<p> 1 Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris 2 c/o UPS PMB #332 3 501 W. Broadway, Suite “A” 4 San Diego 92101 5 CALIFORNIA, USA 6 7 tel: (619) 234-5252 (messages) 8 fax: (619) 234-5272 9 10 In Propria Persona 11 12 All Rights Reserved 13 without Prejudice 14 15 16 Superior Court of California 17 18 San Diego County 19 20 21 Paul Andrew Mitchell, ) Case No. GIC807057 22 ) 23 Plaintiff, ) PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO ANSWER 24 v. ) OF DEFENDANT MSEN, INC.: 25 ) 26 AOL Time Warner, Inc., et al., ) 18 U.S.C. 1964; 27 ) CCC 22.2 28 Defendants. ) (common law is rule of decision). 29 ) 30 ______)</p><p>31 COMES NOW Paul Andrew Mitchell, Plaintiff in the above entitled case,</p><p>32 Citizen of California, Private Attorney General and Federal Witness,</p><p>33 to file his REPLY TO ANSWER OF DEFENDANT MSEN, INC. (“MSEN”).</p><p>34 Plaintiff begins with generic rebuttals, then follows with</p><p>35 specific rebuttals to each affirmative defense as stated in MSEN’s</p><p>36 untimely answer.</p><p>37 1. There is no evidence on record that Mr. Lawrence F. Meyer is</p><p>38 properly licensed to practice law in California courts. A State Bar</p><p>39 Number (“SB”) is not a license to practice law. A certificate of oath</p><p>40 must be indorsed upon all licenses to practice law. See § 6067 of the</p><p>41 California Business and Professions Code (“CBPC”). Also, Bar cards</p><p>42 make no mention whatsoever of any State or federal constitutions.</p><p>1 Plaintiff’s Reply to Answer of Defendant Msen, Inc.: 2 Page 1 of 30 1 On July 10, 2003 A.D., Plaintiff lawfully demanded that Mr. Meyer</p><p>2 exhibit a proper certificate of oath no later than 5:00 p.m. on</p><p>3 Monday, July 21, 2003 A.D. See Attachment “A”. To date, Plaintiff</p><p>4 has received no reply to that demand from Mr. Meyer. Plaintiff</p><p>5 expressly reserves his Right to move this court for an order striking</p><p>6 MSEN’s answer entirely, for having been filed by an unlicensed</p><p>7 representative without any lawful powers of attorney to do so.</p><p>8 2. The date of MSEN’s answer -- July 7, 2003 -- is far beyond the</p><p>9 deadline for answers as stated on the original SUMMONS issued in this</p><p>10 case. That SUMMONS clearly stated that MSEN had “30 CALENDAR DAYS”</p><p>11 after the SUMMONS was served to file a typewritten response at this</p><p>12 court. The SUMMONS and Initial COMPLAINT were mailed via Certified</p><p>13 U.S. Mail from downtown San Diego on April 17, 2003 A.D. The United</p><p>14 States Postal Service PS Form 3811 return receipt (“green card”) was</p><p>15 postmarked April 23, 2003 A.D. See Attachment “B”.</p><p>16 3. Plaintiff is entitled to the requested relief, and to all other</p><p>17 relief which this honorable Court deems just and proper.</p><p>18 4. In further reply to MSEN’s untimely answer, Plaintiff now</p><p>19 incorporates the following additional Attachments by reference, as if</p><p>20 set forth fully here:</p><p>21 “C” Network Solutions WHOIS database entry for domain MSEN.COM 22 www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/msen.com/NSI - WHOIS Search Results.htm 23 24 “D” DEMAND FOR AUTHORIZATION, July 13, 1998 A.D. (Exhibit K-30) 25 www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/msen.com/showletter.htm 26 27 “E” “The Federal Zone” Copyright Amnesty Program, as mailed on 28 June 27, 1999 A.D. to CEO, Msen, Inc., Troy, Michigan, e.g.: 29 www.supremelaw.org/letters/amnesty.htm 30 31 “F” U.S. Copyright Office, Directory of Service Provider Agents for 32 Notification of Claims of Infringement (no entry for MSEN) 33 www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/msen.com/usloc.m-agents.htm</p><p>1 Plaintiff’s Reply to Answer of Defendant Msen, Inc.: 2 Page 2 of 30 1 “G” referral to related folders in database of evidence 2 www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/msen.com/referral.htm 3 4 “H” MIRANDA WARNING, to CEO, Msen, Inc., Feb. 18, 2001 A.D. 5 www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/msen.com/miranda.htm 6 7 “I” NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE, to CEO, Msen, Inc., Feb. 18, 2001 A.D. 8 www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/msen.com/intentsue.htm 9 10 “J” DEMAND FOR SUBSCRIBER IDENTITY, to CEO, Msen, Inc., May 7, 2001 11 www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/msen.com/subid.htm 12 13 “K” NOTICE OF DEFAULT, July 16, 2001 A.D. 14 www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/msen.com/default1.htm 15 16 “L” COVER LETTER, NOTICE OF LAWSUIT AND REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE 17 OF SUMMONS, and federal Clerk’s notice changing docket number 18 www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/cover.letter.htm 19 www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/msen.com/request.for.waiver.htm 20 www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/order.2001-08-01/order01.gif 21 22 “M” copies of federal SUMMONS IN A CIVIL CASE, RETURN OF SERVICE, 23 U.S. Postal Service Delivery Confirmation Receipt, and USPS 24 Shipment History #0301 0120 0007 0064 3353 25 www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/msen.com/summons.gif 26 www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/msen.com/summons.proof.gif 27 28 “N” copy of letter dated Jan. 25, 2002 from Kiernan F. Cunningham, 29 Strobl Cunningham Caretti & Sharp, and draft NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY 30 DISMISSAL with Plaintiff’s annotation: “REFUSED FOR CAUSE” 31 32 “O” SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE, DEMAND FOR SUBSCRIBER IDENTITY dated 33 Dec. 4, 2001 A.D., and PROOF OF SERVICE: 34 www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/msen.com/subpoena.gif 35 www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/msen.com/subid2.htm 36 www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/msen.com/subpoena.proof.gif 37 38 “P” NOTICE OF JUDICIAL DEFAULT, dated Feb. 1, 2003 A.D. 39 www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/msen.com/judicial.default.htm 40 41 “Q” FIRST ADJUSTED INVOICE to Msen, Inc., Jan. 15, 2003 A.D.: 42 www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/msen.com/invoice1.htm 43 44 “R” NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE FOR RACKETEERING AND RELATED CLAIMS, 45 to Msen, Inc., January 20, 2003 A.D.: 46 www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/msen.com/intentsue.rico.htm 47 48 “S” SECOND ADJUSTED INVOICE to Msen, Inc., Aug. 1, 2003 A.D.: 49 www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/msen.com/invoice2.htm 50 51 “T” Exhibits N-124 and N-136 (repeated for convenience of MSEN/Meyer)</p><p>1 Plaintiff’s Reply to Answer of Defendant Msen, Inc.: 2 Page 3 of 30 1 Plaintiff now replies in sequence to each of MSEN’s affirmative</p><p>2 defenses:</p><p>3 REPLY TO FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE</p><p>4 Plaintiff’s COMPLAINT and each cause of action stated therein do</p><p>5 state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against MSEN.</p><p>6 See verified evidence in all Attachments incorporated supra, and in</p><p>7 all Exhibits formally incorporated in Plaintiff’s Initial COMPLAINT.</p><p>8 9 REPLY TO SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE</p><p>10 No allegations or causes of action in the COMPLAINT are barred by</p><p>11 any applicable statutes of limitation. MSEN’s failure to answer a</p><p>12 proper and lawful SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE, issued and served pursuant</p><p>13 to 17 U.S.C. 512(h), implicates obstruction of justice and hindering</p><p>14 the apprehension and prosecution of all subscribers suspected of</p><p>15 committing RICO predicate acts against Plaintiff. “Pattern of</p><p>16 racketeering” is defined to mean any two (2) predicate acts committed</p><p>17 during any given ten (10) year period. All events in question are</p><p>18 alleged to have occurred subsequent to March 12, 1993 A.D. (i.e. ten</p><p>19 (10) years prior to commencement of this action). See 18 U.S.C. 1961</p><p>20 et seq.</p><p>21 22 REPLY TO THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE</p><p>23 Plaintiff has made every possible effort to mitigate his damages,</p><p>24 and damages against MSEN should not be barred or limited. For</p><p>25 example, Plaintiff went to extraordinary lengths to prepare and</p><p>26 transmit his Copyright Amnesty Program to MSEN. See Attachment “E”.</p><p>27 MSEN likewise failed to reply to that Copyright Amnesty Program.</p><p>1 Plaintiff’s Reply to Answer of Defendant Msen, Inc.: 2 Page 4 of 30 1 REPLY TO FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE</p><p>2 Plaintiff is not barred from seeking relief against MSEN due to</p><p>3 any equitable doctrine of laches. Plaintiff has not neglected or</p><p>4 omitted to assert any of his Rights at issue here. On the contrary,</p><p>5 Plaintiff has expressly reserved All Rights on the caption pages of</p><p>6 all pleadings. That reservation is sufficient. The sheer number and</p><p>7 extent of racketeering predicate acts committed against Plaintiff by</p><p>8 all named Defendants has created extraordinary burdens for Plaintiff.</p><p>9 It was never Plaintiff’s obligation to police the Internet.</p><p>10 11 REPLY TO FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE</p><p>12 Plaintiff is not barred from seeking relief against MSEN due to</p><p>13 any equitable doctrine of estoppel. Plaintiff has never knowingly,</p><p>14 intentionally or voluntarily adopted any inconsistent positions,</p><p>15 attitudes or courses of conduct to the obvious detriment of MSEN.</p><p>16 17 REPLY TO SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE</p><p>18 Plaintiff is not barred from seeking relief against MSEN due to</p><p>19 any equitable doctrine of unclean hands. Plaintiff categorically</p><p>20 denies having unclean hands for any reasons in this case. On the</p><p>21 contrary, Plaintiff has gone to extraordinary lengths to maintain a</p><p>22 consistent posture of full and honest disclosure, and conscientious</p><p>23 compliance with all applicable laws, at all times and places.</p><p>24 25 REPLY TO SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE</p><p>26 Plaintiff is not barred from seeking relief against MSEN due to</p><p>27 any knowing, intentional or voluntary waiver of any rights or claims.</p><p>28 On the contrary, Plaintiff has never knowingly, intentionally or</p><p>1 Plaintiff’s Reply to Answer of Defendant Msen, Inc.: 2 Page 5 of 30 1 voluntarily waived any rights at issue here. Waivers of fundamental</p><p>2 Rights can never be presumed.</p><p>3 4 REPLY TO EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE</p><p>5 Damages caused to Plaintiff were caused by acts and omissions of</p><p>6 MSEN, and not only by persons and entities other than MSEN. For</p><p>7 example, MSEN’s failure to register an Agent for Notification of</p><p>8 Copyright Infringement Claims was a deliberate omission. That</p><p>9 omission now bars MSEN from claiming any of the statutory immunities</p><p>10 that are available to all Internet Service Providers (“ISP”) who did</p><p>11 comply in good faith with the federal copyright laws in this regard.</p><p>12 See the controlling federal statute at 17 U.S.C. 512, in chief.</p><p>13 14 REPLY TO NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE</p><p>15 As an ISP, MSEN did have a specific legal obligation to disclose</p><p>16 the identities of all subscribers suspected of infringing Plaintiff’s</p><p>17 exclusive copyrights, particularly after being served with a proper</p><p>18 civil SUBPOENA for such suspects’ identities. MSEN’s failure to do so</p><p>19 implicates obstruction of justice and hindering the apprehension and</p><p>20 prosecution of those subscribers. As an ISP, MSEN also had a legal</p><p>21 obligation to police the Internet; it was never Plaintiff’s</p><p>22 obligation to police the Internet. See Exhibit L -11, in chief, for</p><p>23 responsibilities of ISP’s, and Attachment “J” for court authorities</p><p>24 pertinent to discovery of racketeering evidence.</p><p>25 26 REPLY TO TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE</p><p>27 Plaintiff has suffered extensive damages that are recoverable</p><p>28 from MSEN et al. as a matter of fact and law. The civil RICO statute</p><p>29 at 18 U.S.C. 1964 authorizes this court to award triple damages to</p><p>1 Plaintiff’s Reply to Answer of Defendant Msen, Inc.: 2 Page 6 of 30 1 Plaintiff for all damages sustained in connection with all</p><p>2 racketeering activities and with all predicate acts committed to</p><p>3 further the racketeering enterprise properly alleged in Plaintiff’s</p><p>4 Initial COMPLAINT.</p><p>5 6 REPLY TO ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE</p><p>7 MSEN’s actions and omissions were not all reasonable or justified</p><p>8 under the circumstances, nor were they always committed in the</p><p>9 exercise of good faith or with sufficient probable cause.</p><p>10 11 REPLY TO TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE</p><p>12 MSEN’s actions and omissions were not committed in the exercise</p><p>13 of a good faith reliance upon the acts of others. MSEN can not claim</p><p>14 ignorance of the applicable State and federal laws. MSEN’s retained</p><p>15 an unlicensed attorney to represent it in the federal case. It was</p><p>16 never Plaintiff’s obligation actively to police unlicensed attorneys.</p><p>17 MSEN also failed to disclose evidence that it had delegated any powers</p><p>18 of attorney to unlicensed attorneys. Plaintiff was entitled to expect</p><p>19 that MSEN and its agents were obeying all applicable State and federal</p><p>20 laws at all times. See Exhibit M -4.