CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE OF DEFAMATION
TO: Whom It May Concern
I am writing this polite NOTICE to make you aware that numerous false statements are now being disseminated about me, both ON and OFF the Internet. Not only is such defamation criminal in nature; it is also further proof that our research and litigation are reliable and correct in every important detail.
Please permit me to explain with the use of two key examples. First of all, when I volunteered circa 1996 to locate 2,500 missing children who had disappeared into Arizona’s Child Protective Services, our investigation uncovered some very ugly facts. Those facts implicated a number of State and Federal government personnel living and working primarily in Tucson. When I brought these facts to the attention of local law enforcement, they replied by asking me when I was planning to leave Tucson.
Since then, a number of false statements about me and my office have been maintained at the popular Internet website known as Wikipedia. When I attempted to correct those false statements by replacing them with a copy of my professional resume, one of Wikipedia’s “editors” threatened me with a knife (a felony crime). I have been forced to conclude that its founder and associates are not nice people either.
If you have relied in any manner upon disparaging or defamatory statements about me that you have encountered by browsing the Internet, I would appreciate one or the other of the following professional courtesies from you:
(1) notify me of the exact source(s) of those false statements, and the date(s) and time(s) when you first saw them, to permit me to assemble verifiable evidence of same, as needed for all future remedies which I may choose to exercise; or,
(2) never contact me in any manner ever again, because you are obviously someone who prefers to believe disparaging statements about others, even if those statements are false.
You should also know that we do not update the Supreme Law Library with every new case, nor with every new client who has retained me for professional counsel. All of the very latest additions are announced to our SupremeLaw discussion list and message archive, by way of providing premium material to our paid subscribers.
We do have “wins” but you must subscribe to receive that list. In one case, our client was acquitted of a felony charge but convicted of a misdemeanor. When he asked the jurors why they convicted him of a misdemeanor, they told him he had admitted as much when he testified on his own behalf. That client had been an expert firearms instructor who trained law enforcement in the proper use of weapons: defeating the felony charge meant he could continue as a firearms instructor. If you want to call that case a “loss,” go away and stay away, because you are obviously biased!
Lastly, we are striving to maintain the Supreme Law Library as a free Internet resource that does not rely upon paid advertising to cover its expenses. On the other hand, my professional time is not free. We would appreciate it very much if you refrained from referring freeloaders to my business email address. Slavery is in fact against the law, and I decline to engage in voluntary servitude to anyone or anything else.
Thank you for your consideration.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice