MEMO
TO: Mr. Raul David Bejarano
Office of the District Attorney
330 West Broadway
San Diego 92101
CALIFORNIA, USA
FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell
Private Attorney General and Plaintiff,
Superior Court of California docket #GIC807057
DATE: January 3, 2005 A.D.
SUBJECT: evidence of perjury by named Defendant
Lawrence E. Condit
Greetings Mr. Bejarano:
In a recent edition of a local newspaper, I read of your recent appointment as Chief of Investigators. Please accept my sincere congratulations on your new position.
I am writing specifically to request your prompt attention to the formal allegation of perjury which I have lodged against Lawrence E. Condit, currently a practicing attorney in Tucson, Arizona.
Although an intake officer in the D.A.’s office reviewed and accepted the documentary evidence that he had requested of me during his initial screening, nothing has happened to my allegation since then (at least nothing of which I am presently aware).
Here is the factual background of this perjury allegation:
In 1997, I sued and won a unanimous civil jury verdict in Tucson against Mr. Condit’s clients, Mr. and Mrs. Neil T. Nordbrock, for embezzling about three thousand dollars of mine. Within minutes after the unanimous verdict was announced in my favor, Mr. Condit announced to the presiding judge his intent to pay the judgment in full.
The following Monday, I did receive from Mr. Condit a standard bank check, written on his client trust account in the amount of $3,113.42 payable to me. Immediately after opening the U.S. Mail in which Mr. Condit had transmitted that check, I went to his bank -- the Bank of America in downtown Tucson. I routinely used the services of a check cashing service in Tucson, and I only wanted to ask the Bank of America if the check was good, and to place a hold on the funds.
The bank teller informed me that there were sufficient funds in Condit’s account, but Condit had earlier called to place a stop payment order on that particular check. His reason for doing so was recorded on the bank’s computer as “wrong amount.” However, the check in question was written for exactly the correct amount of the judgment which the civil jury had awarded to me.
I believe it is essential for you to realize that at no time did Mr. Condit accompany me to his bank, nor was he ever an eyewitness to my conversations with any of the bank personnel with whom I attempted to negotiate Condit’s bad check.
Although I did what I could to get relief from this act of bank fraud and mail fraud, the corruption inside the Tucson Police Department, and the Tucson court system, resulted in obstructing every single effort of mine to compel Mr. Condit to make restitution.
Soon after that, I decided it was best that I flee Tucson, under cover of darkness, due to certain threats to my life and continued safety.
More recently, I sued Mr. Condit and about 120 other named Defendants in a Civil RICO action in the Superior Court of California in downtown San Diego. See 18 U.S.C. 1964, the list of RICO predicate acts at 18 U.S.C. 1961, and “pattern of racketeering” defined at 1961(5).
Without going into the many complexities that subsequently arose in that Civil RICO case, I wish to focus here on the evidence of perjury which Mr. Condit filed into the official record of that case.
In particular, Mr. Condit at first attempted to defend himself by claiming that I had made “multiple visits” to his bank and was not allowed to cash his check because, as Condit claimed, his bank would not accept my identification. In point of fact, the question of my identification never arose, and Condit was simply not there to witness my one (1) visit to his bank or my conversations with its personnel.
I refused Mr. Condit’s pleadings to that effect, and annotated them with my claim that his pleadings contained deliberately false and misleading statements. The Clerk of the Superior Court received courtesy copies of those pleadings showing my annotations refusing them. And, of course, I mailed the originals back to Condit.
Then, in a subsequent pleading, Mr. Condit changed his story and admitted that he had stopped payment on the check in question, but that, as Condit put it (in writing), “His clients [the Nordbrocks] instructed him to do so.” In other words, Condit admitted bank fraud and mail fraud specifically because Mr. and Mrs. Nordbrock instructed him to commit those crimes.
You should also know that Mr. Neil T. Nordbrock is also a named Defendant in my Civil RICO lawsuit; however, Mr. Nordbrock never answered the Initial COMPLAINT or SUMMONS in that case, despite being properly served with same. A PROOF OF SERVICE was properly executed by a Notary Public doing business at that time in downtown San Diego. I have recently mailed to Mr. Nordbrock a NOTICE OF JUDICIAL DEFAULT.
At this point in time, I honestly believe that it would be appropriate for your Office to inform me –- promptly and officially -- that you intend to do nothing further in this matter, so that I would then be free to move the Superior Court for leave to prosecute Messrs. Condit and Nordbrock in my capacity as a Private Attorney General.
In the alternative, I am convinced that the evidence against Mr. Condit is so solid and so far beyond the shadow of any doubt, that he really should be prosecuted by the District Attorney without causing any further delays to the restitution to which I am legally entitled. And, allow me to say that justice would also call for appropriate fines and a prison term for Mr. Condit, if not also Mr. Nordbrock. The Civil RICO statute authorizes an award of triple damages; at a bare minimum, that would equal 3 x $3,113.42 = $9,340.26.
My latest query to the U.S. Bureau of Prison’s website resulted in information which indicated that a “Neil T. Nordbrock” was recently incarcerated in federal prison, but the reasons for that prison term were not available from the BOP’s website. I would expect that more detailed information about Neil T. Nordbrock’s sentence would be more readily available to you than to me, given your extensive prior experience with the U.S. Marshals, and also with the San Diego Police Department.
Please also know that, during the past year, I enjoyed a very cordial and professional private meeting with 2 duty officers at U.S. Marshals in downtown San Diego, in connection with other criminal matters of which I am a qualified federal witness under 18 U.S.C. 1512 and 1513.
I remain most appreciative of the assistance they offered to me in that meeting. Please feel free to contact them directly for further details.
Thank you very much, Mr. Bejarano, for your prompt attention to this long overdue matter. I will look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Private Attorney General and Damaged Party
Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.
Superior Court of California docket #GIC807057
copy: U.S. Marshals, Duty Officers, downtown San Diego
U.S. Mail:
c/o Forwarding Agent
501 W. Broadway #A-332
San Diego 92101
CALIFORNIA, USA
All Rights Reserved
without Prejudice