c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776
Tucson [zip code exempt]
ARIZONA REPUBLIC
December 13, 1996
Mr. and Mrs. Neil T. Nordbrock
c/o 6642 East Calle de San Alberto
Tucson, Arizona state
Dear Neil & Evelyn,
I must immediately address Neil's letter, which I received in
today's mail, because it contains many false, misleading, and
misrepresentative statements.
re: "legal representation" [sic]
Neil wrote:
"According to what I know, of those you have assisted with
legal problems since coming to Tucson, here are the results:
"Charles Taylor, convicted
Sheila Wallen, convicted
Dr. Burns, bench warrant issued.
Elizabeth Broderick, et al, convicted
Leroy Schweitzer, still in jail (and it is my
understanding that you are now persona non grata with
that group)
".....Not a very impressive record....."
My response follows:
re: "Charles Taylor, convicted."
Charles Taylor was convicted before I ever met him. He requested
my assistance to defeat his pending sentence of 21 years. On the
day before sentencing, I met with Mr. Taylor and discussed his
options with him. We mutually decided that I would go to the
sentencing hearing, but that he would not appear at that hearing.
When the judge finally called Taylor's case, I stood up and
declared that the court was proceeding ultra vires. The judge
then ordered me to sit down and stated that I had no standing in
that court. That judge then called a 15-minute recess,
immediately after stating that he would issue a bench warrant for
Charles Taylor if Taylor was not brought to the courtroom during
that recess.
As the judge left the courtroom, I rushed to the security office,
with a request to see the presiding judge with an emergency. I
had in my hands the pleading which I had prepared for Mr. Taylor
the prior day. This pleading was a request that the trial judge
be recused for obvious bias. Security called the presiding
judge's chambers, and then informed me that I had permission to
enter the chambers and that they were waiting for me there. When
I arrived at the presiding judge's chambers, his secretary
greeted me with a startled look. When she asked me what I
wanted, I told her I had just obtained permission from security
to present the presiding judge with an emergency motion. She
left the room in a hurry, and when she returned, she informed me
that the judge was on the phone, and that I would have to wait.
Detailed Rebuttal to Neil Norbrock:
Page 1 of 10
After about 10 minutes of waiting, I informed my companion that
he had better return to the courtroom, to determine if the judge
was going to issue a bench warrant for Mr. Taylor's arrest.
After waiting another 10 minutes, a Sheriff's deputy arrived with
a puzzled look on his face. The presiding judge's secretary
tried to explain to him that everything was okay, but he waited
anyway, in the hallway just outside the secretary's office.
When the secretary returned a second time, she informed me that
the presiding judge had consented to hear the pleading which I
had prepared for Mr. Taylor, and which Mr. Taylor had signed In
Propria Persona. Then she informed me that I would never again
be permitted to enter that part of the building. I said to her
that it was my hope that there would be no more emergencies like
this. The Sheriff's deputy was quiet during this entire
exchange, and his eyes darted from her to me and back to her, as
each of us took turns speaking.
The upshot of this day was that I succeeded in keeping Charles
Taylor out of jail for 21 years. So, it is totally and utterly
false to suggest, imply, or to state that I was responsible in
any way for Mr. Taylor's conviction. In fact, it is a lie, Neil
and Evelyn. If you want confirmation on this point, contact Mr.
Vernon L. Schrader. I do not know the current whereabouts of
Charles Taylor at this point in time, nor do I really want to
know his whereabouts, because he could never bring himself to
thank me in any way for what I did that day to keep him out of
state prison. He still has not thanked me, to this day.
re: "Sheila Wallen, convicted."
You are correct that I was retained by Sheila Wallen to be her
assistant Counsel during her criminal trial. Since you did not
attend that trial, and I did, you are at a big disadvantage when
it comes to describing what happened that day. I am frankly
shocked that you would presume to know what happened, and to
blame me for what did happen. At the outset of that trial, the
judge refused to allow me to pass the bar at Sheila's side.
Instead, he ordered me to the back row of the courtroom, where I
was prevented from having any contact with Sheila during the
entire duration of that trial. The only contact I did have with
her was during recesses, of which there were 3, including a lunch
break. At one point in the trial, several others in the gallery
vocally objected to the judge's behavior of refusing Sheila to
allow any Counsel to assist her by her side. David Wallen's girl
friend, Anna Marie, spoke one too many times for Judge Browning,
and Browning had her ejected from the courtroom by U.S. Marshals.
Anna Marie had to be carried out of the courtroom, because she
refused to budge when the Marshals asked her to stand up.
Sheila's father also spoke out against the Judge.
Detailed Rebuttal to Neil Norbrock:
Page 2 of 10
Sheila was convicted, after conducting herself bravely and quite
effectively, I might add, with no assistance whatsoever. After
that conviction, she continued to retain me for post-conviction
relief. I did my best to develop a powerful and innovative
challenge to the absence of any criminal jurisdiction in the
United States District Court, and to develop and implement, with
her full approval, a removal action into the District Court of
the United States. You did attend the first Supreme Law Seminar,
and I presume that you understood what I presented on both of
those days, so I must presume that you are more familiar than
most with the legal basis of the removal action which I developed
on her behalf. The matter was presented to the Ninth Circuit in
the form of a formal Notice and Demand, which was actually
docketed by the Clerk of the Ninth Circuit.
At that point, Sheila came over to my apartment, quite angry and
perturbed by what she characterized as emotional instability and
"victim" psychosis. She went so far as to accuse me of being a
federal informant, and she denied that I am a federal witness,
this after she, herself, had called me to the witness stand to
testify in her own trial. She used these reasons as an excuse to
refuse payment on my invoice to her for all the legal work which
I had done on her behalf, before, during, and after the trial.
At that time, she was sleeping until 11:00 a.m., and taking
upwards of 2 hours to get ready for her day. She was not working
and not seeking any employment, thus minimizing the probability
that I would be paid for all the legal work I did on her behalf.
Would you like to see copies of all the pleadings I researched,
wrote, and helped her file? They are on file in the United
States District Court in Tucson. Help yourself; they are all
public record.
I was forced at that point in time to attribute to her brother,
David Wallen, and to Herb Crawford, her false belief that I was a
federal informant. For many other reasons like these, I recently
requested a private meeting with the Sheriff of Pima county, in
order to solicit his advice for me in this situation. As you may
already know, Mr. Crawford stooped to threatening me twelve times
in my own home. He did this, I believe, because I made such a
direct point of telling him, one morning while he was living in
my apartment, that I had decided to testify against Elizabeth
Broderick for filing a bogus commercial lien, i.e. one which was
stamped with a bogus rubber stamp reading "U S CRIMINAL COURT".
After Herb threatened me with bodily harm (he threatened to throw
me through the sliding glass window), I demanded that he move out
immediately. With the assistance of David Wallen, while I was
not present, the two of them removed personal belongings of mine,
including computer equipment and cash, which both of them have
refused to return in accordance with my written instructions. I
did not want to be around Mr. Crawford, because I then had
probable cause to believe that he might become violent around me.
It was for that reason that I demanded the he and David Wallen
return all of my personal belongings into your care. That has
never happened. For your information, Herb Crawford was arrested
today in conjunction with the indictment which a federal grand
jury has issued against him for conspiracy to manufacture
methamphetamine in Oregon state. Herb showed me that indictment
just before he moved into my apartment. I helped him prepare one
letter to the Forfeiture Counsel who was assigned to that case.
Detailed Rebuttal to Neil Norbrock:
Page 3 of 10
re: "Dr. Burns, bench warrant issued."
This is a very sore point with me, as you already know, and I
thought you knew the facts of this situation, so I am entirely
taken aback by your attempt to blame me for the issuance of
Gene's bench warrant, and subsequent surrender to John Roll's
court, with the FBI and a licensed bar member by his sides. On
the morning of the day that arrest warrant was issued, I arrived
in my New Life office early, which was my normal schedule. Gene
arrived early too, and we learned from Martha that Judge Roll's
secretary had called to inform us that our Motion for Continuance
had been denied, despite the fact that I was scheduled to appear
before Garfield county court in Montana, and I needed time to
travel and to prepare for that appearance. You will recall that
I was under court order to appear in Montana. When Gene and I
discussed Judge Roll's refusal to grant a routine continuance,
even when I had obvious scheduling conflicts, Gene decided that
he had seen enough arbitrary and capricious behavior by Judge
Roll (remember the 27 counts of mail fraud, etc.?), and together
we decided to prepare and file a Notice of Appeal. After this
meeting with Gene, I prepared the Notice and drove down to the
court to file it, at approximately 10:30 a.m.
When I returned, I spoke with Gene again about his plans to
attend the hearing, or not. He informed me that Judge Roll had
lost jurisdiction when the Notice of Appeal was filed, and it was
for this reason that Gene decided he was not going to appear,
despite the fact that he was under court order to appear in Judge
Roll's courtroom that afternoon, at 4:00 p.m. I think it was. I
stressed to Gene, two separate times, that he needed to go,
despite the Notice of Appeal, because Judge Roll might not have
had time to see it, or to review it, before the hearing. I am
sure that I did urge Gene, two separate times, to attend the
hearing anyway, in obedience to the court order. Both times,
Gene disagreed with me. At that point, I decided that I was not
going to be persuasive with him, and I dropped the matter. I did
attend the hearing myself, where Judge Roll struck all of my
pleadings and issued a bench warrant for Gene's arrest. As a
point of fact, when I started to argue with Linda later, because
she had begun to blame me for Judge Roll's "upset," I
specifically remember hearing Gene say to Linda that I had urged
Gene, two separate times, to attend the hearing in obedience to
the court order. This did not sit very well with Linda, as you
might imagine. She had been persuaded by people unknown to me to
believe that I was solely to blame for the fact that Judge Roll
was "pissed off," as she put it. Never mind that we had caught
Roll and Miskell red-handed in a conspiracy to commit 27 counts
of mail fraud, 27 counts of jury tampering, 27 counts of
obstruction of justice, and 27 counts of conspiracy to commit all
of the above. That's why Roll was "pissed off." Linda chose to
kill the messenger instead.
Detailed Rebuttal to Neil Norbrock:
Page 4 of 10
Since then, I have continued to pursue this matter, in a number
of ways that are presently unknown to you. For the record, I
have now filed a formal Judicial Complaint against John Roll,
because another count of mail fraud, jury tampering, obstruction
of justice, and conspiracy, because of another item of first
class U.S. Mail which he and Miskell have intercepted. This one
was sent to the Grand Jury Foreperson from New Life Health
Center. The Clerk made the serious mistake of returning that
envelope to me. Without opening it, I delivered it to the USPS
Postal Inspection Service, with another complaint of mail fraud
against John Roll, Robert Miskell, et al.
I have also continued to pursue Miskell and Napolitano et al.
with formal Notices of Intent to File Criminal Complaints against
all of them, for felony conduct which has been committed either
in my presence, or with me as an eyewitness to material evidence
which constitutes probable cause to charge these federal
employees with the 28 separate counts I have itemized above. I
have done all of this at my own expense, paying for the postage
and office supplies out of my own pocket.
re: "Elizabeth Broderick et al, convicted."
This is another low blow from you, Neil. I had worked very hard
on the Broderick case, developing the kind of foundation which
you saw me prepare on Gene's behalf. During the period of time I
was working on her two civil cases, I was given a car by one of
her associates which had tampered front brakes. Also, when I
returned to Tucson for 2 days to attend a New Life hearing in
John Roll's courtroom, little did I know that all of the office
equipment, furniture, and files which I had set up in the Colton
condominium were being stolen while I was away. When I returned
to Colton, I walked into an empty condominium; all that was left
was the carpeting on the floor.
At that point in time, I began to use a spare bedroom in the home
of Adolf Hoch's girl friend, Holly. Holly was not too keen on
having me work there, but she tolerated the situation, only up to
a point. I had recently submitted my first invoice for all the
work I had done for those 5 defendants, on 3 separate cases (2
civil and 1 criminal). Broderick and 4 of her associates had
witnessed me quote my professional rate to her, and I waived the
retainer, because I had already been paid for 2 speaker fees.
After doing approximately 175 hours of work for her, I billed her
for approximately $10,000, plus the travel and miscellaneous
expenses which I had incurred at New Life, such as telephone
charges, photocopying, and air fare (which Gene lent to me). I
specifically agreed, in writing, to reimburse Gene as soon as
Broderick paid all or part of my first invoice. Gene agreed.
Detailed Rebuttal to Neil Norbrock:
Page 5 of 10
When it became painfully obvious that neither Broderick, nor any
of her associates, were going to pay any part of my $10,000
invoice, I became extremely upset at that turn of events. This
was particularly painful, in light of the fact that I had helped
Broderick store some $50,000 in cash in a private locker, at her
request. I helped her find a locker, and when we had finished
locking up the money, I gave her all the keys to it, in addition
to all of the paperwork associated with that private rental
contract. No sooner had I submitted my $10,000 invoice, when I
came to discover that all the money which Broderick and I had
placed in that locker had been removed, by Broderick's secretary,
Cydi Valdez. When I confronted Valdez about this money, she then
persisted in denying that I ever had any kind of contract with
Elizabeth whatsoever. This was a lie. Valdez even went so far
as to put this lie into U.S. Mail.
After doing my own private investigation into this whole mess, I
came to suspect that Broderick is a federal informant. This was
recently confirmed by an open admission on the Internet by one of
the members of a private email list which I share with that
member. Remember, the reason why Herb Crawford threatened me 12
times was because of my spoken decision to testify against
Broderick, in part because of her bogus rubber stamp reading "U S
CRIMINAL COURT." During one of my private trips with Adolf Hoch
in his new $35,000 Buick Riviera, he told me that Gene Burns had
been the beneficiary of several Broderick warrants, and that New
Life had benefitted enormously from this extra flush of funds.
That was a real eye-opener to me! I have also received
confirmation from the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C.,
that the head U.S. Attorney who prosecuted Broderick, one Nora
Manella, has no credentials whatsoever. Upon receiving that
confirmation, I have petitioned the USDC in Los Angeles for
Intervention of Right, under FRCP Rule 24(a). Manella has
decided to oppose that petition, and I am now prosecuting that
matter on my own meager funds, such as they are.
re: "Leroy Schweitzer, still in jail (and it is your
understanding that I am now persona non grata with that group)."
This is another cruel, low, mean, and unnecessary blow from
someone who should know better. To make a very long story short
(this letter is already up to 6 pages), I took it upon myself to
publish on the Internet a broad strategy for assisting Schweitzer
and his co-defendants. When the Freedom Center solicited help
from attorneys, I was the only one who responded. After hearing
my terms ($75 per hour, $500 retainer, no change) they flew me up
there to begin implementing the plan. After 18.5 days of double
time work (18 hours per day, sleeping on a couch most of the
time), Randy Parsons requested that I prepare an invoice. My
first invoice to them was for approximately fifty percent of the
many hours I had worked on behalf of Schweitzer et al. I had to
return to Tucson for the first Supreme Law Seminar, and I fully
expected to return to Billings, to finish the work up there.
Upon mailing my invoice, this one again for about $10,000, I
started to get this gnawing feeling that I was going to get
stiffed again. I first began to suspect something was wrong when
they would not contact me after I returned to Tucson. As the
days wore on, and as Richard McDonald continued to report this
and that "promise" which they were making to him, promises which
never materialized, I slowly came to realize that they were not
going to pay any of the invoice which they had requested me to
submit to them. This was another terrible blow, after I had
worked so hard to develop the necessary pleadings to defend
Schweitzer, lay a proper foundation, and also continue
prosecuting the civil case, People v. United States, which I had
filed, on my own, using my own money, in order to prevent
bloodshed during the Montana standoff.
Detailed Rebuttal to Neil Norbrock:
Page 6 of 10
After many attempts to get my personal belongings returned,
including your leather jacket, law books and dictionaries, IOmega
ZIP drive and disks, important files with evidence, clothes,
toiletries, and a number of other personal belongings, it became
obvious to me that I was being singled out for persecution by
members of the Freedom Center, in part because of a disagreement
we had, while I was up there, concerning the lack of any biblical
authority for apartheid. Evidently, Keven Entzel is convinced
that there is biblical authority for discrimination against
Negroes, but when I confronted him on that point, he answered by
saying that he could not remember the specific chapter or verse.
Richard McDonald, Kamala Webb, Red Beckman, and two others with
access to the Freedom Center have attempted to recover my
personal belongings from their "bunk house" near the Yellowstone
River, with absolutely no success. Just yesterday, however, I
did receive a large manila envelope, which contained 16 pieces of
important legal mail, from such places as the Department of
Justice in Washington, D.C., the Internal Revenue Service, and
the U.S. District Court Clerk in Billings, Montana. A total of
12 of those pieces of mail had already been opened, most likely
by Randy Parsons and/or Keven Entzel. I was forced to document
these gross violations of U.S. Mail fraud statutes by preparing a
detailed Notice of Intent, which was mailed yesterday to the
Postmaster in Billings, and to all the senders of the 16 pieces
of mail which had been unnecessarily, and criminally, delayed by
the Freedom Center, the place where all my mail had been
delivered by the U.S. Postal Service. For your information, I
attach that Notice of Intent, so that you will all the facts
available to you.
re: "pocketing the $100 checks that I am getting through my
efforts via the Internet to get patriots to join in the
Schweitzer suit"
This is a flat-out lie, Neil, and I want you to cease and desist
immediately with this deliberately false, libelous, and injurious
lie. The two press releases which I have prepared to raise funds
for Schweitzer both listed the Freedom Center as the destination
for those $100 payments. To date, only one person has made the
mistake of mailing a $100 payment to me in Tucson, whereupon I
immediately forwarded that U.S. Postal Money order to the
attention of Randy Parsons at the Freedom Center. You are
evidently ignorant of just how wrong this statement is, because I
would never even consider embezzling money which rightfully
belongs to Schweitzer's defense fund, such as it is. I hereby
demand that you retract this ugly, false, libelous and injurious
lie, because I know for a fact that you have absolutely no
evidence to back it up, whatsoever. You know you are lying here,
and you are fabricating a vicious lie to retaliate against me,
because I complained bluntly about your abuse of alcohol, in my
presence: slurring your words, staggering and losing your
balance in your own kitchen, repeatedly spilling drinks and gravy
with your right hand, failing to understand complex computer or
legal concepts I was trying to communicate to you. Neil, for
your own sake and the sake of your immediate family, get some
help, will you please?
Detailed Rebuttal to Neil Norbrock:
Page 7 of 10
re: "frivolous attempts to extort money"
I have mailed to Gene Burns two separate Notices and Demands,
with deadlines, for wrongful discharge, unpaid compensation, and
other unspecified damages. On both occasions, Burns has failed
to answer within my stated deadline. I have sent you copies of
both of those Notices. You may recall that you did nothing about
the first one, except to console me for the fact that things did
not turn out as you had hoped at New Life. Now you are saying
that my second Notice and Demand is extortion. Again, Neil, this
is a lie, and I am not threatening Burns with bodily harm; I am
not calling him on the telephone; I am not attempting to visit
his office; I am not even attempting to send him any email. I
am merely documenting the specified and unspecified damages which
I am claim to have suffered from being wrongfully discharged,
falsely accused, and having my privacy invaded. I have also
written to his new "attorney" with a demand for production of the
attorney's legal credentials, if any. To date, that attorney has
failed to produce any credentials, or proof that he has actually
been retained by Gene. So, until such time as I receive
confirmation that he is a licensed bar member, and that he has in
fact been retained by Burns, I am entitled to proceed on the
basis of the conclusive presumption that this "attorney" is not
who he says he is. I cannot be faulted for that attorney's
failure to produce proof of his claims. Evidently, you now want
to blame me for doing what anybody in this business should do,
upon entering a contract with a licensed bar member. But, don't
let me tell you what to do. I have witnessed you say to Burns,
on numerous occasions, that he had been burned each and every
time he ever retained a licensed bar member; then, you turn
around and retain one yourself. Evidently, you are not willing
to practice what you preach, even after you complained bitterly
to me about the poor professional services you have received from
your various attorneys, including the one in Escondido, and the
other one in Phoenix.
re: "deliberately picking fights with the CDC"
This is another extremely low blow, coming from someone who
should know better than to jump to this ugly conclusion, without
first obtaining the true facts of the situation. I have evidence
in my possession which directly implicates officials at the
Centers for Disease Control in premeditated murder for having
failed to prevent the inoculation of American soldiers, bound for
Iraq, with a serum that had been tainted with Anthrax. This came
out in testimony which Senator Riegle gave, under oath, to a
Senate committee investigating biological weapons usage during
the Gulf War. I took a huge risk doing what I did, but I remain
convinced that it was worth every bit of that risk, because of
evidence which is now pouring forth proving that the tainted
serum is highly contagious and is now affecting soldiers'
families, friends, children, and even casual contacts. Coming to
learn what I was forced to witness, I had a legal and a moral
duty to intervene, in the best way I knew how. Confronting the
CDC in the way I did, by exposing the truth on the Internet, was
the decision I made, and I remain convinced, even today, even in
the face of repeated skeptics who express juvenile and even
infantile fears about the rectitude of what I did, that it was
truly the right thing to do. I say this on the Holy Bible,
before Almighty God. Doing anything less would have made me
complicit with premeditated genocide because of a pandemic of
Gulf War Syndrome which is now racing through the American
population, unchecked and out of control. Neil, you ought to
have your head examined for saying this.
Detailed Rebuttal to Neil Norbrock:
Page 8 of 10
re: "I apparently flew to Texas to have a rendezvous with an
e-mail pen pal last month."
Yes, I did fly to Texas last month, but it was a free gift from
some new friends I have recently made there. They paid for the
air fare, the ground transportation, and they fed me for the few
days I was there. I did do a little legal work for them while I
was there, and I sent them some documents via email which they
had requested as soon as I returned to Tucson. Just so you know,
I slept most of the time, because I had become so exhausted
fighting so many different fronts, not knowing if I would even
have food on the table from one day to the next. I also made
friends with their many animals, and in particular, one of their
special cats took a liking to me, so the two of us spent many
hours sleeping on the couch, in front of a television set which
was off most of the time. If you are attempting to insinuate
that I flew to Texas on my own funds, again you are sadly, and
ferociously, wrong, again, for jumping to conclusions with no
basis in fact whatsoever. If you like, I can have my new friends
in Texas call you, or write to you, to confirm how much money
they actually spent on flying me there and back.
re: "Many believe I am a government informant."
Yes, I seem to remember your asking me that very same question,
on three different occasions. I could understand that question
the first time. The second time, I began to wonder why it was
that you were so concerned about that question. The third time,
I really began to wonder why it was that you are still so
terribly worried about my being a federal informant. Well, if
you had bothered to ask the right questions, you would have
discovered that, last May, I filed in Broderick's civil case an
affidavit of non-governmental affiliation. The last time I
worked for the federal government, I was a computer systems
development consultant to a secured Naval Shipyard in California,
during the mid-1980's. The Affidavit attests to this fact, under
penalty of perjury. If this is not good enough for you, and if
my word to you on three separate occasions is not good enough for
you, then please tell me immediately what it is going to take for
you to believe me when I tell you, now a fourth time, that I am
not a government informant. I will say this much, when I witness
felony conduct by federal employees, it is my obligation to
report it to the proper authorities. You have witnessed my doing
that, in the New Life case. I have also helped you report to the
proper authorities the criminal conduct which has victimized you
and your wife, although I was not an eyewitness to any of that
conduct, with the sole exception of Miskell's misconduct against
Burns and New Life. Would you consider that to be more of
Miskell's conduct towards you too? You tell me, Neil. I am all
ears at this point in my life.
Detailed Rebuttal to Neil Norbrock:
Page 9 of 10
VERIFICATION
The Undersigned, Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of
Arizona state, federal witness, and Counselor at Law, hereby
verify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United
States of America, without the "United States", that the above
statements of fact are true and correct, the best of my current
information, knowledge, and belief, so help Me God, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
Executed on December 13, 1996
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness,
and Counselor at Law
email: supremelawfirm@yahoo.com
website: http://supremelaw.com
Detailed Rebuttal to Neil Norbrock:
Page 10 of 10
# # #
Return to Table of Contents for
Mitchell v. Nordbrock