MEMO
TO: John
FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
DATE: April 12, 2007 A.D.
SUBJECT: defamatory material you mailed to my office
Dear John,
The latest NOTICE OF DEFAULT, BY AFFIDAVIT -- activating estoppel against the IRS and the U.S. Department of the Treasury -- appears to have motivated a recent rash of further falsehoods and vicious lies, evidently intended to defame me once again.
I do intend to publish this MEMO on the Internet, so that my answers to repetitive falsehoods can save me time in the future. If you had not already retained the Supreme Law Firm, I would not even bother with writing or publishing this MEMO.
However, you did mention that a family member presented you with a written copy of these falsehoods, so I would appreciate it very much if you would make sure that all interested members of your family do get a copy of my rebuttals.
I will repeat each sentence verbatim, and then reply to each, in the order of their appearance, as follows:
Paul Andrew Mitchell aka Mitch Modeleski is indeed not licensed to practice law in any
jurisdiction, and in fact has never even attended law school.
This statement is mostly true. I do not have any licenses to practice law anywhere in America, for several reasons including but not limited to the laws which do not require a license for me to do what I do.
Also, you should know that not one single member of the State Bar of California presently has a valid license to practice law either. We formally commenced that investigation in Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., and followed later with a comprehensive SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE to the State Bar of California. In particular, see:
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/cbpc/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/contest.ehlers.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/statebar/
I do have a B.A. in Political Science from UCLA (1970) and one of the required courses was American Constitutional Law, a class which I was privileged to take from renowned Professor Richard Longaker, who was twice voted undergraduate professor of the year at UCLA –- a campus with 30,000+ students in my senior year.
He runs an online “law school” called “Supreme Law School”, which
people attend by email for a fee of about $10/month.
That statement is correct. Our subscription fees and directions for subscribing are here on the Internet:
http://www.supremelaw.org/egroups/subscribe.htm
He claims to be a “Private Attorney General”, but that claim is based
solely upon a law which allows plaintiffs, who prosecute lawsuits for the
public good, to be reimbursed for attorney fees.
This statement is beginning to insinuate that I have no right to occupy the undelegated office of Private Attorney General. I use the term “insinuate” very carefully, because my status is not “based solely” upon some law which allows plaintiffs to be reimbursed for attorneys fees. We have published a few of the pertinent authorities for private attorneys general here on the Internet:
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
Please read them for yourself!
I believe that any honest reading of the entire list of cases quoted in that URL will demonstrate, conclusively, that the false and misleading statement above appears to be referring to Dasher v. Housing Authority of City of Atlanta.
No mention whatsoever is made of the other, more significant cases in Rotella v. Wood et al. and Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, both of which are standing decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Dasher is not a U.S. Supreme Court decision, however.
Thus, the deliberate omission of pertinent and standing decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court is fraud, in my book i.e. defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as a failure to disclose what should have been disclosed.
If you want to do a thorough job of investigating the undelegated office of Private Attorney General, you will find literally hundreds of thousands of documents on the Internet by asking Google to find:
“Private Attorney General”
“United States ex rel.”
“U.S. ex rel.”
However, he has never been such a plaintiff and, even if he were, that
is not a lawful title.
The first half of this sentence is demonstrably false and deliberately misleading. The following are just a small subset of the cases in which I have appeared formally as a Private Attorney General, either on behalf of the People of the United States of America, the People of the California Republic, or the United States ex rel.:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/boxer/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/garfield/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/erath/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/meredith2/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/giordano/dissolve.irs.htm
The falsehood stated in the second half of the above sentence is easily disproven by using Google to locate the many occurrences of “Private Attorney General” in documents now hosted on the Internet. Last time I checked, there were over 300,000 documents which contain the phrase “United States ex rel.”!
He has previously been barred from filing lawsuits in the federal court
system without prior court approval, due to his abusive and facially frivolous
filings in Mitchell v. AOL.
I have not been barred from filing lawsuits in the federal court system without prior court approval. I suspect that this lie originates in the obstruction which occurred in my Civil RICO case, as filed and commenced in the Superior Court of California here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol2/
Because anyone who can read the above is welcome to confirm the actual historical details for themselves, I will only summarize as follows:
The very same UNlicensed attorneys, who attempted to appear in my federal copyright and trademark infringement case as filed in Sacramento, California, also attempted fraudulently to “remove” my Civil RICO case into the U.S. District Court in downtown San Diego.
In the latter USDC, Ms. Irma Gonzalez also turned up without two (2) of the four (4) credentials required of all federal judges, however:
http://supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/gonzalez.irma/nad.missing.credentials.htm
Ms. Gonzalez then fraudulently attempted to transfer that Civil RICO case back to Sacramento, where it was further obstructed by the very same federal personnel who had obstructed my federal case, namely, William B. Shubb, Dale A. Drozd, and Jack L. Wagner.
None of the latter ever produced any of their required credentials; Gonzalez, Shubb and Drozd were formally charged with multiple felony federal offenses in this VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, ON INFORMATION, which I was required to file by the federal criminal statute at 18 U.S.C. 4:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol2/criminal.complaint.htm
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/4.html
Subsequently, one Morrison C. England then jumped in to assist the named suspects above, and he also turned up without two of the four (4) credentials required of all federal district judges:
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/england.morrison/nad.missing.credentials.htm
It was Morrison C. England who defamed me criminally by attempting fraudulently to declare me a “vexatious litigant” [sic]; however, without having original jurisdiction in the first place, and without all four (4) of the required credentials, that “declaration” by Morrison England was actually a violation of the federal witness statutes at 18 U.S.C. 1512 and 1513 –- both FEDERAL FELONIES!!
Such a “declaration” would have required a proper MOTION filed and served by opposing party(s); however, in this context please remember that not one attorney who attempted to appear on behalf of the many named defendants was able to produce a valid license to practice law in California. So, no such MOTION was ever before the USDC, even if it did have original jurisdiction (which it did not), and no such MOTION was ever litigated in the Superior Court of California, which did have jurisdiction:
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/civil.rico.htm
The Superior Court of California enjoys original jurisdiction of my Civil RICO case, even today, chiefly because there is no statute of limitations for fraud. See also the jurisdiction citations in the INITIAL COMPLAINT here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol2/initial.complaint.htm
While you are verifying these facts for yourself, please also be aware that every single federal district “robe” now seated on any U.S. District Court anywhere in California was, at one time in their past, a member of the State Bar of California. And, we have also demanded that each and every one of those “robes” produce proof of their compliance with the State Bar Act (see “SBN” links after their folder names):
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm#CDCA
Every single one has refused to produce any proof that they ever complied with sections 6067 and 6068 of the California Business and Professions Code (“CBPC”). On the merits, violations of CBPC sections 6126 and 6128 are misdemeanors (read crimes!):
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/cbpc/
I have no intentions of ever “joining” the company of such a blatant and illegal protection racket, as the State and federal courts have become all across our nation, aided and abetted as they are by corrupt Bar organizations in every State of the Union.
The terms “abusive” and “facially frivolous” are vicious insults, in point of fact, and they are not even close to the truth of the matter.
If you visit his website at supremelaw.org, you will see that he has
filed numerous lawsuits, all of which have been dismissed, and that he has been
involved with such questionable and potentially dangerous persons as the
Montana Freeman.
I have not filed “numerous” lawsuits. In my entire career, I have filed 3 lawsuits on my own behalf, in which I was the named Plaintiff:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/nordbrok/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol2/
In Mitchell v. Nordbrock, I won a unanimous jury verdict against those defendants for embezzling over $3,000 of mine. That case is described here in this Press Release:
http://supremelaw.org/press/rels/nordbwin.htm
The other two cases were never actually “dismissed” for reasons I have summarized briefly above. Specifically, the federal personnel who obstructed the latter Civil RICO case lacked jurisdiction and are expressly named in my VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, if not also in the INITIAL COMPLAINT.
So, it is preposterous in the extreme to claim that a Named Defendant has any right to “dismiss” a Civil RICO action filed against him, particularly when the INITIAL COMPLAINT in that RICO action correctly predicted the exact nature and extent of the obstructions which did eventually occur. Reductio ad absurdum!
Anyone who would advance such an absurd and preposterous position is clearly lacking in the minimal knowledge of applicable federal laws and pertinent, standing court cases, like Rotella v. Wood and Lou v. Belzberg.
It is also very misleading to insinuate that I was somehow affiliated with the Montana Freemen. They did retain me to assist them with their criminal defenses; and, I did file an original APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER in the Garfield County court, in order to prevent federal personnel from using lethal force in their confrontation with the Montana Freeman.
I also removed that case to the District Court of the United States in Billings, Montana, in order to compel disclosure of all credentials required of all 600+ federal personnel who were reportedly dispatched to arrest the Montana Freeman. Again, see:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/garfield/
After I started knocking on too many sensitive doors there, I was abruptly escorted to the Billings airport, and sent home by a man who later turned out to be a federal agent who had infiltrated the Montana Freemen.
Needless to say, I was once again stiffed for a substantial sum of professional fees which were due to me for the counsel which I had provided to those Montana Freeman, while I was their “guest” in a ranch house in Billings, down wind of a cattle feed lot.
The rest of the sordid details can be found at the URL above e.g. being put to work remodeling their ranch house there.
Can you say “cow manure”?
Nevertheless, he continues to harass, abuse, and threaten others via
email and through various discussion groups for perceived wrongs.
I do not harass, abuse or threaten anyone, whether via email or various discussion groups. I have a fundamental Right under the First Amendment to communicate my opinions regardless of frontiers. And, I specifically do NOT “threaten” people.
I can tell you that some people who have received NOTICES OF INTENT TO SUE from me, have in fact felt “threatened” by such NOTICES, but that is their fault, not mine.
In the case of Joseph Farah, for example, I believe he complained that I had “threatened” him with a lawsuit, but he had also received a formal NOTICE AND DEMAND TO CEASE AND DESIST here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/farah/
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/worldnetdaily.com
I also suspect that it was author Devvy Kidd who incorrectly referred to the latter communications as “threats” [sic]. A Notice of Intent is not a “threat”. A threat is an expression of intent to do damage or injury to another or to their property and, in that sense, I do not issue “threats” to anyone.
I do, however, inform people that they appear to be breaking the law, and it’s just too bad for them whenever the suspects feel emotionally “threatened” the moment they receive such a notice.
He is best known for threatening lawsuits under the RICO act, and
threatening the illegal arrest of people who cross him.
I’ve already addressed the fallacies evident in this misuse of the terms “threat” and “threatening”. Moreover, I have never “threatened the illegal arrest of people” who cross me.
On the contrary, the California Penal Code expressly authorizes a CITIZEN’S ARREST, and I have issued numerous CITIZEN’S ARREST WARRANTS for those numerous suspects who have either been named in VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS, and/or committed blatant crimes against my Person and my estate, of whom there are many.
In my federal copyright case, there were 129 Named Defendants, 20 of whom were major U.S. universities including U.C. Irvine –- my alma mater! I have an M.S. in Public Administration from U.C. Irvine (1973) and I completed 5 of the 7 courses required for a second Masters degree in Social Ecology, before moving to Berkeley, California.
It should be obvious to anyone who completes a fair reading of the Supreme Law Library that lots of people have gone out of their way to damage me, in one way or another. That pattern is now painfully obvious, even to some idiots!
For that reason, this Wikipedia article is
very important for the many people who have become inundated with his neverending threats and abusive lawsuits –- past, present,
and future –- and Wikipedia has no real cause for
concern despite what Mr. Modeleski may say.
Now the truth comes out! On at least two occasions in the past, I have attempted to confront Wikipedia personnel with the obvious falsehoods and criminal defamations which their Internet database has been fostering about me, for many months now.
Most recently, I went the extra mile to make my own edits on their entry for “Paul Andrew Mitchell”. Within a few minutes after updating that entry, my edits were removed and replaced with the previous defamatory text. I continued in this mode, until I was able to elicit a response from the individual(s) responsible for their “automatic reversion” as they called it (using software automatically to remove my edits and restore their defamatory text).
Two things happened:
(1) certain Wikipedia principals wrote to me to say that they had put a “lock” on that database entry; and,
(2) the individual responsible replied separately with a shocking email message expressing his intent to enforce their version of this entry “with a knife”.
I did what I could to report this real “threat” to Wikipedia personnel. The last I heard, Wikipedia had referred that knife threat to their corporate attorney, and I was instructed to communicate no further in that matter with anyone else except him.
So, while I have never threatened anyone in such a fashion, the historical record now contains evidence that someone affiliated with Wikipedia did threaten me with a knife injury –- an attack with a deadly weapon, in point of law.
I should add that Wikipedia has now refused to disclose the identity of the suspect responsible for that real threat to my Person.
It is important, however, to ensure that he is also listed under his
pseudonym, “Paul Andrew Mitchell”, since that is the name by which he is
generally known, and the name he regularly uses.
I continue to laugh at such efforts to fault me, in some manner, for changing my name. Of all the many thousands of people who have changed their names in recent history, e.g. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Bob Dylan, Madonna, Mark Twain, I get singled out for choosing a name that is slightly different from my given name (Mitchell Paul Andrew).
So, if anybody asks, my Real Name is Paul Andrew Mitchell, because that is my chosen name. It’s not a “pseudonym” [sic].
People who are trying to make this into a BIG ISSUE are really pissing up the wrong tree like feeble dogs with their front legs up in the air.
There are more details about this particular point at this URL:
http://supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htm
Further information about his pseudo-legal tactics may be seen at
paulandrewmitchell.com, Quatloos.com, and other websites which follow and
critique the tax denier movement, also known as the “tax honesty movement” (i.e., those who believe there is no law
which requires one to pay income tax).
Well, to refer to such demonstrably and consistently fallacious, defamatory “text” as information is the height of hypocrisy. Our clients retain the Supreme Law Firm because of our reputation for maintaining fidelity to proven facts and applicable, constitutional laws.
The defamatory insinuations at paulandrewmitchell.com were placed there by a named Defendant in my federal copyright case and in my State Civil RICO case. Just zoom some of the documents which he scanned and posted there, to confirm his name –- Mr. Jason Scott aka “Jay Scott”.
The defamatory statements at Quatloos.com were authored by another suspect –- Mr. Jay D. Adkisson -- whom I have already reported to the Irvine Police Department on suspicion of criminal defamation.
The sad fact about these agents provocateur is that they just don’t seem to have the faintest understanding of the important differences between lawful taxes, on the one hand, and extortion under color of law, on the other hand. Their obvious and stubborn ignorance will be their ultimate downfall, I predict.
In the late 1990s Mitchell began threatening other anti-IRS advocates,
internet service providers, and universities with multi-billion dollar lawsuits
for allegedly violating the copyright of his ebook,
“The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue.”
Again, the term “threatening” is totally inappropriate in this context, as proven by the extensive quantity of litigation that was required of me to enforce my exclusive copyrights, and to pursue 129 named Defendants in this federal copyright and trademark infringement case:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/
If you will bother to read all the way to the end, hopefully you too will confirm these shocking facts: (1) three U.S. Supreme Court “justices” turned up without PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSIONS; and, (2) all 129 named Defendants either fell totally silent, or formally waived their right to answer these two important pleadings that I wrote and filed at the U.S. Supreme Court in that case:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/cert.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/mandamus.2.htm
“Silence activates estoppel.” Carmine v. Bowen
People who want to brand such relevant cases as “pseudo-legal” garbage, really should have their heads examined, because they are lying through their teeth whenever they try to impugn standing decisions of American Courts in such a despicable fashion.
Recently, I have come to suspect that such agents provocateur are really intent on destroying the court system in America specifically by resorting to such demonstrably false and ridiculous insinuations about people who strive to stay faithful to the verified facts and pertinent laws in their own court cases.
On January 23 2002, the case was dismissed.
False! See URLs above, which have already addressed this point in detail. Briefly on the merits, the Lanham Act conferred original jurisdiction upon the Article III District Court of the United States (“DCUS”), and William B. Shubb lacked all jurisdiction to preside on that Article III federal district court.
Shubb’s refusal to produce proof of the four credentials required of him was a fraud upon me, a fraud upon the DCUS and a fraud upon the United States (federal government) and the People of the United States of America. The same is true for Dale A. Drozd, Irma Gonzalez and Morrison C. England.
Mitchell is noted for persistent legal challenges (all of which have
been dismissed, some with prejudice) and frequent changes of address.
Again, it is false to claim that all of our legal challenges have been dismissed. Anyone who advances such a preposterous claim is proving himself to be a vicious liar and/or a stupid idiot: some of our wins are already well documented and widely discussed on the Internet; others are kept somewhat confidential, to protect the privacy of the clients involved.
Again, this URL was written in part to refute this ugly and deliberately damaging LIE that “Paul has no wins” [sic]:
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htm
Other anti-IRS advocates have lamented that these disruptive legal
challenges have seriously damaged the anti-tax movement.
Here, you will please note the frequent resort to anonymous “others” who are not identified, except to advance some equally ridiculous argument that our professional work is somehow “disruptive” or that it has somehow “damaged” the anti-tax movement.
Let me repeat this point, one more time, for the record: We do NOT object to any lawful taxes e.g. federal excise taxes on gasoline, tires, long-distance telephone calls, and such.
We DO object, however, to extortion that is enforced under color of law, and with guns and police powers, but without the underlying authorities that are absolutely necessary for such collections to be called “taxes” in the first instance.
Specifically, see this SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE to which the U.S. Department of the Treasury fell totally silent:
http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/subpoena.htm
Godfrey Lehman once described federal income “taxes” as “tax-tortion”, and truer words were never spoken.
Perhaps the anonymous author of all these defamatory insults can please explain to us why the U.S. Supreme Court arrived at the conclusions to which it came in Commissioner v. Acker, abstracted here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.htm
John, we have a saying in our office that goes like this: A word to the wise is sufficient; the idiots of this world won’t get it, no matter how many times you repeat yourself to them.
Let me close by saying that Wikipedia has already come under an immense amount of scrutiny, and just criticism, for maintaining false materials at their Internet website, even after they have been confronted with such falsehoods.
Evidently, my bad experiences with their associates and “volunteer editors” is not that much different from the experiences I have seen reported by others similarly damaged.
Thank you for your consideration, and thank you again for retaining the Supreme Law Firm, even in the face of these obviously criminal efforts to dissuade you from working with us on projects of mutual interest.
I am signing this long MEMO with the same signature text that I use in all of my email correspondence, so that readers will have another way of confirming everything which I have already explained in detail above.
Hopefully, if people will only read what is already written, particularly by reviewing and confirming the contents of our litigation, they won’t continue to impose upon my valuable time with still more requests that I dispatch this or that falsehood about me.
You know, for every truth in this universe, there are potentially an unlimited number of lies to contradict that truth. Frankly, I have much better ways to spend my remaining time on planet Earth.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
All Rights Reserved
without Prejudice
Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm