MEMO TO OFFICE OF COURT EXECUTIVE OFFICER

MEMO

TO: Linda G. Ashcraft

Office of the Court Executive Officer

Superior Court of California

600 Union Avenue

Fairfield 94533

CALIFORNIA, USA

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

Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and

Qualified Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)

DATE: August 11, 2005 A.D.

SUBJECT: NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR EXHIBITION OF CERTIFICATE

to Scott Lewis Kays, dated July 26, 2005 A.D. (PAST DUE)

Greetings Ms. Ashcraft:

We have received your letter dated August 8, 2005, but it does require much additional clarification before we would be in a position to agree or disagree on any particular point. We enumerate as follows:

Point One: Our NOTICE AND DEMAND denies that Scott Lewis Kays was “ever a member, in good standing” of the State Bar of California.

This language was chosen specifically by us to refer to the period between his evident admission to the State Bar, and his appointment to the Superior Court bench, notwithstanding any provisions which might exempt him from an attorney’s stated duties after that appointment.

In plain language, on or about the date of his evident admission to the State Bar, did he or did he not indorse a certificate of oath upon a license to practice law? That certificate was required of him by sections 6067 and 6068 of the California Business and Professions Code, as he now knows, or should know by now.

The pertinent authorities are cited and discussed in proper context in the MEMORANDUM OF LAW filed and served by Dr. Robert H. Hale in Solano County Superior Court case number #FCS025327. Dr. Hale expressly incorporated that MEMORANDUM OF LAW in his recent MOTION TO COMPEL Kirk E. Giberson’s obedience to the Clerk’s lawful SUBPOENA for same.

Point Two: Article VI, §§ 1 and 9 of the California Constitution do not contain any of the language you cited in your letter.

Article VI, § 1 states:

The judicial power of this state shall be vested in a Supreme Court, in District Courts, in County Courts, and in Justices of the peace. The Legislature may also establish such municipal and other inferior courts as may be deemed necessary.

Your letter alleges that Article VI, § 1 contains language to the effect that “Courts of record in California include the superior court.” We do not find that specific authority at § 1 of Article VI in the California Constitution (see attached).

Article VI, § 9 states:

The County Court shall have such jurisdiction, in cases arising in Justice Courts, and in special cases, as the Legislature may prescribe, but shall have no original civil jurisdiction, except in such special cases.

Your letter alleges that Article VI, § 9 provides that “[e]very person admitted and licensed to practice law in this State is and shall be a member of the State Bar except while holding office as a judge of a court of record.” Likewise, we do not find that specific authority at § 9 of Article VI in the California Constitution (see attached).

Please clarify this glaring discrepancy.

Point Three: The pleadings filed by Dr. Hale in docket number #FCS025327 should have been more than sufficient to justify our NOTICE AND DEMAND to Scott Lewis Kays.

Dr. Hale informed me last evening that the preliminary ruling by Mr. Kays on Dr. Hale’s MOTION TO COMPEL contained threatening language. Specifically, that language appeared to threaten Dr. Hale with future obstruction of justice, and future deprivation of his fundamental Right to petition government for redress of grievances. See the Vexatious Litigant Statute, in chief.

To my knowledge, Dr. Hale has committed no crimes; he has not been held in contempt of court for any reason; he is not presently wanted or subject to any arrest warrants; and, he is doing the very best he can, against enormous odds that have resulted directly from the fact that there are presently no properly licensed attorneys anywhere in California. This is what the missing evidence now proves.

Even if he desired to hire an attorney to represent him before the Superior Court, the facts and laws which he has so carefully placed before that Court now compel one and only one necessary conclusion: he has no alternative but to appear In Propria Persona, because not one California attorney is properly licensed to represent him legally.

On this same theme, in another MEMORANDUM OF LAW which Dr. Hale timely and properly filed with the Clerk of Court, Dr. Hale cited several pertinent and standing authorities which hold that the Superior Court may not enforce upon him a strict compliance with any court rules.

As of this afternoon, Dr. Hale informed me again that Mr. Kays has faulted Dr. Hale for not attaching either of those MEMORANDA to Dr. Hale’s MOTION TO COMPEL, even though both were previously filed and served, and even though both were formally incorporated by reference in that MOTION TO COMPEL. Dr. Hale’s failure to attach both MEMORANDA (with staples or paper clips, I guess) was reported to me as one of the reasons given by Mr. Kays for “denying” that MOTION TO COMPEL.

My point here is quite simple and direct: Mr. Giberson’s certificate of oath and license to practice law now assume facts not in evidence. This is true chiefly because of Dr. Hale’s good faith efforts to date to compel discovery either of that certificate, or an admission by Messrs. Giberson et al. that none exists because they never obeyed sections 6067 or 6068 of the State Bar Act.

Now, if Messrs. Giberson et al. are merely exercising their fundamental Right to remain silent and not be compelled to be witnesses against themselves, that is fine; they do have that Right. However, to my knowledge neither has yet expressly invoked their Privilege against self-incrimination, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment in the Constitution for the United States of America.

Nevertheless, the pertinent laws and court cases continue to hold that silence can be equated with fraud, when there is a legal or a moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. See U.S. v. Tweel. Also, silence activates estoppel. Carmine v. Bowen. Their silence is now misleading us.

Dr. Hale informs me also that Mr. Giberson did not motion the Superior Court to quash the SUBPOENA in question. Thus, Dr. Hale’s MOTION TO COMPEL was unopposed. Instead, Mr. Giberson inundated Dr. Hale with further motions requesting summary judgment instead (with no license).

And, apparently I need to remind you that sections 6126 and 6128 provide criminal penalties for violating an attorney’s duties as enumerated in the State Bar Act. See section 6068, in chief, for a list of those duties, one of which requires all attorneys to obey section 6067 (i.e. one of the laws of this State).

In support of the above, we enclose true and correct copies of the outstanding federal SUBPOENA to The State Bar of California. In light of their failure to produce any of the required licenses for any Bar members during the 10-year period in question, we have now expanded that investigation to cover any member of The State Bar at any time since section 6067 was first enacted by the California Legislature.

There is no statute of limitations on fraud, and attorneys who refuse to produce their required licenses are now automatically suspected by my office of being implicated in fraudulent concealment. And, fraudulent concealment is a tortious damage which Dr. Hale and any Proper Party have every right to litigate, by formally invoking appropriate civil and criminal remedies. See 18 U.S.C. 1964.

In case you need to be reminded of this also, Civil RICO is a case category showing on the Superior Court’s Civil Case Cover Sheet. See also Tafflin v. Levitt and Lou v. Belzberg for standing court decisions upholding original jurisdiction of the Superior Court of California in Civil RICO actions.

Thank you, Ms. Ashcraft, for your professional consideration.

We look forward to your timely clarifications, in writing.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

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

Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and

Qualified Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)

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

U.S. Mail:

c/o Forwarding Agent

501 W. Broadway #A332

San Diego 92101

CALIFORNIA, USA

copies: Dr. Robert H. Hale, Citizen of California, Proper Party

Scott Lewis Kays, c/o Clerk of Court