Rule 30 APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME
TO: William K. Suter, Clerk of Court
Attention: Ruth Jones
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, Northeast
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA
FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell
DATE: Saturday, October 25, 2003 A.D.
SUBJECT: Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., #03-5070
Dear Ms. Jones:
Thank you very much for your letter dated October 20, 2003 A.D. in the above entitled matter, and a second copy of the Rules, both of which we received last Thursday.
We will be happy to make all necessary corrections in a timely manner to the deficiencies which you identified in that letter.
When I prepared the first set, it was my understanding that I was moving the Supreme Court for leave to proceed IFP henceforth, i.e. for the duration of this appeal before the high Court.
It was not my understanding that I would be required to file that same set with each subsequent pleading.
In the event that you do decide to require an updated set, would it be possible for me simply to indicate which relevant facts have changed, e.g. in a routine SUPPLEMENT?
My financial situation has not changed very much: with generous assistance from Dr. Alden, I have been able to reduce my Internet connection fees by installing a wireless modem. I am hoping to afford my own DSL account soon, relieving Dr. Alden of the need to provide any further financial assistance in this matter.
On the other hand, an asbestos hazard was recently confirmed in The Inn at the YMCA in downtown San Diego, and I had to make other living arrangements on short notice, imposing additional costs on me to move and re-connect all of my office equipment.
Happily, an EPA expert did respond to our complaint, and she immediately rectified that hazardous situation. We did lose one computer disk drive during the move to another hotel.
Please understand that no one is paying me to litigate this particular case. I must work full-time as a professional counsel to paying clients, in order to support myself and pay my bills. It has become quite a challenge to juggle their important priorities with my own. I often work 16 hours per day.
It also requires an extensive pro bono commitment to develop and maintain the Supreme Law Library on the Internet. Hopefully, the staff and Justices of the Supreme Court will come to appreciate the enormous benefits that such an electronic resource provides to anyone who needs to do legal research into the many issues that arise in the 50,000 documents now in that Library.
I am spending most of this weekend reviewing your Rules in greater detail. I realize I have allowed myself to get rushed, and I have not always complied fully with each and every detail of those Rules. Please accept my apology for all such errors and omissions, for which I take full responsibility.
For example under separate cover you should receive, concurrently with this letter, my MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO PETITION FOR REHEARING. I have transmitted eleven originals, instead of an original and two copies to an individual Justice, as required by Rule 22(2). Feel free to disregard the extra seven (7) copies.
Please accept this letter as my request that this MOTION TO EXTEND TIME be directed to the attention of Justice O’Connor, in her capacity as the Associate Justice with administrative responsibility for the Ninth Circuit.
Also, during the past 24 hours, I have been contacted by another judicial activist who has now taken a keen interest in my case. He informs me that he has recently filed a MEMORANDUM OF LAW at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on the subject of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a Human Rights Treaty that is the subject of my COUNTS THREE and FOUR.
I would very much like some extra time to make all arrangements necessary and proper to obtain a certified copy of that MEMORANDUM, and to request the Supreme Court to take judicial notice of its existence, of the related appeal in which it was filed, and of all pertinent laws and cases cited in it.
I have also requested this activist to consider filing a motion for leave to file an Amicus Curiae brief. In the event that he decides to do so, at his option, I would need additional time to review his papers and to brief the Justices with appropriate analysis of my findings. I do consent in advance to his brief.
Last but not least, please take note in our docket that all named Defendants have either fallen totally silent, or their attorneys have now filed formal WAIVER’s of their clients’ right to answer.
Is there any way those WAIVER’s could justify eliminating the need for us to continue serving the 20 or so different parties that are listed in the PROOF OF SERVICE in my PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI? The printing and postage expenses continue to be a rather prohibitive expense for me.
Also, since they have all fallen silent, or waived, would it be possible for an Amicus Curiae brief to be accepted by the Court without their formal consent (see discussion above)?
Please advise us in writing of any new deadline which we will be required to meet, in order to comply with all decisions that you and the Court will make in response to this letter, and to the MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO PETITION FOR REHEARING that is submitted under separate cover and concurrently herewith.
Mr. Suter, and Ms. Jones, thank you both very much for your continuing assistance and professional courtesy.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General and Appellant/Relator
U.S. Mail care of:
c/o UPS PMB #332
501 W. Broadway, Suite “A”
San Diego 92101
fax: (619) 232-2011
courtesy copy: Hon. Sandra Day O’Connor, Associate Justice
attachments: copy of your letter dated October 20, 2003 A.D.
copies of most recent email discussing the case