Certified U.S. Mail c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776
Serial Number #P-502-472-505 Tucson [zip code exempt]
Return Receipt Requested ARIZONA REPUBLIC
February 11, 1997
NOTICE AND DEMAND
Henry J. Bauman
Independent Counsel
Office of the Chief Postal Inspector
United States Postal Inspection Service
475 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W., Room 3417
Washington, D.C.
Re: Mail Fraud Conspiracy by United States District
Judge John M. Roll
Dear Mr. Bauman:
This is My formal NOTICE to you that I have received, but
not accepted, your letter to Me dated January 21, 1997, in which
you made an administrative determination, without citing any
authorities, that the conduct of United States District Judge
John M. Roll does not constitute a violation of Title 18, U.S.C.,
Section 1341, Mail Fraud. Please be informed of the fact that I
am specifically complaining of obstruction of mail generally, and
obstruction of correspondence, specifically. See 18 U.S.C. 1701
and 1702, respectively. Mr. Bauman, there are a very large
number of things which John M. Roll's conduct was not; but, his
conduct clearly obstructed numerous pieces of registered,
certified, and first class U.S. Mail which I prepared and mailed
myself, specifically to the foreperson of a federal grand jury.
Please be informed that I have previously discussed this
matter with several USPS employees, including counter clerks,
route carriers, and postmasters. Their opinions have been
unanimous in responding that federal judges do not have authority
to obstruct registered, certified, and/or first class United
States Mail, particularly when return receipt and restricted
delivery services have been requested and purchased, and
particularly when said mail has been specifically directed to a
federal grand jury foreperson. I relied upon those opinions in
My subsequent efforts to bring Judge Roll's conduct to the
atttention of proper government employees, and to claim the
rewards which are now rightfully Mine, regardless of whether you
prosecute the employees involved, or not.
DEMAND
Accordingly, I hereby make this formal demand upon you, and
upon the United States Postal Service in general, to provide Me
with a certified copy of all constitutional provisions, statutes,
and regulations which specifically authorize United States
District Judges to obstruct registered, certified, and first
class United States Mail, when restricted delivery and return
receipt services have been requested, and when said mail was
directed specifically to the foreperson of a federal grand jury
convened under auspices of a United States District Court.
NOTICE OF DEADLINE
Time is now of the essence. If you do not provide the
certified documents demanded above, on or before 5:00 p.m. on
Monday, March 3, 1997, I shall be entitled to proceed on the
basis of the conclusive presumption that the documents demanded
do not exist, as a matter of fact, and that there are no
constitutional, statutory, or regulatory authorities anywhere in
federal law which authorize United States District Judges to
obstruct registered, certified, and first class United States
Mail, when restricted delivery and return receipt services have
been requested, and when said mail has been directed specifically
to the foreperson of a federal grand jury. Your silence in this
matter will cause a fraud to be committed upon Me, pursuant to
U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977), and your silence will
activate estoppel by acquiescence, pursuant to Carmine v. Bowen,
64 A. 932 (1906).
Thank you very much for your consideration. I will look
forward to your timely and considerate response to this proper
and lawful Notice and Demand.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness
copy: James A. Crawford
Postal Inspector
U.S. Postal Inspection Service
c/o P.O. Box 26320
Tucson, Arizona state
Postmaster
Coronado Station (point of origin)
United States Postal Service
c/o 255 North Rosemont Boulevard
Tucson, Arizona state
email: supremelawfirm@altavista.net
website: http://supremelaw.com
# # #
Return to Table of Contents for
Mitchell v. Nordbrock