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 of
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 Andrew 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 Andrew 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 Andrew 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
Return
to Table of Contents for
Mitchell v. Nordbrock