Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness and
Vice President for Legal Affairs
c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776
Tucson, Arizona state, USA
zip code exempt (formerly DMM 122.32)
 
 
Under Protest and by Special Visitation
with explicit reservation of all rights
 
 
 
 
 
                  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 
                  JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
 
 
IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENA      ) Case No. GJ-95-1-6 (JMR)
SERVED ON                      )
NEW LIFE HEALTH CENTER COMPANY ) AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT
                               ) AND OF PROBABLE CAUSE:
                               ) 28 U.S.C. 955, 1746(1),
                               ) 1874, 42 U.S.C. 1986,
                               ) Federal Rules of Evidence:
                               ) Rule 201(d)
_______________________________)
 
 
COMES NOW  Paul Andrew,  Mitchell, Sui  Juris, Sovereign  Arizona
 
Citizen (hereinafter  "Counsel") and  Vice  President  for  Legal
 
Affairs of  New Life  Health Center  Company,  an  Unincorporated
 
Business Trust domiciled in the Arizona Republic (hereinafter the
 
"Trust") to  present this  verified AFFIDAVIT  OF DEFAULT  AND OF
 
PROBABLE CAUSE  concerning the several Freedom of Information Act
 
("FOIA") requests  and appeals  which I have previously submitted
 
to alleged agents of the United State in the instant case.
 
 
                        VERIFICATION
 
     The undersigned  Counsel hereby  certifies, under penalty of
 
perjury, under  the laws of the United States of America, without
 
the "United  States," that the following AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT AND
 
OF PROBABLE  CAUSE is true and correct, to the best of My current
 
information, knowledge,  and belief,  so help Me God and pursuant
 
to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
 
 
           Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause:
                          Page 1 of 10

            AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT AND OF PROBABLE CAUSE
 
     In a  pleading which  I previously prepared and submitted to
 
this honorable Court, entitled PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION, STATUS
 
REPORT ON  FOIA REQUESTS  NOW PENDING, AND NOTICE OF CHALLENGE TO
 
CONSTITUTIONALITY  OF   STATUTE:  5   U.S.C.  551(A),  (B):  FOIA
 
exemption  for   Judiciary  (hereinafter   "STATUS  REPORT"),   I
 
summarized the  status of several FOIA requests and appeals which
 
I have  submitted to  alleged agents  of the United States in the
 
instant case.   The following is a true and correct update of the
 
STATUS REPORT contained in said pleading:
 
                         FOIA     Document(s)  Appeal   Appeal
     FOIA Recipient      Date     Requested    Date     Status
 
     Robert L. Miskell   5/12/96  credentials  5/24/96  defaulted
 
     Robert L. Miskell   5/12/96  application  5/24/96  defaulted
 
     Janet Napolitano    5/12/96  credentials  5/24/96  defaulted
 
     Janet Napolitano    5/12/96  Supp. Rules  5/24/96  defaulted
 
     Richard H. Weare    5/12/96  credentials  5/24/96  defaulted
 
     Eva Cardenas        5/12/96  credentials  5/24/96  received
 
     John M. Roll        5/12/96  credentials  5/24/96  defaulted
 
     Postmaster          5/12/96  Form 3801    5/24/96  received
 
     Specifically, with  the two  exceptions noted  ("received"),
 
all other  FOIA requests and appeals remain unanswered as of July
 
3, 1996.   Said  pleading also contained the following paragraph,
 
clearly  to   specify  the   exact  deadline  for  exhaustion  of
 
administrative remedies for these FOIA requests and appeals:
 
     In all  cases, the appeal deadlines run at the end of twenty
     (20) working  days after  the  original  appeal  dates,  not
     including  weekends   and  national  holidays.    Thus,  all
     deadlines for  exhaustion of the administrative appeals will
     fall on  June 24,  1996 (allowing  an extra day for Memorial
     Day, a national holiday which intervened).
 
 
           Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause:
                          Page 2 of 10

     Counsel hereby  certifies that  the requisite oath of office
 
for one  John M.  Roll has not been produced, by him or by anyone
 
else, and that there is now probable cause for Me to believe that
 
his silence has now perpetrated a major fraud upon the Trust, its
 
Officers, Co-Workers, and Trustee(s) (hereinafter "Victims"), and
 
upon this honorable Court, because pertinent court decisions have
 
ruled that silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a
 
legal or  a moral  duty to  speak (i.e.  via  a  solemn  Oath  of
 
office),  or   where  an   inquiry  left   unanswered  would   be
 
intentionally misleading.
 
     Counsel believes,  based upon  seven (7)  years of  research
 
into applicable  federal laws,  that a  federal judge's  oath  of
 
office is an absolute prerequisite to serving in that office, and
 
to exercising any of the powers of that office.
 
     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.
 
         [U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977) emphasis added]
            [quoting U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032 (1970)]
 
 
     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]
 
 
     Counsel therefore believes that, without the requisite oath,
 
timely produced in response to Lawful notice and demand made by a
 
Litigants who  have come before him (her), the man (or woman) who
 
sits upon  the bench  of a district court of the United States is
 
acting without  any authority  whatsoever, and  cannot invoke any
 
immunity (absolute  or qualified)  for any  of the  damages which
 
s/he has  already inflicted,  or  plans  to  inflict,  upon  said
 
Litigants (e.g. jail, bench warrants, seizures of private chattel
 
papers, orders  to appear  and show  cause why they should not be
 
held in contempt, etc. ad nauseam).  See 42 U.S.C. 1986.
 
 
           Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause:
                          Page 3 of 10

     In this event, Counsel also believes that Litigants who have
 
come before him (her) are obligated, under numerous provisions of
 
state, federal,  and biblical  laws,  lawfully  to  intervene  to
 
prevent any  further violations  of said  laws by  any person who
 
impersonates a  de jure  federal judge,  and/or who  purports  to
 
exercise the  powers and  authorities of a de jure federal judge,
 
without also  producing certified evidence of his (her) requisite
 
Oath of office, upon receipt of a Lawful notice and demand, and a
 
Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request and appeal, for same.
 
See original Thirteenth Amendment and Article VI, Clause 3.
 
     Counsel is  now convinced there is probable cause to believe
 
that alleged  officers of the United States Department of Justice
 
-- Janet  Napolitano and Robert L. Miskell -- have perpetrated an
 
equally serious  fraud upon  all Victims, and upon this honorable
 
Court, by  impersonating de jure executive officers of the United
 
States before a group of American People purporting to constitute
 
a lawfully  convened federal  grand jury in the instant case, and
 
that said  persons have committed equally serious frauds upon the
 
Victims, and  upon this honorable Court, by prosecuting this case
 
in the first instance without Lawful authority to do so.
 
 
           Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause:
                          Page 4 of 10

     Furthermore, Counsel is now convinced that there is probable
 
cause to  believe that  alleged officers  of  the  United  States
 
District Court  -- Richard H. Weare  -- and Mr. Weare's  apparent
 
accomplice --  William M.  McCool -- likewise perpetrated equally
 
serious frauds  upon all  Victims, and upon this honorable Court,
 
by impersonating de jure officers of the United States Judiciary.
 
     Furthermore, Counsel is now convinced that there is probable
 
cause to  believe that  an alleged  officer of  the United States
 
District Court -- William M. McCool -- practiced law in violation
 
of the  applicable federal statute when he advised Counsel not to
 
mail any  pleadings to  the federal  grand jury Foreperson in the
 
instant case,  and to  mail them  directly to  the United  States
 
Attorney instead, in blatant violation of 28 U.S.C. 955, to wit:
 
 
     955.  Practice of law restricted
 
     The clerk  of each  court and  his deputies  and  assistants
     shall not practice law in any court of the United States.
 
                                                  [28 U.S.C. 955]
 
 
                INCORPORATION OF PRIOR PLEADINGS
 
     Counsel hereby incorporates by reference all prior pleadings
 
submitted on  behalf of the Trust, and on behalf of its Officers,
 
Co-Workers, and  Trustee(s), as  if they  were  set  forth  fully
 
herein.   To this  end, the  following is Counsel's reconstructed
 
version of the "Docket" in the instant case, which should closely
 
parallel the official court docket:
 
            Trust Docket:  In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena
            Served on New Life Health Center Company
                  U.S.D.C. Case No. GJ-95-1-6
 
04/10/96  Application for Order to Show Cause          Napolitano
                                                          Miskell
 
04/12/96  ORDERED that a representative of New Life
          appear and show cause why the Company
          shall not be found in contempt                     Roll
 
04/18/96  Supplement to Application for Order to       Napolitano
          Show Cause   Miskell
 
04/24/96  AFFIDAVIT OF CAUSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
          O.S.C.                                         Mitchell
 
 
           Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause:
                          Page 5 of 10

04/25/96  ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE hearing:
          Mitchell appears for New Life,
          not allowed to speak because He is
          neither licensed bar attorney, nor
          an officer of New Life                             Roll
 
05/03/96  ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE hearing:
          Burns and Mitchell present as officers
          of the New Life;  Mitchell recognized
          as New Life officer in court record;
          ORDERED that Burns appear before GJ
          on 5/22/96 with copies of the requested
          document [sic]                                     Roll
 
