TO: Executive Officers

MEMO

Attention: Connie, Secretary

Superior Court of California

330 West Broadway

San Diego 92101

CALIFORNIA, USA

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

Private Attorney General and Plaintiff

DATE: March 9, 2006 A.D.

SUBJECT: Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.

Superior Court civil docket #GIC807057

Internet URL:

Greetings Connie:

I am most grateful for all the time you were able to spend with me this morning, to consider my request for prompt administrative action in the above entitled case.

Attached to this MEMO please find pertinent pleadings which prove that a hearing was duly scheduled on my MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BARRING REMOVAL INTO FEDERAL COURT, but the Superior Court never ruled on that MOTION, even after I filed and served a proper DEMAND FOR RULING on the date set for the hearing on that MOTION.

Because of the extensive amount of documentation in this Civil RICO case, we have taken the time to put all important documents on the Internet, where they are rapidly available with any fast connection, like DSL or cable modem.

Clearly, this large quantity of documents necessarily renders this case a complex one, by normal standards. It is for this reason that I do appreciate the extensive notes you took during our conversation today. The attached documents will hopefully clarify my request, repeated here in writing as follows:

I believe that the Superior Court had a legal obligation to issue a timely ruling on my MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, but never did so. Also, Judge Janis Sammartino has been notified in writing quite often of the damages which I have repeatedly sustained as a direct result of the ongoing obstruction of this case e.g. no jury trial.

For all of these reasons, I am hereby requesting that the Superior Court’s Executive Officers meet privately with Ms. Sammartino to convey in person my request that she recuse herself immediately, and make arrangements for this case to be re-assigned to a fair and impartial Judge of the Superior Court who has no apparent conflicts of interest, and no motive to aid or abet any further obstruction.

On the merits, even if that MOTION TO BAR REMOVAL is granted by a different judge other than Ms. Sammartino, all named Defendants would always have a procedural right to move the Superior Court for a subsequent ORDER lifting that PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. In point of fact, the attached pleadings did not move the Superior Court for a PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

I am, of course, already prepared to move the Superior for an ORDER making the INJUNCTION permanent, and to oppose any efforts to lift the PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION if granted, because justice, common sense, and certified evidence already in the custody of the Superior Court all cry out for this result.

I timely demanded a jury trial, and I still deserve a jury trial.

It is for many reasons like these that I believe I now deserve a favorable ruling on that MOTION. As you will see, if you take the time to review the INITIAL COMPLAINT, I believe I have already proven conclusively that the Superior Court enjoys original jurisdiction of this Civil RICO lawsuit. See Tafflin v. Levitt and Lou v. Belzberg. Civil RICO is also a case category on the Superior Court’s Civil Case Cover Sheet.

Further to supplement all attached documents, please also see my REQUEST FOR VOLUNTARY RECUSAL, to which Ms. Sammartino never responded either.

Thank you again for all your time, and your professional courtesy and attention to my situation in this case.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

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

Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and

Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)

Attachments:

Internet electronic docket for #GIC807057 and

pleadings in support of MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

REQUEST FOR VOLUNTARY RECUSAL, January 31, 2004 A.D.

summary of Internet database of evidence of extensive

infiltration of all federal courts throughout California