Certified U.S. Mail c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776
Serial Number #P-476-653-250 Tucson, Arizona state
Return Receipt Requested zip code exempt
Restricted Delivery Requested June 15, 1996
CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE AND DEMAND
Mr. Robert A. Johnson
3225 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500
Phoenix, Arizona state
zip code exempt
Dear Mr. Johnson:
This is to inform you that you have been implicated in barratry,
fraud, extortion, and criminal conspiracy because of verified
statements of fact which have been made in the JOINT AFFIDAVIT OF
DR. AND MRS. EUGENE BURNS AND DR. AND MRS. SHELDON DEAL, which
was executed and filed on behalf on the Company In re: Grand Jury
Subpoena Served on New Life Health Center Company, U.S. District
Court Case No. GJ-95-1-6, Tucson, Arizona.
You will have at most thirty (30) calendar days, as of the above
date, to file any verified affidavit(s) of rebuttal to this
AFFIDAVIT, a copy of which is attached hereto for your
convenience. Under applicable rules of the Common Law, which
have been formally invoked in this case, your failure to rebut
said AFFIDAVIT will render it conclusive fact and the truth of
the case for all time. Silence creates estoppel by acquiescence.
Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a
legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left
unanswered would be intentionally misleading. ... We
cannot condone this shocking conduct by the IRS. Our
revenue system is based upon the good faith of the
taxpayers and the taxpayers should be able to expect
the same from government in its enforcement and
collection activities.... This sort of deception will
not be tolerated and if this is the "routine" it should
be corrected immediately.
[U. S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977)]
[quoting U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032 (1970)]
[emphasis added]
Silence is a species of conduct, and constitutes an
implied representation of the existence of the state of
facts in question, and the estoppel is accordingly a
species of estoppel by misrepresentation. [cite
omitted] When silence is of such a character and under
such circumstances that it would become a fraud upon
the other party to permit the party who has kept silent
to deny what his silence has induced the other to
believe and act upon, it will operate as an estoppel.
[Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906), emphasis added]
Pleased be advised that the Company and its officers and co-
workers have explicitly reserved their right to have a jury of
peers resolve controversies of fact and law in this case.
Thank you very much in advance for your cooperation. The clock
is now running.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state
email: supremelawfirm@altavista.net
website: http://supremelaw.com
copies: Judge John M. Roll, U.S. District Court, Tucson
Judge Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit, Pasadena
Judge George Nielsen, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Phoenix
Albert M. Rau, Chapter 13 Trustee, Phoenix
James J. Everett, former Counsel for Debtors, Phoenix
# # #
Return to Table of Contents for
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena