TO:       Mr. Ted Weidlein, Editor in Chief

          The Chronicle of Higher Education

          1255 – 23rd Street, N.W., Suite 700

          Washington 20037



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

          Private Attorney General


DATE:     March 9, 2002 A.D.


SUBJECT:  Dan Carnevale’s column, Thursday, March 7, 2002:

          Colleges Are Unconcerned by Online Author’s

          $2.6-Billion Copyright Lawsuit



Dear Mr. Weidlein:


I am writing to express my sincere appreciation for the professional way in which Dan Carnevale reported the complex lawsuit I was required to file against 129 named Defendants for copyright and trademark infringements.


When Dan first contacted me to discuss the lawsuit, I expected that our scheduled conversation would last no more than 15 minutes.  To my surprise, Dan and I spent over 90 minutes on the telephone, going over many different facets of the book, its findings, and the fate of the many counterfeit versions which later made it onto the Internet without my permission.


Dan Carnevale deserves a great deal of credit for summarizing those many facets in such a succinct fashion.


It is not accurate, however, to report that the suit was tossed out of federal court in January “for lack of evidence.”  On the contrary, almost everyone connected with the case has commented or complained about the sheer volume of the Initial COMPLAINT and attached Exhibits.  See Internet URL:


Proceeding without jurisdiction and without the required consent of all parties, a U.S. Magistrate Judge even wrote that he was “inundated” by all the documents he had to read (his word, not mine).  See 28 U.S.C. 636.


That Magistrate then committed numerous plain errors, for example: his conclusion that I never registered my copyright when, in fact, I have testified to the existence of an application, deposit, and fee that were mailed to the U.S. Copyright Office in July 2001 A.D.  A simple telephone call to the Register of Copyrights would have confirmed these facts.


Perhaps Mr. Magistrate’s prepaid calling card needed recharging?


The truth of the matter is that the Copyright Office never acted on my application, leaving me in “legal limbo.”  The case law on this point is clear:  I can still sue for copyright infringement, even if the Copyright Office were to refuse my application.  Mere delay does not destroy the right to sue.


On this point, I have recently moved the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for an ORDER enjoining the Register of Copyrights from any further inaction on my application for registration.  See Internet URL:


Another important facet of this case is the large number of SUBPOENAS that remain outstanding for the server activity logs of certain named Defendants, and for the licenses of their attorneys.  To date, I have scrupulously honored the privacy and confidentiality of those activity logs, because to “hack” into them would have rendered inadmissible any evidence illegally acquired.


But, only one Defendant has complied with their SUBPOENA to date, and the information they provided was false (a phony address)!  Clearly, I cannot be blamed for the Defendants’ apparent willingness to withhold important evidence, and then to argue that my case should be thrown out “for lack of evidence.”  Who’s calling the kettle black, anyway?


Finally, to characterize its claims as “extreme” is to overlook the book’s solid empirical foundation.  For example, we have a letter from a Connecticut Congresswoman who admits that experts at the Congressional Research Service, and the Legislative Counsel’s office, all concur that the term “State” has a very restricted meaning in the Internal Revenue Code.  See IRC 3121(e).


If I am “extreme,” then so are the legal experts whose job it is to advise our federal lawmakers about matters of statutory construction.


Nevertheless, I cannot be compelled to litigate the merits of the book in my copyright infringement suit, even if those merits were not already been decided in my favor.  See Knox v. U.S. et al., decided by the USDC, San Antonio, Texas, in 1991 (income tax statutes are federal municipal law;  winning brief is now Appendix “A” in “The Federal Zone,” eleventh edition).


Mr. Weidlein, I encourage Dan Carnevale and other interested staff at The Chronicle of Higher Education to keep close tabs on the progress of this case, particularly the Lanham Act claims that I am asserting.  Clearly, the United States District Court could not have jurisdiction because it simply did not exist inside the several States when that law was first enacted.  See 60 Stat. 440 for proof.


The District Court of the United States has become the next big battleground for American constitutional lawyers and judicial activists, as it should be.



Sincerely yours,


/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell


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

Private Attorney General


copy:  the Internet