Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 152 views

    Affidavit Police: Paul Andrew Mitchell Private Attorney General Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. Et Al

    Uploaded by

    mo
    The document is a formal refusal by Paul Andrew Mitchell of a letter sent by Kathryn Marrone of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. Mitchell had previously demanded certification of documentary evidence, and this letter refuses Marrone's response, asserting that Mitchell's status establishes foreign jurisdiction separate from that of the respondent. It notes that the case will be brought in a District Court under a specified section of the U.S. Code concerning removal of cases from state to federal court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Affidavit Police: Paul Andrew Mitchell Private Attorney General Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. Et Al

    Uploaded by

    mo
    152 views3 pages
    The document is a formal refusal by Paul Andrew Mitchell of a letter sent by Kathryn Marrone of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. Mitchell had previously demanded certification of documentary evidence, and this letter refuses Marrone's response, asserting that Mitchell's status establishes foreign jurisdiction separate from that of the respondent. It notes that the case will be brought in a District Court under a specified section of the U.S. Code concerning removal of cases from state to federal court.

    Original Description:

    Affidavit Police

    Original Title

    Affidavit Police

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document is a formal refusal by Paul Andrew Mitchell of a letter sent by Kathryn Marrone of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. Mitchell had previously demanded certification of documentary evidence, and this letter refuses Marrone's response, asserting that Mitchell's status establishes foreign jurisdiction separate from that of the respondent. It notes that the case will be brought in a District Court under a specified section of the U.S. Code concerning removal of cases from state to federal court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    152 views3 pages

    Affidavit Police: Paul Andrew Mitchell Private Attorney General Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. Et Al

    Uploaded by

    mo
    The document is a formal refusal by Paul Andrew Mitchell of a letter sent by Kathryn Marrone of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. Mitchell had previously demanded certification of documentary evidence, and this letter refuses Marrone's response, asserting that Mitchell's status establishes foreign jurisdiction separate from that of the respondent. It notes that the case will be brought in a District Court under a specified section of the U.S. Code concerning removal of cases from state to federal court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3
    At a glance
    Powered by AI
    The document discusses an affidavit police sent to an administrative office regarding formal refusal of a letter. It also discusses procedures for name changes and obtaining fingerprints.

    The affidavit police is in response to a letter dated September 18, 2002 regarding formal refusal of the letter.

    It discusses that name change procedures and ease vary between jurisdictions, with common law being loose and civil law being more restrictive. It also defines the term.

    Affidavit police

    TO: Administrative Office of the United States Courts


    Attention: Kathryn Marrone, Staff Attorney
    Magistrate Judges Division
    One Columbus Circle, N.E.
    Washington 20544
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA

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


    Private Attorney General and Plaintiff/Appellant,
    Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.
    Ninth Circuit appeal #02-15269

    DATE: September 27, 2002 A.D.

    SUBJECT: Formal Refusal of your letter dated September 18, 2002

    Greetings Ms. Marrone:

    In My FINAL NOTICE AND DEMAND dated September 1, 2002 A.D., I


    specifically required timely exhibition and certification of any and
    all documentary evidence that:

    Not excluding Affiants inherent status establishing foreign jurisdiction separate from that to which the
    Respondent adheres, diversity in this case also establishes upon the fact that Affiant is a real party in
    interest, and is authorized to use master exemption account No. 316 80 8615

    This action will be brought in a District court [see: 28 U.S. Code § 1441]

    Notes

    prev | next

    (a)Generally.—

    Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of
    which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the
    defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division
    embracing the place where such action is pending.
    *The discretion relies upon the officer to not except a non-judicial (no court order) name change, but in
    fact does not render the process ‘fraud’ whether the change was made as a result of a court order
    or not.

    The officer seemed uncertain of my certified copies, baring Indiana State legislative Authentications;
    duly certified. I assured the officer that they were certified copies showing him/her the raised
    seal which indicates the copy has been certified by a government official, and the my
    documents or seals on documents are NOT fraudulent.

    The basis of this argument was that the procedures and ease of a name change vary between
    jurisdictions. In general, common law jurisdictions have loose procedures for a name change while civil
    law jurisdictions are more restrictive.

    In addition to this definition, the term also

    A verification letter regarding your report may be obtained by calling the Fairfax County Central Records
    Office at 703-246-2272.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fingerprints
    If you need your fingerprints taken, you may visit the Central Records office at the address listed
    above, during regular business hours.
    *We do not provide blank fingerprint cards. Ask your prospective employer or requesting agency to
    provide cards. You may also be able to obtain fingerprint cards from the following agencies:
    The FBI; click on the link and print your own cards
    MUST BE PRINTED ON CARD STOCK PAPER (Recommended minimum weight 60LBS)
    http://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/standard-fingerprint-form-fd-258-1.pdf Please be aware that your
    employer may not accept this card.
    The Virginia State Police: Call (703) 803-2661.
    You must bring:
     Your own fingerprint cards*
     Two valid forms of identification from the list below; (At least one must contain your
    photograph and date of birth.)
    U.S. or Foreign Passport
    Driver’s License or DMV Identification Card
    Military Identification Card
    Social Security Card
    Permanent Resident Card
    Work Authorization Card
    University I.D. Card
    Voter Registration Card
    Birth Certificate (Original or Certified) (Foreign must include professional translation)
    Federal/State/Local Government-Issued License or Permit
    SearchQuarry.com

    password is ZCc4VxkTMJ.
    Retro Feodum

    You might also like