Application For Writ Quo Warranto

1 Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. 2 c/o MBE PMB #332 3 501 W. Broadway, Suite “A” 4 San Diego 92101 5 CALIFORNIA, USA 6 7 tel: (619) 234-5252 (msg) 8 fax: (619) 234-5272 9 10 In Propria Persona 11 12 All Rights Reserved 13 without Prejudice 14 15 16 United States Court of Appeals 17 18 Ninth Circuit 19 20 21 Paul Andrew Mitchell, ) Appeal No. 02-15269 and 22 ) 372(c) No. 02-89005 23 Plaintiff/Appellant, ) 24 v. ) 25 ) 26 AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., ) 27 ) 28 Defendants/Appellees.) 29 ------) 30 ) 31 United States ) MOTION FOR INTERVENTION OF RIGHT 32 ex relatione ) AND APPLICATION FOR WRIT 33 Paul Andrew Mitchell, ) IN THE NATURE OF QUO WARRANTO: 34 ) 35 Intervenor. ) 3:2:1 (in judicial mode); 36 ) 28 U.S.C. §§ 2072(b), 2403(a); 37 ) FRAP Rule 44; and, 38 ) FRCP 24(a), (c) in pari materia 39 ______) (United States not a party).

41 COMES NOW the United States (hereinafter “Intervenor”) ex relatione

42 Paul Andrew Mitchell, Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America

43 and Private Attorney General (hereinafter “Relator”) to exercise its

44 statutory right to intervene in the instant appeal, pursuant to 28

45 U.S.C. 2403(a), to apply for a Writ of Quo Warranto in the instant

46 appeal and all other relief which this Court deems just and proper,

1 Notice of Intervention and Application for Writ of Quo Warranto: 2 Page 1 of 31 1 and to provide timely Notice to all interested parties of same,

2 pursuant to Rule 44 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure

3 (“FRAP”) in pari materia with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

4 (“FRCP”) Rule 24(c) (United States not yet a party); and Article III,

5 Section 2, Clause 1 (“3:2:1”) in the Constitution for the United

6 States of America, as lawfully amended (hereinafter “U.S.

7 Constitution”). See 28 U.S.C. 2072(b) and the Act of June 25, 1948,

8 62 Stat. 869 et seq. in full.

9 10 NOTICE OF CHALLENGE TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY 11 OF CERTAIN ACTS OF THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

12 Pursuant to the duties imposed upon it by virtue of FRAP Rule 44,

13 the Office of the Clerk of this Court (“Circuit Clerk”) will now

14 please certify to the Office of the United States Attorney General

15 that the constitutionality of certain Acts of Congress affecting the

16 public interest is herein drawn in question.

17 Likewise, the Circuit Clerk will now please certify Intervenor’s

18 intervention for presentation of all evidence admissible in the

19 instant appeal, and for argument(s) on the question of the

20 constitutionality of 28 U.S.C. 2072(b), and of the Act of June 25,

21 1948, 62 Stat. 869 et seq. presently codified at Title 28 of the

22 United States Code (“U.S.C.”)

1 Notice of Intervention and Application for Writ of Quo Warranto: 2 Page 2 of 31 1 RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

2 Subject to all applicable provisions of Law, the United States

3 hereby expressly reserves all rights of a party and shall be subject

4 to all liabilities of a party as to court costs, to the extent

5 necessary for a proper presentation of the facts and laws relating to

6 the question of the constitutionality of said Acts of Congress.

7 See Article II, Articles of Confederation (“United States, in

8 Congress Assembled”); Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553 (1933)

9 (United States as plaintiff); United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles,

10 350 U.S. 11 (1955) (a private Citizen may appear on behalf of the

11 United States ex rel.); 3:2:1 (“Controversies to which the United

12 States shall be a Party”). Find “U.S. ex rel.” etc. on the Internet.

13 The “United States” and the “United States of America” are not

14 one and the same. Congress is expressly prohibited from re-defining

15 any terms found in the U.S. Constitution. See Preamble (“Constitution

16 for the United States of America”); Article II, Section 1, Clause 1

17 (“2:1:1”) (“President of the United States of America”); Article VII

18 (“Independence of the United States of America”); Eisner v. Macomber,

19 252 U.S. 189 (1920):

20 Congress ... cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from 21 which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose 22 limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised. 23 24 The U.S. Department of Justice does not enjoy general power(s) of

25 attorney to represent the United States of America. Compare 28 U.S.C.

26 547(1), (2) (Duties). Willful misrepresentation by officers employed

27 by that Department is actionable under the McDade Act, 28 U.S.C. 530B

28 (Ethical standards for attorneys for the Government).

1 Notice of Intervention and Application for Writ of Quo Warranto: 2 Page 3 of 31 1 Whenever the United States proceeds as party plaintiff, an

2 Article III constitutional court, exercising the judicial Power of the

3 United States, is a prerequisite under 3:2:1 (“The judicial Power

4 shall extend ... to Controversies to which the United States shall be

5 a Party”). See 28 U.S.C. 1345 (United States as plaintiff).

6 Whenever the United States proceeds as a party defendant, the

7 sovereign must grant permission to be sued. See 28 U.S.C. 1346

8 (United States as defendant). In this mode, a legislative court is

9 permitted. See Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553, 577 (1933):

10 ... [C]ontroversies to which the United States may by statute be 11 made a party defendant, at least as a general rule, lie wholly 12 outside the scope of the judicial power vested by article 3 in 13 the constitutional courts. See United States v. Texas, 143 U.S. 14 621, 645-646. 15

16 A private Citizen may move a federal court on behalf of the

17 United States ex relatione. United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles,

18 350 U.S. 11 (1955), as cited above.

19 The Lanham Act at 60 Stat. 440 confers original jurisdiction on

20 the several district courts of the United States (“DCUS”). These

21 courts are Article III constitutional courts proceeding in judicial

22 mode. Compare 15 U.S.C. 1121(a) (uncodified).

23 See also Mookini v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201, 205 (1938) (term DCUS in

24 its historic and proper sense); and Agency Holding Corp. v.

25 Malley -Duff & Associates, 107 S.Ct. 2759, 483 U.S. 143, 151 (1987)

26 (RICO statutes bring to bear the pressure of private attorneys general

27 on a serious national problem for which public prosecutorial resources

28 are deemed inadequate).

29 The United States District Courts (“USDC”) are legislative courts

30 typically proceeding in legislative mode. See American Insurance v.

1 Notice of Intervention and Application for Writ of Quo Warranto: 2 Page 4 of 31 1 356 Bales of Cotton, 1 Pet. 511, 7 L.Ed. 242 (1828) (C.J. Marshall’s

2 seminal ruling); and Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 312 (1922)

3 (The USDC is not a true United States court established under Article

4 III.) See 28 U.S.C. §§ 88, 91, 132, 152, 171, 251, 458, 461, 1367.

5 Legislative courts are not required to exercise the Article III

6 guarantees required of constitutional courts. See Keller v. Potomac

7 Electric Power Co., 261 U.S. 428 (1923); Federal Trade Commission v.

8 Klesner, 274 U.S. 145 (1927); Swift v. United States, 276 U.S. 311

9 (1928); Ex parte Bakelite Corporation, 279 U.S. 438 (1929); Federal

10 Radio Commission v. General Electric Co., 281 U.S. 464 (1930);

11 Claiborne-Annapolis Ferry Co. v. United States, 285 U.S. 382 (1932);

12 O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516 (1933); Glidden Co. v.

13 Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962); Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe

14 Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982); 49 Stat. 1921.

15 All guarantees of the U.S. Constitution were expressly extended

16 into the District of Columbia in 1871, and into all federal

17 Territories in 1873. See 16 Stat. 419, 426, Sec. 34; 18 Stat. 325,

18 333, Sec. 1891, respectively. Compare Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S.

19 244, 380 (1901) (paraphrasing the Harvard Law Review: the Constitution

20 of the United States, as such, does not extend beyond the limits of

21 the States which are united by and under it); and Hooven & Allison v.

22 Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) (the guaranties [sic] of the Constitution

23 extend into the federal zone only as Congress has made those

24 guaranties applicable).

25 The United States hereby notoriously exercises its statutory

26 right to intervene, pursuant to the federal statute at 28 U.S.C.

27 2403(a).

1 Notice of Intervention and Application for Writ of Quo Warranto: 2 Page 5 of 31 1 2 INCORPORATION OF ATTACHMENTS

3 Intervenor now formally incorporates Attachments “A”, “B” and “C”

4 by reference infra, as if set forth fully here.

1 Notice of Intervention and Application for Writ of Quo Warranto: 2 Page 6 of 31 1 INCORPORATION OF APPELLANT’S COMPLAINT 2 OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, 28 U.S.C. 372(c)

3 Intervenor also formally incorporates by reference Circuit

4 Clerk’s entire docket number No. 02-89005, as if set forth fully here,

5 and all documents and other certified evidence contained therein.

6 Said docket number was first assigned when Appellant filed a timely,

7 proper and lawful COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT against Mr. Drozd,

8 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 372(c). Strictly speaking, said COMPLAINT was

9 filed well within the period allowed by the USDC’s Local Rules

10 (“L.R.”) for objections to findings of fact and conclusions of law.

11 See Appellant’s MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF USDC’S ORDER.

12 APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO

13 Pursuant to all authorities now cited in Appellant’s recently

14 filed PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENTS,

15 particularly Legerton v. Chambers, 163 P. 678, 32 Cal.App. 601 (1917)

16 and Thompson v. Holt, 52 Ala. 491, the United States now stipulates

17 that a Presidential Commission is the highest and best evidence of a

18 judge’s right to office until, on quo warranto or a proceeding of that

19 nature, that claim is annulled by judicial determination.

20 Accordingly, in deference to applicable California State laws,

21 the United States hereby moves this honorable Court for a lawful Writ

22 in the nature of Quo Warranto, properly issued by the Circuit Clerk

23 upon Messrs. William B. Shubb and Dale A. Drozd, to demonstrate by

24 what lawful authorities (if any) each claims to preside on the

25 District Court of the United States for the Eastern Judicial District

26 of California (“DCUS”) in Sacramento, California, and by what lawful

27 authorities (if any) each claims to exercise the judicial Power of the

28 United States under Article III in the instant case.

1 Notice of Intervention and Application for Writ of Quo Warranto: 2 Page 7 of 31 1 REMEDY REQUESTED

2 All premises having been duly considered, the United States ex

3 rel. Paul Andrew Mitchell, Private Attorney General, hereby exercises

4 its statutory right to intervene in the instant case and moves this

5 honorable Court for a Writ in the nature of Quo Warranto to issue upon

6 Messrs. William B. Shubb and Dale A. Drozd, to demonstrate by what

7 lawful authorities each claims to preside on the DCUS in Sacramento,

8 California, and by what lawful authorities each claims to exercise the

9 judicial Power of the United States on behalf of Intervenor under

10 Article III in the Constitution for the United States of America, as

11 lawfully amended.

12 Intervenor also moves this honorable Court for a routine ORDER to

13 the Circuit Clerk, commanding that Office formally to certify to the

14 United States Attorney General Appellant’s formal challenge to the

15 constitutionality of certain Acts of Congress, specifically the

16 Abrogation Clause in the Rules Enabling Act at 28 U.S.C. 2072(b) and

17 the Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 869 et seq.

18 Intervenor also moves this Court for a routine ORDER to the

19 Circuit Clerk, commanding that Office formally to certify Intervenor’s

20 intervention for presentation of all evidence admissible in the

21 instant appeal, and for argument(s) on the questions of the

22 constitutionality of the Abrogation Clause in the Rules Enabling Act

23 at 28 U.S.C. 2072(b), and of the Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 869 et

24 seq. presently codified at Title 28 of the United States Code

25 (“U.S.C.”)

1 Notice of Intervention and Application for Writ of Quo Warranto: 2 Page 8 of 31 1 VERIFICATION

2 I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, Relator and Appellant in the

3 above entitled action, hereby verify under penalty of perjury, under

4 the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States”

5 (federal government), that the above statement of facts and laws is

6 true and correct, according to the best of My current information,

7 knowledge, and belief, so help me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).

9 Dated: December 19, 2002 A.D.

11 Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell 12 ______13 Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Relator/Appellant In Propria Persona

1 Notice of Intervention and Application for Writ of Quo Warranto: 2 Page 9 of 31 1 PROOF OF SERVICE

2 I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, hereby certify, under penalty of

3 perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the

4 “United States” (federal government), that I am at least 18 years of

5 age, a Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America, and that I

6 personally served the following document(s):

7 8 MOTION FOR INTERVENTION OF RIGHT AND 9 APPLICATION FOR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF QUO WARRANTO: 10 3:2:1 (in judicial mode); 28 U.S.C. §§ 2072(b), 2403(a); 11 FRAP Rule 44; and, FRCP 24(a), (c) in pari materia 12 (United States not a party). 13 14 by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first

15 class United States Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed

16 to the following:

17 18 Judge Alex Kozinski (supervising) Clerk of Court (51x) 19 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Attention: Cathy Catterson 20 P.O. Box 91510 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 21 Pasadena 91109-1510 P.O. Box 193939 22 CALIFORNIA, USA San Francisco 94119-3939 23 CALIFORNIA, USA 24 25 Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley DeForest & Koscelnik 26 (failed to exhibit oaths) (failed to exhibit oath) 27 1001 Marshall Street 3000 Koppers Building 28 Redwood City 94063 436 Seventh Avenue 29 CALIFORNIA, USA Pittsburgh 15219 30 PENNSYLVANIA, USA 31 32 Murphy Austin Adams Schoenfeld LLP Pillsbury Winthrop LLP 33 (failed to exhibit oaths) (failed to exhibit oaths) 34 P.O. Box 1319 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1700 35 Sacramento 95812-1319 Sacramento 95814-4419 36 CALIFORNIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA 37 38 Curiale Dellaverson Hirschfeld Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver 39 Kraemer & Sloan, LLP & Hedges, LLP 40 (failed to exhibit oaths) (failed to exhibit oaths) 41 727 Sansome Street 201 Sansome Street, 6th Floor 42 San Francisco 94111 San Francisco 94104 43 CALIFORNIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA

1 Notice of Intervention and Application for Writ of Quo Warranto: 2 Page 10 of 31 1 Office of the General Counsel Paul Southworth 2 (failed to exhibit oaths) 2018 N. New Hampshire Ave. 3 University of California Los Angeles 90027 4 1111 Franklin Street, 8th Floor CALIFORNIA, USA 5 Oakland 94607-5200 6 CALIFORNIA, USA 7 8 Karl Kleinpaste Ram Samudrala 9 P.O. Box 1551 UW Micro Box 357242 10 Beaver Falls 15010 Seattle 98195-7242 11 PENNSYLVANIA, USA WASHINGTON STATE, USA 12 13 Laskin & Guenard Rivkin Radler, LLP 14 (failed to exhibit oath) (failed to exhibit oaths) 15 1810 South Street 1330 N. Dutton Ave., #200 16 Sacramento 95814 Santa Rosa 95401-4646 17 CALIFORNIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA 18 19 Harvey Siskind Jacobs LLP Office of Solicitor General 20 (failed to exhibit oaths) 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 21 3 Embarcadero Center, Ste. 1060 Room 5614 22 San Francisco 94111 Washington 20530-0001 23 CALIFORNIA, USA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA 24 25 Register of Copyrights Steinhart & Falconer LLP 26 Library of Congress (failed to exhibit oaths) 27 101 Independence Avenue, S.E. 333 Market Street, 32nd Floor 28 Washington 20559-6000 San Francisco 94105-2150 29 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA 30 31 Matheny Sears Linkert & Long LLP Latham & Watkins 32 (failed to exhibit oaths) (failed to exhibit oaths) 33 P.O. Box 13711 633 West Fifth St., Ste. 4000 34 Sacramento 95853-4711 Los Angeles 90071-2007 35 CALIFORNIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA 36 37 38 [Please see USPS Publication #221 for “addressing” instructions.] 39 40 41 Dated: December 19, 2002 A.D.

43 Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell 44 ______45 Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Relator/Appellant In Propria Persona

1 Notice of Intervention and Application for Writ of Quo Warranto: 2 Page 11 of 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Attachment “A”: 12 13 FINAL NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR 14 PROOF OF APPOINTMENT AND DESIGNATION 15 16 September 1, 2001 A.D. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

1 Notice of Intervention and Application for Writ of Quo Warranto: 2 Page 12 of 31 1 FINAL NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR 2 PROOF OF APPOINTMENT AND DESIGNATION 3 4 TO: Mr. Jack L. Wagner, Clerk of Court 5 District Court of the United States 6 501 “I” Street, Suite 4-200 7 Sacramento 95814-2322 8 CALIFORNIA, USA 9 10 Mr. Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Director 11 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 12 Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building 13 One Columbus Circle, N.E. 14 Washington 20544 15 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA 16 17 Mr. James. S. Carroll, III, Assistant Director 18 Executive Office for United States Attorneys 19 Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Unit 20 600 “E” Street, N.W., Room 7300 21 Washington 20530 22 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 23 24 Hon. Mary M. Schroeder, Chief Judge 25 c/o Cathy A. Catterson, Clerk of Court 26 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 27 P.O. Box 193939 28 San Francisco 94119-3939 29 CALIFORNIA, USA 30 31 FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Plaintiff/Appellant 32 Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al. 33 Ninth Circuit docket #02-15269 and 372(c) #02-89005 34 35 DATE: September 1, 2002 A.D. 36 37 Ladies and Gentlemen: 38 39 To date, neither the office of the Clerk of the federal district court 40 in Sacramento, California, nor the Administrative Office of the U.S. 41 Courts in Washington, D.C., nor the U.S. Department of Justice in 42 Washington, D.C., nor the State Bar of California, nor the Clerk of 43 the California Supreme Court, has been able to produce any of the 44 credentials which Mr. Dale A. Drozd (hereinafter “Mr. Drozd”) must 45 have, in order for him to occupy the office of United States 46 magistrate judge in Sacramento, California State. 47 48 I refer all of you specifically to the form letter I received from Mr. 49 James S. Carroll, III, dated April 24, 2002, in which he appeared to 50 err by alleging that My request sought public records which may be 51 obtained from the clerk of the court. This appeared to be an error, 52 because the U.S. Department of Justice (in the Executive Branch) is 53 the legal custodian of all Presidential Commissions appointing federal 54 judges to the bench, not any office in the Judicial Branch.

1 Notice of Intervention and Application for Writ of Quo Warranto: 2 Page 13 of 31 1 Thus, the clerk of court is not the legal custodian of any such 2 Presidential Commissions. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 2104(a)(1)(A) and 2902(c). 3 4 On April 26, 2002 A.D., Mr. Drozd signed and filed another specious 5 “order” in which he formally acknowledged My allegations that, in his 6 case, no jurisdiction, no license, no oath, no certificate, and no 7 commission have been produced by any personnel employed by any of the 8 above federal offices to which this NOTICE AND DEMAND are now 9 addressed. 10 11 And, in that specious “order” of April 26, 2002, Mr. Drozd offered 12 absolutely no rebuttal(s) or denial(s) whatsoever that no (civil) 13 jurisdiction existed, no license (to practice law) existed, no oath 14 (of office) existed, no certificate (of oath) existed, and no 15 (presidential) commission existed. I never consented to civil 16 jurisdiction by any United States magistrate judges. 17 18 I refer you now to the cases which have held that a Presidential 19 Commission is required for all judges of the Supreme Court, Circuit 20 Courts, and District Courts. For Mr. Drozd to exercise any lawful 21 authorities of a district judge, such as denying My MOTION FOR 22 INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT, the Law requires that he be commissioned by 23 the President, and have a life-time appointment. Neither is the case, 24 based on the official record before the Ninth Circuit at the present 25 time. See the Appointments Clause in the U.S. Constitution (“2:2:2”). 26 27 So, I believe that sufficient evidence has already been certified that 28 Mr. Drozd is not now, and never was, a district judge. 29 30 The question remains, therefore, whether or not Mr. Drozd is now, or 31 ever was, a United States magistrate judge. Please note well the 32 federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 631(a) requires that judges of each 33 United States District Court shall appoint all United States 34 magistrate judges; the statute at 28 U.S.C. 631(b)(1) requires each 35 such magistrate judge to have been -- for at least five (5) years -- a 36 member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a State. 37 38 Provided that they are qualified and duly appointed, a federal judge 39 may then, and only then, designate such magistrate judges to conduct 40 hearings and to submit to a judge proposed findings of fact and 41 conclusions of law, pursuant to the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 42 636(b)(1)(B). 43 44 My demand for his certificate of oath, properly indorsed upon his 45 license to practice law, was My earnest and good faith attempt to 46 determine whether or not Mr. Drozd was ever qualified to be appointed 47 to the office of United States magistrate judge, in the first 48 instance. Evidently, Mr. Drozd was not so qualified. 49 50 Section 6067 of the California Business and Professions Code mandates 51 that a certificate of oath shall be indorsed upon a license to 52 practice law in the State of California. When no such certificate was 53 produced by Mr. Drozd, nor by the State Bar of California, nor by the 54 Clerk of the California Supreme Court, I was thereby entitled to

1 Notice of Intervention and Application for Writ of Quo Warranto: 2 Page 14 of 31 1 conclude that Mr. Drozd was never qualified to be appointed to the 2 office of United States magistrate judge, in the first instance. 3 4 To date, I have not requested any evidence that Mr. Drozd has been 5 duly appointed or designated under 28 U.S.C. 631(a) or 636(b)(1)(B), 6 respectively, because the matter of his qualifications came first. If 7 he was never qualified, then no appointment or designation by any 8 federal judge could have been valid, or lawful, in the first instance. 9 10 Nevertheless, before I satisfy the legal requirements imposed upon me 11 by the federal criminal statute at 18 U.S.C. 4 (misprision of felony), 12 and before I formally charge Mr. Drozd with impersonating a federal 13 officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 912 (a felony), I wish to confirm, 14 once and for all, whether or not certain documentary evidence exists. 15 16 Documentary evidence may indicate that a federal judge did attempt to 17 appoint Mr. Drozd to the office of United States magistrate judge, 18 and/or that a federal judge did attempt to designate Mr. Drozd to 19 conduct hearings and submit findings of fact and conclusions of law in 20 My case, now pending before the Ninth Circuit. I would regard such 21 documentary evidence as a factor mitigating the charge I now intend to 22 file against Mr. Drozd, for impersonating a federal officer in 23 violation of 18 U.S.C. 912, and I do intend to supplement My Complaint 24 of Judicial Misconduct with said evidence (if available). 25 26 27 DEMAND FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE 28 29 Accordingly, I hereby demand the timely exhibition and certification 30 of any and all documentary evidence that a federal judge did attempt 31 to appoint Mr. Dale A. Drozd to the office of United States magistrate 32 judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 631(a) (or any other lawful authority). 33 34 I also demand the timely exhibition and certification of any and all 35 documentary evidence that a federal judge did attempt, pursuant to 28 36 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) (or any other lawful authority), to designate Mr. 37 Dale A. Drozd to conduct hearings and submit findings of fact and 38 conclusions of law in My case, now pending before the Ninth Circuit. 39 40 41 NOTICE OF DEADLINE 42 43 I am giving each of you a reasonable deadline of thirty (30) calendar 44 days hence, which deadline is 5:00 p.m. on September 30, 2002 A.D., to 45 produce the documentary evidence itemized above. Beyond that 46 deadline, your silence will constitute fraud, pursuant to the court 47 holding in U.S. v. Tweel, and it will also activate estoppel, pursuant 48 to the court holding in Carmine v. Bowen (cites on the Internet). 49 50 Please be advised that I intend to file your answer(s), if any, in the 51 Ninth Circuit docket assigned to My Complaint of Judicial Misconduct 52 against Mr. Drozd, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 372(c). That docket number 53 is #02 -89005. I also intend to testify to your silence, in the event 54 that no answers are forthcoming from all of you, or any one of you.

1 Notice of Intervention and Application for Writ of Quo Warranto: 2 Page 15 of 31 1 Thank you for your timely professional consideration. 2 3 4 Sincerely yours, 5 6 /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell 7 8 Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. 9 Private Attorney General, Plaintiff and Appellant 10 Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al. 11 http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/index.htm 12 13 copies: Judge Alex Kozinski (supervising) 14 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 15 P.O. Box 91510 16 Pasadena 91109-1510 17 CALIFORNIA, USA 18 19 Hon. Jan Scully, District Attorney 20 Office of the District Attorney 21 County of Sacramento 22 901 “G” Street 23 Sacramento 95814 24 CALIFORNIA, USA 25 26 U.S. Mail care of: 27 28 Dr. John C. Alden, M.D., Eyewitness 29 350 – 30th Street, Suite 444 30 Oakland 94609-3426 31 CALIFORNIA, USA

1 Notice of Intervention and Application for Writ of Quo Warranto: 2 Page 16 of 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Attachment “B”: 12 13 NOTICE OF DEFAULT 14 BY AFFIDAVIT 15 16 October 6, 2002 A.D. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

1 Notice of Intervention and Application for Writ of Quo Warranto: 2 Page 17 of 31 1 NOTICE OF DEFAULT 2 BY AFFIDAVIT 3 4 5 TO: Mr. William B. Shubb 6 c/o Clerk of Court 7 501 “I” Street, Suite 4-200 8 Sacramento 95814-2322 9 CALIFORNIA, USA 10 11 FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Plaintiff/Appellant 12 Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al. 13 Case No. #CIV S 01-1480 WBS DAD PS 14 Ninth Circuit Appeal #02-15269 and 15 372(c) Complaint No. #02-89005 16 17 DATE: October 6, 2002 A.D. 18 19 SUBJECT: FINAL NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR CREDENTIALS REQUIRED BY LAW, 20 June 11, 2002 A.D. 21 22 23 Greetings Mr. Shubb: 24 25 On June 11, 2002 A.D., I transmitted to you, via first class U.S. 26 Mail, My FINAL NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR CREDENTIALS REQUIRED BY LAW, 27 specifically demanding that you produce a certified copy of your 28 presidential commission, and that you do so no later than 5:00 p.m. on 29 Monday, June 24, 2002 A.D. 30 31 As of that reasonable deadline, I have not received said certified 32 copy, from you or from any one or anything else. 33 34 Accordingly, you are now in default. 35 36 37 INCORPORATION OF PERTINENT DOCUMENTS 38 39 I hereby incorporate by reference true and correct copies of the 40 attached form letter dated April 24, 2002, from James S. Carroll III, 41 with My refusal for cause, as if both were set forth fully herein. 42 43 I also incorporate by reference true and correct copies of My lawful 44 and proper FOIA request, dated January 15, 2002 A.D., and of My lawful 45 and proper FOIA appeal, dated February 4, 2002 A.D., both of which are 46 also attached, as if set forth fully herein. 47 48 The attached documents constitute material evidence that, as the legal 49 custodian of the requisite presidential commissions, the U.S. 50 Department of Justice does not have in their custody any presidential 51 commission(s) appointing Mr. William B. Shubb to the office of United 52 States District Judge.

1 Notice of Intervention and Application for Writ of Quo Warranto: 2 Page 18 of 31 1 CONCLUSIONS 2 3 Now, I therefore proceed on the basis of the above mentioned evidence 4 that no such presidential commission exists for Mr. William B. Shubb, 5 and that any oath of office executed by Mr. William B. Shubb is 6 necessarily counterfeit and fraudulent on its face. 7 8 Accordingly, this evidence also forms the basis of My reasonable and 9 objective conclusions that: 10 11 (1) Mr. William B. Shubb was not lawfully appointed to occupy 12 the office of United States District Judge; 13 14 (2) Mr. William B. Shubb was not lawfully appointed to preside 15 on the United States District Court for the Eastern 16 District of California; 17 18 (3) Mr. William B. Shubb was never lawfully appointed to 19 preside on the District Court of the United States for the 20 Eastern Judicial District of California; and, 21 22 (4) Mr. William B. Shubb possessed no lawful authority to 23 appoint U.S. magistrate judges, or to refer civil matters 24 to the latter for findings of facts and conclusions of law. 25 26 27 VERIFICATION 28 29 The Undersigned hereby verifies, under penalty of perjury, under the 30 laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” 31 (federal government), that the above statement of facts and laws is 32 true and correct, according to the best of My current information, 33 knowledge, and belief, so help me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1). 34 35 Dated: October 6, 2002 A.D. 36 37 38 Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell 39 ______40 Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Sui Juris 41 Author, Damaged Party and Plaintiff/Appellant 42 43 U.S. Mail: 44 45 c/o Dr. John C. Alden, M.D. 46 350 – 30th Street, Suite 444 47 Oakland 94609-3426 48 CALIFORNIA, USA 49 50 copy: Mr. Jack L. Wagner, Clerk of Court 51 District Court of the United States 52 501 “I” Street, Suite 4-200 53 Sacramento 95814-2322 54 CALIFORNIA, USA

1 Notice of Intervention and Application for Writ of Quo Warranto: 2 Page 19 of 31 1 Mr. Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Director 2 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 3 Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building 4 One Columbus Circle, N.E. 5 Washington 20544 6 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA 7 8 Mr. James. S. Carroll, III, Assistant Director 9 Executive Office for United States Attorneys 10 Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Unit 11 600 “E” Street, N.W., Room 7300 12 Washington 20530 13 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 14 15 Hon. Mary M. Schroeder, Chief Judge 16 c/o Cathy A. Catterson, Clerk of Court 17 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 18 P.O. Box 193939 19 San Francisco 94119-3939 20 CALIFORNIA, USA

1 Notice of Intervention and Application for Writ of Quo Warranto: 2 Page 20 of 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Attachment “C”: 12 13 MEMO to Jon Mummolo, 14 Washington Square News 15 16 November 9, 2002 A.D. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

1 Notice of Intervention and Application for Writ of Quo Warranto: 2 Page 21 of 31 1 MEMO 2 3 TO: Jon Mummolo 4 Washington Square News 5 [email protected] 6 7 FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell 8 Private Attorney General 9 10 DATE: November 9, 2002 A.D. 11 12 SUBJECT: answers to your 2 questions 13 14 Greetings Jon, 15 16 I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your excellent questions. 17 18 Let me begin by laying a summary legal and historical foundation, so 19 that you will be in a much better position to apply the pertinent laws 20 to the relevant facts of my case against AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al. 21 22 A correct historical perspective will divide this case into 3 distinct 23 periods of time: 24 25 (1) the period prior to enactment of the Anticounterfeiting 26 Consumer Protection Act of 1996 (“ACPA”); 27 28 (2) the period between enactments of the ACPA and the Digital 29 Millennium Copyright Act of 1998(“DMCA”); and, 30 31 (3) the period after enactment of the DMCA. 32 33 This approach is necessary, because the U.S. Constitution prohibits ex 34 post facto legislation, even in civil matters, and most definitely in 35 criminal matters. See Article I, Section 9, Clause 3. 36 37 For your information, we have used the ex post facto Clause to prove 38 that, in 1946 A.D. the Lanham Act conferred original jurisdiction on 39 the constitutional Article III District Court of the United States, 40 and not on the legislative Article IV United States District Court. 41 This tough jurisdictional question necessitated a lot of additional 42 pleadings on my part. I mention this because my case is not simply a 43 copyright infringement case; it is also a trademark infringement case 44 under the Lanham Act; and much more (see COUNT’s ONE thru FIVE). 45 46 47 Period 1: prior to ACPA 48 49 The ACPA was enacted in July of 1996, in part to stem the flood of 50 copyright complaints and requests for prompt remedial legislation that 51 reached the Congress in response to the release of Netscape Navigator. 52 53 You may recall that Microsoft Corporation had delayed their entry into 54 Internet software market, because Bill Gates had not fully appreciated

1 Notice of Intervention and Application for Writ of Quo Warranto: 2 Page 22 of 31 1 the technological significance of the Internet until after Netscape 2 took off and became the darling of Wall Street. 3 4 The ACPA is significant because of its clear legislative intent. See: 5 6 http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/statutes/anticounterfeiting.htm 7 8 Prior to these statutory amendments, the applicable laws were the 9 Copyright Act of 1976 and the Lanham Act, but criminal copyright 10 infringement was not also deemed a racketeering (“RICO”) predicate act 11 until July of 1996. It was still a serious federal offense, however, 12 for violating 17 U.S.C. 506 and 18 U.S.C. 2319 (see COUNT ONE): 13 14 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/506.html 15 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2319.html 16 17 Because the 1976 Copyright Act was written at a time when the Internet 18 did not exist, there were no provisions in that Act for immunizing 19 Internet Service Providers (“ISP’s”) from the criminal conduct of 20 their subscribers. ISP’s did not even exist at that time either! 21 22 Our investigation began quite informally in December of 1995, as 23 Netscape began to proliferate. Later our investigation escalated with 24 formal notices to AOL and a few other violators in the Fall of 1997. 25 So, some of the evidence we acquired is dated prior to the ACPA, and 26 most of it is dated after the ACPA was enacted in 1996. 27 28 It remains to be seen what the federal courts will do to apply the 29 facts of my case, as they existed prior to July of 1996, to the laws 30 that existed at that time. 31 32 Most importantly, strictly applying the 1976 Copyright Act, a 3-year 33 civil statute of limitations is in force prior to August 1, 1998, 34 because I did not file my case until August 1, 2001 A.D. 35 36 On the other hand, there are also laws which govern the legal concepts 37 of “accrual” and “tolling”. The statute of limitations is “tolled” 38 (or suspended), for reasons such as fraudulent concealment, which have 39 already been thoroughly documented in my OPENING BRIEF: 40 41 http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/opening.htm 42 43 Just to illustrate, fraudulent concealment is one of the reasons why 44 the courts have allowed the statute of limitations to be tolled in 45 copyright infringement cases. Clearly, the act of obstructing 46 discovery of computer activity logs and the identities of subscribers 47 suspected of infringing my exclusive copyrights is tantamount to 48 fraudulent concealment, tolling the statute of limitations. 49 50 Thus, I believe the sheer weight of the facts and applicable laws 51 prior to August 1, 1998, weighs strongly in favor of admitting 52 evidence of Copyright and Lanham Act violations prior to that date. 53 As you will see below, it was never my legal obligation to police the 54 Internet all by myself. California law imposes no such obligation.

1 Notice of Intervention and Application for Writ of Quo Warranto: 2 Page 23 of 31 1 And, the sheer preponderance of facts and applicable laws also weighs 2 strongly in favor of holding the responsible parties specifically 3 liable for all those copyright and trademark infringements, even if 4 some do happen to have started more than 3 years before August 1, 2001 5 (the date I filed the suit). See discussion of continuing wrongs in 6 my OPENING BRIEF to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 7 (abbreviated “Ninth Circuit”). 8 9 10 Period 2: period between ACPA and DMCA 11 12 This is a most interesting phase in our evidence against all named 13 Defendants. First of all, in the ACPA Congress elevated criminal 14 copyright infringement to the level of a RICO predicate act. See the 15 list of predicate acts itemized at 18 U.S.C. 1961(1)(B). 16 17 “Pattern of racketeering activity” had already been defined by Congress 18 to mean and include only two (2) predicate acts during any given ten 19 (10) year period. Obviously, we are dealing with literally thousands, 20 if not millions, of such discrete acts, now that criminal copyright 21 infringement has been added to that list. 22 23 Moreover, the legislative intent of the RICO laws is that they should 24 be liberally construed, not strictly construed. This legislative 25 intent was never codified in Title 18 of the United States Code, 26 however; one must find the original Statutes at Large, to confirm 27 this liberal construction rule. I have now confirmed this difference. 28 29 So, even though the DMCA had not yet been enacted, and can not be 30 enforced retroactively, the period between July 1996 and October 1998 31 is rather crucial in light of the comprehensive copyright enforcement 32 which I performed during the Summer of 1998, using the generous 33 computer facilities provided to me by the main librarians at Southwest 34 Texas State University (“SWT”). They were a Godsend, indeed! 35 36 You will note, from the Background Facts in the Initial COMPLAINT, 37 that I used a systematic email methodology to disseminate a NOTICE AND 38 DEMAND that all responsible ISP’s produce a certified copy of my 39 authorization (if any) to promote a stolen and modified electronic 40 copy of “The Federal Zone” on their Internet server computers. 41 42 Then, following closely on the heels of this NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR 43 AUTHORIZATION, I also posted on the Internet the following PUBLIC 44 NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE: 45 46 Formal DEMAND is hereby made of you to delete ALL extant copies 47 of component electronic files in "The Federal Zone: Cracking the 48 Code of Internal Revenue," all editions, and ALL hypertext links 49 to extant copies, whether such links are now valid or not, and 50 ALL pointers to same which now exist in the index databases of 51 all Internet search engines, and to do so on all computers now in 52 your possession or control, and all computers to which you have 53 any write access whatsoever. 54

1 Notice of Intervention and Application for Writ of Quo Warranto: 2 Page 24 of 31 1 The stated deadline for their specific performance was July 31, 1998 2 A.D. This turns out to be a pivotal date in the context of this case. 3 4 Of course, I had never authorized anyone to steal and then modify any 5 electronic versions of the book, or any components thereof. 6 7 Every single ISP who received these NOTICES AND DEMANDS then failed to 8 produce any certified authorization(s). Some of them simply removed 9 the offending files; some of them did not remove the offending files. 10 Some of them were presented with evidence of wholesale counterfeits; 11 others were presented only with evidence of hyperlinks to stolen 12 copies and/or modified counterfeits. A New York federal court has 13 already decided that hyperlinks to stolen intellectual property are 14 also copyright infringements. See Exhibit L -5. 15 16 My point here is two-fold: (1) the DMCA’s “take-down” procedure did 17 not yet exist at that time (Summer of 1998), so I had to invent my own 18 notification procedure, and (2) we did not regard any ISP’s as liable 19 at that time, as long as they ended up removing the violations in 20 question, and even if they failed to produce any purported 21 “authorization” from me (because no such authorizations truly existed, 22 in point of fact). 23 24 However, our ultimate purpose in confronting ISP’s, even after they 25 removed the violations in question, was to obtain the identities of 26 specific subscribers suspected of violating my exclusive copyrights. 27 My reasons for doing so are fully explained in one of the numerous 28 DEMANDS FOR SUBSCRIBER IDENTITY that we later mailed to these ISP’s. 29 For example, the one we mailed to Carnegie Mellon University is at 30 Internet URL: 31 32 http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/cmu.edu/subid2.htm 33 34 Here, I felt we were on very solid legal ground to enforce the 35 principle of vicarious liability aka respondeat superior (in Latin). 36 This legal theory is applicable to RICO violations as well as Lanham 37 Act violations. Understanding this theory is akin to graduate level 38 mathematics, however. Allow me to recommend that you do your own 39 research on vicarious liability aka respondeat superior. 40 41 Even if we could not go back 10 years prior to July 1996, because of 42 the ex post facto Clause, it was certainly the case that copyright 43 infringements had become RICO predicate acts as of that date. Thus, 44 the evidence acquired during the Summer of 1998 became rather pivotal 45 in our decision formally to name and prosecute all of the specific 46 Defendants that we eventually did name in my Initial COMPLAINT and 3 47 SUPPLEMENT’s. See the Table of Contents at Internet URL: 48 49 http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/index.htm 50 51 Moreover, the specific misconduct of ISP’s after July 31, 1998 A.D., 52 became even more important, and even more compelling, in part because 53 the Copyright Act has a 3-year statute of limitations. 54

1 Notice of Intervention and Application for Writ of Quo Warranto: 2 Page 25 of 31 1 If ISP’s refused to disclose the identities of any of their 2 subscribers whom we suspected -- from certified empirical evidence -- 3 of criminal copyright infringement, we then felt quite confident that 4 those ISP’s would ultimately be liable under a theory of vicarious 5 liability, in addition to hindering apprehension and prosecution. 6 Here is the crucial paragraph from a typical NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR 7 SUBSCRIBER IDENTITY, which explains our reasoning in this regard: 8 9 For all the reasons stated herein, we conclude that Internet 10 Service Providers should be held liable for any acts which 11 conceal the identities, or hinder the apprehension and 12 prosecution, of subscribers (or customers) engaged in any 13 copyright infringements, Lanham Act violations, or patterns of 14 racketeering activity. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1)(B) and 2319. 15 16 Clearly, the operative terms here are “concealing identities” and 17 “hindering apprehension and prosecution”, both of which have been 18 actionable for many years in American courts, under both State and 19 federal laws. Remember, there are 3 other COUNT’s in addition to 20 copyright and trademark infringements, e.g. unfair competition. 21 22 Thus, when many ISP’s defaulted at the end of July 1998, we were also 23 quite confident that we would succeed in holding every single ISP 24 liable that had failed to remove the violations in question. AOL is 25 in this group, because the confirmed violations on their Internet 26 servers continued there for another 8 months after July 31, 1998! 27 This much should be plainly obvious to any competent federal judge. 28 29 When I use the term “violation” here, bear in mind that our NOTICE AND 30 DEMAND FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE did separately itemize all wholesale 31 copies, all counterfeits aka modified derivatives, all hyperlinks to 32 wholesale copies and/or counterfeits, and all pointers to wholesale 33 copies or counterfeits that might still persist in the index databases 34 of common Internet search engines, like Alta Vista and Excite. 35 36 If ISP’s removed anything at all, they typically removed the wholesale 37 copies and counterfeits. Fewer of them removed the hyperlinks of 38 which we also complained. And, hardly any ISP’s bothered to clean out 39 the index databases of common Internet search engines, probably 40 because the ISP’s did not know how to do this particular task easily. 41 42 To summarize, a unique period existed between July 1996 and October 43 1998, one in which the ACPA could be enforced to elevate criminal 44 copyright infringement to the level of a RICO predicate act, but only 45 if I chose, at some point, to add COUNT SIX: Civil RICO to my case. 46 47 I have reserved my right to amend my Initial COMPLAINT, so COUNT SIX: 48 Civil RICO remains a very viable and very probable option. If the 49 federal courts continue to show signs of scuttling my federal case, as 50 has already happened, I plan to file COUNT SIX: Civil RICO in the 51 Superior Court of California, because State courts have concurrent 52 jurisdiction of Civil RICO claims. See the case of Tafflin v. Levitt 53 on this issue of concurrent State jurisdiction of Civil RICO claims; 54 the Ninth Circuit has also agreed in Lou v. Belzberg.

