NOTICE OF REFUSAL FOR CAUSE, BY AFFIDAVIT

NOTICE OF REFUSAL FOR CAUSE, BY AFFIDAVIT

TO: Mr. Hardy Myers

Mr. Peter D. Shepherd

Mr. Michael W. Grant

Cc: Ms. Stephanie Soden

dba Executive Assistant to the Attorney General

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

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

DATE: November 5, 2007 A.D.

SUBJECT: erroneous and misleading letter of October 26, 2007

We regret to inform you that your letter to me dated October 26, 2007, is hereby refused for cause.

The matter of numerous missing credentials that are clearly mandated by Federal and State laws is not "closed" [sic], chiefly because the following Oregon FOIA Request is still pending (among others), as a matter of fact:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/davis/ODOR/myers/or.foia.request.2007-10-27/or.foia.request.htm

There is no statute of limitations for fraud, and the Federal statute at 18 U.S.C. 1961(5) expressly authorizes a RICO discovery window dating back ten (10) full calendar years.

Insofar as the above named members of the Oregon State Bar have failed to execute the written oaths required by ORS Chapter 9, subsection 9.250(2), that fraud implicates all of the above in numerous State and Federal felony offenses dating back to the day each first claimed falsely to be duly authorized to practice law in Oregon.

Accordingly, in the event that the State Court Administrator fails to produce said written oaths in a timely manner for each of DOJ's employees named above, the Federal criminal statute at 18 U.S.C. 4 will create a specific legal obligation in me to report probable cause of all RICO "predicate acts" that have been committed as a necessary consequence of those missing oaths, including but not limited to mail fraud, obstruction of justice and extortion (to name a few).

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation or rule making which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona; Article VI, Clause 3 (defines a Right thus secured).

Moreover, since two or more of you appear to be aiding and abetting these manifold frauds, my office will also be legally obligated to charge each of the above named individuals with conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activities, in connection with all RICO predicate acts that are a direct consequence of those missing oaths. See 18 U.S.C. sections 2 and 1962.

Moreover, my office has now received written confirmation that a proper Mail Fraud Report has already been lodged with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, with documentary evidence implicating sixty-five (65) personnel of the Office of Administrative Hearings ("OAH") in impersonation, mail fraud and further related RICO predicate acts.

The Oregon Department of Justice was properly and courteously notified of extensive infiltration of the Federal courts, when I specifically informed Mr. Peter D. Shepherd of same in this MEMO dated January 14, 2005 in the case of Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.:

http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/uoregon.edu/memo.ag01.htm

To my knowledge, neither Mr. Shepherd nor Mr. Myers has done anything whatsoever to investigate, to charge, or to prosecute any of the impostors subsequently confirmed to be seated on the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, and on other Federal courts too.

And, we also infer from your letter that neither intends to do anything whatsoever to investigate, charge or prosecute any of those 65 OAH personnel, even though Mr. Shepherd has effectively admitted, in writing, that their required credentials are "non-existent records" (his exact words).

This negligence at the very least implicates both in multiple violations of the Federal civil statute at 42 U.S.C. 1986 (neglect to prevent and/or refusal to prevent), if not also in being felony accessories after the fact, in further violations of 18 U.S.C. 3.

Accordingly, Ms. Soden's letter to me of October 26, 2007, is hereby formally refused for all causes carefully explained in detail above.

Thank you for your consideration.

VERIFICATION

I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, hereby verify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (federal government), that the above statement of facts and laws is true and correct, according to the best of My current information, knowledge, and belief, so help me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1). See Supremacy Clause (Constitution, Laws and Treaties of the United States are all the supreme Law of the Land).

Dated: November 5, 2007 A.D.

Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

__________________________________________________________

Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Private Attorney General