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