Time: Thu Aug 28 07:35:36 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA05894;
Thu, 28 Aug 1997 07:34:48 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 10:34:39 -0400
Originator: heritage-l@gate.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
To: pmitch@primenet.com
Subject: SLF: OFFER TO PROVE RACKETEERING infra
<snip>
>
>Subject: SLF: OFFER TO PROVE RACKETEERING infra
>
>[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
>
>
>Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris
>Citizen of Arizona state
>c/o general delivery at:
>2509 North Campbell Ave., #1776
>Tucson [zip code exempt]
>ARIZONA STATE
>
>In Propria Persona
>
>All Rights Reserved
>without prejudice
>
>
>
>
> IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
>
> IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIMA
>
>
>Swan Business Organization ) Case Number #315580
>et al., )
> ) APPLICANT'S OPPOSITION
> Plaintiffs, ) TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO
> ) STRIKE NOTICE OF INTENT
> v. ) TO APPLY FOR INTERVENTION:
> )
>Leon Ulan et al., ) Petition Clause,
> ) First Amendment
> Defendants. )
>________________________________)
>
>
>COMES NOW Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, Citizen of Arizona
>
>state, expressly not a citizen of the United States ("federal
>
>citizen"), federal witness (hereinafter "Applicant"), and Vice
>
>President for Legal Affairs of New Life Health Center Company, an
>
>unincorporated business trust domiciled in Arizona ("New Life"),
>
>to submit this, Applicant's formal OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S
>
>MOTION TO STRIKE NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPLY FOR INTERVENTION, and
>
>to provide formal Notice of same to all interested party(s).
>
> Applicant opposes the Plaintiffs' MOTION TO STRIKE NOTICE OF
>
>INTENT TO APPLY FOR INTERVENTION ("STRIKE MOTION"), for all of
>
>the following reasons, to wit:
>
>
> Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion: Page 1 of 20
>
>
> STRIKE MOTION IS OUT OF ORDER
>
> In order to prepare Applicant's NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPLY
>
>FOR INTERVENTION, Applicant visited the Clerk of the Superior
>
>Court of the State of Arizona, in and for the County of Pima, and
>
>was graciously permitted to inspect the official docket file of
>
>the instant case #315580. On that day, Applicant witnessed, and
>
>herein testifies to the fact that, the most recent entry was the
>
>Court's ORDER placing the instant case on inactive status (or
>
>language to that effect). Applicant begs the indulgence of the
>
>Superior Court, if Applicant's memory is not entirely exact with
>
>respect to said language. Let substance prevail over form.
>
> Plaintiffs' STRIKE MOTION is, therefore, out of order,
>
>because the instant case is presently inactive, and would need to
>
>revert to active status, but only by ORDER of the Superior Court.
>
>No such relief has been requested in the STRIKE MOTION.
>
>
> STRIKE MOTION PETITIONS THE WRONG COURT
>
> The instant case #315580 was first filed and now proceeds in
>
>the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, in and for the County
>
>of Pima. The STRIKE MOTION, on the other hand, petitions the
>
>Superior Court of Arizona, Pima County. These respective courts
>
>are not one and the same. See 31 CFR 51.2 and 52.2; Form II(b),
>
>WARRANT FOR ARREST (SUPERIOR COURT) SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA,
>
>________ County [sic], and Form XXIII, NOTICE OF RIGHTS OF REVIEW
>
>AFTER CONVICTION IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN
>
>AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ________ [sic], in Arizona Rules of Court,
>
>State and Federal, West Publishing Company (1994).
>
> The Superior Court of the State of Arizona is a de facto
>
>forum convened pursuant to federal municipal law, proceeding
>
>under the presumption that Arizona is a federal territory, not a
>
>Union state. This presumption is enforceable upon the population
>
>of citizens of the United States ("federal citizens") who reside
>
>within the geographic boundaries of Arizona state, because they
>
>are subject to federal municipal law.
>
>
> Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion: Page 2 of 20
>
>
> The Superior Court of Arizona is a de jure forum convened
>
>pursuant to Arizona organic law, proceeding under the Tenth
>
>Amendment and under other notable provisions of the supreme Law,
>
>which admitted Arizona into the Union of several states which are
>
>united by and under the Constitution for the United States of
>
>America, as lawfully amended ("U.S. Constitution").
>
> To the extent that the STRIKE MOTION requests relief of the
>
>wrong forum, it is once again out of order and, moreover, fails
>
>to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly,
>
>the STRIKE MOTION should be denied, or tabled for future
>
>consideration and possibly also future amendment by Plaintiffs,
>
>to correct these and other serious errors.
>
>
> STRIKE MOTION EXHIBITS A FRAUD
>
> Applicant directs the attention of this Court to the
>
>following published legal definition of the term "fraud", as said
>
>term applies in the instant matter, to wit:
>
> Fraud. ... A false representation of a matter of fact ...
> by concealment of that which should have been disclosed,
> which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he
> shall act upon it to his legal injury. [emphasis added]
>
>Applicant argues that Plaintiffs had an obligation to disclose to
>
>this Court the related litigation which is underway in two cases:
>
>Mitchell v. Nordbrock, Pima County Consolidated Justice Court
>
>("Justice Court") case number #CV-97-3438, and People ex rel.
>
>Mitchell v. Pima County Consolidated Justice Court, Superior
>
>Court of Arizona, Pima County, case number #320831.
>
>
> Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion: Page 3 of 20
>
>
> The latter case has arisen out of the barratry and
>
>unprofessional conduct which Applicant alleges that Plaintiffs
>
>and Plaintiffs' "attorney" have committed in the former case.
>
>Specifically, in Mitchell v. Nordbrock, the named defendants, who
>
>are Plaintiffs in the instant case, filed a counterclaim which
>
>stated a claim above the Justice Court's jurisdictional limit.
>
>Applicant, who is the plaintiff in the latter case, followed
>
>immediately with a DEMAND to transfer that case to the Superior
>
>Court, pursuant to ARS 22-201(F). Contrary to the imperative
>
>duty imposed upon the Justice of the Peace in the Justice Court,
>
>said DEMAND was "denied" [sic] by Mr. Walter U. Weber. Applicant
>
>now claims that said "denial" was ultra vires.
>
> In order to prove Applicant's claim that Mr. Weber's
>
>"denial" was done ultra vires, Applicant has sought a Peremptory
>
>Writ of Mandamus from the Superior Court of Arizona, to compel
>
>the Justice Court to perform its duty under ARS 22-201(F).
>
>Applicant's PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS ("MANDAMUS
>
>PETITION") is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by
>
>reference, as if set forth fully herein.
>
> Despite the filing of said MANDAMUS PETITION and service
>
>upon them, Plaintiffs and their "attorney" countered with a
>
>motion to amend their counterclaim, so as to reduce it to an
>
>amount below the Justice Court's jurisdictional limit of $5,000.
>
>Said motion to amend their counterclaim was then "granted" by Mr.
>
>Walter U. Weber. Applicant argues that Plaintiffs' "attorney"
>
>knew, or should have known, the upper jurisdictional limit of the
>
>Justice Court. In point of fact, the Plaintiffs' "attorney"
>
>attempted to bluff Applicant early on, by threatening to file a
>
>counterclaim which would transfer that case to the Superior Court
>
>anyway. Said bluff was left on Applicant's answering machine.
>
>
> Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion: Page 4 of 20
>
>
> Applicant now alleges that such unlawful conduct constitutes
>
>barratry. Confer at "Barratry" in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth
>
>Edition, and cases cited there. Barratry is a crime.
>
> The STRIKE MOTION fails even to mention said MANDAMUS
>
>PETITION. Applicant argues that the MANDAMUS PETITION should
>
>have been mentioned by Plaintiffs, but was not. Accordingly,
>
>their failure to disclose what should have been disclosed has
>
>worked a fraud upon this honorable Court by Plaintiffs and their
>
>"attorney", and has resulted in inflicting yet more fraud and
>
>barratry upon Applicant, for all the reasons state above.
>
> Nevertheless, Plaintiffs appear to defeat their own argument
>
>by stating, at line 7 on page 2, that "the superior court may
>
>properly take judicial notice of its own records and records in
>
>another action tried in the same court." Citing State v. Camino,
>
>118 Ariz. 89, 574 P.2d 1308 (1977) and State v. Astorga, 26
>
>Ariz.App. 252, 526 P.2d 776 (1974) [sic]. Plaintiffs then argue
>
>that the court "may not take judicial notice of a particular
>
>legal proceeding pending or transacted in another court." Citing
>
>In re Henry's Estate, 6 Ariz.App. 183, 430 P.2d 937 (1967).
>
> Applicant argues that Plaintiffs had a duty to disclose to
>
>this Court the records of another action tried in the same court,
>
>because Plaintiffs do believe that the Superior Court of the
>
>State of Arizona, and the Superior Court of Arizona state, are
>
>one and the same. Applicant argues here that the Full Faith and
>
>Credit Clause controls in this matter. See the Supremacy Clause
>
>for authority. Nevertheless, this relatively complex issue
>
>should not be litigated until after Applicant formally applies
>
>for intervention, and Applicant is under no obligation to do so.
>
>
> Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion: Page 5 of 20
>
>
> STRIKE MOTION CHILLS THE PETITION CLAUSE
>
> To the extent that the STRIKE MOTION seeks to argue to
>
>conclusions which are based upon Rule 24, Arizona Rules of Civil
>
>Procedure, the STRIKE MOTION is entirely moot because Applicant
>
>has not yet formally applied for intervention, and may not ever
>
>apply for intervention, depending on future events which have not
>
>yet transpired, and may never happen.
>
> Moreover, to the extent that the STRIKE MOTION seeks to
>
>impair Applicant's fundamental Right to Petition Government for
>
>Redress of Grievances, pursuant to the First Amendment in the
>
>U.S. Constitution, any ORDER from this Court purporting to impair
>
>that Right is necessarily ultra vires ab initio, for chilling and
>
>prior restraint upon Applicant's Right to Petition the courts of
>
>this land, for intervention and/or any other relief which
>
>Applicant seeks to obtain from the courts. For the benefit of
>
>this honorable Court, Applicant attaches, as Exhibit "B", a
>
>pleading filed by Applicant in the Justice Court, detailing the
>
>pertinent cases which have adjudicated the Petition Clause.
>
> Applicant believes that this Court, upon reviewing the
>
>authorities cited in Exhibit "B", will observe its duty to uphold
>
>the Petition Clause in the First Amendment, either by denying the
>
>STRIKE MOTION or, in the alternative, tabling the STRIKE MOTION
>
>until such time as Applicant formally applies for Intervention in
>
>the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, and not in the
>
>Superior Court of Arizona.
>
>
> Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion: Page 6 of 20
>
>
> PLAINTIFFS ASSUME FUTURE KNOWLEDGE
>
> The law does not recognize impossibilities. Lex non cogit
>
>impossibilia. Plaintiffs have attempted to argue to a straw man
>
>by predicting that Applicant "will engage in a calculated
>
>campaign of pleadings harassment against the Nordbrocks."
>
>Plaintiffs should not be permitted to persuade this Court on the
>
>basis of any special knowledge they might claim about the future.
>
> Furthermore, Plaintiffs allege that none of Applicant's
>
>pleadings filed in Mitchell v. Nordbrock "are remotely related to
>
>the underlying issues" [in the instant case]. Plaintiffs also
>
>allege that Applicant has made "numerous unfounded challenges to
>
>justice court jurisdiction and to the justice of the peace
>
>assigned to [that] case." In opposition to these false and
>
>rebuttable claims, Plaintiff testifies as follows:
>
> 1. Plaintiffs have embezzled approximately $3,000 from
>
>Applicant. This sum was all the money which Applicant possessed
>
>in the world, at that point in time. They did so in retaliation
>
>against Applicant, because Applicant had exposed Plaintiffs'
>
>complicity in perpetrating fraud and mail fraud upon New Life --
>
>by creating and maintaining a fictitious trustee. Applicant was,
>
>and still is, the Vice President for Legal Affairs of New Life.
>
> 2. Plaintiffs have refused to return Applicant's private,
>
>confidential database which was stored on a one (1) gigabyte
>
>(billion character) Iomega JAZ disk cartridge and entrusted to
>
>Plaintiffs for safe keeping. Plaintiffs also knew well that
>
>Applicant's life had been threatened by one of Plaintiffs'
>
>business associates in the fall of 1996, and Applicant concluded
>
>from that frightening experience that it was unwise to keep any
>
>money in Applicant's dwelling unit. Plaintiffs agreed to manage
>
>
> Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion: Page 7 of 20
>
>
>Applicant's $3,000 and to keep said disk cartridge in a safe
>
>place -- a locked gun safe -- until receipt of further
>
>instructions from Applicant. Although Applicant has demanded the
>
>return of this private, confidential database, which took more
>
>than seven (7) years of research to assemble, but Plaintiffs have
>
>now refused to return it. Accordingly, they are in possession of
>
>stolen property and are liable for damages to Applicant --
>
>actual, consequential, and punitive. Therefore, Plaintiffs'
>
>estate is now clouded, it is in real jeopardy, and it may need to
>
>be foreclosed to discharge Plaintiffs' legal liabilities to
>
>Applicant. Plaintiff expressly reserves these Rights.
>
> 3. Applicant has additional evidence which is essential to
>
>prove: (1) Swan Business Organization may, in fact, be nothing
>
>more than a nominee, or alter ego, for the private estate of
>
>Plaintiffs, and (2) their respective tax and other liabilities,
>
>if any, can be offset by foreclosing upon the same estate.
>
>Applicant would, in that event, have probable cause formally to
>
>apply for intervention in the instant case, to adjudicate the
>
>respective priorities of all judgment creditors and claimants.
>
> More to the point, Applicant has performed labor for
>
>Plaintiffs, and Applicant argues that compensation for labor
>
>takes precedence over any alleged tax liability(s).
>
> 4. Plaintiff Neil T. Nordbrock has also recently insulted
>
>Applicant verbally in the lobby of the Coronado Station of the
>
>U.S. Postal Service; and prior to that unfortunate incident, Mr.
>
>Nordbrock intentionally startled Applicant by blaring Nordbrock's
>
>truck horn as Nordbrock approached Applicant from the rear, while
>
>Applicant was walking on a sidewalk near Applicant's dwelling.
>
>
> Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion: Page 8 of 20
>
>
>These events are commemorated in Applicant's NOTICE AND DEMAND TO
>
>CEASE AND DESIST, which is attached as Exhibit "C" and
>
>incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
>
> 5. Finally, in the event that Plaintiffs should be
>
>compelled to seek bankruptcy protection, the question of debt
>
>priorities would inevitably arise in that forum as well. Debtors
>
>cannot discharge fines and/or penalties that a federal, state, or
>
>local government has imposed to punish debtors for violating a
>
>law. Specifically, bankrupt debtors cannot discharge restitution
>
>payments that might be imposed in criminal cases. Restitution is
>
>specifically non-dischargeable because it is imposed against the
>
>defendant(s) as rehabilitation, rather than to compensate the
>
>victim. See Kelly v. Robinson, 107 S.Ct. 353 (1986).
>
> Applicant argues that Plaintiffs' retaliation against
>
>Applicant constitutes criminal conduct, quite apart from the
>
>question of whether, or not, Arizona state prosecutors presently
>
>can, or ever will, prosecute them criminally. See 18 U.S.C. 1512
>
>and 1513. Embezzlement of $3,000 is a class 3 felony in Arizona.
>
>See ARS 13-1802(A), in chief.
>
> Given that the plaintiff in Mitchell v. Nordbrock has also
>
>filed a formal challenge to the juror qualification statutes in
>
>Arizona, it may be a very long time before a competent and
>
>qualified state grand jury can be convened to hear evidence which
>
>Applicant has already sought to bring before such a jury.
>
>Applicant now refuses to testify to any "grand jury" which is not
>
>a legal body, and will oppose any subpoena(s) from state grand
>
>juries for the same reason, pending final review of Applicant's
>
>formal challenge to juror and voter registrant qualifications.
