c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776
                                         Tucson [zip code exempt]
                                                 ARIZONA REPUBLIC

                                                February 25, 1997

Mr. Richard L. Huff
Co-Director
Office of Information and Privacy
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D.C.

Re:  Appeal No. 96-1378
     RLH:ADW

Dear Mr. Huff:

     Thank you  for your  letter to  Me, dated February 19, 1997,
with attachments.   I  regret to  inform you  that We must refuse
your letter for cause.  Our reasons for refusing your letter, and
all of its attachments, are stated as follows:

     Our  requests  for  the  credentials  of  one  Nora  Manella
required certified  copies of  these  credentials,  in  order  to
render the  requisite documents  admissible in  a court  of  law.
Without  the  requested  certification,  the  documents  are  not
admissible.   Although you  may not have known this, We have seen
many rulings against the admissibility of uncertified documents.

     Your response  is also  inadmissible under  the doctrine  of
estoppel.  Our original FOIA request for the official credentials
of one  Nora  Manella  dates  from  late  spring  of  last  year.
Pursuant to  Article VI,  Clause 3,  Citizens have  a fundamental
Right to  know that  federal employees  have taken  the requisite
oath of office, and evidence of said oath is not protected by any
restrictions of  the Privacy Act.  See 18 U.S.C. 242: deprivation
of fundamental Rights under color of law;  and Supremacy Clause.

     Because certified  copies of  the requisite credentials were
not produced  in response  to any  of Our  requests, We  are  now
entitled to  proceed on  the basis  of the conclusive presumption
that the  requisite credentials do not exist, and Nora Manella is
now estopped  from producing  said credentials at any time in the
future.   Silence is  a species  of  conduct  and  represents  an
implied representation  of the existence of the state of facts in
question.   On estoppel by acquiescence, see Carmine v. Bowen, 64
A. 932  (1906).   Silence can  also be  equated with  fraud where
there is  a legal  or a  moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry
left unanswered  would be  intentionally misleading.  See U.S. v.
Tweel, 550  F.2d 297, at 299 (1977), quoting U.S. v. Prudden, 424
F.2d 1021, at 1032 (1970).

     Last but  not least,  the document  you have presented to Us
does not  exhibit a valid OMB control number and expiration date.
A proper  Appointment Affidavit  is an OMB-approved federal form;
the absence  of the  requisite control number and expiration date
provides me  with sufficient  cause to  regard the  document as a
"bootleg request"  which belongs  in the  trash  can.    See  the
Paperwork Reduction Act for details and its legislative history.

     I do  apologize in  advance if  this letter should cause you
any inconvenience, but timeliness, genuineness, and certification
are essential prerequisites to proper adjudication of the matters
which were  raised by our original request for the credentials of
one Nora Manella.

     Thank you very much for your consideration.


Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness
and Counselor at Law

copy:  Judge Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
       (supervising)


email:    supremelawfirm@yahoo.com

website:  http://supremelaw.com


                             #  #  #
      

Return to Table of Contents for

U.S.A. v. Broderik et al.