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