Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris
Citizen of Arizona state
c/o general delivery at:
2509 North Campbell Avenue
Tucson, Arizona state

In Propria Persona

All Rights Reserved
Without Prejudice





             PIMA COUNTY CONSOLIDATED JUSTICE COURT


Paul Andrew Mitchell,           ) Case Number #CV-97-3438
          Plaintiff,            )
                                ) FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
     v.                         ) IN SUPPORT OF CHALLENGE TO
                                ) JUROR QUALIFICATION STATUTES:
Neil and Evelyn Nordbrock,      ) Seventh Amendment;
et al.,                         ) Rule 201(d), Arizona
          Defendants.           ) Rules of Evidence;
________________________________) ARS 21-301 (Notes of Decisions)


COMES NOW  Paul Andrew  Mitchell, Sui Juris,  Citizen  of Arizona

state, federal  witness, expressly  not a  citizen of  the United

States ("federal  citizen") and  Plaintiff in  the above entitled

matter (hereinafter "Plaintiff"), to provide formal Notice to all

interested parties,  and to  demand mandatory  judicial notice by

this honorable  Court, pursuant  to Rule  201(d) of  the  Arizona

Rules of  Evidence, of this, Plaintiff's FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF

IN SUPPORT OF CHALLENGE TO JUROR QUALIFICATION STATUTES.

     On July 9, 1997, Mr. Walter U. Weber alleged to "deny" [sic]

Plaintiff's  previously filed  DEMAND TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING

FINAL REVIEW  OF FORMAL  CHALLENGE TO  JUROR AND VOTER REGISTRANT

QUALIFICATIONS (hereinafter "Mr. Weber's denial").

     In addition to all of the many other reasons why Mr. Weber's

alleged denial  lacks any authority whatsoever, which reasons are

already amply  documented in  the official  file of  the  instant

case,  Plaintiff   now  documents  pertinent  court  cases  which

entirely support  Plaintiff's position  with respect to the juror

qualification statutes.


  Supplemental Brief Supporting Juror Qualification Challenge:
                           Page 1 of 8


     There is  no support whatsoever, in the pertinent historical

cases,  for   the  proposition   that  challenges  to  the  juror

qualification statutes  can only be made by litigants in criminal

cases.   On the  contrary, any  Person may  challenge the  under-

representation of  any cognizable  class in a grand or petit jury

that passes  on his or her case.  State v. Acosta, 125 Ariz. 146,

608 P.2d 83 (App. 1980);  Valencia v. Roylston, 15 Ariz.App. 268,

488 P.2d 473 (1971);  Lawrence v. State, 29 Ariz. 247, 240 P. 863

(1925), reh  den 29 Ariz. 318, 241 P. 511, cert den 46 S.Ct. 201,

269 U.S. 585, 70 L.Ed. 425.

     Moreover, it  is the  duty of  a trial  judge to see that an

unbiased, unprejudiced,  and impartial  jury is selected in every

case, without  regard to  whether the  case is civil or criminal.

Priestly v.  State, 19  Ariz. 371,  171 P. 137 (1918);  Conner v.

State, 54  Ariz. 68,  92 P.2d 524 (1939).  Mr. Weber's denial was

arbitrary, capricious, and ultra vires.

     There is  a statutory  right to  jury  trial  in  all  civil

actions, no  matter how  petty.   Tsipai v. State, 8 Ariz.App. 3,

442 P.2d  167.   Such a  statutory right [sic] imposes a specific

duty upon  all state judicial officers who may preside over civil

actions.  Mr. Weber is presently not a state judicial officer.

     To prove  a  prima facie  case  that  there  is  a  lack  of

impartial jury  selection, a  litigant must  prove three  things:

(1) that  the group allegedly excluded is a distinct class [sic],

(2) what  percentage of  the community  is made  up of  the group

alleged to  be  underrepresented,  and  (3)  that  the  group  is

"systematically excluded"  during the  selection  process.    See

State v. Bernal, 137 Ariz. 421, 671 P.2d 399 (1983).


  Supplemental Brief Supporting Juror Qualification Challenge:
                           Page 2 of 8


     Plaintiff has  already provided  more than  ample proof that

Citizens of  Arizona state,  who are not also federal citizens by

Right of  Election, constitute a distinct class [sic].  There are

two classes  of citizenship  under American  Law never  repealed.

See, e.g.,  Gardina v.  Board of  Registrars, 160 Ala. 155, 48 S.

788, 791  (1909).   See also  State v.  Little, 87 Ariz. 295, 350

P.2d 756 (1960).

     Without further  research, Plaintiff has no precise or exact

statistics on the percentage of the community which is made up of

this class  of People.  It is clear from the statutes in question

that none  of the  members of this class is presently eligible to

vote, or to serve on state grand or petit juries.

     Considering the high probability that the voter registration

affidavit is  fraudulent on  its face, specifically for requiring

declarations, under  penalty of  perjury, that all registrants be

federal citizens  as a condition precedent to voting, Plaintiff's

best available  estimate for the size of the disaffected class is

approximately 50%  of Arizona's present human population.  Census

data can and should be consulted, for better estimation.

     This estimate  corresponds exactly  to Plaintiff's  argument

that all  People of Arizona state who were born in any ONE OF the

several states  of the  Union, and who now inhabit Arizona state,

do fall  within the disaffected class.  Said People never elected

to become  federal citizens  by means of any knowing, intelligent

acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances

and  likely  consequences.    Said  acts  were  neither  knowing,

intentional, nor  voluntary.   See Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742 at

748 (1970).  Voting is a fundamental Right.


  Supplemental Brief Supporting Juror Qualification Challenge:
                           Page 3 of 8


     Plaintiff  argues   that  the  disaffected  class  is  being

excluded systematically during the selection process, because the

voter and  juror qualification statutes specifically fail to make

any mention  of Citizens of Arizona state, Citizens of the United

States of America, or Citizens of one of the United States [sic].

     Use of voter registration lists as the sole source of jurors

is not  constitutionally infirmed, absent a showing of systematic

exclusion [sic]  in compiling such lists.  See State v. Gretzler,

126 Ariz. 60, 612 P.2d 1023 (1980), appeal after remand 128 Ariz.

583, 627  P.2d 1081,  and appeal  after remand  135 Ariz. 42, 659

P.2d 1,  cert den  103 S.Ct. 2444, 461 U.S. 971, 77 L.Ed.2d 1327,

reh den 104 S.Ct. 32, 463 U.S. 1236, 77 L.Ed.2d 1452.

     Plaintiff herein  shows, with  ample justification, that the

exclusion of  Arizona state  Citizens is  systematic [sic].   See

State v.  Mojarro Padilla,  107 Ariz.  134, 483  P.2d 549 (1971),

cert den  92 S.Ct.  718, 404 U.S. 1049, 30 L.Ed.2d 740;  see also

State v. Little supra.

     The  U.S. Constitution forbids  the State's  deliberate  and

systematic exclusion  of identifiable  and distinct  groups  from

jury lists,  because litigants  are entitled to a trial jury that

is drawn  from a  fair and  representative cross  section of  the

community.   State v.  Lee, 114  Ariz. 101,  559 P.2d 657 (1976).

The  U.S. Constitution is  the supreme  Law of the Land in all of

Arizona state.   A  jury need only be selected by a process which

does not systematically exclude members of any one class.


  Supplemental Brief Supporting Juror Qualification Challenge:
                           Page 4 of 8


     Denying a  challenge to the jury panel on the ground that it

was not  selected according to Law, is not fatal unless prejudice

can be  shown.   In order to establish prejudice or denial of due

process, it is necessary for a litigant to show a systematic jury

discrimination which  excludes from  the jury a defendant's peers

and equals  in the  community.   See State  v. Mahoney, 106 Ariz.

297, 475 P.2d 479 (1970), cert den 91 S.Ct. 898, 401 U.S. 917, 27

L.Ed.2d 818.  Plaintiff herein asserts a fundamental Right, under

the Seventh  Amendment, to  a trial  by jury drawn from a pool of

candidates who  also include  state  Citizens  not  also  federal

citizens by Right of Election.

     In summary,  Plaintiff has  now proven  that all  three  (3)

tests for challenging jury selection have been satisfied, to wit:

     One, Citizens of Arizona state are a distinct class and, for

this reason, they are a "cognizable group" [sic];

     Two, the  percentage of inhabitants systematically excluded,

by statute,  corresponds exactly to the percentage of inhabitants

who were born in one of the several states of the Union;

     Three, Citizens of Arizona state are systematically excluded

because the  juror qualification statutes require that all jurors

be federal citizens, not state Citizens, without exception.


                          VERIFICATION

I, Paul  Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, hereby verify, under penalty

of perjury,  under the  laws of  the United  States  of  America,

without the  "United States" (federal government), that the above

statements of  fact and  law are true and correct, to the best of

My current  information, knowledge,  and belief,  so help Me God,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).  See Supremacy Clause.


  Supplemental Brief Supporting Juror Qualification Challenge:
                           Page 5 of 8

Dated:  September 12, 1997


Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
______________________________________________
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris
Citizen of Arizona state and federal citizen
(expressly not a citizen of the United States)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


  Supplemental Brief Supporting Juror Qualification Challenge:
                           Page 6 of 8


                        PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, hereby certify, under penalty

of perjury,  under the  laws of  the United  States  of  America,

without the  "United States," that I am at least 18 years of age,

a Citizen  of one  of the  United States  of America,  and that I

personally served the following document(s):

                    FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
                   IN SUPPORT OF CHALLENGE TO
                  JUROR QUALIFICATION STATUTES:
                       Seventh Amendment;
             Rule 201(d), Arizona Rules of Evidence;
                 ARS 21-301 (Notes of Decisions)

by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first

class U.S. Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed to:


Neil and Evelyn Nordbrock               (fax line disconnected)
c/o 6642 E. Calle de San Alberto
Tucson, Arizona state

Lawrence E. Condit                      VIA FAX TRANSMISSION
c/o 376 South Stone Avenue              to: (520) 624-8414
Tucson, Arizona state

Dr. and Mrs. Eugene A. Burns            (fax line disconnected)
c/o 4500 E. Speedway, #27
Tucson, Arizona state

Mr. Richard Rineer
c/o 4841 E. Speedway Boulevard
Tucson, Arizona state

Mr. Tim Hay                             (fax line disconnected)
c/o 4500 E. Speedway Boulevard, #27
Tucson, Arizona state

Mr. and Mrs. Patrick Shew
c/o 2624 W. Flamebrook
Tucson, Arizona state

Todd V. Jones                           VIA FAX TRANSMISSION
c/o 1500 Northwest Tower                to: (520) 884-1294
One South Church Avenue
Tucson, Arizona state

Mr. and Mrs. Herbert Crawford
c/o 4741 W. Camino Tierra
Tucson, Arizona state


  Supplemental Brief Supporting Juror Qualification Challenge:
                           Page 7 of 8


Mr. David Wallen
c/o 2536 Vereda de la Manana
Tucson, Arizona state

Ms. Sheila T. Wallen
c/o 2536 Vereda de la Manana
Tucson, Arizona state

Mr. Walter U. Weber
c/o 115 N. Church Avenue
Tucson, Arizona state

Chief of Police
Tucson Police Department
c/o 270 S. Stone Avenue
Tucson, Arizona state

Pima County Attorney            Arizona Attorney General
c/o 32 North Stone Avenue       c/o 400 West Congress South, #315
Tucson, Arizona state           Tucson, Arizona state


Courtesy copies to:

William H. Rehnquist, C.J.      Sandra Day O'Connor, J.
Supreme Court of the U.S.       Supreme Court of the U.S.
One First Street, N.E.          One First Street, N.E.
Washington [zip code exempt]    Washington [zip code exempt]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA            DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Bernardo P. Velasco             William H. Tinney
Superior Court of Arizona       Superior Court of Arizona
c/o 110 West Congress           c/o 110 West Congress
Tucson, Arizona state           Tucson, Arizona state

Judge Alex Kozinski (supervising)
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
c/o P.O. Box 91510
Pasadena [zip code exempt]
CALIFORNIA STATE


Executed on September 12, 1997:


/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
______________________________________________
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris
Citizen of Arizona state and federal witness
(expressly not a citizen of the United States)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


  Supplemental Brief Supporting Juror Qualification Challenge:
                           Page 8 of 8


                             #  #  #
      


Return to Table of Contents for

Mitchell v. Nordbrock