Time: Mon Nov 10 08:24:50 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA16454;
	Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:17:13 -0700 (MST)
	by smtp03.primenet.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA23251;
	Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:15:42 -0700 (MST)
 via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpd023186; Mon Nov 10 08:15:32 1997
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:15:33 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in toolbar] (by way of Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar])
Subject: SLF: NOTICE OF BONA FIDE CONTROVERSY AT LAW, BY AFFIDAVIT

[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 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             )
                                )  NOTICE OF BONA FIDE
     v.                         )  CONTROVERSY AT LAW,
                                )  BY AFFIDAVIT
Neil and Evelyn Nordbrock,      )
et al.,                         )  28 U.S.C. 1746(1);
          Defendants            )  Full Faith and Credit Clause
________________________________)


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

state, expressly  not a  citizen of  the United  States ("federal

citizen"), federal  witness, Counselor  at Law,  private attorney

general, 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  NOTICE OF  BONA FIDE  CONTROVERSY AT  LAW,  BY

AFFIDAVIT.

                     SUMMARY OF CONTROVERSY

     Mr. Walter  U. Weber  has entirely  failed  to  exhibit  any

certified documentary  evidence, or  other verifiable proof, that

he has indeed executed the Oath of Office required by Article VI,

Clause 3,  in the  Constitution for the United States of America,

as lawfully amended (hereinafter "U.S. Constitution"), and by the

federal statute at 4 U.S.C. 101.  See Supremacy Clause.


      Notice of Bona Fide Controversy at Law, by Affidavit:
                           Page 1 of 8


     Moreover, in open Court, Mr. Weber has asserted that he has,

in  fact,  executed  said  Oath  of  Office.    However,  further

discussion on  this particular  point has revealed that Mr. Weber

holds staunchly  to his  belief that the so-called 14th amendment

[sic] was  properly approved  and adopted  in 1868,  and that  it

remains the supreme Law of the Land in Arizona state to this day.


                            AFFIDAVIT

     Plaintiff hereby testifies as follows, to wit:

     Article IV,  Section 1,  in the  U.S. Constitution, reads as

follows, to wit:

     Full Faith  and Credit  shall be  given in each State to the
     public Acts,  Records, and  judicial  Proceedings  of  every
     other State.  And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe
     the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall
     be proved, and the Effect thereof.

     Said provision  is commonly  known as  the  Full  Faith  and

Credit Clause.

     Article V  in the  U.S. Constitution  reads as  follows,  in

pertinent part:

     ... Amendments  ...  shall  be  valid  to  all  Intents  and
     Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the
     Legislatures of  three fourths  of the several States, or by
     Conventions in  three fourths  thereof, as  the one  or  the
     other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by Congress ....

     Article V  is properly  constructed and lawfully interpreted

to mean  that ratified amendments are rendered the supreme Law of

the Land  in each  and every  one of  the several  states of  the

Union, if  and when a proposed amendment should be ratified by at

least three-fourths of the Union states.

     Likewise, Article  V is  properly constructed  and  lawfully

interpreted to  mean that  proposed amendments fail to become the

supreme Law  of the  Land in  each and  every one  of the several

states of the Union, if and when a proposed amendment should fail

to be ratified by at least three-fourths of the Union states.


      Notice of Bona Fide Controversy at Law, by Affidavit:
                           Page 2 of 8


     The legislatures  of a  sufficient number  of  Union  states

voted against ratification of the so-called 14th amendment, circa

1868 Anno  Domini, to  make it  numerically impossible  for  said

proposal to  demonstrate ratification  by  the  requisite  three-

fourths of said Union states.

     The case  of Dyett  v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968), was

decided by  the Utah  Supreme Court in the year 1968 Anno Domini.

Said decision  recited verifiable and unrebutted historical facts

proving that  the legislatures  of a  sufficient number  of Union

states  voted   against  ratification   of  the   so-called  14th

amendment,  circa  1868  Anno  Domini,  to  make  it  numerically

impossible for  said proposal  to demonstrate ratification by the

requisite three-fourths of said Union states.

     The Congress  of the United States reacted to their defeated

proposal  by   enacting  legislation  [sic]  which  required  the

President to  dispatch federal  troops back  into 10  of  the  11

southern states  which had  attempted to  secede during the Civil

War which ended in the year 1865 Anno Domini.

     President Andrew  Johnson vetoed  these measures,  which are

now commonly known as the Reconstruction Acts.

     Congress responded  by overriding President Andrew Johnson's

vetoes, whereupon  the President  did order  federal troops  back

into 10  of the  11 southern states which had attempted to secede

during  the  Civil  War.    The  one  southern  state  which  had

previously ratified  the so-called 14th amendment, Tennessee, was

the only one to be spared this re-introduction of federal troops!


      Notice of Bona Fide Controversy at Law, by Affidavit:
                           Page 3 of 8


     The Reconstruction  Acts  also  required  the  President  to

maintain federal  troops in said states, until such time as their

legislatures ratified the so-called 14th amendment.

     The  re-introduction   of  federal  troops  back  into  said

southern states,  under color of an unconstitutional martial law,

placed the  legislatures and the inhabitants of said states under

threat, duress  and coercion,  under which  said states  reversed

their votes on ratifying the 14th amendment [sic] from NO to YES.

     The legislatures  of several  of the  northern  states  took

great exception  to this  re-introduction of  federal troops back

into said southern states, and responded by reversing their votes

on ratifying the 14th amendment [sic] from YES to NO.

     The  United   States  Secretary   of  State  had  previously

certified that  a total  of 28  Union states would be required to

demonstrate ratification by the requisite number of Union states.

     In order  to demonstrate  that  only  27  Union  states  had

ostensibly  "ratified"  the  so-called  14th  amendment,  it  was

necessary to  count as  YES all  those  Union  states  which  had

initially voted  YES and  later reversed  their votes  to NO, and

also to  count as  YES all those Union states which had initially

voted NO  and later reversed their votes to YES under the threat,

duress, and coercion of a military occupation after the Civil War

had officially terminated.

     Notwithstanding  this  highly  questionable  and  completely

arbitrary method  of counting  the legislatures'  votes  for  and

against the  so-called 14th  amendment [sic],  the  total  number

Union states  which had  voted YES using said method was only 27,

not 28, which was the minimum number required to ratify same.


      Notice of Bona Fide Controversy at Law, by Affidavit:
                           Page 4 of 8


     Therefore, the  so-called 14th  amendment [sic]  was  merely

"declared" ratified  by the  United States  Secretary of State in

the year  1868 Anno  Domini, but  without  the  requisite  three-

fourths of the Union states having lawfully ratified same.

     The essential  historical details recited above are likewise

recited in  great detail in the case of Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d

266, 270 (1968), and summarized, with the same result, some seven

years later  in the  case of State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d 936, 941

(1975), to wit:

     I cannot  believe that  any court, in full possession of its
     faculties,  could  honestly  hold  that  the  amendment  was
     properly approved and adopted.  State v. Phillips supra.

     Plaintiff believes the Full Faith and Credit Clause controls

entirely in this situation, for all of the following reasons:

     The U.S.  Constitution does  not authorize the United States

Secretary of  State to  declare as ratified a proposed amendment,

when the  requisite three-fourths  of the  several states  of the

Union have  failed to  vote in  favor of  same.  To do so assumes

facts not  in evidence, in direct violation of the Full Faith and

Credit Clause.  See also the Federal Rules of Evidence.

     Conversely, the  U.S. Constitution  does not  authorize  the

United States  Secretary of  State to  declare  that  a  proposed

amendment has  failed to  be ratified,  when the requisite three-

fourths of  the several states of the Union have in fact voted in

favor of  same.   To do  so commits a demonstrable fraud upon the

entire  nation  and  all  of  its  inhabitants,  also  in  direct

violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.


      Notice of Bona Fide Controversy at Law, by Affidavit:
                           Page 5 of 8


     Once a  proposed  amendment  is  lawfully  ratified  by  the

requisite three-fourths of the several states of the Union, it is

the vote  of the  state which  achieves a  count of three-fourths

which has the legal effect of putting the proposal "over the top"

and into  the supreme  Law of  the Land,  quite  apart  from  any

additional state(s)  which may  also ratify  same, and also quite

apart from any state(s) which may vote against ratifying same.

     Accordingly, Plaintiff  believes that  all properly approved

and adopted  amendments  to  the  U.S.  Constitution  become  the

supreme Law  of the  Land in  each and  every single Union state,

regardless of  the fact  that one or more of said states may have

voted against ratification of same.

     Plaintiff likewise  believes that  all  proposed  amendments

which fail  to achieve the requisite three-fourths of the states,

as a  direct consequence  of  insufficient  votes  such  proposed

amendments fail to become the supreme Law of the Land in each and

every single Union state, regardless of the fact that one or more

of said states may have voted in favor of ratifying same.

     In summary,  the case  of Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266, 270

(1968) is  controlling, because  it recites  pertinent historical

details from  each of the several states of the Union which voted

either for,  or against,  the proposed  14th amendment  [sic], or

which failed entirely to vote at all on that proposed amendment.


Executed on:  November 10, 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


      Notice of Bona Fide Controversy at Law, by Affidavit:
                           Page 6 of 8


                          VERIFICATION

I, Paul  Andrew Mitchell,  Sui Juris,  Citizen of  Arizona state,

federal witness,  and  Plaintiff  in  the  instant  case,  hereby

verify, under  penalty of  perjury, under  the laws of the United

States of America, without (outside) the "United States" (federal

government), that  the above  statement  of  facts  is  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).


Executed on:  November 10, 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


      Notice of Bona Fide Controversy at Law, by Affidavit:
                           Page 7 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):

             NOTICE OF BONA FIDE CONTROVERSY AT LAW,
                          BY AFFIDAVIT:
         28 U.S.C. 1746(1), Full Faith and Credit Clause

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

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

Hon. Robert J. Gibson
c/o 115 N. Church Avenue
Tucson, Arizona state


Executed on November 10, 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


      Notice of Bona Fide Controversy at Law, by Affidavit:
                           Page 8 of 8


                             #  #  #

===========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris      : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA;   M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email:   [address in toolbar]        : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com       : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best 06
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone 07
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 10, non-proportional spacing.] 13



      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail