/o P.O. Box 370
Sunset Beach 90742
CALIFORNIA, USA
tel: (562) 592-9047
fax: (562) 592-4917
In Propria
Persona
All Rights Reserved
without Prejudice
United States Court of Appeals
Ninth Circuit
Paul Andrew
Mitchell, ) Appeal No. 02-15269
)
Plaintiff/Appellant,
) APPELLANT’S INFORMAL
v. ) OPENING BRIEF
)
AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., )
)
Defendants/Appellees.)
_______________________________)
1(a) Timeliness of
Appeal or Petition:
(i) Date of entry of judgment or order of district
court:
#168 01/25/02: ORDER adopting Magistrate’s ORDER [sic]
&
FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
#169 01/25/02: JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
#170
01/23/02: MOTION TO STRIKE ORDER [sic] &
FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
OF MAGISTRATE ‑‑ PART I
(ii) Date of service
of any motion made after judgment
(other
than for fees and costs):
#176
01/31/02: MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION OF USDC’S ORDER
FILED IN ERROR ON
JANUARY 25, 2002 A.D.
#288
01/31/02: MOTION TO STRIKE ORDER [sic] &
FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
OF MAGISTRATE ‑‑ PART II
#289
01/31/02: MOTION TO STRIKE ORDER [sic] &
FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAGISTRATE – PART III
(iii) Date of entry of order deciding
motion:
#286 02/05/02: ORDER denying Plaintiff’s MOTION TO STRIKE
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
02/22/02: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying Plaintiff’s
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
02/28/02: Magistrate’s ORDER [sic] vacating
Defendant
Telalink’s motion to quash subpoena
(iv) Date notice of appeal or petition
filed:
#177 02/01/02: Plaintiff’s NOTICE
OF APPEAL
03/15/02: Plaintiff’s FIRST
AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL
(v)
For prisoners, date you gave notice of appeal
to prison
authorities: (not applicable)
1(b) Please
attach one copy of each of the following:
1. The order(s) from which
you are appealing:
(See EXCERPTS
attached.)
2. The district court’s entry
of judgment:
(See EXCERPTS
attached.)
3. The district court
docket sheet:
(See EXCERPTS
attached.)
2. What are the facts of your case?
Answer: See BACKGROUND FACTS in
Appellant’s VERIFIED
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTION FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND RELATED
CLAIMS: JURY DEMANDED (Docket #1) (hereinafter “Initial COMPLAINT”),
specifically Pages 5‑24 of 43, as supplemented by:
(1) FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO VERIFIED
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTION FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND RELATED
CLAIMS: JURY DEMANDED (filed with Initial COMPLAINT);
(2) SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO VERIFIED
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTION FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND RELATED
CLAIMS: JURY DEMANDED (filed with Initial COMPLAINT);
(3)
THIRD SUPPLEMENT TO VERIFIED
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTION FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND RELATED
CLAIMS: JURY DEMANDED
(filed with Initial COMPLAINT);
(4) Exhibits “A‑1”
(Docket #6) thru “L‑11”
(Docket #23);
(5) AUTHOR’S FOURTH SUPPLEMENT TO
COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY (Docket #45);
and,
(6) FIFTH SUPPLEMENT TO COMPLAINT FOR
DAMAGES AND COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT (Docket #86).
3. What
did you ask the district court to do (for example, award damages, give
injunctive relief, order your release from prison, etc.)?
Answer: See full details at the SUMMARY in the Initial
COMPLAINT, Pages 25‑26 of 43, and at the RELIEF REQUESTED and the
SUMMARY OF DAMAGES
in the Initial COMPLAINT, Pages 36‑42 of 43, and all other relief which
the DCUS decides is just and proper, under the circumstances.
See also section 4
infra: claims raised
at the district court:
4(a) In the Initial COMPLAINT;
4(b) In MOTIONS;
4(c) In SUBPOENAS; and,
4(d) In Miscellaneous Pleadings.
4. State the claim or claims you raised at the
district court.
4(a) In the Initial COMPLAINT:
COUNT ONE: copyright infringements,
violating
Copyright Act of 1976, as amended
(see
Initial COMPLAINT, Pages 27‑28 of 43)
COUNT TWO: false designations of origin,
violating
Lanham Act, § 43(a)
(see
Initial COMPLAINT, Pages 29‑30 of 43)
COUNT THREE:
deprivations of fundamental Rights, and
federal
witness/victim retaliations,
violating 18
U.S.C. 242, 1512, 1513
(see
Initial COMPLAINT, Pages 31‑33 of 43)
COUNT FOUR: conspiracy to deprive fundamental Rights,
conspiracy
against the United States, and
federal
witness/victim retaliations,
violating
18 U.S.C. 241, 371, 1512, 1513
(see
Initial COMPLAINT, Pages 33‑34 of 43)
COUNT FIVE: unfair competition under California State
law,
violating
California Business and Professions
Code, §§ 17200 et seq.
(see
Initial COMPLAINT, Page 35 of 43)
4(b) In MOTIONS:
To declare, as a matter of law,
that the statute at 28
U.S.C. 2072(a), strictly construed, does not authorize the U.S.
Supreme Court to prescribe rules of practice and procedure, or rules of
evidence, for the Article III
District Courts of the United States (“DCUS”). See:
(1) Appellant’s verified MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT AND
CHALLENGE TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS (Docket #79); and,
(2) Appellant’s FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION FOR
INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT AND CHALLENGE TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF AN ACT OF
CONGRESS (Docket #100).
To declare, as a matter law, that
the second sentence of the statute at 28 U.S.C. 2072(b) is
unconstitutional, for violating the Separation of Powers Doctrine, and
the ex post facto prohibition at Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 (“1:9:3”) in the U.S.
Constitution. See:
(1) Appellant’s verified MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT AND
CHALLENGE TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS (Docket #79);
(2) Appellant’s FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION FOR
INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT AND CHALLENGE TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF AN ACT OF
CONGRESS (Docket #100); and,
(3) Appellant’s NOTICE
OF CHALLENGE TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS timely
filed in this appeal pursuant to FRAP Rule 44 (incorporating Docket #79 and
#100 supra).
To grant Appellant leave to serve
SUMMONSES via Priority U.S. Mail with U.S. Postal Service Delivery
Confirmation. See:
(1) Appellant’s verified STATUS REPORT OF SUMMONS SERVICE, NOTICE OF
MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE VIA PRIORITY U.S. MAIL (Docket
#32); and,
(2) Appellant’s verified FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO STATUS REPORT OF SUMMONS
SERVICE (Docket #34).
To strike all pleadings by
attorneys lacking the credentials required by § 6067 of the California Business and Professions Code. See:
(1) Appellant’s verified MOTION TO STRIKE ALL PLEADINGS BY ATTORNEYS LACKING
CREDENTIALS (Docket #78); and,
(2)
AUTHOR’S AFFIDAVIT CONTESTING DECLARATION OF WESLEY
C.J. EHLERS
(Docket #164).
To take mandatory judicial notice of the following (·):
· “Samples
of Modifications in Derivative Files”:
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/mods.htm
See AUTHOR’S
FIRST NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE (Docket #116) and
all electronic files linked to it.
· Miranda Warnings issued to nine (9)
attorneys:
(1)
Brian S. Crone November 4, 2001 A.D.
(2)
Walter P. DeForest November 4, 2001 A.D.
(3)
Wesley C.J. Ehlers November 4, 2001 A.D.
(4)
Geoffrey A. Goodman November 4, 2001 A.D.
(5)
Jeffrey M. Hamerling
November 4, 2001 A.D.
(6)
Susan H. Handelman
November 4, 2001 A.D.
(7)
Eugene J. Majeski November 4, 2001 A.D.
(8)
Nancy J. Newman November 4, 2001 A.D.
(9)
Benjamin L. Webster November 4, 2001 A.D.
See AUTHOR’S
SECOND NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE (Docket #117).
· Four
(4) Notices of Judicial Default as mailed to:
(1) Indiana University
(2) Northeastern University
(3) Princeton University
(4) University of Arkansas
See AUTHOR’S
THIRD NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE (Docket #118).
· Three
(3) documents including:
(1)
Appellant’s
Partial Invoice to Lonnie
G. Schmidt,
dated November 10, 2001 A.D.
(Docket #85);
(2) Appellant’s verified FIFTH SUPPLEMENT TO COMPLAINT FOR
DAMAGES AND COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT (Docket #86); and,
(3) AUTHOR’S FOURTH SUPPLEMENT TO
COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY (Docket #45).
See AUTHOR’S
FOURTH NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE (Docket #119).
· Seventeen
(17) documents including:
(1)
NOTICE OF JUDICIAL
DEFAULT, as mailed to Defendant California Institute of Technology, Nov. 1,
2001 A.D.;
(2)
NOTICE OF JUDICIAL DEFAULT,
as mailed to Defendant AOL Time Warner, Inc., care of James Barksdale,
Director, Nov. 5, 2001 A.D.;
(3)
NOTICE OF JUDICIAL DEFAULT,
as mailed to Defendant University of California, Dec. 3, 2001 A.D.;
(4)
NOTICE OF
JUDICIAL DEFAULT, as mailed to Defendant Todd R. Eigenschink,
Dec. 3, 2001 A.D.;
(5)
NOTICE OF JUDICIAL
DEFAULT, as mailed to Defendant David Feustel,
Dec. 3, 2001 A.D.;
(6)
NOTICE OF JUDICIAL
DEFAULT, as mailed to Defendant Dan Turkette,
Dec. 3, 2001 A.D.;
(7)
NOTICE OF JUDICIAL DEFAULT,
as mailed to Defendant Midwest Internet Exchange, Inc., Dec. 3, 2001 A.D.;
(8)
NOTICE OF JUDICIAL
DEFAULT, as mailed to Defendant Four Peaks Technology Groups, Dec. 3, 2001 A.D.;
(9)
NOTICE OF JUDICIAL
DEFAULT, as mailed to Defendant Floyd W. Shackelford, Dec. 3, 2001 A.D.;
(10)
NOTICE OF JUDICIAL
DEFAULT, as mailed to Defendant Dave Alexander, Dec. 3, 2001 A.D.;
(11)
NOTICE OF JUDICIAL
DEFAULT, as mailed to Defendant Cosmic Awareness Communications, Dec. 3,
2001 A.D.;
(12)
NOTICE OF
JUDICIAL DEFAULT, as mailed to Defendant Telecode,
Dec. 3, 2001 A.D.;
(13)
NOTICE OF JUDICIAL
DEFAULT, as mailed to Defendant Desert Video Production, Dec. 3, 2001 A.D.;
(14)
NOTICE OF JUDICIAL
DEFAULT, as mailed to Defendant Leander Pearson, Dec. 3, 2001 A.D.;
(15)
NOTICE OF JUDICIAL
DEFAULT, as mailed to Defendant Burntfork Rural
Systems, Dec. 3, 2001 A.D.;
(16)
NOTICE OF JUDICIAL
DEFAULT, as mailed to Defendant James H. Daugherty, Dec. 3, 2001 A.D.; and,
(17)
NOTICE OF
JUDICIAL DEFAULT, as mailed to Defendant James Daugherty ‑‑ AA
Research, Dec. 3, 2001 A.D.
See AUTHOR’S
FIFTH NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE (Docket #134) and
verified NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR PROOF OF
FRAUD (Docket #165).
To strike the
ORDER [sic] AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
See:
(1) Appellant’s
verified MOTION TO STRIKE ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE ‑‑ PART I
(Docket #170);
(2) Appellant’s
verified MOTION TO STRIKE ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE ‑‑ PART II
(Docket #288); and,
(3) Appellant’s
verified MOTION TO STRIKE ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE ‑‑ PART III
(Docket #289).
To reconsider the USDC’s ORDER filed in error on January 25, 2002 A.D. See:
Appellant’s verified MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF USDC’S ORDER FILED IN ERROR ON
JANUARY 25, 2002 A.D. (Docket #176) and REMEDY REQUESTED
therein.
4(c) In SUBPOENAS:
To compel discovery of the identities
of certain subscribers suspected of copyright infringements, and discovery of
the computer activity logs of certain Internet Service Providers (“ISP”) whose
computers are shown, by verified evidence, to have transmitted stolen and/or
counterfeit copies of the subject book via the Internet. 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3)(A), 512(h). See:
(1) AUTHOR’S
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF ALL SUBPOENAS FOR SUBSCRIBER IDENTITIES
(Docket #42) as supplemented by Exhibits D‑42
(Docket #12), D‑45
(Docket #12), and J‑1
thru J‑97
inclusive (Docket #20 and #21); and,
(2) PROOF OF
SERVICE OF SUBPOENAS IN A CIVIL CASE
To compel discovery of the licenses
to practice law, with certificates of oath properly endorsed thereon, as
required by § 6067 of the California Business and
Professions Code, of all attorneys who appeared claiming to have powers of
attorney to represent certain named Defendants in the instant case. See:
(1) Appellant’s verified MOTION TO STRIKE ALL PLEADINGS BY ATTORNEYS LACKING
CREDENTIALS (Docket #78);
(2) AUTHOR’S VERIFIED
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT (Docket #99); and,
(3) AUTHOR’S
AFFIDAVIT CONTESTING DECLARATION OF WESLEY C.J. EHLERS (Docket #164).
4(d) In Miscellaneous Pleadings: