Greetings
Member Records:
Please reply with a firm
Quotation of all costs and steps
required of me to obtain a true
and correct copy
of the CERTIFICATE OF ADMISSION
(aka "license")
and CERTIFICATE OF OATH
duly indorsed on (the back of)
said
"license" by Agustin Hernandez, SBN #161625.
I believe your office has
already received extensive
documentation concerning
Sections 6064, 6067 and 6068
in the California Business and
Professions Code, chiefly
and in particular the
"member" is the legal custodian
of that credential, designated
as such by CBPC Section 6064
and by all predecessor statutes.
I also strongly suspect, based
on 27 YEARS of research now,
that personnel employed by The
State Bar of California, particularly
those personnel also claiming to
be "members" in good standing,
are mostly, if not totally,
ignorant of the intent of Congress when it
enacted the Civil RICO statute at 18 U.S.C. 1964. We
routinely
share the standing decision in Rotella v. Wood, for its clear
explanation
of the "objectives of
Civil RICO"; repeating, for the edification of
all
such personnel:
http://supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/528/549.html
In rejecting a significantly
different focus under RICO, therefore, we are honoring an analogy that
Congress itself accepted and relied upon, and one that promotes the
objectives of civil RICO as readily as it furthers the objects of the
Clayton Act. Both statutes share a common congressional objective of
encouraging civil litigation to supplement Government efforts to deter and
penalize the respectively prohibited practices. The object of
civil RICO is thus not merely to compensate victims but to turn them into
prosecutors, "private attorneys general," dedicated to
eliminating racketeering activity. 3 Id., at 187 (citing Malley-Duff, 483 U.S., at 151
) (civil RICO specifically has a "further
purpose [of] encouraging potential private plaintiffs diligently to
investigate"). The provision for treble damages is accordingly
justified by the expected benefit of suppressing racketeering activity, an
object pursued the sooner the better.
[Rotella v.
Wood et al., 528 U.S. 549 (2000)]
[bold
and underline emphases added]
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION
We now politely request your written acknowledgment
that private attorneys general
are NOT required
to be licensed attorneys,
although a licensed attorney
may also be a private attorney general.
Thank you very much for your assistance -and-
written acknowledgment, in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Civil RICO: 18 U.S.C. 1964;
Agent of the United States as Qui
Tam Relator (4X),
Federal Civil False Claims Act:
31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq.
