TO: Mr. Peter D. Shepherd
General Counsel Division
Department of Justice
1162 Court Street N.E.
FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General and Plaintiff
Superior Court of California #GIC807057
DATE: January 14, 2005 A.D.
SUBJECT: widespread conspiracy in the federal judiciary
Greetings Mr. Shepherd:
Under separate cover we have mailed to your attention a number of documents which pertain to our ongoing investigation of corruption and racketeering among certain personnel employed by the federal judiciary, particularly in California.
Our formal investigation began as an essential feature of my federal copyright and trademark infringement case, which was filed in the District Court of the United States in Sacramento, California. See the Lanham Act at 15 U.S.C. 1121 for the Congressional grant of original jurisdiction over trademark infringements. Please be aware that Title 15 of the United States Code has not yet been enacted into positive law; we did, however, confirm that this codified version of the original Statute at Large is presently accurate.
As that case progressed through the federal courts, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, we wish to impress upon you the fact that federal judicial personnel at each step turned up without the requisite credentials. These personnel included Dale A. Drozd and William B. Shubb at the federal district court; Sidney R. Thomas and Stephen S. Trott at the Ninth Circuit; and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Clarence Thomas at the U.S. Supreme Court.
We have been very pleased to enjoy timely and professional assistance from the U.S. Department of Justice in responding to all of our requests submitted under the Freedom of Information Act. Their strict obedience to all applicable federal laws stands in stark contrast to the utter contempt which federal judicial personnel now exhibit for the U.S. Constitution, Laws and Treaties of the United States. See the Supremacy Clause for paramount authority here.
Along the way, we continued to document and publish our methods and results in the Supreme Law Library on the Internet. Lately, others have begun to utilize those published resources, and the results they have obtained are remarkably, if regrettably, similar to mine.
For example, a client applied our methodology to request all 4 requisite credentials for all federal judicial personnel currently seated on the U.S. District Court in downtown Los Angeles.
Approximately half of those “robes” turned up without one or more of those four credentials. When that client retained me for further counsel, we went the extra mile to notify all affected personnel of the missing credentials, and to demand that they exhibit same within a reasonable deadline. Those missing credentials are still outstanding.
Given the direction and momentum which this investigation has now taken, we then felt it would be most appropriate to request all 4 requisite credentials for all personnel currently seated on the Ninth Circuit and on all U.S. District Courts throughout California State. I am happy to report that proper FOIA requests are now pending for all of such credentials, including also all 45 seats on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with offices in San Francisco.
We do also wish to stress that we have succeeded in locating the specific federal statutes which designate the legal custodians of the requisite Presidential Commissions and Appointment Affidavits. Those statutes are 5 U.S.C. 2902 and 2906, respectively.
Sadly, federal district court clerks continue to refer us to the Administrative Office for the U.S. Courts for those credentials, despite the law which clearly designates the clerk of court as the legal custodian of the Appointment Affidavits for all federal judges, all federal magistrates and all federal district court clerks.
To exhaust our remedies and demonstrate good faith and due diligence, we served a SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE upon the Administrative Office in Washington, D.C., for all Oaths of Office and all Appointment Affidavits for all federal justices, judges, magistrates, clerks and deputy clerks, no exceptions. That A.O. is now in contempt of court for having fallen silent in response to that lawful SUBPOENA.
As you can see, Mr. Shepherd, anyone with half a brain can view the evidence we have acquired to date and develop the reasonable suspicion, if not a final conclusion, that our federal judiciary in America appears to be heavily infiltrated by impostors, who are either unwilling and/or unable to produce the credentials that are required of them by applicable federal laws.
In our professional opinion, this reasonable suspicion is fully justified by the material evidence now in our possession and, as such, it constitutes probable cause to charge the personnel in question with impersonating officers of the United States, for violating the federal criminal statutes at 18 U.S.C. 912 (impersonation), if not also 18 U.S.C. 1341 and 1962 (mail fraud and racketeering, respectively).
Under separate cover, we have now transmitted to you a quite thorough set of documentary evidence supporting our observations above.
If my office can assist you further, please don’t hesitate to ask.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Plaintiff and
Superior Court of California docket #GIC807057
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice (see UCCA 1207)
copy: Office of the Governor, State of Oregon
Hon. Hardy Myers, Attorney General, State of Oregon
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Salem, Oregon
Office of Attorney General, State of California, San Diego
Foreperson, San Diego County Grand Jury
p.s. Please feel free to utilize the resources we have now published in the Supreme Law Library, to apply this investigation inside Oregon.