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 MOTION AND MOTION
v. ) FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS:
) First Amendment,
Neil and Evelyn Nordbrock, ) Petition Clause;
Defendants ) Seventh Amendment,
________________________________) Jury Trial of Right
COMES NOW Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, Citizen of Arizona
state, expressly not a citizen of the United States ("federal
citizen") and Plaintiff in the above entitled matter (hereinafter
"Plaintiff"), respectfully to request a written Bill of
Particulars from this honorable Court, pursuant to the Petition
Clause in the First Amendment to the Constitution for the United
States of America, as lawfully amended, with respect to this
Court's ORDER dated April 24, 1997. See CIVIL MINUTE ENTRY
mailed to parties on April 25, 1997, and received under protest
by Plaintiff on April 30, 1997, a true and correct copy of which
is attached hereto and incorporated by reference, as if set forth
fully herein.
Plaintiff specifically objects to the following statement in
said ORDER dated April 24, 1997, to wit:
The plaintiff shall not file any further motion (including
attachments) in excess of 6 pages.
[emphasis added]
Notice of Motion and Motion for Bill of Particulars:
Page 1 of 6
The Right to Petition the Courts
Is a First Amendment Right
In stressing the importance of the Petition Clause, the
Supreme Court of the United States recognized its central role to
all civilization, saying in Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R.,
207 U.S. 142, 148 (1907):
The Right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative
of force. In an organized society, it is the right
conservative of all other rights and lies at the foundation
of orderly government.
[emphasis added]
As an "exceptional circumstance," the Right to petition in
courts is a fundamental Right guaranteed by the First Amendment.
See California Transport v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508, 510
(1972). In addition to the Bill of Rights, the United States
(federal government) and the several states of the Union are now
bound by treaty commitments to the world in order to expand the
effectiveness of judicial remedies for violations of fundamental
rights, notwithstanding that the violation is committed by
persons acting in an official capacity. See International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Universal Declaration
of Human Rights enacted with explicit Reservations by Congress.
The California Supreme Court, based on an exhaustive
analysis of pertinent U.S. Supreme Court holdings, found that:
The authorities make it clear that the right of petition
protects attempts to obtain redress through the institution
of judicial proceedings as well as through importuning
executive officials and the Legislature. It is equally
apparent that the right encompasses the act of filing a
lawsuit solely to obtain monetary compensation for
individualized wrongs, as well as filing suit to draw
attention to issues of broader public interest or political
significance. As the Supreme Court declared in Mine Workers
v. Illinois Bar Assn., supra, 318 U.S. 217, 223, "The First
Amendment does not protect speech and assembly only to the
extent it can be characterized as political." (See also
Thomas v. Collins, supra, 323 U.S. 516, 531.) Hence, the
act of filing suit against a governmental entity represents
an exercise of the right of petition and thus invokes
constitutional protection." City of Long Beach v. Bozek, 31
Cal.3d 527, at 533-534 (1982).
[emphasis added]
Notice of Motion and Motion for Bill of Particulars:
Page 2 of 6
That court went on to address the issue at page 535:
The right of petition is of parallel importance to the right
of free speech and the other overlapping, cognate rights
contained in the First Amendment and in equivalent
provisions of the California Constitution. Although it has
seldom been independently analyzed, it does contain an
inherent meaning and scope distinct from the right of free
speech. It is essential to protect the ability of those who
perceive themselves to be aggrieved by the activities of
governmental authorities to seek redress through all the
channels of government. ... City of Long Beach v. Bozek,
31 Cal.3d 527, at 535.
[emphasis added]
In U.S. v. Hylton, at 710 F.2d 1111, the Fifth Circuit held
that the fundamental Right guaranteed by the Petition Clause
enjoys a preferred place in our system of government, and also a
sanctity and sanction not permitting dubious intrusions:
As the U.S. Supreme Court has held, the right to petition
for redress of grievances is "among the most precious of the
liberties safeguarded in the bill of rights" [cites
omitted]. Inseparable from the guaranteed rights entrenched
in the First Amendment, the right to petition for redress of
grievances occupies a "preferred place" in our system of
representative government and enjoys a "sanctity and a
sanction not permitting dubious intrusions." Thomas v.
Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 65 S.Ct. 315, 322. Indeed, "It was
not by accident or coincidence that the rights to freedom in
speech and press were coupled in a single guarantee with the
rights of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition
for redress of grievances." Id. at 323.
[emphasis added]
It seems to reason that, if the filing of pleadings is
protected, then surely the object of the protected Right -- of
obtaining a due process guaranteed fair hearing of Plaintiff's
grievances and redress thereon -- is the very essence of the
Petition Clause.
Accordingly, Plaintiff argues that restricting Plaintiff's
future motions and attachments to six (6) pages or less
constitutes a clear deprivation of Plaintiff's fundamental Right
to petition government for redress of grievances, in violation of
the Petition Clause in the First Amendment.
Notice of Motion and Motion for Bill of Particulars:
Page 3 of 6
Moreover, by having explicitly reserved all Rights without
prejudice, Plaintiff has reserved His fundamental Right, pursuant
to the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, to remove this
case into a superior court, if and when the jurisdictional maxima
of this Court should be exceeded. Restricting the filing of
additional motions to six (6) pages or less, would have the
prejudicial effect of excluding evidence which a competent and
qualified jury would need to consider, in order to decide such
matters as motive, relevance, and materiality. These decisions
are the prerogative of a lawfully convened trial jury. See U.S.
v. Gaudin, 132 L.Ed.2d 444 (1995), in which the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled that a jury has always retained its fundamental power
to make decisions concerning the materiality and/or relevance of
evidence, pursuant to the Seventh and Tenth Amendments.
Finally, Plaintiff objects to the prejudice that results
from an ORDER which restricts Plaintiff's future motions
(including attachments) without also imposing the same
restriction on future motion(s) of Defendants.
REMEDY REQUESTED
Wherefore, all premises have been duly considered, Plaintiff
respectfully requests that this Court prepare and file in the
instant case and also serve on all interested party(s), a written
of Bill of Particulars explaining by what specific authority(s)
this Court might be authorized to restrict Plaintiff to filing
any further motion (including attachments) in excess of six (6)
pages, without violating Plaintiff's First and Seventh Amendment
Rights, and without working an unlawful prejudice upon Plaintiff.
Notice of Motion and Motion for Bill of Particulars:
Page 4 of 6
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", that the above statement of fact and
law 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: April 30, 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
Notice of Motion and Motion for Bill of Particulars:
Page 5 of 6
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 MOTION AND MOTION
FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS:
First Amendment, Petition Clause;
Seventh Amendment, Jury Trial of Right
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
c/o 6642 E. Calle de San Alberto
Tucson, Arizona state
Lawrence E. Condit
c/o 376 South Stone Avenue
Tucson, Arizona state
Dr. and Mrs. Eugene A. Burns
c/o 4500 E. Speedway, #27
Tucson, Arizona state
Executed on April 30, 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
Notice of Motion and Motion for Bill of Particulars:
Page 6 of 6
# # #
Return to Table of Contents for
Mitchell v. Nordbrock