Demand Is Hereby Made of You to Produce an Oath of Office for Mr

FINAL NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR

EXHIBITION OF MISSING CREDENTIALS

TO: Ms. Janis Sammartino

San Diego Superior Court

Department 71

P.O. Box 120128

San Diego 92112-0128

CALIFORNIA, USA

FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Plaintiff

U.S. Supreme Court case #03-5070

Superior Court of California case #GIC807057

DATE: August 25, 2004 A.D.

SUBJECT: fraud and related criminal conductby

THE OFFICE OF COURT COUNSEL,

Superior Court of California

Greetings Ms. Sammartino:

Due to continuing and apparently habitual violations of applicable federal laws by the above mentioned employees, you are hereby notified formally as follows: The absence of certain requisite credentials is now a matter of certified evidence and testimony that remain unrebutted in each of the two court cases listed above.

Accordingly:

Demand is hereby made of you to produce a proper Oath of Office for Mr. Dale A. Drozd. The existence of aproper Oath of Office for Mr. Drozd assumes facts nowhere in evidence in the official court records of the two cases in question;

Demand is hereby made of you to produce a proper license to practice law for Mr. Dale A. Drozd. The existence of a proper license to practice law for Mr. Drozd assumes facts nowhere in evidence in the official court records of the two cases in question;

Demand is hereby made of you to produce the proper written consents of all129 named Defendants and one Plaintiff to the exercise of civil jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate in the federal case in question. The existence of proper written consents to the exercise of civil jurisdiction by any U.S. Magistrates assumes facts nowhere in evidence in the official court records of the two cases in question;

Demand is hereby made of you to produce a proper Presidential Commission and Oath of Office for Mr. William B. Shubb. The existence of a proper Presidential Commission and Oath of Office for Mr. Shubb assumes facts nowhere in evidence in the official court records of the two cases in question;

Demand is hereby made of you to produce a proper Presidential Commission and Oath of Office for Mr. Stephen S. Trott. The existence of a proper Presidential Commission and Oath of Office for Mr. Trott assumes facts nowhere in evidence in the official court records of the two cases in question;

Demand is hereby made of you to produce a proper Oath of Office for Mr. Procter Hug and Mr. Alfred T. Goodwin. The existence of proper Oaths of Office for Messrs. Hug and Goodwin assumes facts nowhere in evidence in the official court records of the two cases in question;

Demand is hereby made of you to produce a proper Oath of Office for Ms. Irma E. Gonzalez. The existence of a proper Oath of Office for Ms. Gonzalez assumes facts nowhere in evidence in the official court records of the two cases in question;

Demand is hereby made of you to produce a proper Presidential Commission and Oath of Office for Mr. Stephen G. Breyer, Ms. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Mr. Clarence Thomas. The existence of proper Presidential Commissionsand Oaths of Office for Ms. Ginsburg and Messrs. Breyer and Thomas assumes facts nowhere in evidence in the official court records of the two cases in question; and,

Demand is hereby made of you to produce a proper Oath of Office for Mr. Anthony M. Kennedy, Ms. Sandra Day O'Connor, Mr. Antonin Scalia, Mr. David H. Souter andMr. John Paul Stevens. The existence of proper Oaths of Office for Ms. O’Connor and Messrs. Kennedy, Scalia, Souter and Stevens assumes facts nowhere in evidence in the official court records of the two cases in question.

DEADLINE

You now have thirty (30) calendar days from the above date on this NOTICE AND DEMAND to produce each and every oneof the missing credentials that are required by law, and are also itemized above. Beyond that deadline, your silence with regard to any one of the said credentials will constitute fraud, pursuant to U.S. v. Tweel, and it will also activate estoppel, pursuant to Carmine v. Bowen.

Thank you very much for your timely and professional consideration.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

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

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)

Notice to principals is notice to agents. Respondeat superior!

p.s. For your convenience, a Table of Contents

for each of the two cases in question is here:

copy: appropriate law enforcement officials