05/14/96  NOTICE OF OFFER WITHDRAWAL; PETITION FOR
          CLARIFICATION, FOR RECONSIDERATION, FOR
          WRIT OF MANDAMUS, AND FOR ORDERS TO SHOW
          CAUSE;  WITH POINTS AND AUTHORITIES              Burns/
          [long list of authorities here]                Mitchell
 
05/20/96  SUPPLEMENT TO PETITION FOR ORDER TO
          SHOW CAUSE                                     Mitchell
 
05/21/96  ORDERED that FOIA request to John M. Roll
          be filed in the pending case;  and
          ORDERED that this is not the proper forum
          to bring a request under the FOIA                  Roll
 
05/23/96  MOTION TO STRIKE Affidavit of Causes and
          Objections to O.S.C.;  Notice of Offer
          Withdrawal etc.; Supplement to Petition
          for Order to Show Cause;  and that Clerk
          not file any further pleadings that are      Napolitano
          not signed by a properly licensed attorney      Miskell
 
05/23/96  SECOND APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
          to Burns and New Life why they should not
          be held in contempt for failure to comply    Napolitano
          with Court's ORDER of May 3, 1996               Miskell
 
05/24/96  ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, issued upon
          Burns and New Life, to appear on 6/10/96
          and show cause why Burns and New Life
          shall not be found in contempt for
          New Life's alleged failure to comply
          with the Court's Order of May 3, 1996
          (not served on Burns or New Life)                  Roll
 
05/24/96  PETITION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:
          GRAND JURY TESTIMONY                           Mitchell
 
05/24/96  VERIFIED STATEMENT OF COUNSEL IN SUPPORT
          OF CHALLENGE TO GRAND JURY SELECTION
          POLICY AND ITS FEDERAL STATUTE:
          28 U.S.C. 1746(1)                              Mitchell
 
 
           Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause:
                          Page 6 of 10

05/24/96  NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY
          PROCEEDINGS FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH
          GRAND JURY SELECTION POLICY, AND NOTICE
          OF CHALLENGE AND CHALLENGE TO
          CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTE:
          28 U.S.C. 297, 517, 518, 1861, 1865,
          and 1867(d)                                    Mitchell
 
05/30/96  COMPANY'S OPPOSITION TO SECOND APPLICATION
          FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;  PETITION FOR
          ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;  AND NOTICE OF
          CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION, WITH                  Burns/
          VERIFICATION                                   Mitchell
 
06/03/96  MOTION TO CONTINUE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE       Napolitano
          HEARING                                         Miskell
 
06/03/96  NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR THE RIGHT TO ENJOY         Burns/
          THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL OF CHOICE            Mitchell
 
06/03/96  MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
          SUPPORT OF COMPANY'S CHALLENGE TO
          JURISDICTION FOR VIOLATING THE FUNDAMENTAL
          GUARANTEE TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF             Burns/
          COUNSEL:  Sixth Amendment                      Mitchell
 
06/03/96  NOTICE OF CLERICAL UPDATE TO MISCELLANEOUS       Burns/
          EXHIBIT PREVIOUSLY FILED                       Mitchell
 
06/04/96  NOTICE OF SECOND CLERICAL UPDATE TO
          MISCELLANEOUS EXHIBIT PREVIOUSLY FILED         Mitchell
 
06/04/96  VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DAN MEADOR, AUTHOR
          OF MISCELLANEOUS EXHIBIT PREVIOUSLY FILED,    Mitchell/
          AND NOTICE OF SAME: 28 U.S.C. 1746(1)            Meador
 
06/04/96  NOTICE OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
          APPEAL RESPONSE BY USPS MANAGER, DOWNTOWN
          STATION, TUCSON                                Mitchell
 
06/05/96  NOTICE OF VOTING RIGHTS VIOLATION AND OF
          TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION, AND OF
          PETITION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE:
          Art. I, Sec. 2, Cl. 1                          Mitchell
 
06/05/96  NOTICE OF CHALLENGE TO UNITED STATES
          ATTORNEY AND DEADLINE FOR RESPONSE             Mitchell
 
06/06/96  PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION, STATUS REPORT
          ON FOIA REQUESTS NOW PENDING, AND NOTICE
          OF CHALLENGE TO CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
          STATUTE:  5 U.S.C. 551(1)(A), (B):
          FOIA exemption for Judiciary                   Mitchell
 
06/07/96  JOINT AFFIDAVIT OF DR. AND MRS. EUGENE           Burns/
          BURNS AND DR. AND MRS. SHELDON DEAL                Deal
 
 
           Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause:
                          Page 7 of 10

06/08/96  ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE faxed to New Life
          by Eva Cardenas from IRS-CID                   Cardenas
 
06/09/96  NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
          AND RECONSIDERATION, AND CHALLENGE TO
          HOLDINGS OF U.S. SUPREME COURT                 Mitchell
 
