c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776
Tucson [zip code exempt]
ARIZONA REPUBLIC
March 7, 1997
NOTICE OF DEFAULT
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: Criminal Conspiracy by United States
District Judge John M. Roll
Dear Mr. Bauman:
Thank you very much for your letter dated February 25, 1997,
concerning the criminal conspiracy to obstruct correspondence by
U.S. District Judge John M. Roll, by all his co-conspirators, and
by all his accessories.
Although your letter did not arrive until after the stated
deadline of 5:00 p.m. on Monday, March 3, 1997, it was dated
prior to that deadline and, for this reason, I will waive the
deadline and treat your latest letter as the official response of
the USPS to My NOTICE AND DEMAND dated February 11, 1997.
As expected, you have not produced certified copies of any
constitutional provisions, statutes, or regulations which
specifically authorize United States District Judges to obstruct
registered, certified, and first class U.S. 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. You are now in default in this regard.
You did, however, make a point of citing Title 18, United States
Code, Section 1504, influencing juror by writing. You did not
explain why it was that you were citing this statute. I am
presently unaware that there is any probable cause to charge
either John M. Roll, or any of his accessories or co-
conspirators, with violating this particular criminal statute.
Section 1504 certainly does not constitute any authority for a
federal judge to obstruct correspondence, obstruct justice,
tamper with a jury, or conspire with others to commit any of
these crimes. See 18 U.S.C. 1504, second paragraph.
You go on to cite Poster 296 as stating that the USPS offers a
reward for information and services "LEADING TO THE ARREST AND
CONVICTION of any person for crimes specified on the poster."
Furthermore, you allege that I do not qualify to make a claim for
any reward in this matter, as there have been no arrests or
convictions as a result of the information I provided.
Mr. Bauman, you did not read far enough on Poster 296!
Notice of Default to Henry J. Bauman:
Page 1 of 5
Evidently, you were quoting from the section of Poster 296 which
is entitled "RELATED OFFENSES" [sic]. If you will kindly read
the next section, which is entitled "GENERAL PROVISIONS", you
will find the following five (5) points there, to wit:
1. The Postal Inspection Service investigates the above
described crimes. Information concerning the violations,
requests for applications for rewards, and written claims
for rewards should be furnished to the nearest Postal
Inspector. The written claim for reward payment must be
submitted within six months from the date of conviction of
the offender, or the date of formally deferred prosecution
or the date of the offender's death, if killed in committing
a crime or resisting lawful arrest for one of the above
offenses.
2. The amount of any reward will be based on the significance
of services rendered, character of the offender, risks and
hazards involved, time spent, and expenses incurred.
Amounts of rewards shown above are the maximum amounts which
will be paid.
3. The term "custodian" as used herein includes any person
having lawful charge, control, or custody of any mail
matter, or any money or other property of the United States
under the control and jurisdiction of the USPS.
4. The USPS reserves the right to reject a claim for reward
where there has been collusion, criminal involvement, or
improper methods have been used to effect an arrest or to
secure a conviction. It has the right to allow only one
reward when several persons were convicted of the same
offense, or one person was convicted of several of the above
offenses.
5. Other rewards not specifically referred to in this notice
may be offered upon approval of the Chief Postal Inspector
(39 USC 404(a)(8)).
[emphasis added]
I draw your attention specifically to the following sentence from
point 1 above:
The written claim for reward payment must be submitted
within six months from the date of conviction of the
offender, or the date of formally deferred prosecution ....
As I have already stated in several different letters to
employees of the USPS, I regard the September 19 letter from
Thomas H. Basham, Supervisory Senior Resident Agent of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (Phoenix), to be the date of
formally deferred prosecution. My letter dated January 21, 1997,
to James A. Crawford, Postal Inspector (Tucson), explained that
the FBI's decision to shelve the evidence which I supplied to
them can, and should, be considered as the date of formally
deferred prosecution. This latter date falls within the six (6)
month deadline after the date of formally deferred prosecution.
Notice of Default to Henry J. Bauman:
Page 2 of 5
Moreover, I have assembled and transmitted to the FBI, to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and to your offices, evidence
identifying accessories to the criminal conspiracy, evidence
identifying persons having unlawful possession of mail and other
property secured through said conspiracy, and evidence of the
conspiracy itself. See RELATED OFFENSES in Poster 296. I hereby
express My intent to claim reward(s) for the services of
assembling and transmitting all of this evidence to the
government offices mentioned. I have received no rewards to date
in this matter.
In conclusion, please expedite the delivery to Me of an official
USPS application for rewards, and please accept this letter as My
second notice of intent to present a written claim for reward
payment. Poster 296 directs Me to write to the nearest Postal
Inspector to file these claims, so I am sending a copy of this
letter to James A. Crawford in the Tucson office of the U.S.
Postal Inspection Service, and all others listed below.
I also hereby reserve My Right to prosecute Johm M. Roll and all
of his accessories and co-conspirators for all the crimes
previously mentioned, and to hold them all liable for actual,
consequential, and exemplary damages to Me, and to the New Life
Health Center Company ("New Life"), of which I am presently the
Vice President for Legal Affairs, pursuant to a Trustee's
appointment to said office. For your information, that
appointment was officially recognized by United States District
Judge John M. Roll at the second hearing in the matter of the
grand jury subpoena served upon New Life and, for this reason, My
pleadings were officially filed in that case and I was also
permitted to address the court in My capacity as an officer of
New Life. Please be advised that you may be called as a material
witness in the litigation which will be forthcoming in this
matter.
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,
Vice President for Legal Affairs,
New Life Health Center Company
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
copies: USPS Board of Governors, Washington, D.C.
James A. Crawford, Postal Inspector, USPS, Tucson
Chief Postal Inspector, USPS, Washington, D.C.
Sharon H. Turner, Supervisor, USPS, Tucson
Postmaster, USPS, point of origin
I. M. Moriarty, USPS, Washington, D.C.
Cathy Catterson, Clerk of Court, Ninth Circuit
Chief Judge Broomfield, USDC, District of Arizona
service list attached infra
Notice of Default to Henry J. Bauman:
Page 3 of 5
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., 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 and a Citizen of one of the United States of America, and
that I personally served the following document(s):
Letter from Paul Mitchell, dated March 7, 1997,
to Henry J. Bauman, Independent Counsel, USPS
by placing said document(s) with exhibits in first class United
States Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed to the
following individuals:
ROBERT L. MISKELL [sic] John M. Roll [sic]
Acapulco Building, Suite 8310 U.S. District Court
110 South Church Avenue 55 E. Broadway
Tucson, Arizona state Tucson, Arizona state
JANET NAPOLITANO [sic] Clerk of Court
Acapulco Building, Suite 8310 United States District Court
110 South Church Avenue 55 E. Broadway
Tucson, Arizona state Tucson, Arizona state
Grand Jury Foreperson Postmaster
In re: New Life Health Center Co. U.S. Post Office
55 E. Broadway Downtown Station
Tucson, Arizona state Tucson, Arizona state
Judge Alex Kozinski (supervising) Evangelina Cardenas [sic]
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals "Internal Revenue Service"
125 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 200 300 West Congress
Pasadena, California state Tucson, Arizona state
Attorney General Solicitor General
Department of Justice Department of Justice
10th and Constitution, N.W. 10th and Constitution, N.W.
Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.
Thomas H. Basham, Agent Eugene A. Burns
Federal Bureau of Investigation New Life Health Center Company
201 East Indianola 4500 East Speedway, Suite 27
Phoenix, Arizona state Tucson, Arizona state
Chief Judge Chief Judge Broomfield
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals United States District Court
c/o P.O. Box 193939 55 E. Broadway
San Francisco, California state Tucson, Arizona state
Notice of Default to Henry J. Bauman:
Page 4 of 5
Executed on March 7, 1997:
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
_________________________________
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness,
Counselor at Law, and Vice President for Legal Affairs,
New Life Health Center Company, Tucson, Arizona state
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Notice of Default to Henry J. Bauman:
Page 5 of 5
# # #
Return to Table of Contents for
Mitchell v. Nordbrock