NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND MIRANDA WARNING

TO: Anthony E. Grabicki

dba Chapter 7 Trustee

601 West Riverside #1500

Spokane 99201

WASHINGTON STATE, USA

RE: NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

(February 18, 2009)

DATE: March 12, 2009 A.D.

Hello Mr. Grabicki:

I regret to inform you that you are now IN DEFAULT for failing

or refusing to produce any evidence of the OATH OF ATTORNEY

expressly required by Rule 5 of the Washington State Court Rules,

Admission to Practice Rules.

Said OATH OF ATTORNEY was repeated verbatim in our NOTICE AND

DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, dated February 18, 2009.

A PAST DUE copy of same was also mailed to you immediately

after you missed the deadline of March 2, 2009:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/grabicki/nad.affidavit.htm

My office has now received but not accepted a letter signed

by you and dated March 6, 2009. That letter was not the

OATH OF ATTORNEY required by Rule 5, however, and in that

letter you make no mention of the OATH OF ATTORNEY:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/grabicki/letter.2009-03-06.2/page01.gif

NOTICE OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

You are now under formal investigation on suspicion of

impersonating an Officer of the Court(s), mail fraud,

falsifying Federal Bankruptcy Court records,

engaging in a pattern of racketeering activities and

being a principal and/or accessory in all the above,

in violation of Federal criminal statutes including

but not limited to 18 U.S.C. 2, 3, 912, 1001, 1341-42

and 1961 et seq. (Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt

Organizations Act).

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.

See 18 U.S.C. 3231 ("DCUS") and Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (1990).

Statutes conferring original jurisdiction must be strictly construed

[cites omitted here].

COURTESY NOTICE

Out of professional courtesy, we now provide you with

directions to our database of evidence acquired in

connection with our ongoing investigation of

missing credentials and widespread infiltration of the

Federal Judiciary and with the regular assistance

of the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C.,

and U.S. Coast Guard Investigations in San Diego,

California:

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

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/index.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol2/criminal.complaint.4.htm

My authority(s) for proceeding as above include but are not

limited to 18 U.S.C. 4, 1510, 1964(a) and Rotella v. Wood.

I am also a qualified Federal Witness under 18 U.S.C. 1512 and 1513:

see the Federal Witness Security Program administered by the

Office of the U.S. Marshals, for further details.

Hard copies of this notice will be mailed forthwith.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

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

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

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm

Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13

Copies:

Mr. and Mrs. Roland Fox, c/o Forwarding Agent

Office of the Clerk, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Spokane

Office of the Chief Judge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Spokane

U.S. Marshals, Federal Witness Security, Spokane

Office of the Postmaster, U.S. Post Office, Spokane