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