TO: Kathy Bailey
Civil Clerk’s Office
Superior Court of California
330 West Broadway
San Diego 92101
FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
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.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice