FORMAL NOTICE OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

AND MIRANDA WARNING

TO: Office of the Presiding Judge

Attention: All Personnel

San Diego Superior Court

c/o P.O. Box 122724

San Diego 92112-2724

CALIFORNIA, USA

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

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)

DATE: April 21, 2004 A.D.

SUBJECT: Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.

Clerks’ docket #GIC807057

To All Personnel in this Office:

FORMAL NOTICE OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

This is to provide you with formal written NOTICE that I have now received material proof of your willingness to engage in a pattern of racketeering activities, by reason of your complicity in two (2) or more RICO predicate acts of mail fraud, obstruction of justice and witness retaliation. See 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.

Accordingly, you are all hereby notified that you are now under formal investigation on suspicion of mail fraud, obstruction of justice, witness retaliation, and conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962.

Please be informed that I now have a legal obligation to report these felony federal offenses to a judge or other qualified officer of the United States (federal government). See 18 U.S.C. 4.

My authority to proceed in this matter is cited and quoted as follows:

Both statutes [RICO and Clayton Act] bring to bear the pressure of “private attorneys general” on a serious national problem for which public prosecutorial resources are deemed inadequate; the mechanism chosen to reach the objective in both the Clayton Act and RICO is the carrot of treble damages.

[Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates]

[107 S.Ct. 2759, 483 U.S. 143, 151 (1987)]

[bold emphasis added]

MIRANDA WARNING

Pursuant to the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 563 (1892), McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34, 40 (1924), George Smith v. U.S., 337 U.S. 137 (1949), and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), formal NOTICE is hereby given to you that you have the Right to remain silent, under the Fifth Amendment; you have the Right to assistance of Counsel, under the Sixth Amendment; and, any thing which you say, or do, from this point forward, can and will be held against you in a court of competent jurisdiction.

The Superior Court of California has original jurisdiction pursuant to the specific holdings in Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (1990), and Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, hn. 4 (9^th Cir. 1987) (California State courts have concurrent jurisdiction of civil RICO claims).

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

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

Private Attorney General and Plaintiff

Superior Court docket #GIC807057

Notice to principals is notice to agents.

Notice to agents is notice to principals.

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

copies: interested officers et al.