Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness,
Counselor at Law, and Vice President,
New Life Health Center Company
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
SERVED ON  )
NEW LIFE HEALTH CENTER COMPANY ) AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT
 ) AND OF PROBABLE CAUSE:
 ) 28 U.S.C. 1746(1);
 ) Rule 201(d), Federal
  ) Rules of Evidence
_______________________________)
 
 
COMES NOW Paul Andrew, Mitchell, Sui Juris, Citizen of Arizona
 
state (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
 
"Company"), to provide formal Notice to all interested party(s),
 
and to demand mandatory judicial Notice by this honorable Court,
 
pursuant to Rule 201(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, of
 
this, Counsel's AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT AND OF PROBABLE CAUSE.
 
 
 VERIFICATION
 
 Counsel hereby verifies, under penalty of perjury, under the
 
laws of the United States of America, without the "United
 
States", that the following statement of facts is true and
 
correct, to the best of Counsel's current information, knowledge,
 
and belief, so help Me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
 
 
 Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause:
 Page 1 of 7

 When Counsel was first retained by the General Manager of
 
the Company to prepare a civil defense against the subpoena
 
allegedly served upon the Company in the instant case, Counsel
 
first contacted the office of Mr. Robert L. Miskell [sic] to
 
request a copy of the original application mentioned on subpoena
 
numbered GJ #95-1-137, dated March 5, 1996, to wit:
 
 "This subpoena is issued on application of the United States
 of America
 RLM:js
 9500556
 SA Cardenas, IRS"
 
 
In response to Counsel's telephone request for said application,
 
Mr. Miskell said, "You've got all you're gonna get." Counsel
 
then answered, "Thank you very much." Mr. Miskell then hung up.
 
 Counsel attaches hereto a copy of the MEMO by Counsel to Dr.
 
Gene Burns, dated March 11, 1996, which documents this telephone
 
request. Said MEMO is incorporated here by reference as if set
 
forth fully herein.
 
 Subsequently, on May 12, 1996, Counsel submitted a proper
 
request under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") to ROBERT
 
L. MISKELL [sic] for said application. A true and correct copy
 
of this original FOIA request is attached hereto and incorporated
 
by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
 
 Upon receiving no documents in response to said FOIA
 
request, Counsel submitted a proper and timely FOIA appeal, dated
 
May 24, 1996. A true and correct copy of the original FOIA
 
appeal is attached hereto and incorporated by reference, as if
 
set forth fully herein.
 
 
 Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause:
 Page 2 of 7

 On June 6, 1996, Counsel filed a pleading with the Clerk of
 
this honorable Court, which pleading was entitled 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. In the STATUS
 
REPORT section of this pleading, Counsel provided this honorable
 
Court with an up-to-date status report of all FOIA requests and
 
appeals then outstanding. At that time, the application
 
requested in the original FOIA request and the original FOIA
 
appeal had still not been produced.
 
 On January 6, 1997, Counsel filed another pleading entitled
 
NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR PROOF OF JURISDICTION IN THE PARTICULARS:
 
Rule 201(d), Federal Rules of Evidence. Said pleading contained
 
the following crucial paragraph, to wit:
 
 Accordingly, the "Application of the United States of
 America" appears to be fraudulent on its face, and must be
 entered into the permanent court record of the instant case,
 as a matter of law, to prove, once and for all, whether or
 not this honorable Court had any jurisdiction to proceed
 over the subject matter in the first instance. It is well
 established that subject matter jurisdiction can be raised
 at any time.
 
 
Said pleading, dated January 6, 1997, provided an explicit and
 
conspicuous NOTICE OF DEADLINE, demanding that said application,
 
with the requisite proof of subject matter jurisdiction, be filed
 
in the official court record and also served on all interested
 
party(s) no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, January 17, 1997.
 
 Counsel hereby testifies, under penalty of perjury, under
 
the laws of the United States of America, without the "United
 
States", that said deadline passed without production of either
 
the requested application, or of any proof whatsoever of this
 
honorable Court's jurisdiction to proceed over the subject matter
 
of the instant case in the first instance.
 
 
 Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause:
 Page 3 of 7

 Accordingly, Counsel hereby invokes the doctrine of estoppel
 
by acquiescence to assert Counsel's fundamental Right, on behalf
 
of the Company, to declare this entire proceeding to have been
 
ultra vires ab initio (without authority from the very
 
beginning). See Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906).
 
 Counsel hereby declares, notoriously on record and for the
 
benefit of all interested party(s), Counsel's intent to take all
 
appropriate legal and lawful actions to enforce all rights which
 
have been impaired, in whole or in part, and to recover all real,
 
consequential, and exemplary damages inflicted, by all persons
 
alleging to be federal officers, employees and/or contract agents
 
of the United States (federal government) in the instant case.
 
 In particular, Counsel hereby holds the man claiming to be
 
United States District Judge John M. Roll personally responsible
 
for over 112 felony violations of Title 18, United States Code,
 
together with all his accomplices and co-conspirators, acting in
 
concert to violate 18 U.S.C. 242 and 241, in addition to
 
violating the prohibitions against obstruction of correspondence,
 
jury tampering, obstruction of justice, perjury of oath,
 
barratry, and contempt of court.
 
 Other accessories and co-conspirators with John M. Roll
 
include, but are not limited to, Janet Napolitano, Robert L.
 
Miskell, Evangelina Cardenas, Robert A. Johnson, Richard H. Weare,
 
and William M. McCool, all employed either in the Department of
 
Justice, in the "Internal Revenue Service" [sic], or in the
 
United States District Court in Arizona state
 
 
 Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause:
 Page 4 of 7

Executed on February 25, 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
 
 
 Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause:
 Page 5 of 7

 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. 1746(1); Rule 201(d), Federal Rules of Evidence
 
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 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 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
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
c/o P.O. Box 193939
San Francisco, California
 
 
 Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause:
 Page 6 of 7

Executed on February 25, 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
 
 
 Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause:
 Page 7 of 7
 
 
 # # #

MEMO
 
TO: Dr. Gene Burns
 
FROM: Paul Andrew, Mitchell,
 Counselor at Law
 
DATE: March 11, 1996
 
SUBJECT: Subpoena to Testify before Grand Jury
 
 
Per your request, I contacted Mr. Robert L. Miskell, AUSA, in the
U.S. Attorney's Office in Tucson, Arizona, and requested a copy
of the "application" which is mentioned on the face page of the
Subpoena numbered GJ #95-1-137, dated March 5, 1996, to wit:
 
 "This subpoena is issued on application of the United States
 of America
 RLM:js
 9500556
 SA Cardenas, IRS"
 
Mr. Miskell responded by stating, "You've got all you're gonna
get."
 
I answered, "Thank you very much." Then he hung up.
 
 
Yours truly,
 
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
 
Paul Andrew, Mitchell
 
email: supremelawfirm@altavista.net
 
website: http://supremelaw.com
 
attachment: copy of Subpoena dated March 5, 1996
 
 
 # # #

Certified U.S. Mail c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776
Serial Number #P-476-216-397 Tucson, Arizona state
Return Receipt Requested zip code exempt
 
 May 12, 1996
 
 
 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST
 
 
ROBERT L. MISKELL
Acapulco Building, Suite 8310
110 South Church Avenue
Tucson, Arizona state
 
Dear Mr. Miskell
 
This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.
552 et seq., and regulations thereunder. This is My firm promise
to pay fees and costs for locating, duplicating, and mailing to
Me certified copies of the records requested below.
 
If some of this request is exempt from release, please furnish Me
with those portions reasonably segregable. I am requiring
certified copies of the documents requested, in lieu of personal
inspection of same.
 
Documents requested:
 
 1. "Application of the United States of America" upon
 which the Subpoena to Testify before Grand Jury, dated
 March 5, 1996, was issued to the New Life Health Center
 Company, Tucson, Arizona
 
 
The requested records are not exempt from disclosure because
they:
 
 (A) could not reasonably be expected to interfere with law
 enforcement proceedings;
 
 (B) would not deprive a person of a right to a fair trial
 or an impartial adjudication;
 
 (C) could not reasonably be expected to constitute an
 unwarranted invasion of personal property;
 
 (D) could not reasonably be expected to disclose the
 identity of a confidential source;
 
 (E) would not disclose techniques and procedures for law
 enforcement investigations or prosecutions, and would
 not disclose guidelines for law enforcement
 investigations or prosecutions;
 
 (F) could not reasonably be expected to endanger the life
 or physical safety of any individual.
 
  [see Exemption 7 in FOIA]

If you are not the correct person to whom this Freedom of
Information Act Request should be directed, kindly forward it to
the correct person.
 
Time is of the essence. If you have any questions about your
rights and obligations under 5 U.S.C. 552, may we recommend that
you contact the office of the Attorney General in Washington,
D.C., for immediate assistance.
 
Thank you very much for your consideration, and for your timely
obedience to the controlling laws in this matter, specifically
the Freedom of Information Act and the Constitution for the
United States of America, as lawfully amended.
 
 
Respectfully submitted,
 
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
 
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state
 
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
 
 
 # # #

Certified U.S. Mail c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776
Serial Number # P-476-233-157 Tucson, Arizona state
Return Receipt Requested zip code exempt
Restricted Delivery Requested
 May 24, 1996
 
 
 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL
 
 
ROBERT L. MISKELL
Acapulco Building, Suite 8310
110 South Church Avenue
Tucson, Arizona state
Postal Zone 85701/tdc
 
Dear Mr. Miskell:
 
This is an appeal under the Freedom of Information Act.
 
On May 12, 1996, I requested documents under the Freedom of
Information Act. To date, the requested documents have not been
produced.
 
I hereby appeal your failure to produce the requested documents.
 
The documents that were withheld must be disclosed under the FOIA
because the original Thirteenth Amendment prevents government
officials from exercising privileges of a nobility class, such as
being exempt from the principles of open government and freedom
of information. Evidence of the original Thirteenth Amendment
has been filed with the Foreperson of the Grand Jury and with the
Clerk of the United States District Court in Tucson, Arizona
state (a Republic).
 
Disclosure of the documents which I requested is in the public
interest because the information, and the procedure for obtaining
the information, are likely to contribute significantly to public
understanding of the operations and activities of government and
are not primarily in My commercial interest.
 
Moreover, the information requested will help to improve public
confidence in the integrity of the Executive Branch of the
federal government, or to confirm that there are people
attempting to exercise executive branch powers in America without
any authority whatsoever.
 
Thank you for your careful consideration of this appeal.
 
 
Respectfully submitted,
 
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
 
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state
 
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
 
copy: Judge Alex Kozinski, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
 
 
 # # #

Certified U.S. Mail c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776
Serial Number #P-502-472-505 Tucson [zip code exempt]
Return Receipt Requested ARIZONA STATE
 
 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
 
email: supremelawfirm@altavista.net
 
website: http://supremelaw.com
 
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
 
 
 # # #

MEMO
 
TO: I. M. Moriarty
 Senior Consumer Affairs Associate
 United States Postal Service
 c/o 475 L'Enfant Plaza S.W.
 Washington [20260-2200]
 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
 
FROM: Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
 Counselor at Law
 
DATE: February 25, 1997
 
SUBJECT: Obstruction of Correspondence by
 U.S. District Judge John M. Roll
 
REFERENCE: 70300084:yla
 
 
Thank you for your letter dated February 21, 1997. For your
information, I have enclosed materials which explain the
complaint which I have brought against U.S. District Judge John
M. Roll for 28 counts of obstruction of correspondence, 28 counts
of jury tampering, 28 counts of obstruction of justice, and 28
counts of conspiracy to commit all of the above. See Ninth
Circuit Docket Number #96-80380, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 372(c).
 
I hereby add to these charges 28 additional counts of deprivation
of fundamental Rights under color of law, in violation of 18
U.S.C. 242, since the conduct of John M. Roll and his several
accomplices and co-conspirators deprived Me of My fundamental
Right to Petition Government for Redress of Grievances, in
violation of the Petition Clause in the First Amendment. See
also 18 U.S.C. 241, the conspiracy statute. For your information,
the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Petition Clause Right
is the Right conservative of all other rights. See Chambers v
Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 207 U.S. 142, 148 (1907).
 
Please note also that, in my letter to Postal Inspector James A.
Crawford dated January 21, 1997, I have formally requested an
application for monetary rewards and submitted notice of my
intent to present a written claim for reward payment. Please
expedite the delivery of this application to Me immediately. See
USPS Poster #296, May 1995.
 
I trust that the enclosed materials are self-explanatory. If you
should have any additional questions in this matter, please don't
hesitate to write to the lawful mailing location as shown below.
 
Thank you very much for your consideration.
 
 
Sincerely yours,
 
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
 
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Counselor at Law and federal witness
c/o 2509 N. Campbell Avenue, #1776
Tucson [85719]
ARIZONA STATE

email: supremelawfirm@altavista.net
 
website: http://supremelaw.com
 
copies:
 
 James A. Crawford, Postal Inspector, Tucson, Arizona state
 Henry J. Bauman, Independent Counsel, USPS, Washington, D.C.
 Cathy Catterson, Deputy Clerk, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
 Chief Judge Procter Hug, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
 Chief Judge Broomfield, U.S.D.C., District of Arizona
 
 
 # # #