Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris
Citizen of Arizona state
c/o General Delivery at:
2509 North Campbell Avenue
Tucson, Arizona state
In Propria Persona
Under Protest and Without Prejudice
By Special Visitation Only
PIMA COUNTY CONSOLIDATED JUSTICE COURT
Paul Andrew Mitchell, ) Case Number #CV-97-3438
Plaintiff, )
) SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
v. ) IN SUPPORT OF CHALLENGE TO
) JUROR QUALIFICATION STATUTES:
Neil and Evelyn Nordbrock, )
et al., ) ARS 21-201; ARS 16-101;
Defendants. ) Guarantee Clause;
) Seventh Amendment
)
)
)
___________________________)
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 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
CHALLENGE TO JUROR QUALIFICATION STATUTES. Plaintiff hereby
provides this honorable Court with additional reasons why
Plaintiff's challenge is correct to conclude that the juror and
voter registrant qualifications in Arizona state are demonstrably
unconstitutional, in all civil cases and in all criminal cases.
Second Supplement to Juror and Voter Qualifications Challenge:
Page 1 of 5
Plaintiff has previously explained, in verbal arguments
already made on the record, that all grand and petit juries in
Arizona state would be necessarily unlawful, if the law(s) which
convened such juries deliberately and expressly excluded all
People of the male gender, so as to require that juries consist
only of females.
For precisely the same reason, all grand and petit juries in
Arizona state would likewise be unlawful, if said law(s)
deliberately and expressly excluded all People of the female
gender, so as to require that juries consist only of males.
The People of any given gender constitute a distinct class,
and to discriminate against any one of these two classes, in
obvious and total preference to the other, is unconstitutional
and results in convening a "jury" which is not a legal body.
Plaintiff has previously explained, in verbal arguments
already made on the record, that all grand and petit juries in
Arizona state would be necessarily unlawful, if the law(s) which
convened such juries deliberately and expressly excluded all
People of the white race, so as to require that juries consist
only of non-white races.
For precisely the same reason, all grand and petit juries in
Arizona state would likewise be unlawful, if said law(s)
deliberately and expressly excluded all People of the black race,
so as to require that juries consist only of non-black races.
The People of any given race constitute a distinct class,
and to discriminate against any one of these two classes, in
obvious and total preference to the other, is unconstitutional
and results in convening a "jury" which is not a legal body.
Second Supplement to Juror and Voter Qualifications Challenge:
Page 2 of 5
Plaintiff has previously explained, in verbal arguments
already made on the record, that all grand and petit juries in
Arizona state would be necessarily unlawful, if the law(s) which
convened such juries deliberately and expressly excluded all
People who identify with the Democratic Party, so as to require
that juries consist only of those People who identify with the
Republican Party.
For precisely the same reason, all grand and petit juries in
Arizona state would likewise be unlawful, if said law(s)
deliberately and expressly excluded all People who identify with
the Republican Party, so as to require that juries consist only
of those People who identify with the Democratic Party.
The People who identify with any given political party
constitute a distinct political class, and to discriminate
against any one of these two classes, in obvious and total
preference to the other, is unconstitutional and results in
convening a "jury" which is not a legal body.
Finally, Plaintiff has previously explained, in verbal and
written arguments already made on the record, that all grand and
petit juries in Arizona state would be necessarily unlawful, if
the state law(s) which convened such juries deliberately and
expressly excluded all People who are Citizens of one of the
Union states by Right of Birth (read "state Citizens"), and who
are not also citizens of the United States ("federal citizens")
by Right of Election, so as to require that juries consist only
of federal citizens. Confer at "Federal citizenship" in Black's
Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition. Confer also at "jus soli" in
Black's supra. See ARS 16-101, 21-201, the offending state laws.
Second Supplement to Juror and Voter Qualifications Challenge:
Page 3 of 5
The People who identify with only one class of citizenship,
to the deliberate exclusion of the other class of citizenship,
constitute a distinct and identifiable group, and to discriminate
against this one group by intentionally and systematically
excluding them from jury service, in obvious and total preference
to federal citizens only, is unconstitutional and results in
convening a "jury" which is not a legal body.
The Qualifications Clauses in the U.S. Constitution have
never been lawfully amended; they refer specifically to Citizens
of one of the several states which are united by, and under, that
Constitution. There was no such thing as federal citizenship
prior to the 1866 Civil Rights Act. See 1:2:2, 1:3:3, 2:1:5.
VERIFICATION
I, 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 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). See Supremacy Clause.
Dated: November 10, 1997
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
_____________________________________
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris
Citizen of Arizona state
(expressly not a citizen of the United States)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Second Supplement to Juror and Voter Qualifications Challenge:
Page 4 of 5
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):
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF CHALLENGE TO
JUROR QUALIFICATION STATUTES:
ARS 21-201; ARS 16-101; Guarantee Clause;
Seventh Amendment
by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first
class United States Mail, with postage prepaid and properly
addressed to the following:
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 Andrew Mitchell
_____________________________________
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris
Citizen of Arizona state
(expressly not a citizen of the United States)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Second Supplement to Juror and Voter Qualifications Challenge:
Page 5 of 5
# # #
Return to Table of Contents for
Mitchell v. Nordbrock