1 Notice of Intervention and Application for Writ of Quo Warranto: 2 Page 26 of 31 1 Period 3: after enactment of the DMCA 2 3 This Act was signed into law by President Clinton on October 28, 1998. 4 There was no grace period in this Act, so its provisions went into 5 effect immediately. 6 7 The most important aspects of this law, as far as your questions are 8 concerned, are the DMCA’s ISP immunity provisions, and the SUBPOENA 9 authority for subscribers’ identities. See 17 U.S.C. 512 in toto: 10 11 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html 12 13 Clearly, I concur that Congress did a good thing by giving ISP’s a way 14 to remain justly immune from unnecessary liabilities. But in order to 15 remain immune, they are required by the DMCA to do at least 3 things: 16 17 (1) register an Agent for Notification of Copyright Infringement 18 Claims at the website of the U.S. Copyright Office in 19 Washington, D.C.; 20 21 (2) remove proven violations promptly, or “expeditiously” as the 22 law is written, upon receipt of proper notification; and, 23 24 (3) respond to SUBPOENA’s served upon them for the identities of 25 subscribers suspected of infringing an author’s exclusive 26 copyrights (a MOTION TO QUASH would be one form of answer). 27 28 Thus, my reading of the DMCA infers that an ISP continues to be liable 29 for the copyright infringements of its subscribers if (1) it fails to 30 register an Agent for Notification of Copyright Infringement Claims at 31 the Copyright Office website, also if (2) upon receiving proper 32 notification, it fails to remove the violation(s) expeditiously, and 33 also if (3) it fails to answer a lawful SUBPOENA served upon it 34 pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 512(h). 35 36 All named Defendants have now been served, via U.S. Mail, with proper 37 notification that conforms to the requirements of the DMCA. See: 38 39 http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/corres/notification.2001-03-01.htm 40 41 So, even if ISP’s have posted Registered Agents at the Copyright 42 Office website, they are still liable if they do not expedite the 43 removal of proven violations from the computers they own and operate, 44 and they are still liable if they do not answer proper and lawful 45 SUBPOENA’s served upon them for their computer activity logs and for 46 the identities of subscribers suspected of infringing this author’s 47 exclusive copyrights. The logs should reveal those subscribers. 48 49 Happily, the DMCA now supports entirely my assertion that ISP’s should 50 be held liable, even prior to its enactment, for concealing the 51 identities, and hindering the apprehension and prosecution, of 52 subscribers suspected of infringing my exclusive copyrights. The same 53 is true for their infringements of my trademarks, jointly and 54 severally.

1 Notice of Intervention and Application for Writ of Quo Warranto: 2 Page 27 of 31 1 Consequently, the important questions I believe you should be asking, 2 at this point in time, are these: 3 4 (1) How many colleges and universities were served with SUBPOENA’s 5 pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 512(h)? 6 7 (2) How many of those colleges and universities have failed to 8 answer those lawful SUBPOENA’s? 9 10 (3) How many colleges and universities were served with my NOTICE 11 AND DEMAND FOR SUBSCRIBER IDENTITIES, prior to receiving 12 SUBPOENA’s? 13 14 (4) How many of those colleges and universities have failed to 15 answer my NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR SUBSCRIBER IDENTITIES, prior 16 to receiving SUBPOENA’s? 17 18 (5) How many colleges and universities have failed timely to 19 register an Agent for Notification of Copyright Infringement 20 Claims at the website of the U.S. Copyright Office? 21 22 (6) How many colleges and universities have failed to obey my 23 NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE by July 31, 1998? 24 25 (7) How many colleges and universities have failed to remove 26 wholesale copies and/or modified counterfeits, after receiving 27 proper notices from me? 28 29 (8) How many colleges and universities have failed to remove 30 hyperlinks to wholesale copies and/or modified counterfeits, 31 after receiving proper notices from me? 32 33 (9) How many colleges and universities have failed to remove 34 pointers to proven violations on their servers, after those 35 pointers were confirmed to exist in the index databases of 36 popular Internet search engines like Alta Vista and Excite? 37 38 (10) And, how many colleges and universities failed to answer my 39 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS, the formal SUMMONS 40 and the Initial COMPLAINT? 41 42 I can assure you that our legal research has confirmed a recent 43 important shift in the decisions of many State and federal courts: 44 efforts to stall or obstruct discovery of relevant admissible evidence 45 are being met with increasingly harsh sanctions. Please remember that 46 my case has not even gone to trial yet! 47 48 Now, add to all the above our findings that all colleges and all 49 universities who attempted to appear -- to defend themselves against 50 the charges found in my Initial COMPLAINT -- did so by means of 51 attorneys who did not have the requisite credentials required by 52 California State laws. 53

1 Notice of Intervention and Application for Writ of Quo Warranto: 2 Page 28 of 31 1 Specifically, section 6067 of the California Business and Professions 2 Code mandates that all California State Bar members must have a 3 license to practice law, and a certificate of oath must be indorsed 4 upon that license. That oath binds them to uphold the U.S. 5 Constitution and the California State Constitution. 6 7 If you will locate the High Country cite in my OPENING BRIEF to the 8 Ninth Circuit, you will find that entry of default judgment was proper 9 when an unlicensed corporate officer attempted to appear on behalf of 10 his corporation. That corporate officer was not an attorney duly 11 licensed to practice law; thus, his corporation failed to appear 12 (hence the default judgment)! 13 14 Well, that case is directly relevant to our case against AOL et al. 15 Many colleges and universities never even bothered to answer my 16 Initial COMPLAINT after receiving two (2) copies, a formal request for 17 waiver of service of the SUMMONS, and eventually the formal SUMMONS; 18 clearly, all such defendants have defaulted -- for failing to answer. 19 20 Moreover, colleges and universities that did attempt to appear by 21 means of one or another California attorney have also defaulted, 22 because the attorneys they hired -- without exception -- failed to 23 produce valid licenses to practice law that conform to section 6067 of 24 the California Business and Professions Code. 25 26 I emphasize this point, because we went to the trouble of issuing 27 additional SUBPOENA’s to those attorneys, commanding them to produce 28 their licenses; those SUBPOENA’s were also ignored by every single 29 attorney who attempted to represent certain colleges and universities! 30 One attorney, in particular, was retained by a group of 10 university 31 Defendants; he also failed to produce his license, so all 10 of those 32 universities have also failed to answer (read “default judgment”)! 33 34 Do you think that, just maybe, every one of those universities now has 35 a legitimate claim against their attorneys, for fraud, for malpractice 36 and for willful misrepresentation? I think so! Either that, or the 37 university Defendants already knew about these missing credentials, 38 and chose to do nothing about it. The latter is more probable, based 39 upon the facts now on record at the Ninth Circuit. 40 41 Clearly, there has also been extensive obstruction of discovery, not 42 only of computer activity logs and of the identities of subscribers 43 suspected of infringing my exclusive copyrights, but also of the 44 attorneys’ licenses to practice law as required by California State 45 laws. Who is responsible for that obstruction, I ask you? I 46 certainly am not. 47 48 49 Now, your second question appears to be a slightly more specific 50 variation of your first question. Your second question is predicated 51 on your belief that ISP’s are categorically not responsible for 52 monitoring the web pages of individuals. The Ninth Circuit’s Napster 53 decision does not support your belief, however. Please read it to 54 confirm what I am about to say here. See Exhibit L -11.

1 Notice of Intervention and Application for Writ of Quo Warranto: 2 Page 29 of 31 1 That published decision, which also happens to be a numbered Exhibit 2 in my Initial COMPLAINT, held that ISP’s are responsible for policing 3 their systems, and that authors are not responsible for policing the 4 Internet all by themselves. Confer at “obligation” in the California 5 Civil Code. So, this one recent, and arguably very controlling 6 decision contradicts your major premise. 7 8 Yes, based on what I have explained above, particularly as regards the 9 SUBPOENA’s authorized by 17 U.S.C. 512(h), ISP’s can be held liable 10 for copyright infringements, even if they respond to each complaint in 11 time, if they then turn around and refuse to obey a proper and lawful 12 SUBPOENA for their computer activity logs and for the identities of 13 their subscribers who were originally responsible for the copyright 14 infringement(s) in question (hopefully revealed by those logs). 15 16 Moreover, the violations of which I have complained, with incredible 17 detail, were also Lanham Act violations because those violations were 18 also what I termed modified derivatives and what Congress has elected 19 to call “counterfeits”. Not only does the Lanham Act authorize triple 20 damages; the theory of vicarious liability aka respondeat superior 21 (in Latin) can be also applied to hold these ISP’s liable for the 22 Lanham Act violations of their subscribers [cite omitted here]. 23 24 And, as of July 1996, another vicarious liability theory, and triple 25 damage multiplier, can be imposed by the ACPA, particularly when ISP’s 26 choose to obstruct discovery. Obstructing discovery is a specific 27 variant of obstruction of justice, the latter of which is also a RICO 28 predicate act. Again, see 18 U.S.C. 1961(1)(B). 29 30 Combining the Lanham Act and the RICO Act at 18 U.S.C. 1964, total 31 damages can be multiplied six-fold (6x). 32 33 I hope the details I have discussed above go a long way towards 34 answering the 2 excellent questions you have asked. 35 36 If I can further elaborate on any of the points I have made above, 37 please let me know which points need more explanation and I will do my 38 very best to provide you with a prompt and professional reply. 39 40 41 Sincerely yours, 42 43 /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell 44 45 Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., 46 Private Attorney General, Author, 47 Damaged Party and Plaintiff/Appellant: 48 Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.

1 Notice of Intervention and Application for Writ of Quo Warranto: 2 Page 30 of 31 1 PROOF OF SERVICE

2 I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, hereby certify, under penalty of

3 perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the

4 “United States” (federal government), that I am at least 18 years of

5 age, a Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America, and that I

6 personally served the following document(s):

7 8 MEMO to Jon Mummolo, 9 Washington Square News 10 November 9, 2002 A.D. 11 12 by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first

13 class United States Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed

14 to the following:

15 16 Judge Alex Kozinski Clerk of Court (5x) 17 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Attention: Cathy Catterson 18 P.O. Box 91510 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 19 Pasadena 91109-1510 P.O. Box 193939 20 CALIFORNIA, USA San Francisco 94119-3939 21 CALIFORNIA, USA 22 23 Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley DeForest & Koscelnik 24 (failed to exhibit oaths) (failed to exhibit oath) 25 1001 Marshall Street 3000 Koppers Building 26 Redwood City 94063 436 Seventh Avenue 27 CALIFORNIA, USA Pittsburgh 15219 28 PENNSYLVANIA, USA 29 30 Murphy Austin Adams Schoenfeld LLP Pillsbury Winthrop LLP 31 (failed to exhibit oaths) (failed to exhibit oaths) 32 P.O. Box 1319 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1700 33 Sacramento 95812-1319 Sacramento 95814-4419 34 CALIFORNIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA 35 36 Curiale Dellaverson Hirschfeld Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver 37 Kraemer & Sloan, LLP & Hedges, LLP 38 (failed to exhibit oaths) (failed to exhibit oaths) 39 727 Sansome Street 201 Sansome Street, 6th Floor 40 San Francisco 94111 San Francisco 94104 41 CALIFORNIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA

1 Notice of Intervention and Application for Writ of Quo Warranto: 2 Page 31 of 31 1 Office of the General Counsel Paul Southworth 2 (failed to exhibit oaths) 2018 N. New Hampshire Ave. 3 University of California Los Angeles 90027 4 1111 Franklin Street, 8th Floor CALIFORNIA, USA 5 Oakland 94607-5200 6 CALIFORNIA, USA 7 8 Karl Kleinpaste Ram Samudrala 9 P.O. Box 1551 UW Micro Box 357242 10 Beaver Falls 15010 Seattle 98195-7242 11 PENNSYLVANIA, USA WASHINGTON STATE, USA 12 13 Laskin & Guenard Rivkin Radler, LLP 14 (failed to exhibit oath) (failed to exhibit oaths) 15 1810 South Street 1330 N. Dutton Ave., #200 16 Sacramento 95814 Santa Rosa 95401-4646 17 CALIFORNIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA 18 19 Harvey Siskind Jacobs LLP Office of Solicitor General 20 (failed to exhibit oaths) 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 21 3 Embarcadero Center, Ste. 1060 Room 5614 22 San Francisco 94111 Washington 20530-0001 23 CALIFORNIA, USA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA 24 25 Register of Copyrights Steinhart & Falconer LLP 26 Library of Congress (failed to exhibit oaths) 27 101 Independence Avenue, S.E. 333 Market Street, 32nd Floor 28 Washington 20559-6000 San Francisco 94105-2150 29 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA 30 31 Matheny Sears Linkert & Long LLP Latham & Watkins 32 (failed to exhibit oaths) (failed to exhibit oaths) 33 P.O. Box 13711 633 West Fifth St., Ste. 4000 34 Sacramento 95853-4711 Los Angeles 90071-2007 35 CALIFORNIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA 36 37 38 [Please see USPS Publication #221 for “addressing” instructions.] 39 40 41 Dated: November 12, 2002 A.D.

43 Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell 44 ______45 Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Appellant In Propria Persona

1 Notice of Intervention and Application for Writ of Quo Warranto: 2 Page 32 of 31