NOTICE OF REFUSAL BY CAUSES
TO: Clerk of Court
880 Front Street, #4290
San Diego 92101-8900
FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Plaintiff
Superior Court of California #GIC807057
DATE: July 23, 2004 A.D.
SUBJECT: false statements and evidence of usurpation
on attached document dated 7/8/2004
Greetings Clerk of Court:
With all due respect for Ms. Irma E. Gonzalez (if any), I hereby refuse the attached documents for all of the following causes, to wit:
(1) the case described above was never transferred to any federal court(s), pursuant to law;
(2) a MOTION TO BAR REMOVAL into any and all federal courts is still pending before the Superior Court of California;
(3) all defense attorneys who attempted to appear on behalf of named Defendants did so without the licenses to practice law that are required by section 6067 of the California Business and Professions Code;
(4) a SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE is now overdue and outstanding to compel discovery of the licenses required of all members of The State Bar of California during the past ten (10) calendar years; as such, the State Bar is now in contempt of the District Court of the United States, and the Supreme Court;
(6) Ms. Gonzalez has now been formally charged with impersonating an Article III federal judge, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 912, and related federal offenses (see PLAINTIFF’S FIRST VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT filed in Superior Court #GIC807057);
(7) a proper and correct CITIZEN’S ARREST WARRANT has now been issued for the arrest of Ms. Gonzalez and transmitted to the San Diego County Sheriff, and a courtesy copy of said ARREST WARRANT was mailed to the U.S. Marshals in downtown San Diego;
(8) my MIRANDA WARNING to Ms. Gonzalez dated July 4, 2004 A.D. is an exercise of fundamental Rights under the First Amendment, and it was also a prerequisite to issuing said CITIZEN’S ARREST WARRANT for the arrest of Ms. Gonzalez;
(9) it is false and misleading to categorize said MIRANDA WARNING as an “ex parte communication” [sic] because Ms. Gonzalez has absolutely no jurisdiction in the instant case;
(10) I am in no way bound by any of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, because it lacks jurisdiction in this matter; this is a question that has already been thoroughly reviewed in my pleadings to the U.S. Supreme Court, to which all defendants and defense counsels fell totally silent, thus activating estoppel pursuant to Carmine v. Bowen;
(11) the refused documents appear to threaten me with penalties for exercising my fundamental Rights, allegedly pursuant to a Local Rule which does not apply to me in any manner whatsoever, for reasons already stated above;
(13) for your information, several State Governors and University Presidents have now received a proper demand from me for the credentials required of several federal employees in my federal copyright and trademark case; all recipients of that demand failed to respond within a reasonable deadline and have now fallen totally silent, without exception (see attached);
(14) a major cause of action in the instant case is a conspiracy by federal employees to engage in a pattern of racketeering activities, including but not limited to employees who are impersonating judicial officers of the United States; it is preposterous in the extreme for any of these employees to claim “jurisdiction” over the instant case when they are now named Defendants! Reductio ad absurdum.
If you need any further clarification of the causes itemized above, please address your inquiry to the proper mailing location below.
Thank you, Clerk of Court.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
c/o Forwarding Agent
501 W. Broadway #A-332
San Diego 92101
p.s. Please inform all concerned that I do not “reside” in “CA”.