Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris
Citizen of Arizona state
c/o general delivery at:
2509 North Campbell Ave., #1776
Tucson [zip code exempt]
In Propria Persona
All Rights Reserved
without prejudice
                  IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIMA
Swan Business Organization      )  Case Number #315580
et al.,                         )
                                )  APPLICANT'S OPPOSITION
          Plaintiffs,           )  TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO
                                )  STRIKE NOTICE OF INTENT
     v.                         )  TO APPLY FOR INTERVENTION:
Leon Ulan et al.,               )  Petition Clause,
                                )  First Amendment
          Defendants.           )
COMES NOW  Paul Andrew  Mitchell, Sui Juris, Citizen  of  Arizona
state, expressly  not a  citizen of  the United  States ("federal
citizen"), federal  witness (hereinafter  "Applicant"), and  Vice
President for Legal Affairs of New Life Health Center Company, an
unincorporated business  trust domiciled in Arizona ("New Life"),
to submit  this, Applicant's  formal  OPPOSITION  TO  PLAINTIFF'S
to provide formal Notice of same to all interested party(s).
     Applicant opposes the Plaintiffs' MOTION TO STRIKE NOTICE OF
the following reasons, to wit:
            Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion:
                          Page 1 of 20

     In order  to prepare  Applicant's  NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPLY
FOR INTERVENTION,  Applicant visited  the Clerk  of the  Superior
Court of the State of Arizona, in and for the County of Pima, and
was graciously  permitted to  inspect the official docket file of
the instant  case #315580.  On that day, Applicant witnessed, and
herein testifies  to the fact that, the most recent entry was the
Court's ORDER  placing the  instant case  on inactive  status (or
language to  that effect).   Applicant begs the indulgence of the
Superior Court,  if Applicant's memory is not entirely exact with
respect to said language.  Let substance prevail over form.
     Plaintiffs' STRIKE  MOTION  is,  therefore,  out  of  order,
because the instant case is presently inactive, and would need to
revert to active status, but only by ORDER of the Superior Court.
No such relief has been requested in the STRIKE MOTION.
     The instant case #315580 was first filed and now proceeds in
the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, in and for the County
of Pima.   The  STRIKE MOTION,  on the  other hand, petitions the
Superior Court  of Arizona, Pima County.  These respective courts
are not one and the same.  See 31 CFR 51.2 and 52.2;  Form II(b),
________ County [sic], and Form XXIII, NOTICE OF RIGHTS OF REVIEW
AND FOR  THE COUNTY OF ________ [sic], in Arizona Rules of Court,
State and Federal, West Publishing Company (1994).
     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.
            Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion:
                          Page 2 of 20

     The Superior  Court of  Arizona is  a de jure forum convened
pursuant to  Arizona organic  law,  proceeding  under  the  Tenth
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").
     To the  extent that the STRIKE MOTION requests relief of the
wrong forum,  it is  once again out of order and, moreover, fails
to state  a claim upon which relief can be granted.  Accordingly,
the  STRIKE  MOTION  should  be  denied,  or  tabled  for  future
consideration and  possibly also  future amendment by Plaintiffs,
to correct these and other serious errors.
     Applicant  directs  the  attention  of  this  Court  to  the
following published legal definition of the term "fraud", as said
term applies in the instant matter, to wit:
     Fraud.   ... A  false representation of a matter of fact ...
     by concealment  of that  which should  have been  disclosed,
     which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he
     shall act upon it to his legal injury.
                                                 [emphasis added]
Applicant argues that Plaintiffs had an obligation to disclose to
this Court the related litigation which is underway in two cases:
Mitchell v.  Nordbrock, Pima  County Consolidated  Justice  Court
("Justice Court")  case number  #CV-97-3438, and  People ex  rel.
Mitchell v.  Pima County  Consolidated  Justice  Court,  Superior
Court of Arizona, Pima County, case number #320831.
            Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion:
                          Page 3 of 20

     The  latter   case  has  arisen  out  of  the  barratry  and
unprofessional conduct  which Applicant  alleges that  Plaintiffs
and Plaintiffs'  "attorney" have  committed in  the former  case.
Specifically, in Mitchell v. Nordbrock, the named defendants, who
are Plaintiffs  in the  instant case,  filed a counterclaim which
stated a  claim above  the Justice  Court's jurisdictional limit.
Applicant, who  is the  plaintiff in  the latter  case,  followed
immediately with  a DEMAND  to transfer that case to the Superior
Court, pursuant  to ARS  22-201(F).   Contrary to  the imperative
duty imposed  upon the Justice of the Peace in the Justice Court,
said DEMAND was "denied" [sic] by Mr. Walter U. Weber.  Applicant
now claims that said "denial" was ultra vires.
     In  order  to  prove  Applicant's  claim  that  Mr.  Weber's
"denial" was  done ultra vires, Applicant has sought a Peremptory
Writ of  Mandamus from  the Superior  Court of Arizona, to compel
the Justice  Court to  perform  its  duty  under  ARS  22-201(F).
PETITION") is  attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by
reference, as if set forth fully herein.
     Despite the  filing of  said MANDAMUS  PETITION and  service
upon them,  Plaintiffs and  their  "attorney"  countered  with  a
motion to  amend their  counterclaim, so  as to  reduce it  to an
amount below  the Justice Court's jurisdictional limit of $5,000.
Said motion to amend their counterclaim was then "granted" by Mr.
Walter U.  Weber.   Applicant argues  that Plaintiffs' "attorney"
knew, or should have known, the upper jurisdictional limit of the
Justice Court.   In  point of  fact, the  Plaintiffs'  "attorney"
attempted to  bluff Applicant  early on, by threatening to file a
counterclaim which would transfer that case to the Superior Court
anyway.  Said bluff was left on Applicant's answering machine.
            Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion:
                          Page 4 of 20

     Applicant now alleges that such unlawful conduct constitutes
barratry.   Confer at "Barratry" in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth
Edition, and cases cited there.  Barratry is a crime.
     The STRIKE  MOTION  fails  even  to  mention  said  MANDAMUS
PETITION.   Applicant argues  that the  MANDAMUS PETITION  should
have been  mentioned by  Plaintiffs, but  was not.   Accordingly,
their failure  to disclose  what should  have been  disclosed has
worked a  fraud upon this honorable Court by Plaintiffs and their
"attorney", and  has resulted  in inflicting  yet more  fraud and
barratry upon Applicant, for all the reasons state above.
     Nevertheless, Plaintiffs appear to defeat their own argument
by stating,  at line  7 on  page 2,  that "the superior court may
properly take  judicial notice  of its own records and records in
another action tried in the same court."  Citing State v. Camino,
118 Ariz.  89, 574  P.2d 1308  (1977) and  State v.  Astorga,  26
Ariz.App. 252,  526 P.2d 776 (1974) [sic].  Plaintiffs then argue
that the  court "may  not take  judicial notice  of a  particular
legal proceeding pending or transacted in another court."  Citing
In re Henry's Estate, 6 Ariz.App. 183, 430 P.2d 937 (1967).
     Applicant argues  that Plaintiffs  had a duty to disclose to
this Court the records of another action tried in the same court,
because Plaintiffs  do believe  that the  Superior Court  of  the
State of  Arizona, and  the Superior  Court of Arizona state, are
one and  the same.  Applicant argues here that the Full Faith and
Credit Clause  controls in this matter.  See the Supremacy Clause
for authority.    Nevertheless,  this  relatively  complex  issue
should not  be litigated  until after  Applicant formally applies
for intervention, and Applicant is under no obligation to do so.
            Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion:
                          Page 5 of 20

     To the  extent that  the STRIKE  MOTION seeks  to  argue  to
conclusions which  are based upon Rule 24, Arizona Rules of Civil
Procedure, the  STRIKE MOTION  is entirely moot because Applicant
has not  yet formally  applied for intervention, and may not ever
apply for intervention, depending on future events which have not
yet transpired, and may never happen.
     Moreover, to  the extent  that the  STRIKE MOTION  seeks  to
impair Applicant's  fundamental Right  to Petition Government for
Redress of  Grievances, pursuant  to the  First Amendment  in the
U.S. Constitution, any ORDER from this Court purporting to impair
that Right is necessarily ultra vires ab initio, for chilling and
prior restraint  upon Applicant's Right to Petition the courts of
this  land,  for  intervention  and/or  any  other  relief  which
Applicant seeks  to obtain  from the  courts.  For the benefit of
this honorable  Court, Applicant  attaches,  as  Exhibit  "B",  a
pleading filed  by Applicant  in the Justice Court, detailing the
pertinent cases which have adjudicated the Petition Clause.
     Applicant believes  that  this  Court,  upon  reviewing  the
authorities cited in Exhibit "B", will observe its duty to uphold
the Petition Clause in the First Amendment, either by denying the
STRIKE MOTION  or, in  the alternative, tabling the STRIKE MOTION
until such time as Applicant formally applies for Intervention in
the Superior  Court of  the State  of Arizona,  and  not  in  the
Superior Court of Arizona.
            Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion:
                          Page 6 of 20

     The law  does not  recognize impossibilities.  Lex non cogit
impossibilia.   Plaintiffs have attempted to argue to a straw man
by  predicting  that  Applicant  "will  engage  in  a  calculated
campaign  of   pleadings  harassment   against  the  Nordbrocks."
Plaintiffs should  not be permitted to persuade this Court on the
basis of any special knowledge they might claim about the future.
     Furthermore, Plaintiffs  allege  that  none  of  Applicant's
pleadings filed in Mitchell v. Nordbrock "are remotely related to
the underlying  issues" [in  the instant  case].  Plaintiffs also
allege that  Applicant has made "numerous unfounded challenges to
justice court  jurisdiction and  to  the  justice  of  the  peace
assigned to  [that] case."   In  opposition to  these  false  and
rebuttable claims, Plaintiff testifies as follows:
     1.   Plaintiffs have  embezzled  approximately  $3,000  from
Applicant.   This sum was all the money which Applicant possessed
in the  world, at that point in time.  They did so in retaliation
against Applicant,  because  Applicant  had  exposed  Plaintiffs'
complicity in  perpetrating fraud and mail fraud upon New Life --
by creating and maintaining a fictitious trustee.  Applicant was,
and still is, the Vice President for Legal Affairs of New Life.
            Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion:
                          Page 7 of 20

     2.   Plaintiffs have  refused to return Applicant's private,
confidential database  which was  stored on  a one  (1)  gigabyte
(billion character)  Iomega JAZ  disk cartridge  and entrusted to
Plaintiffs for  safe keeping.   Plaintiffs  also knew  well  that
Applicant's life  had  been  threatened  by  one  of  Plaintiffs'
business associates  in the fall of 1996, and Applicant concluded
from that  frightening experience  that it was unwise to keep any
money in  Applicant's dwelling unit.  Plaintiffs agreed to manage
Applicant's $3,000  and to  keep said  disk cartridge  in a  safe
place  --   a  locked  gun  safe  --  until  receipt  of  further
instructions from Applicant.  Although Applicant has demanded the
return of  this private,  confidential database,  which took more
than seven (7) years of research to assemble, but Plaintiffs have
now refused to return it.  Accordingly, they are in possession of
stolen property  and are  liable  for  damages  to  Applicant  --
actual, consequential,  and  punitive.    Therefore,  Plaintiffs'
estate is now clouded, it is in real jeopardy, and it may need to
be foreclosed  to  discharge  Plaintiffs'  legal  liabilities  to
Applicant.  Plaintiff expressly reserves these Rights.
     3.   Applicant has additional evidence which is essential to
prove: (1)  Swan Business  Organization may,  in fact, be nothing
more than  a nominee,  or  alter ego, for  the private  estate of
Plaintiffs, and  (2) their  respective tax and other liabilities,
if any,  can be  offset by  foreclosing  upon  the  same  estate.
Applicant would,  in that  event, have probable cause formally to
apply for  intervention in  the instant  case, to  adjudicate the
respective priorities of all judgment creditors and claimants.
     More  to  the  point,  Applicant  has  performed  labor  for
Plaintiffs, and  Applicant argues  that  compensation  for  labor
takes precedence over any alleged tax liability(s).
            Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion:
                          Page 8 of 20

     4.   Plaintiff Neil T. Nordbrock  has also recently insulted
Applicant verbally  in the  lobby of  the Coronado Station of the
U.S. Postal Service;  and prior to that unfortunate incident, Mr.
Nordbrock intentionally startled Applicant by blaring Nordbrock's
truck horn as Nordbrock approached Applicant from the rear, while
Applicant was  walking on  a sidewalk  near Applicant's dwelling.
These events are commemorated in Applicant's NOTICE AND DEMAND TO
CEASE  AND   DESIST,  which   is  attached  as  Exhibit  "C"  and
incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
     5.   Finally,  in   the  event  that  Plaintiffs  should  be
compelled to  seek bankruptcy  protection, the  question of  debt
priorities would inevitably arise in that forum as well.  Debtors
cannot discharge fines and/or penalties that a federal, state, or
local government  has imposed  to punish  debtors for violating a
law.  Specifically, bankrupt debtors cannot discharge restitution
payments that might be imposed in criminal cases.  Restitution is
specifically non-dischargeable  because it is imposed against the
defendant(s) as  rehabilitation, rather  than to  compensate  the
victim.  See Kelly v. Robinson, 107 S.Ct. 353 (1986).
     Applicant  argues   that  Plaintiffs'   retaliation  against
Applicant constitutes  criminal conduct,  quite  apart  from  the
question of  whether, or not, Arizona state prosecutors presently
can, or ever will, prosecute them criminally.  See 18 U.S.C. 1512
and 1513.  Embezzlement of $3,000 is a class 3 felony in Arizona.
See ARS 13-1802(A), in chief.
     Given that  the plaintiff  in Mitchell v. Nordbrock has also
filed a  formal challenge  to the juror qualification statutes in
Arizona, it  may be  a very  long time  before  a  competent  and
qualified state grand jury can be convened to hear evidence which
Applicant has  already  sought  to  bring  before  such  a  jury.
Applicant now refuses to testify to any "grand jury" which is not
a legal  body, and  will oppose  any subpoena(s) from state grand
juries for  the same  reason, pending final review of Applicant's
formal challenge to juror and voter registrant qualifications.
            Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion:
                          Page 9 of 20

     Plaintiffs have  charged Applicant with filing a "frivolous,
legally unreasonable,  and factually  unfounded pleading"  [sic].
Applicant submits  that such adjectives call for findings of fact
and conclusions  of  law,  which  can  only  result  from  proper
adjudication,  and   declaratory  relief  from  a  competent  and
qualified trial  jury, after  due  process  has  run  its  proper
course.   Applicant hereby reserves all Rights without prejudice,
including Applicant's  fundamental Right  to trial by jury in all
controversies exceeding  twenty  dollars.    See  the  Fifth  and
Seventh Amendments,  in chief.    Fundamental  Rights  are  never
frivolous, unreasonable, or unfounded.
     Applicant has  also been  an eyewitness,  during the past 18
months, to  a property conversion racket now being perpetrated by
means of  bogus "commercial  warrants" and  "documentary  drafts"
[sic] urged  upon naive  followers by  the likes  of M. Elizabeth
Broderick ("Broderick"), of Palmdale, California state, and LeRoy
Michael Schweitzer ("Schweitzer"), of Billings, Montana state.
     Broderick was  recently convicted  in  Los  Angeles  federal
court  of  twenty-six  (26)  counts  of  fraud  and  bank  fraud;
Schweitzer is  under indictment  in Billings for similar charges.
Applicant was  retained  by  both  Broderick  and  Schweitzer  to
provide services  as a Counselor at Law in their respective cases
but, after  Applicant submitted  separate invoices to each client
in excess  of $10,000,  both  Broderick  and  Schweitzer  refused
payment for same (approx. $20,000 total).
     Applicant can ill afford such economic retaliation.
            Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion:
                          Page 10 of 20

     Plaintiffs have  promoted the questionable legal theories of
Broderick and  Schweitzer, even  going so far as to tender one of
Schweitzer's commercial warrants to the Internal Revenue Service,
to  discharge  Plaintiffs'  outstanding  federal  tax  liability.
Evidence  of this bogus  warrant  has  been filed  in Mitchell v.
Nordbrock.   Said warrant  by Plaintiffs  is a matter of material
evidence, of which this Court should take formal judicial Notice.
     Applicant is  now  actively  pursuing  more  evidence  which
traces these  bogus commercial  warrants to a property conversion
racket being  orchestrated out  of the U.S. Department of Justice
("DOJ") in downtown Los Angeles, California state.  The "bounced"
warrants  are   delivered  there   by  the   Federal  Bureau   of
Investigation ("FBI"),  after electronic  dossiers are  assembled
which lead FBI and DOJ employees directly to large asset groups.
     These asset  groups are then targeted for foreclosure and/or
forfeiture, under  federal banking  and postal  laws.   Selective
prosecution is then begun against certain individuals, in part to
make examples  out of  them, to  forfeit their  real and personal
properties, and to discourage Americans from utilizing commercial
processes (e.g.  true bills) to perfect claims against government
employees for  systematic and  premeditated violations of federal
and state law.  This is entrapment, and it needs to stop.
     Plaintiffs have,  evidently, been  actively involved  in the
creation, utilization,  and promotion  of these  bogus commercial
warrants and  documentary drafts  [sic].  Applicant is aware that
Mr. Neil T. Nordbrock,  acting  as  New Life's  only  accountant,
urged  New Life management  to tender  one or  more of such bogus
paper instruments  to discharge  New Life's  federal  income  tax
liabilities.   A business  associate of M. Elizabeth Broderick --
Adolf Hoch  -- even confided to Applicant, in the Spring of 1996,
that New Life had used several of Broderick's documentary drafts,
"flushing New Life with much additional cash," as Mr. Hoch put it
(or words to that effect).  Hoch was convicted with Broderick.
            Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion:
                          Page 11 of 20

     Last but  not least,  Applicant  offers  to  prove  that  M.
Elizabeth Broderick  is actually  a DOJ  "front" woman, operating
under deep  cover for  the benefit  of principals within the U.S.
Department of  Justice in Los Angeles, and in other major cities.
Those principals  are actively exploiting the capabilities of the
PROMIS software,  which Applicant  alleges was  stolen  from  the
Inslaw Corporation,  then significantly  enhanced to operate over
the Internet,  in order to assemble the electronic dossiers which
are required  to target asset groups slated for forfeiture and/or
foreclosure.   In  summary,  this  appears  to  be  a  nationwide
property  conversion   racket,  operating  in  violation  of  the
Racketeering and  Corrupt Organizations  Act at  18 U.S.C.  1961.
Compare also 18 U.S.C. 1964(a) and 1964(c), in pari materia.
                        REMEDY REQUESTED
     Wherefore, all  premises having been duly considered by this
honorable Court,  Applicant respectfully requests that all Relief
Requested in the STRIKE MOTION be denied.
     In the alternative, Applicant respectfully requests that the
STRIKE MOTION  be tabled,  until  such  time  as  Applicant  does
formally apply  for intervention of Right in the instant case, at
which time  the current STRIKE MOTION, or a substantially amended
version, can  and should be properly considered by this honorable
Court, but only then, and not before then.
            Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion:
                          Page 12 of 20

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"  (federal  government),  that  the
attached documents  are true and correct copies of the originals,
with the  sole exception  of the  original  blue-ink  signatures,
which signatures  are hereby  affixed by proxy, 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:  August 27, 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
            Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion:
                          Page 13 of 20

                        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):
                Petition Clause, First Amendment
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
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
Malcolm K. Ryder, Esq.
c/o 3100 N. Campbell Ave., Ste. 101
Tucson, Arizona state
Executed on August 27, 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
            Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion:
                          Page 14 of 20

                          Exhibit "A":
               People ex rel. Paul Andrew Mitchell
             Pima County Consolidated Justice Court
                    Superior Court of Arizona
                      Tucson, Arizona state
                       case number #320831
            Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion:
                          Page 15 of 20

                          Exhibit "B":
              (citing Petition Clause authorities)
                   Mitchell v. Nordbrock et al.
             Pima County Consolidated Justice Court
                      Tucson, Arizona state
                     case number #CV-97-3438
            Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion:
                          Page 16 of 20

                          Exhibit "C":
                      Paul Andrew Mitchell
                      Neil Thomas Nordbrock
            Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion:
                          Page 17 of 20

                          Exhibit "D":
                   Mitchell v. Nordbrock et al.
             Pima County Consolidated Justice Court
                      Tucson, Arizona state
                     case number #CV-97-3438
            Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion:
                          Page 18 of 20

                          Exhibit "E":
              In Re New Life Health Center Company
                 United States Bankruptcy Court
                     Phoenix, Arizona state
                  case number #93-06051-PHX-GBN
            Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion:
                          Page 19 of 20

                          Exhibit "F":
                    IN RE LAWRENCE E. CONDIT
                   Mitchell v. Nordbrock et al.
             Pima County Consolidated Justice Court
                      Tucson, Arizona state
                     case number #CV-97-3438
            Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion:
                          Page 20 of 20

                             #  #  #

Return to Table of Contents for

Swan v. Ulan