Time: Sat Mar 15 06:43:39 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA17596;
	Fri, 14 Mar 1997 21:24:49 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 05:50:09 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Chief Judge picks his nose.

[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]


MEMO

TO:       Cathy A. Catterson
          Clerk of Court
          Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
          P.O. Box 193939
          San Francisco, California state

FROM:     Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
          Counselor at Law

DATE:     March 14, 1997

SUBJECT:  Complaint of Judicial Misconduct No. #96-80337
          against William D. Browning, USDC, Tucson

Please incorporate  this letter, My attached letter to USDC Judge
William D.  Browning dated July 25, 1996, and My Notice of Intent
to File  a Criminal  Complaint dated September 20, 1996, into the
docket file which has been assigned judicial misconduct complaint
number #96-80337 against Judge Browning.

Because I  have heard  absolutely nothing from the Ninth Circuit,
or  from  any  other  government  personnel  in  this  matter,  I
respectfully request  some action on this complaint, which is now
six months old.

As I  have already written in a previous letter to you, inquiring
about  the   unexplained  delay(s)   in  processing  My  judicial
complaint against  John M.  Roll, the  Chief Judge is required to
give such  complaints his  expeditious attention.  I do not think
you could  find anyone  in America to preside on a jury who would
conclude that one-half year is expeditious.  Do you?

Sincerely yours,

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

Counselor at Law and federal witness
c/o 2509 N. Campbell Avenue, #1776
Tucson, Arizona state

email:       pmitch@primenet.com (586/Eudora Pro 3.0:
             preferred, to conserve all resources)
phone:       (520) 320-1514 (private line:
             please get permission to disclose)
fax machine: (520) 320-1256 (dedicated hard copy:
             available 24-hours per day or night)
fax modem:   (520) 320-1513 (dedicated email line:
             please call phone to switch software)
web site:    http://www.supremelaw.com

copy:  Procter Hug, Chief Judge

p.s. Please have  someone tell Judge Browning to stop picking his
     nose during court proceedings.

                             #  #  #


                         COMPLAINT FORM
              JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT
         COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT AND DISABILITY


MAIL THIS FORM TO THE CLERK, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, P.O.
BOX 193939,  SAN FRANCISCO,  CALIFORNIA 94119-3939/tdc.  MARK THE
ENVELOPE "JUDICIAL  MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT" OR "JUDICIAL DISABILITY
COMPLAINT".   DO NOT  PUT THE  NAME OF THE JUDGE OR MAGISTRATE ON
THE ENVELOPE.


SEE RULE 2(e) FOR THE NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED FOR FILING.


1.   Complainant's name: Paul Andrew, Mitchell

     Address:            c/o 2509 North Campbell Avenue, #1776
                         Tucson [zip code exempt]
                         ARIZONA REPUBLIC

     Daytime telephone:  (520) 323-3921
                         (leave message on voice mail)


2.   Judge or magistrate complained about:

     Name:               William D. Browning
                         United States District Judge

     Court:              United States District Court
                         Tucson, Arizona state


3.   Does this  complaint concern  the behavior  of the  judge or
     magistrate in a particular lawsuit or lawsuits?

          ( X ) Yes  (  ) No

     If "yes"  give the  following information about each lawsuit
     (use the reverse side if there is more than one):

     Court:              United States District Court

     Docket Number:      95-484-TUC

     Are (were) you a party or lawyer in the lawsuit?

          (   ) Party    ( X ) Counsel  (   ) Neither

     If party,  give the  name, address,  and telephone number of
     your Counsel:

                         n/a


  Judicial Complaint Against William D. Browning:  Page 1 of 6


     Docket numbers of any appeals to the Ninth Circuit:

          Notice of  appeal  was  filed  before  trial,  but  Mr.
          Browning refused  to stay  the trial,  and  ruled  that
          Notice of  Appeal could  not be  processed until  after
          sentencing.  Defendant Sheila Wallen objected timely.


4.   Have you filed any lawsuits against the judge or magistrate?

          (   ) Yes      ( X ) No  (Client has, however.)

     If yes,  give the  following information  about each lawsuit
     (use the reverse side if there is more than one):

     Court:    District Court of the United States
               Judicial District of Arizona

     Present status of suit:

          My client,  Sheila Terese  Wallen, served Formal Notice
          and Demand  upon  Judge  Alex  Kozinski  of  the  Ninth
          Circuit Court of Appeals, to prepare and present to the
          Chief Justice  of the  United States  a certificate  of
          necessity that  the Chief  Justice designate and assign
          temporarily a  competent and  qualified judge  from the
          Court of International Trade to perform judicial duties
          in the District Court of the United States, pursuant to
          authorities in  28 U.S.C.  293, 296,  297, 461(b),  and
          Evans v.  Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920).  Her action cannot
          proceed without  a competent and qualified judge to sit
          on the District Court of the United States.

     Name, address, and telephone number of your Counsel:

          n/a

     Court to which any appeal has been taken:

          (see above)

     Docket number of appeal:

          none

     Present status of appeal:

          none


5.   On separate  sheets of  paper, no larger than the paper this
     form is  printed on, describe the conduct or the evidence of
     disability that  is the subject of this complaint.  See rule
     2(b) and  2(d).   Do not  use more  than 5  pages (5 sides).
     Most complaints do not require that much.

          see attached


  Judicial Complaint Against William D. Browning:  Page 2 of 6


6.   You should either:

          (1)  check the  first box  below and  sign this form in
               the presence of a notary public;  or

          (2)  check the  second box  and sign  the form.  You do
               not need  a notary  public if you check the second
               box.

          ( )  I swear (affirm) that --

          (X)  I declare under penalty of perjury --

               I have  read rules  1 and  2 of  the Rules  of the
               Judicial Council  of the  Ninth Circuit  Governing
               Complaints of  Judicial Misconduct  or Disability,
               and the  statement made in this complaint are true
               and correct to the best of my knowledge.


/s/ Paul Mitchell
________________________________________________
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, and
Counselor at Law
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice

Executed on:  September 16, 1996


copies:   Judge Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit
          U.S. Marshals, Tucson, Arizona
          Federal Bureau of Investigation, Tucson, Arizona
          Attorney General, State of Arizona
          Governor Fife Symington, State of Arizona
          Sheila Terese Wallen, Arivaca, Arizona state


  Judicial Complaint Against William D. Browning:  Page 3 of 6


         Attachment to Complaint of Judicial Misconduct

1.   Mr. Browning agreed -- before trial, on record, and before a
     gallery of  witnesses -- to guarantee all of Sheila Wallen's
     fundamental Rights  during said  trial.   He then refused to
     allow Her  to enjoy the assistance of Her Counsel of Choice,
     by ordering Mr. Paul Andrew Mitchell to the back seat of the
     gallery, where  Mr. Mitchell  was forced  to stay during the
     entire course  of  the  trial  and  was  prevented  by  U.S.
     Marshals from  communicating with Miss Wallen.  Mr. Mitchell
     was allowed  to speak  with Miss  Wallen only  during recess
     periods.   Mr. Browning  had  been  previously  briefed,  in
     detail, as  to the  holding of  the U.S.  Supreme  Court  in
     Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 468 (1938), which held that
     a criminal  defendant  is  entitled  to  the  assistance  of
     Counsel at  every step  in the proceedings, and if the trial
     court fails  to ensure  that this assistance is available at
     every step  in the  proceedings, then  the trial court ousts
     itself of  jurisdiction.   Mr. Browning  did not  care about
     this Supreme Court precedent;  Mr. Browning does not believe
     that  U.S.   Supreme  Court   decisions   have   any   legal
     significance.   Denial of effective assistance of Counsel is
     a criminal deprivation of a fundamental Right under color of
     law, in  violation of 18 U.S.C. 242, and perjury of oath, in
     violation of  18 U.S.C. 1621.  In My opinion, this matter is
     serious enough to be brought to the attention of a qualified
     federal grand  jury, one  whose members  are chosen randomly
     from a  pool that  includes State  Citizens  too,  not  just
     federal citizens.


2.   When  presented   with   an   Affidavit   of   Circumstances
     Surrounding the  Arrest of  Sheila Wallen,  and also  with a
     comprehensive  Motion  to  Stay  Proceedings  pending  final
     resolution   of    Sheila   Wallen's    challenge   to   the
     constitutionality of  the Jury  Selection and  Service  Act,
     complete with  a very  detailed  Sworn  Statement  of  facts
     supporting  said   Motion,  Mr.   Browning  received   these
     pleadings at approximately 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday afternoon,
     July 17,  1996;  Mr. Browning then ruled on these pleadings,
     wrote his  Order on  the same  day, placed his Order in U.S.
     Mail, and it was delivered to Sheila Wallen's post office 70
     miles away  in Arivaca, Arizona, by 11:00 a.m. the following
     morning, Thursday, July 18, 1996.  It was impossible for Mr.
     Browning to  have read  all of  these pleadings  in such  an
     extremely short period of time.  Furthermore, Mr. Browning's
     Order ruled  that Wallen's  Affidavit was  hearsay, and that
     there was  nothing in the Stay Motion and accompanying Sworn
     Statement of  any legal  significance, despite the fact that
     the latter  pleadings  contained  numerous  authorities  and
     rulings by  the United  States Supreme  Court.  For example,
     see U.S.  v. Mason,  412 U.S.  391, 399-400  (1973), to wit:
     nobody should be punished unnecessarily for relying upon the
     decisions of  the U.S.  Supreme Court.   Refusing  to file a
     proper and  correctly executed  Affidavit  violates  Federal
     Rules of  Evidence, Rule  201(d), Mandatory Judicial Notice,


  Judicial Complaint Against William D. Browning:  Page 4 of 6


     and constitutes  obstruction of  justice in  violation of 18
     U.S.C. 1506.   Miss  Wallen's Affidavit contained proof that
     the  alleged   officers  of   the  United  States  proceeded
     criminally  to   trespass  upon  Wallen's  private  property
     without a  valid warrant  to search and seize said property,
     and to  arrest Her  without a  valid warrant for Her arrest.
     This Affidavit also contained material evidence which proves
     the lack of jurisdiction of the United States District Court
     over which  Mr.  Browning  presided,  since  a  warrant  was
     absolutely necessary to execute the search, seizure & arrest
     in the  first instance;   without  said warrants, Browning's
     court was  denied jurisdiction over the subject matter.  See
     Rule C  of the  Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and
     Maritime Claims.   This  Affidavit also contains evidence of
     threats, duress,  extortion, and  coercion by  said  alleged
     agents of  the United  States, all in violation of 18 U.S.C.
     872 (extortion),  making Mr. Browning an accessory to all of
     these crimes after the fact, in violation 18 U.S.C. 3.  This
     matter should  be brought  before a  competent and qualified
     federal grand jury.

3.   As of 5:00 p.m. on Friday, August 30, 1996, Mr. Browning had
     failed to  answer Wallen's Final Notice and Demand for Proof
     of Power,  Standing, and  Jurisdiction in  the  Particulars.
     His failure  to do so is competent evidence that neither he,
     nor the  court over which he was presiding, had any criminal
     jurisdiction whatsoever to proceed over the case before him.
     Specifically, Miss  Wallen demanded:   (1)  proof  that  the
     alleged U.S.  Attorneys who  were prosecuting Her had powers
     of attorney  to represent  the Plaintiff  "UNITED STATES  OF
     AMERICA";   (2) proof  of  the  statutory,  regulatory,  and
     constitutional authority  which grants legal standing to the
     "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" to bring a criminal action before
     a "UNITED  STATES DISTRICT  COURT";   and (3)  proof of  the
     statutory, regulatory,  and constitutional  authority  which
     grants jurisdiction  to a  "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT" as
     opposed to a "DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES" to hear a
     criminal case against a Union State Citizen when the alleged
     crime was  committed inside  the state  zone and outside the
     federal  zone.    It  is  a  principle  of  law  that,  once
     challenged, the  one asserting  jurisdiction must prove that
     jurisdiction exists  as a matter of law.  The proponent of a
     rule carries  the burden  of proving  its application in the
     instant case.  See 5 U.S.C. 556(d).  For judicial support of
     this principle,  see  in  particular  the  following  cases:
     Hagans v.  Lavine, 415  U.S. 533;   Griffin vs Matthews, 310
     F.Supp. 341,  423 F.2d  272;  McNutt vs. G.M., 56 S.Ct. 789,
     80 L.Ed  1135;   Basso vs. U.P.L., 495 F.2d 906;  Thomson vs
     Gaskiel, 62  S.Ct. 673, 83 L.Ed 111;  Albrecht vs. U.S., 273
     U.S. 1;   Louisville  R.R. vs Motley, 211 U.S. 149, 29 S.Ct.
     42.   Proceeding without  jurisdiction, particularly after a
     formal notice and demand for proof of jurisdiction have been
     completely ignored,  is a  criminal denial of due process of
     law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and 18 U.S.C. 242.
     This  matter  should  be  brought  before  a  competent  and
     qualified federal grand jury.



  Judicial Complaint Against William D. Browning:  Page 5 of 6


4.   Mr. Browning  also "DENIED"  two pleadings  by  Miss  Wallen
     filed in  the form  of a  Notice and  Demand  for  Mandatory
     Judicial Notice,  pursuant to  Rule 201(d)  of  the  Federal
     Rules of  Evidence.   A  federal  judge  has  absolutely  no
     discretion in  the matter of mandatory judicial notice.  The
     rule itself  is very clear on this point:  "when MANDATORY."
     Refusing to file material evidence, and proper and correctly
     executed demands  for  mandatory  judicial  notice  of  said
     evidence, violates  Federal Rules  of Evidence, Rule 201(d),
     Mandatory Judicial  Notice, and  constitutes obstruction  of
     justice in  violation of  18 U.S.C.  1506.   Miss Wallen was
     forced to refuse Mr. Browning's DENIAL Order for fraud.  The
     proper  method  for  excluding  said  evidence  is  for  the
     opposing party  to move  the court  to strike  the evidence;
     this was  not done by the opposing party, or by any of their
     officers, agents,  or employees.   Claiming to have "DENIED"
     Miss Wallen's  Notices and  Demands for  Mandatory  Judicial
     Notice, absent  a proper  Motion to  Strike by  the opposing
     party, is proof that Mr. Browning engaged in the practice of
     law, a high misdemeanor in violation of 28 U.S.C. 454.  This
     matter should  be brought  before a  competent and qualified
     federal grand jury.

5.   Criminal conduct  by a  United States  District Judge, while
     presiding over any case, whether it be civil or criminal, is
     conduct  which   is  prejudicial   to  the   effective   and
     expeditious administration  of the  business of  the federal
     courts.  "No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert
     its  full   authority  to   prevent  all  violation  of  the
     principles of  the  Constitution."    Harlan  dissenting  in
     Downes v.  Bidwell, 182  U.S. 244 (1901), emphasis added.  A
     competent and  qualified federal  grand jury should be given
     the opportunity  to investigate probable criminal conduct by
     William D.  Browning in  this case, and in others of which I
     am aware.


  Judicial Complaint Against William D. Browning:  Page 6 of 6


                             #  #  #

                                      c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776
                                         Tucson [zip code exempt]
                                                 ARIZONA REPUBLIC

                                                    July 25, 1996

Mr. William D. Browning
44 East Broadway
Tucson [zip code exempt]
ARIZONA REPUBLIC

Re:  U.S.A. v. Wallen, Case No. 95-484-WDB

                 CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE AND DEMAND

Dear Mr. Browning:

     I am  Citizen of  Arizona state,  a Counselor  at Law, and a
part-time student  of comparative  economic history.   I recently
had a  lawful contract  obligation to  attend a  court trial over
which you  presided.   That obligation  arose from a contract for
consideration paid  in lawful money, i.e. silver dollars.  During
that trial,  the question  of your  authority was raised, and you
answered that your authority was the Constitution and laws of the
United States.

     It is  My understanding that the Constitution for the United
States of  America, as  lawfully amended,  contains  a  provision
which prevents  federal officers from impairing the obligation of
contracts.  This provision is in the Constitution as published in
federal depository  libraries, and in the official law books upon
which district courts rely for conclusive evidence of the Law.

     This Constitution  clearly forbids  titles of nobility.  See
Article I,  Section 10,  Clause 1.  It is My contention, based on
diligent research,  that any  license is  construed  by  American
courts to  be a  title of  nobility, which  is forbidden  by this
provision.     However,  no  penalties  were  mentioned  by  this
provision and it is for this reason, I believe, that no penalties
currently attach  to the exercise of licenses issued by the state
and federal  governments.   It was  the lack  of penalties  which
motivated Congress  to cure  this oversight  with a  proposal  to
amend the  Constitution with  penalties for  exercising titles of
nobility.

     My research  has also  uncovered a constitutional amendment,
ratified by  the Union  states in  the year 1819, which penalizes
the  exercise   of  titles  of  nobility  with  a  forfeiture  of
citizenship and  with a disqualification from ever serving in any
public office  in America  (see attached).  This Amendment is the
main reason  why I  am not now a licensed bar member, and have no
intention of  ever becoming  a licensed  bar member, because I do
not want  to forfeit  My Arizona  state Citizenship,  and I would
like to serve in public office some day.


         Constructive Notice and Demand:  Page 1 of 4



     This  Amendment  supersedes  any  state  "practice  of  law"
statutes, pursuant  to the  Supremacy Clause,  to the extent that
those statutes  require the  exercise of  any titles of nobility.
Moreover, with  or without  this Amendment, it is My opinion that
membership in  a bar association would require that I violate not
only My personal code of conduct, but also numerous provisions in
the Constitution  for the  United States  of America, as lawfully
amended, including  but  not  limited  to  the  Sixth  and  Tenth
Amendments, and  other laws  of the  United States, including but
not limited to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

     Such membership  prevents me  from diligently protecting the
fundamental Rights  of My  clients.   My first  loyalty is  to My
Creator, to  Myself, My  Family, the Citizenship of My state, and
then to  My clients  and their fundamental Right to maintain that
very same  loyalty.  Bar membership reverses these priorities and
flatly violates  this loyalty, because it requires loyalty to the
court, to the bar, to public policy contrary to the Constitution,
and lastly  to My  clients, in  that  order.    These  priorities
violate  the   doctrine  of   separation  of   powers  and,  more
importantly, My clients' fundamental Rights.

     Accordingly, I  have the  following important  questions for
you, sir:   Was  the original Thirteenth Amendment a provision in
the Constitution  which you  took an  oath to  support, or was it
not?   Under rules  of equity,  I assert  My fundamental Right to
know what  provisions are  in the  Constitution which you took an
oath to support.  This is matter of your contract with Me.

     If you  have ever  exercised a title of nobility in America,
e.g.  esquire,   lawyer,  attorney,   Honor,  then  the  original
Thirteenth Amendment  is a  constitutional  authority  which  has
disqualified you  from ever  serving in  the  office  of  federal
judge, is it not?  Judges occupy public offices, do they not?

     I am  asking this  question  specifically  because  of  your
decisions to  bar me  from assisting  My  client,  Sheila  Terese
Wallen, at  all times during Her recent criminal trial on charges
of illegal  marijuana possession  with intent to distribute same.
In fact, you ordered me to the back row of the gallery, with U.S.
Marshals standing  between  Me  and  My  client,  preventing  any
communication with My client.

     If  you  have,  in  fact,  taken  an  oath  to  support  the
Constitution,  and  the  administrative  record  does  appear  to
support this  fact, does  that Constitution  not also  contain  a
provision  which  bars  you  from  impairing  the  obligation  of
contracts?   See Contracts  Clause.  I had a lawful contract with
Sheila Terese Wallen, and you impaired that contract.

     My contract  with Sheila  was predicated upon My belief that
your oath  of office  placed you in a valid contract with Me.  By
what specific  lawful authority  do you claim any Right to impair
the obligations of My contract with Sheila Terese Wallen?  If you
are upholding the U.S. Constitution, then My contract with Her is
valid and  enforceable,  under  rules  of  equity,  and  you  are
forbidden from doing anything to impair that contract.


         Constructive Notice and Demand:  Page 2 of 4


     I will  look forward to your timely response to this letter.
If I do not hear from you in writing within ten (10) working days
from the  date of this letter, I will proceed on the basis of the
conclusive presumption that the original Thirteenth Amendment was
not in the Constitution which you took an oath to support.

     I will  stipulate that your oath predates the publication of
recent research  proving that  the original  Thirteenth Amendment
has  been   well  hidden  from  public  knowledge  (i.e.  fraud).
Nevertheless, the  original  Thirteenth  Amendment  was  lawfully
ratified, pursuant  to Article  V.   This ratification  has  been
proven conclusively.

     Therefore, you  are now  in  the  wrong  contract  with  the
American People,  because the Constitution which you took an oath
to support does not contain the original Thirteenth Amendment, as
evidenced by  the Constitution  as it  was published  in  federal
depository libraries, and as it was published in the official law
books upon  which district  courts relied for conclusive evidence
of the Law, on the day you took your original oath of office.

     Furthermore, you  are disqualified from serving as a federal
judge for these and other reasons, because you have exercised one
or more  titles of  nobility or  honor (e.g.  "Honor", "Esquire")
since ratification  of that  Amendment.   The original Thirteenth
Amendment does  not contain  any provisions  for  curing  such  a
disability or  regaining your Citizenship.  Your only defense now
is that  you, too,  were victimized  by fraudulent concealment of
this Amendment, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001.

     Whether or  not the  original  Thirteenth  Amendment  was  a
provision in  the Constitution which you took an oath to support,
the Contracts  Clause has  been in  the organic U.S. Constitution
since its  original ratification.  You, sir, simply cannot impair
the Right  of Contract, pursuant to an explicit prohibition which
is in that Constitution.

     One last  point:  when exactly did the decisions of the U.S.
Supreme Court  become "hearsay,"  without any legal significance?
You ruled  as such  on July 17, 1996, in Sheila's case.  I really
would like to know, for reasons which should be obvious to anyone
who claims  to be  a federal judge with expertise in federal law.
Are these  decisions which  you heard Supreme Court Justices say?
Does that  make them  "hearsay", in  your opinion?   If not, then
what does?   Before  I take  any remedial action on this point, I
must have  your explanation  for what  now appears  to  be  gross
judicial misconduct on your part.

     If you wish to rebut the presumptions which I have presented
to you  in this letter, then please do so.  I would welcome them,
sincerely.   For the record, I am presenting these facts and laws
to you, pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1986.

     Thank you  very much  for your  careful consideration, and I
will look  forward to  your timely  response to this CONSTRUCTIVE
NOTICE AND DEMAND, before 10 days transpire.


         Constructive Notice and Demand:  Page 3 of 4


Respectfully yours,

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

Citizen of Arizona state and federal witness
all rights reserved without prejudice


copies:   Clerk of Court
          Sheila Terese, Wallen, Sui Juris
          Judge Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit
          Joelyn Marlowe, Esquire
          U.S. Marshal's office
          Federal Bureau of Investigation


         Constructive Notice and Demand:  Page 4 of 4


                             #  #  #

                                      c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776
                                         Tucson [zip code exempt]
                                                 ARIZONA REPUBLIC

                                               September 20, 1996

                        NOTICE OF INTENT
                  TO FILE A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
                   AGAINST WILLIAM D. BROWNING

Clerk of Court
United States District Court
55 East Broadway
Tucson, Arizona state

Subject:  Criminal Complaint against
          Mr. William D. Browning

Dear Clerk:

     This is  My formal  Notice of  Intent  to  File  a  Criminal
Complaint against  Mr. William D. Browning, currently employed by
the United  States federal  government, for  criminal  misconduct
described in  the attached  Judicial  Complaint  form  which  has
already been  transmitted to the Clerk of the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (see attached).

     Please notify  the  appropriate  person(s)  of  this  formal
Notice of Intent.

            NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS.

            NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS IS NOTICE TO AGENTS.

     Thank you very much for your consideration.


Sincerely yours,

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

Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness
and Counselor at Law

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


copies:   Governor Fife Symington, Tucson, Arizona
          Attorney General, State of Arizona, Tucson
          Attorney General, United States, Washington, D.C.
          Federal Bureau of Investigation, Tucson, Arizona
          Judicial Conduct Commission, State of Arizona, Phoenix
          Clerk, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, San Francisco
          Clerk, U.S. Supreme Court, Washington, D.C.
          Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
          President, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.


                             #  #  #







      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail