Time: Sun Nov 02 19:45:55 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA03424
for [address in tool bar]; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 19:45:06 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 19:45:33 -0700
To: pmitch@primenet.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in toolbar]
Subject: SLF: Testosterone is an illegal substance!
[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Daren James, Dean, Sui Juris
c/o general delivery at:
Pima County Jail #2B9
Post Office Box 951
Tucson [zip code exempt]
ARIZONA STATE (See USPS Pub. 221)
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIMA
STATE OF ARIZONA [sic], ) No. #CR-58925
)
Plaintiff [sic], ) APPLICATION FOR INTERVENTION
) OF RIGHT AND NOTICE OF FATAL
v. ) DEFECTS IN SUPERVENING
) INDICTMENT:
DAREN JAMES DEAN [sic], ) Rule 201(d), Arizona Rules
) of Evidence
Defendant [sic]. )
________________________________)
COME NOW the People of the United States of America (hereinafter
"Petitioners"), ex relatione Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.,
Citizen of Arizona state, expressly not a citizen of the United
States ("federal citizen"), federal witness, Counselor at Law,
and private attorney general (hereinafter "Relator"), formally to
apply for intervention of Right in the instant case; to demand
mandatory judicial Notice by this honorable Court of this,
Petitioners' NOTICE OF FATAL DEFECTS IN SUPERVENING INDICTMENT in
the instant case, pursuant to Rule 201(d) of the Arizona Rules of
Evidence; and, to provide formal Notice to all interested
party(s) of same.
Petitioners hereby itemize the fatal defects which Relator
has witnessed in the document purporting to be the SUPERVENING
INDICTMENT in the instant case, to wit:
Application for Intervention/Notice of Indictment Defects: Page
1 of 8
1. The Superior Court of the State of Arizona, and the
Superior Court of Arizona state, are not one and the same. The
crucial difference between these two forums is summarized tersely
on pages 2 and 3 of 20 in APPLICANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION TO STRIKE NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPLY FOR INTERVENTION,
filed in the case of Swan Business Organization et al. v. Leon
Ulan et al., Superior Court of the State of Arizona, in and for
the County of Pima, case number #315580, on or about August 27,
1997. A true and correct copy of said OPPOSITION brief is
attached hereto and incorporated by reference, as if set forth
fully herein. See Exhibit "A". See also 31 CFR 51.2 and 52.2.
Further evidence of two forums can be found at Form II(b),
WARRANT FOR ARREST (SUPERIOR COURT) SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA,
________ County [sic], and Form XXIII, NOTICE OF RIGHTS OF REVIEW
AFTER CONVICTION IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN
AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ________ [sic], in Arizona Rules of Court,
State and Federal, West Publishing Company (1994 edition).
The Superior Court of the State of Arizona is a de facto
forum convened pursuant to federal municipal law, proceeding
under the presumption that Arizona is a federal territory, not a
Union state. This presumption is enforceable upon the population
of citizens of the United States ("federal citizens") who reside
within the geographic boundaries of Arizona state, because they
are subject to federal municipal law. Defendant is a Citizen of
Washington state, who is not also a federal citizen, by Right of
Election. Defendant is not subject to federal municipal law.
The Superior Court of Arizona is a de jure forum convened
pursuant to Arizona organic law, proceeding under the Tenth
Application for Intervention/Notice of Indictment Defects: Page
2 of 8
Amendment and under other notable provisions of the supreme Law,
which admitted Arizona into the Union of several states which are
united by, and under, the Constitution for the United States of
America, as lawfully amended ("U.S. Constitution"). Defendant is
a Citizen of one of the United States of America, and both
Arizona state and Washington state honor the U.S. Constitution as
the supreme Law of the Land. See Supremacy Clause.
2. A fatal misnomer is evident in said SUPERVENING
INDICTMENT, due to the obvious use of an unlawful Nomme de Guerre
(name of war) to identify a fictitious, non-existent defendant,
instead of Defendant's Proper and true name. Petitioners hereby
lodge Their formal objection, and provide formal Notice to all
interested party(s), protesting the unlawful use of said Nomme de
Guerre falsely to identify Mr. Daren James, Dean, in place of His
Proper and true appellation. Misnomer is a plea in abatement.
Said mistaken identification is a "misnomer" which can be,
and herein is, lawfully abated by means of the instant Notices,
made under formal protest and with explicit reservation of all
Rights expressly guaranteed to Defendant by the Constitution for
the United States of America, as lawfully amended (hereinafter
"U.S. Constitution"). See Supremacy Clause; and Article III,
Section 3, Clause 1, to wit:
Treason against the United States [sic], shall consist only
in levying War against them [sic], or in adhering to their
Enemies, giving them [sic] Aid and Comfort. [emphasis added]
Petitioners hereby also make Their notorious protest of the
presence in this honorable Court of a gold-fringed American flag,
which is evidence further still, above and beyond the Plaintiff's
misuse of an unlawful Nomme de Guerre, of martial rule imposed
Application for Intervention/Notice of Indictment Defects: Page
3 of 8
unlawfully upon, and without the consent of, the Sovereign
People, of whom Defendant is a Member in good standing by virtue
of His birth in Washington state. See Right of Election.
Petitioners hereby deny the existence of any valid
contracts, either verbal or written, either expressed or implied
in fact, whereby Defendant might have waived any of His
fundamental Rights secured to Defendant by the federal and state
constitutions; and Petitioners formally offer to prove same.
Waivers of fundamental Rights will never be presumed, ever.
See Ohio Bell v. Public Utilities Commission, 301 U.S. 292.
Waivers of fundamental Rights must be knowing, intentional, and
voluntary acts, done with sufficient awareness of the relevant
circumstances and likely consequences. See Brady v. U.S., 397
U.S. 742 at 748 (1970). Deprivation of fundamental rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the U.S. Constitution is a
criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. 242. See also 18 U.S.C. 241.
A practice condemned by the Constitution cannot be saved by
historical acceptance and present convenience.
[U.S. v. Woodley, 726 F.2d 1328, 1338 (1983)]
[emphasis added]
It is obviously correct that no one acquires a vested or
protected right in violation of the Constitution by long
use, even when that span of time covers our entire national
existence and indeed predates it.
[Walz v. Tax Commission of New York City,]
[397 U.S. 664, 678 (1970), emphasis added]
The custom of continuing arbitrary emergency declarations,
so as to effect the appearance of an unbroken state of emergency,
has the unavoidable consequence of levying War against the
several states of the Union and is, therefore, unconstitutional.
See 12 U.S.C. 95(a), (b); Art. III, Sec. 3, Cl. 1; 18 U.S.C. 242.
Application for Intervention/Notice of Indictment Defects: Page
4 of 8
3. The Arizona Revised Statute, which Defendant is accused
of violating, is blatantly unconstitutional, solely by virtue of
the fact that the chemical, which Defendant is accused of
illegally possessing, is a naturally occurring substance created
by the human body. Such a statute renders the entire male
population, presently inhabiting the United States of America, to
be in illegal possession of a prohibited substance. This result
is absurd. Reductio ad absurdum. Moreover, the law does not
recognize impossibilities. Lex non cogit impossibilia.
Accordingly, the alleged SUPERVENING INDICTMENT in the
instant case should be quashed, the instant case dismissed, and
the Defendant released immediately from custody into freedom,
which is Defendant's fundamental Right in these United States of
America. Further detention of Defendant constitutes a clear and
dangerous violation of Defendant's fundamental Right to due
process of law. See Fifth Amendment.
4. The Arizona juror and voter qualifications statutes are
defective for exhibiting prohibited discrimination against all
state Citizens, who are not also federal citizens by Right of
Election. This question has now been placed properly and timely
before the Pima County Consolidated Justice Court in the case of
Mitchell v. Nordbrock et al., case number #CV-97-3438. The
matter is also before the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eight Circuit, in St. Louis, Missouri state ("8th Circuit"), in
the cases of U.S.A. v. Gilbertson and Gilbertson v. U.S. et al.
For the convenience of this honorable Court, the pertinent
pleadings now filed in Gilbertson's appeal to the 8th Circuit can
be obtained from Internet URL: http://supremelaw.com.
Application for Intervention/Notice of Indictment Defects: Page
5 of 8
REMEDIES REQUESTED
All premises having been duly considered, Petitioners hereby
request formal leave to intervene by Right in the instant case,
for all the reasons stated above.
In the event that this honorable Court should grant
Petitioners leave to intervene, Petitioners immediately thereupon
and hereby move this honorable Court for an unconditional release
of the Defendant and an immediate dismissal with prejudice of the
instant case.
In the alternative, assuming leave to intervene is granted,
Petitioners hereby move this honorable Court to ORDER the instant
case transferred to the Superior Court of Arizona state, pursuant
to the authorities cited above, and to ORDER the Defendant
released on His own recognizance, pursuant to the Tenth
Amendment, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, enacted
with explicit Reservations by the United States Congress.
VERIFICATION
I, Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Citizen of Arizona state,
expressly not a citizen of the United States ("federal citizen"),
federal witness, Counselor at Law, and private attorney general,
hereby verify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the
United States of America, without the "United States" (federal
government), that the above statement of facts and laws is true
and correct, according 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; Guarantee Clause; Tenth Amendment.
Application for Intervention/Notice of Indictment Defects: Page
6 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):
APPLICATION FOR INTERVENTION OF RIGHT AND
NOTICE OF FATAL DEFECTS IN SUPERVENING INDICTMENT:
Rule 201(d), Arizona Rules of Evidence
by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first
class U.S. Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed to:
Daren James, Dean [hand-delivered]
Pima County Jail #2B9
Post Office Box 951
Tucson [zip code exempt]
ARIZONA STATE
Attorney General [hand-delivered]
State of Arizona
c/o 400 West Congress, Ste. 316
Tucson [zip code exempt]
ARIZONA STATE
Pima County Public Defender [hand-delivered]
c/o 32 North Stone Avenue
Tucson [zip code exempt]
ARIZONA STATE
Executed on November 1, 1997:
/s/ Paul Mitchell
______________________________________________
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris
Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness,
Counselor at Law, and private attorney general
(expressly not a citizen of the United States)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Application for Intervention/Notice of Indictment Defects: Page
7 of 8
Exhibit "A":
APPLICANT'S OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE
NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPLY FOR INTERVENTION
Swan Business Organization et al.
v.
Leon Ulan et al.
Superior Court of the State of Arizona [sic]
in and for the County of Pima [sic]
Case Number #315580
Application for Intervention/Notice of Indictment Defects: Page
8 of 8
# # #
===========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA; M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email: [address in toolbar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best 06
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone 07
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 10, non-proportional spacing.] 13
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail