Time: Thu Aug 28 06:52:04 1997 Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 06:49:13 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in toolbar] 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 toolbar] : 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