06/10/96  COMPANY'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
          TO STRIKE, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL, AND
          CHALLENGE TO CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
          "ILLEGAL TAX PROTESTOR" CLASSIFICATIONS        Mitchell
 
06/10/96  ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE hearing:
          Mitchell addresses Court as officer of the
          corporation [this is a serious error];
          Mitchell advises Court Burns was not served;
          ORDERED that hearing is continued to
          Monday, June 17, 1996 at 4:30 p.m., and
          that Burns appear and show cause why He
          should not be held in contempt for failing
          to produce documents [sic] subpoenaed by
          the Grand Jury                                     Roll
 
06/12/96  REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND FIRST
          SUPPLEMENT TO CHALLENGE TO HOLDINGS OF
          U.S. SUPREME COURT                             Mitchell
 
06/12/96  MOTION TO CONTINUE O.S.C. HEARING              Mitchell
 
06/13/96  NOTICE OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
          (FOIA) APPEAL RESPONSE BY IRS DISCLOSURE
          OFFICER, NOTICE OF PROBABLE FRAUD, AND
          MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT: 28 U.S.C.
          2201, Full Faith and Credit Clause             Mitchell
 
06/14/96  NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY OF
          PEERS OF ALL FACTS AND LAWS AT ISSUE:
          FRCP Rules 38, 39, Seventh Amendment           Mitchell
 
06/15/96  NOTICE OF OBJECTION AND FORMAL OBJECTION
          TO COURT'S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, DATED
          JUNE 10, 1996, FOR EXHIBITING A FALSE
          PRESUMPTION THAT COMPANY IS A CORPORATION,
          WITHOUT JUDICIAL DETERMINATION:
          28 U.S.C. 372(c), 454                          Mitchell
 
06/15/96  NOTICE OF EXHIBITS AND REQUEST FOR FORMAL
          JUDICIAL NOTICE OF EVIDENCE ATTACHED AND
          UNDER SEPARATE COVER                           Mitchell
 
06/17/96  Judge Roll's secretary calls New Life
          worker to explain that MOTION TO CONTINUE,
          dated 6/12/96, has been denied
          (no written confirmation served)               Roll (?)
 
06/17/96  NOTICE OF APPEAL (10:34 a.m.)
          from the Order to Show Cause                   Mitchell
 
 
           Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause:
                          Page 8 of 10

06/17/96  ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE hearing (4:30 p.m.):          
          Mitchell present for New Life;
          Burns not present because of Appeal Notice;
          bench warrant issued for Burns' arrest;
          Mitchell not recognized by the Court;
          Mitchell's pleadings are stricken;
          pleadings/documents will not be accepted unless
          filed by Burns, or by authorized attorney on
          behalf of Burns;  further, grand jury
          transcript is sealed                               Roll
 
06/18/96  EMERGENCY MOTION UNDER CIRCUIT RULE 27-3          Burns
          proceeding In Propria Persona before the
          Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, S.F.,
          with Nunc Pro Tunc clerical update
 
07/03/96  NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS IS NOTICE TO AGENTS.      Mitchell
 
07/03/96  NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS.      Mitchell
 
Further Counsel Sayeth naught.
 
 
Executed on July 3, 1996
 
 
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
__________________________________
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness and
Vice President for Legal Affairs of
New Life Health Center Company,
an Unincorporated Business Trust
Domiciled in the Arizona Republic
 
 
           Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause:
                          Page 9 of 10

                        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):
 
           AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT AND OF PROBABLE CAUSE:
          28 U.S.C. 955, 1746(1), 1874, 42 U.S.C. 1986,
             Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 201(d)
 
by placing  said document(s)  with exhibits in first class United
 
States Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed to:
 
 
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                    Tucson, Arizona
 
JANET NAPOLITANO [sic]             Clerk
Acapulco Building, Suite 8310      U.S. District Court
110 South Church Avenue            55 E. Broadway
Tucson, Arizona                    Tucson, Arizona
 
Grand Jury Foreperson              Postmaster
In re: New Life Health Center Co.  U.S. Post Office
55 E. Broadway                     Downtown Station
Tucson, Arizona                    Tucson, Arizona
 
Judge Alex Kozinski                Evangelina Cardenas [sic]
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals     "Internal Revenue Service"
125 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 200     300 West Congress
Pasadena, California               Tucson, Arizona
 
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.
 
Special Agent                      William M. McCool [sic]
Federal Bureau of Investigation    U.S. District Court
1 South Church Avenue              44 E. Broadway, Room 202
Tucson, Arizona                    Tucson, Arizona
 
 
Executed on July 3, 1996
 
 
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
__________________________________
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state and federal witness
 
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
 
 
           Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause:
                          Page 10 of 10
 
 
                             #  #  #