MEMO
TO: Hon. Michael Zucchet, Member
San Diego City Council
202 “C” Street
San Diego 92101
CALIFORNIA, USA
FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell
Private Attorney General
DATE: February 14, 2005 A.D.
SUBJECT: missing licenses to practice law
and the multitude of ramifications
Dear Councilman Zucchet:
By now you should have received copies of my latest correspondence to The State Bar of California, concerning the City Attorney’s missing license to practice law; and, you may still be wondering why my office is involved at all in this matter.
In anticipation of that question, I am writing to clarify how certain applicable laws can help you and the People of San Diego, in the several legal controversies that have now engulfed the City Council. To keep this letter as brief as possible, please refer, as needed, to the set of documents which we mailed to your office this morning.
Our research and litigation for the public interest over the last 15 years have uncovered violations of applicable State and federal laws within the U.S. Department of Justice and the federal judiciary which have become rather systematic and persistent (read “rampant”).
One of the main reasons why Mr. Aguirre’s missing license to practice law is so significant is a frequently overlooked federal statute known as the McDade Act at 28 U.S.C. 530B (copy attached).
This federal law requires all U.S. Attorneys to obey all State laws that bind all members of the Bar Association in the State where they are employed. Thus, if all members of The State Bar of California are required to indorse a certificate of oath upon their licenses to practice law, then the McDade Act imposes this very same requirement upon all U.S. Attorneys to the exact same extent, with no exceptions.
As you should already know, Mr. Aguirre’s published resume shows that he was employed as a U.S. Attorney for many years.
As long as he failed to indorse a certificate of oath upon a valid license to practice law in the State of California, Mr. Aguirre was also in violation of the McDade Act during that very same period.
Willful misrepresentation by him also implicates Mr. Aguirre in a misdemeanor, contempt of court, and misdemeanor violation of sections 6126, 6127 and 6128 of the California Business and Professions Code, respectively.
To make matters worse, during the past 15 years it was a rare week indeed when I was not presented with one or more court pleadings signed by U.S. Attorneys claiming to represent the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA either as a Plaintiff, or as a Defendant, in various court cases. Under separate cover, we have now shared with you evidence that “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC.” and “UNITED STATE OF AMERICA CORPORATION” are both legally foreign corporations registered as such with the Delaware Secretary of State.
If Mr. Aguirre and his colleagues in the U.S. Department of Justice were ever intent on obeying the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution, and any of the other provisions which expressly refer to the “United States of America”, they would and they should never have attempted to misrepresent the “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”.
The pertinent federal law at 28 U.S.C. 547 expressly confers power of attorney on U.S. Attorneys to represent the “United States” (read “federal government”) and its various agencies. That statute does not and never did confer any powers of attorney on U.S. Attorneys to represent either the 50 States of the Union, or one of two foreign corporations chartered under Delaware’s corporation laws.
The 50 States are already adequately and properly represented by their respective State Attorneys General. Foreign corporations chartered in the State of Delaware must be represented by private attorneys, and they may not be misrepresented either by U.S. Attorneys or State Attorneys General.
To bring this argument right up to the present, please pause now to confirm all the Proper Parties that are presently listed on all federal litigation in which you are now involved.
Every single federal grand jury INDICTMENT we have seen during the past 15 years was allegedly brought by the “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”.
By now, I hope you realize that this is just one small manifestation of a very large number of frauds that are being perpetrated upon the People of America by U.S. Attorneys and their criminal accomplices within the federal judiciary.
Are there any other ways in which this information can help you?
Answer: Yes! But, in order to take maximum advantage of the law in your situation, I would urge you to abandon any prior notions you may have acquired about State and federal laws, and climb onto the high ground provided to you by your fundamental Right to equal protection of the law. See 42 U.S.C. 1985, in particular.
I bring this fundamental Right to your attention, in part because the Sixth Amendment guarantees to you the Right to effective assistance of Counsel at every step in a criminal proceeding. If the court fails to guarantee this Right to you at every step along the way, then it ousts itself of jurisdiction. See Johnson v. Zerbst for crucial authority on this point. This is a standing decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Not only are the U.S. Attorneys in downtown San Diego proceeding without powers of attorney and without proper licenses to practice law, any members of The State Bar of California you may have hired to represent your private interests are likewise missing proper licenses to practice law.
As you should also know by now, The State Bar of California are in contempt of court for having failed to answer a proper SUBPOENA for all licenses of all Bar members, going back 10 years. Out-of-state private attorneys are not directly affected by this SUBPOENA, however.
This means, quite bluntly, that the United States District Court in downtown San Diego has now ousted itself of jurisdiction over the INDICTMENT in question, and it has done so with prejudice.
To make matters worse for this Federal District Court, it is quite clear now that the District Clerk has been designated by 5 U.S.C. 2906 as the legal custodian of the Appointment Affidavit required of all federal judges by 5 U.S.C. 3331 (see attached).
I am enclosing a proper and lawful request under the Freedom of Information Act for all four (4) credentials required of all federal “robes” currently seated on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. For your information, the reply to that FOIA request is now overdue.
As a matter of law, the FOIA does not require any demonstrations of relevance or materiality. If the documents requested exist, and if they are not covered by any of the reasonable exemptions in the FOIA, then any Citizen has a right to compel discovery of those documents.
Therefore, the existence of the four (4) credentials required of all
federal judges in downtown San Diego now assumes facts not in evidence. See 18 U.S.C. 1001, in chief.
Solely on the basis of the facts and laws which I have explained above, any and all federal criminal actions which the U.S. Department of Justice may have commenced against San Diego City Council members in recent months are, accordingly, null and void ab initio. The Article IV USDC has no criminal jurisdiction. See 18 U.S.C. 3231.
If the information above also gives you sufficient reason not to request your private attorney to prepare, file and serve the appropriate MOTION TO DISMISS, I would be happy to assist you pro bono in the preparation of such a MOTION, which may be executed by you as a litigant proceeding In Propria Persona.
Notwithstanding any of the allegations which that bogus INDICTMENT may have made against you, you are innocent until proven guilty, and you cannot be proven guilty absent due process of law.
Clearly, due process of law, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, has already been violated in fundamental and irreparable ways and, for that reason alone, all further criminal proceedings against you should be terminated immediately with prejudice.
If my office can be of any further assistance to you and the San Diego City Council, please do not hesitate to correspond via our Forwarding Agent at the mailing location shown below.
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)
U.S. Mail care of:
Forwarding Agent
501 W. Broadway, #A-332
San Diego 92101
CALIFORNIA, USA
attachments