>
>
> Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion: Page 9 of 20
>
>
> PLAINTIFFS' ARGUMENT CALLS FOR CONCLUSIONS
>
> Plaintiffs have charged Applicant with filing a "frivolous,
>
>legally unreasonable, and factually unfounded pleading" [sic].
>
>Applicant submits that such adjectives call for findings of fact
>
>and conclusions of law, which can only result from proper
>
>adjudication, and declaratory relief from a competent and
>
>qualified trial jury, after due process has run its proper
>
>course. Applicant hereby reserves all Rights without prejudice,
>
>including Applicant's fundamental Right to trial by jury in all
>
>controversies exceeding twenty dollars. See the Fifth and
>
>Seventh Amendments, in chief. Fundamental Rights are never
>
>frivolous, unreasonable, or unfounded.
>
>
> OFFER TO PROVE RACKETEERING
>
> Applicant has also been an eyewitness, during the past 18
>
>months, to a property conversion racket now being perpetrated by
>
>means of bogus "commercial warrants" and "documentary drafts"
>
>[sic] urged upon naive followers by the likes of M. Elizabeth
>
>Broderick ("Broderick"), of Palmdale, California state, and LeRoy
>
>Michael Schweitzer ("Schweitzer"), of Billings, Montana state.
>
> Broderick was recently convicted in Los Angeles federal
>
>court of twenty-six (26) counts of fraud and bank fraud;
>
>Schweitzer is under indictment in Billings for similar charges.
>
>Applicant was retained by both Broderick and Schweitzer to
>
>provide services as a Counselor at Law in their respective cases
>
>but, after Applicant submitted separate invoices to each client
>
>in excess of $10,000, both Broderick and Schweitzer refused
>
>payment for same (approx. $20,000 total).
>
> Applicant can ill afford such economic retaliation.
>
>
> Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion: Page 10 of 20
>
>
> Plaintiffs have promoted the questionable legal theories of
>
>Broderick and Schweitzer, even going so far as to tender one of
>
>Schweitzer's commercial warrants to the Internal Revenue Service,
>
>to discharge Plaintiffs' outstanding federal tax liability.
>
>Evidence of this bogus warrant has been filed in Mitchell v.
>
>Nordbrock. Said warrant by Plaintiffs is a matter of material
>
>evidence, of which this Court should take formal judicial Notice.
>
> Applicant is now actively pursuing more evidence which
>
>traces these bogus commercial warrants to a property conversion
>
>racket being orchestrated out of the U.S. Department of Justice
>
>("DOJ") in downtown Los Angeles, California state. The "bounced"
>
>warrants are delivered there by the Federal Bureau of
>
>Investigation ("FBI"), after electronic dossiers are assembled
>
>which lead FBI and DOJ employees directly to large asset groups.
>
> These asset groups are then targeted for foreclosure and/or
>
>forfeiture, under federal banking and postal laws. Selective
>
>prosecution is then begun against certain individuals, in part to
>
>make examples out of them, to forfeit their real and personal
>
>properties, and to discourage Americans from utilizing commercial
>
>processes (e.g. true bills) to perfect claims against government
>
>employees for systematic and premeditated violations of federal
>
>and state law. This is entrapment, and it needs to stop.
>
> Plaintiffs have, evidently, been actively involved in the
>
>creation, utilization, and promotion of these bogus commercial
>
>warrants and documentary drafts [sic]. Applicant is aware that
>
>Mr. Neil T. Nordbrock, acting as New Life's only accountant,
>
>urged New Life management to tender one or more of such bogus
>
>paper instruments to discharge New Life's federal income tax
>
>
> Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion: Page 11 of 20
>
>
>liabilities. A business associate of M. Elizabeth Broderick --
>
>Adolf Hoch -- even confided to Applicant, in the Spring of 1996,
>
>that New Life had used several of Broderick's documentary drafts,
>
>"flushing New Life with much additional cash," as Mr. Hoch put it
>
>(or words to that effect). Hoch was convicted with Broderick.
>
> Last but not least, Applicant offers to prove that M.
>
>Elizabeth Broderick is actually a DOJ "front" woman, operating
>
>under deep cover for the benefit of principals within the U.S.
>
>Department of Justice in Los Angeles, and in other major cities.
>
>Those principals are actively exploiting the capabilities of the
>
>PROMIS software, which Applicant alleges was stolen from the
>
>Inslaw Corporation, then significantly enhanced to operate over
>
>the Internet, in order to assemble the electronic dossiers which
>
>are required to target asset groups slated for forfeiture and/or
>
>foreclosure. In summary, this appears to be a nationwide
>
>property conversion racket, operating in violation of the
>
>Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations Act at 18 U.S.C. 1961.
>
>Compare also 18 U.S.C. 1964(a) and 1964(c), in pari materia.
>
>
> REMEDY REQUESTED
>
> Wherefore, all premises having been duly considered by this
>
>honorable Court, Applicant respectfully requests that all Relief
>
>Requested in the STRIKE MOTION be denied.
>
> In the alternative, Applicant respectfully requests that the
>
>STRIKE MOTION be tabled, until such time as Applicant does
>
>formally apply for intervention of Right in the instant case, at
>
>which time the current STRIKE MOTION, or a substantially amended
>
>version, can and should be properly considered by this honorable
>
>Court, but only then, and not before then.
>
>
> Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion: Page 12 of 20
>
>
> 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
>
>attached documents are true and correct copies of the originals,
>
>with the sole exception of the original blue-ink signatures,
>
>which signatures are hereby affixed by proxy, 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.
>
>
>Dated: August 27, 1997
>
>
>Respectfully submitted,
>
>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>______________________________________________
>Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris
>Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness
>(expressly not a citizen of the United States)
>
>All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
>
>
> Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion: Page 13 of 20
>
>
> 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):
>
> APPLICANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION
> TO STRIKE NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPLY FOR INTERVENTION:
> Petition Clause, First Amendment
>
>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
>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
>
>Malcolm K. Ryder, Esq.
>c/o 3100 N. Campbell Ave., Ste. 101
>Tucson, Arizona state
>
>
>Executed on August 27, 1997:
>
>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>______________________________________________
>Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris
>Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness
>(expressly not a citizen of the United States)
>
>All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
>
>
> Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion: Page 14 of 20
>
>
> Exhibit "A":
>
> VERIFIED PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS
> People ex rel. Paul Andrew Mitchell
> v.
> Pima County Consolidated Justice Court
> Superior Court of Arizona
> Tucson, Arizona state
> case number #320831
>
>
> Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion: Page 15 of 20
>
>
> Exhibit "B":
>
> MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS
> (citing Petition Clause authorities)
>
> Mitchell v. Nordbrock
> Pima County Consolidated Justice Court
> Tucson, Arizona state
> case number #CV-97-3438
>
>
> Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion: Page 16 of 20
>
>
> Exhibit "C":
>
> NOTICE AND DEMAND TO CEASE AND DESIST
>
> from
>
> Paul Andrew Mitchell
>
> to
>
> Neil Thomas Nordbrock
>
>
> Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion: Page 17 of 20
>
>
> Exhibit "D":
>
> PLAINTIFF'S VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
>
> Mitchell v. Nordbrock
> Pima County Consolidated Justice Court
> Tucson, Arizona state
> case number #CV-97-3438
>
>
> Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion: Page 18 of 20
>
>
> Exhibit "E":
>
> MOVANT'S VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS
> OF THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE
>
> In Re New Life Health Center Company
> United States Bankruptcy Court
> Phoenix, Arizona state
> case number #93-06051-PHX-GBN
>
>
> Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion: Page 19 of 20
>
>
> Exhibit "F":
>
> AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT AND OF PROBABLE CAUSE
> IN RE LAWRENCE E. CONDIT
>
> Mitchell v. Nordbrock
> Pima County Consolidated Justice Court
> Tucson, Arizona state
> case number #CV-97-3438
>
>
> Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion: Page 20 of 20
>
>
> # # #
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail