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 )
) MOTION TO RECONSIDER
v. ) MINUTE ENTRY OF 5/1/97
)
Neil and Evelyn Nordbrock, )
Defendants )
________________________________)
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 this honorable Court to
reconsider its CIVIL MINUTE ENTRY, dated 5/1/97 and mailed on
5/5/97 in the instant case, to wit:
An attorney having made an appearance the matter is taken
out of mediation (vacate mediation) and assigned on a
permanent basis to Judge W. U. Weber.
[emphasis added]
Plaintiff wishes to inform this Court that Plaintiff's
recently filed NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO MODIFY ORDER OF
REFERRAL TO MEDIATION AND TO NAME ANOTHER DEFENDANT (hereinafter
"MOTION TO MODIFY ORDER") was executed and served less than four
(4) hours before Plaintiff first received this Court's CIVIL
MINUTE ENTRY of 5/1/97. Based on all evidence available to
Plaintiff, the two documents now appear to have "crossed in the
mail." Plaintiff apologizes for any confusion this has caused.
Motion to Reconsider Minute Entry of 5/1/97:
Page 1 of 4
Nevertheless, Plaintiff submits that the substance of said
MOTION TO MODIFY ORDER has a direct bearing on this court's CIVIL
MINUTE ENTRY of 5/1/97. This Court has ruled therein that "an
attorney [has] made an appearance ...."
Said ruling actually assumes facts that are not in evidence.
Plaintiff's MOTION TO MODIFY ORDER explains how Mr. Lawrence
E. Condit (hereinafter "Mr. Condit") has, to date, failed to
produce any certified proof of either a license to practice law,
or any power(s) of attorney to represent the named Defendants, in
response to Plaintiff's three (3) lawful requests and also a
FINAL NOTICE AND DEMAND for same.
Moreover, Plaintiff now has probable cause to believe that
Mr. Condit has conspired criminally with Defendants to embezzle
approximately $3,000 from Plaintiff. Plaintiff hereby offers to
prove that said sum was used to pay Mr. Condit's retainer, in
whole or in part, for a legal services contract by which
Defendants retained Mr. Condit to litigate a quiet title action
on their behalf in the Superior Court of Arizona state. See Neil
T. Nordbrock and Evelyn Nordbrock v. Ulan et al., Superior Court
of Arizona, County of Pima, case number #315580.
As such, Plaintiff now has probable cause to charge Mr.
Condit with aiding and abetting an embezzlement, and also being
in possession or control of stolen property at the present time.
Accordingly, Plaintiff argues that there has been no lawful
appearance by an officer of this Court nor by an attorney duly
licensed to practice law in the State of Arizona, and there has
been no lawful appearance by an attorney with lawful power(s) of
attorney to represent the named Defendants.
Motion to Reconsider Minute Entry of 5/1/97:
Page 2 of 4
Furthermore, Plaintiff argues that Mr. Condit's silence has
worked a fraud upon Plaintiff, because Mr. Condit's rebuttable
claim to being an officer of this Court imposes upon Mr. Condit a
legal and moral obligation to speak, that is, to produce
credentials when challenged. Silence is a fraud, pursuant to
U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977), and silence activates
estoppel, pursuant to Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906).
REMEDY REQUESTED
All premises considered, the matter should not be taken out
of mediation; the matter should, instead, be modified so as to
name Mr. Condit as another Defendant and to order Mr. Condit to
appear separately at the time and place set for mediating the
instant matter; or, in the alternative, the matter should be
modified so as to order Mr. Condit to show cause why Mr. Condit
should not be named as another Defendant and appear separately at
the time and place set for mediating the instant matter
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: May 7, 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
Motion to Reconsider Minute Entry of 5/1/97:
Page 3 of 4
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):
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
MINUTE ENTRY OF 5/1/97
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 May 7, 1997 by:
/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
Motion to Reconsider Minute Entry of 5/1/97:
Page 4 of 4
# # #
Return to Table of Contents for
Mitchell v. Nordbrock