</p><p>21 22 REPLY TO THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE</p><p>23 None of Plaintiff’s claims and causes of action in the COMPLAINT</p><p>24 against MSEN is barred, in whole or in part, by any conduct of</p><p>25 Plaintiff, and none is barred by the conduct of any of Plaintiff’s</p><p>26 agents, representatives or material witnesses. In point of fact,</p><p>27 Plaintiff had no “employees” as such during the period in question.</p><p>1 Plaintiff’s Reply to Answer of Defendant Msen, Inc.: 2 Page 7 of 30 1 REPLY TO FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE</p><p>2 The causes of action in the COMPLAINT against MSEN are not barred</p><p>3 for any reason, because MSEN and its officers, employees and contract</p><p>4 agents did breach their duty to obey all pertinent laws at all times.</p><p>5 6 REPLY TO FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE</p><p>7 The damages caused to Plaintiff by MSEN were caused by persons</p><p>8 and entities that are also named Defendants in this action. MSEN did</p><p>9 have control over some of those Defendants. See Attachment “G”, and</p><p>10 Exhibit L -11 in particular (enumerating affirmative obligations of</p><p>11 ISP’s). MSEN is not entitled to indemnity from these other</p><p>12 Defendants. Respondeat superior. See also Exhibit N -124.</p><p>13 14 REPLY TO SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE</p><p>15 Plaintiff’s federal case was not dismissed, in part because there</p><p>16 is no Presidential Commission in evidence for Messrs. Dale A. Drozd,</p><p>17 William B. Shubb or Stephen S. Trott. Moreover, the United States</p><p>18 District Court lacked original jurisdiction over the initial complaint</p><p>19 in Plaintiff’s federal case. See 60 Stat. 440, as fully discussed in</p><p>20 Plaintiff’s PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT,</p><p>21 docketed by the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States on</p><p>22 June 27, 2003 A.D. This latter PETITION has also been filed in the</p><p>23 instant case as the SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO BAR REMOVAL in</p><p>24 support of Plaintiff’s MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BARRING</p><p>25 REMOVAL INTO FEDERAL COURT. Plaintiff’s DEMAND FOR RULING on same is</p><p>26 now outstanding.</p><p>1 Plaintiff’s Reply to Answer of Defendant Msen, Inc.: 2 Page 8 of 30 1 REPLY TO SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE</p><p>2 MSEN may not raise additional defenses to the COMPLAINT, based</p><p>3 upon subsequent investigation of this litigation, due to the fact that</p><p>4 MSEN’s answer was not timely, and MSEN is now in default.</p><p>5</p><p>6 WHEREFORE, defendant MSEN is not entitled to any of the relief</p><p>7 requested in its untimely answer.</p><p>8</p><p>9</p><p>10 VERIFICATION</p><p>11 The Undersigned hereby verifies, under penalty of perjury, under</p><p>12 the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States”</p><p>13 (federal government), that the above statement of facts and laws is</p><p>14 true and correct, according to the best of his current information,</p><p>15 knowledge and belief, so help me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).</p><p>16 See Supremacy Clause in the Constitution for the United States of</p><p>17 America, as lawfully amended, i.e. Constitution, Laws and Treaties of</p><p>18 the United States are all the supreme Law of this Land.</p><p>19</p><p>20</p><p>21 Dated: July 21, 2003 A.D.</p><p>22</p><p>23 Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell 24 ______25 Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Sui Juris</p><p>1 Plaintiff’s Reply to Answer of Defendant Msen, Inc.: 2 Page 9 of 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Attachment “A”: 12 13 14 15 16 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</p><p>1 Plaintiff’s Reply to Answer of Defendant Msen, Inc.: 2 Page 10 of 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Attachment “B”: 12 13 14 15 16 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</p><p>1 Plaintiff’s Reply to Answer of Defendant Msen, Inc.: 2 Page 11 of 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Attachment “C”: 12 13 14 15 16 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</p><p>1 Plaintiff’s Reply to Answer of Defendant Msen, Inc.: 2 Page 12 of 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Attachment “D”: 12 13 14 15 16 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</p><p>1 Plaintiff’s Reply to Answer of Defendant Msen, Inc.: 2 Page 13 of 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Attachment “E”: 12 13 14 15 16 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</p><p>1 Plaintiff’s Reply to Answer of Defendant Msen, Inc.: 2 Page 14 of 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Attachment “F”: 12 13 14 15 16 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</p><p>1 Plaintiff’s Reply to Answer of Defendant Msen, Inc.: 2 Page 15 of 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Attachment “G”: 12 13 14 15 16 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</p><p>1 Plaintiff’s Reply to Answer of Defendant Msen, Inc.: 2 Page 16 of 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Attachment “H”: 12 13 14 15 16 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</p><p>1 Plaintiff’s Reply to Answer of Defendant Msen, Inc.: 2 Page 17 of 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Attachment “I”: 12 13 14 15 16 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</p><p>1 Plaintiff’s Reply to Answer of Defendant Msen, Inc.: 2 Page 18 of 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Attachment “J”: 12 13 14 15 16 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</p><p>1 Plaintiff’s Reply to Answer of Defendant Msen, Inc.: 2 Page 19 of 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Attachment “K”: 12 13 14 15 16 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</p><p>1 Plaintiff’s Reply to Answer of Defendant Msen, Inc.: 2 Page 20 of 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Attachment “L”: 12 13 14 15 16 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</p><p>1 Plaintiff’s Reply to Answer of Defendant Msen, Inc.: 2 Page 21 of 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Attachment “M”: 12 13 14 15 16 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</p><p>1 Plaintiff’s Reply to Answer of Defendant Msen, Inc.: 2 Page 22 of 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Attachment “N”: 12 13 14 15 16 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</p><p>1 Plaintiff’s Reply to Answer of Defendant Msen, Inc.: 2 Page 23 of 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Attachment “O”: 12 13 14 15 16 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</p><p>1 Plaintiff’s Reply to Answer of Defendant Msen, Inc.: 2 Page 24 of 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Attachment “P”: 12 13 14 15 16 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</p><p>1 Plaintiff’s Reply to Answer of Defendant Msen, Inc.: 2 Page 25 of 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Attachment “Q”: 12 13 14 15 16 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</p><p>1 Plaintiff’s Reply to Answer of Defendant Msen, Inc.: 2 Page 26 of 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Attachment “R”: 12 13 14 15 16 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</p><p>1 Plaintiff’s Reply to Answer of Defendant Msen, Inc.: 2 Page 27 of 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Attachment “S”: 12 13 14 15 16 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</p><p>1 Plaintiff’s Reply to Answer of Defendant Msen, Inc.: 2 Page 28 of 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Attachment “T”: 12 13 14 15 16 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</p><p>1 Plaintiff’s Reply to Answer of Defendant Msen, Inc.: 2 Page 29 of 30 1 PROOF OF SERVICE</p><p>2 I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, hereby certify, under penalty of</p><p>3 perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the</p><p>4 “United States” (federal government), that I am at least 18 years of</p><p>5 age, a Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America, and that I</p><p>6 personally served the following document(s):</p><p>7 8 PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO ANSWER 9 OF DEFENDANT MSEN, INC.: 10 18 U.S.C. 1964; CCC 22.2 11 (common law is rule of decision) 12 13 by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first</p><p>14 class United States Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed</p><p>15 to the following:</p><p>16 17 Msen, Inc. 18 c/o Lawrence F. Meyer 19 500 North Brand Blvd., Suite 920 20 Glendale 91203 21 CALIFORNIA, USA 22 23 24 [Please see USPS Publication #221 for “addressing” instructions.] 25 26 27 28 Dated: July 21, 2003 A.D. 29 30 31 Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell 32 ______33 Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Sui Juris</p><p>1 Plaintiff’s Reply to Answer of Defendant Msen, Inc.: 2 Page 30 of 30</p>