Dr. Eugene Arthur, Burns, Sui Juris
Citizen of Arizona state
c/o 4500 East Speedway, Suite 27
Tucson [zip code exempt]
ARIZONA STATE
 
In Propria Persona
 
Under Protest and by Special Visitation
with explicit reservation of all rights
 
 
 
 
 
                 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
 
                      FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
 
 
IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENA       )
SERVED ON                       )
NEW LIFE HEALTH CENTER COMPANY  )
                                )
________________________________)
                                )
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,       )     No. 96-16145
                                )
     Plaintiff/Appellee,        )     DC# GJ-95-1-6-JMR
                                )     Arizona (Tucson)
vs.                             )
                                )     PETITION FOR REHEARING
Eugene Arthur, Burns, Sui Juris )           EN BANC
                                )
     Defendant/Appellant.       )
________________________________)
 
 
                       PURPOSE OF PETITION
 
COMES NOW Dr. Eugene Arthur, Burns, Sui Juris, Citizen of Arizona
 
state (hereinafter  "Petitioner") and  Managing Director  of  New
 
Life Health  Center Company,  an  Unincorporated  Business  Trust
 
domiciled in  the Arizona  Republic (hereinafter the "Trust"), to
 
petition this  honorable Court of Appeals for a rehearing en banc
 
of His  EMERGENCY MOTION  UNDER CIRCUIT  RULE  27-3  (hereinafter
 
"EMERGENCY MOTION") previously filed with this Court.
 
 
                 Petition for Rehearing En Banc:
                          Page 1 of 8

                      CAUSES FOR REHEARING
 
     Petitioner hereby  submits that material facts and laws were
 
overlooked by  the Order  of this  Court, dated  June  28,  1996,
 
dismissing His  appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.  These
 
material facts and laws are as follows:
 
     1.   Even though the notice of appeal in this action was not
 
signed by  the Appellant  or  a  licensed  attorney  admitted  to
 
practice  before   this  Court,   Petitioner's  EMERGENCY  MOTION
 
contained two  key paragraphs  which amended all prior pleadings,
 
including the  notice of  appeal, by  means of  a nunc  pro  tunc
 
declaration made  in propria  persona.  This declaration was made
 
on page 4, beginning at line 9 in said EMERGENCY MOTION, to wit:
 
          Petitioner also  wishes to incorporate by reference all
     other pleadings  which have  already been  submitted in  the
     instant case,  and to  certify that He personally authorized
     all of  said pleadings  to be  submitted by  His Counsel  of
     choice, Paul  Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., on behalf of the
     Trust, and of which He is the General Manager.
 
          Petitioner  stands   by  those   pleadings  as   if  He
     personally  executed  them  Himself  proceeding  In  Propria
     Persona and  Nunc Pro  Tunc from  the time and date of their
     signing.   Those pleadings which could be swiftly copied and
     transmitted via  fax to the Clerk of the Ninth Circuit Court
     of Appeals  are attached  hereto and  also  incorporated  by
     reference as if set forth fully herein.
 
          Counsel has  been advised  by Mr.  Stephen Cassidy that
     the rules  prohibit the  faxing of pleadings in excess of 40
     pages.   So, Petitioner has dispatched Counsel to hand-carry
     the additional  pleadings directly to the Clerk of the Ninth
     Circuit with  all deliberate  speed.    Counsel  expects  to
     deliver said  additional pleadings  by noon on Tuesday, June
     18, 1996.   He  is booked  on  America  West  flight  #2604,
     scheduled to  leave Tucson,  Arizona at  6:30  a.m.  and  to
     arrive in San Francisco, California, at 10:39 a.m., at which
     time he  will take  the first  available bus to downtown San
     Francisco, and  then take a cab directly to the Clerk of the
     Ninth Circuit  Court, to  serve the remaining pleadings upon
     the Clerk in support of this EMERGENCY MOTION.
 
                                                 [emphasis added]
 
 
                 Petition for Rehearing En Banc:
                          Page 2 of 8

     Petitioner submits  that executing  all prior pleadings nunc
 
pro tunc  from the  time and date of their signing had the effect
 
of submitting  them with His own signature, proceeding in propria
 
persona.   The  authority  for  His  position  is  found  in  the
 
definition of  "nunc pro  tunc" which  is found  in  Black's  Law
 
Dictionary, Fourth Edition with Guide to Pronunciation:
 
     NUNC PRO  TUNC.   Lat.  Now for then.  In re Peter's Estate,
     175 Okl.  90, 51  P.2d 272,  274.   A phrase applied to acts
     allowed to  be done after the time when they should be done,
     with a  retroactive effect,  i.e. with the same effect as if
     regularly done.   Perkins  v. Hayward,  132 Ind. 95, 31 N.E.
     670;  Secou v. Leroux, 1 N.M. 388.
 
          "Nunc pro tunc" entry is an entry made now of something
     actually previously  done to  have effect  of  former  date;
     office being  not to  supply omitted  action, but  to supply
     omission in  record of action really had but omitted through
     inadvertence or  mistake.   Mallory v.  Ward Baking Co., 270
     Mich. 94,  258 N.W. 414;  People v. Rosenwald, 266 Ill. 548,
     107 N.E.  854, 856,  Ann.Cas.1915D, 688;   Grizzard v. Fite,
     137 Tenn. 103, 191 S.W. 969, 971, L.R.A.1917D, 652.
 
                                                 [emphasis added]
 
Accordingly, Petitioner  submits that the Notice of Appeal in the
 
instant case was signed by the appellant nunc pro tunc.
 
     2.   Petitioner hereby  challenges the  constitutionality of
 
the Final  Judgments Act,  28 U.S.C.  1291,  as  applied  in  the
 
instant case,  because  said  statute  results  in  imposing  the
 
offense of barratry upon Him, to wit:
 
     BARRATRY.   In criminal  law.  Also spelled "Barretry."  The
     offense of  frequently exciting and stirring up quarrels and
     suits, either  at law  or otherwise.  4 Bla.Com. 134;  State
     v. Batson, 220 N.C. 411, 17 S.E.2d 511, 512, 513.
 
          Common barratry  is the practice of exciting groundless
     judicial proceedings.   Pen.Code  Cal. Sec.  158;   Lucas v.
     Pico, 55  Cal. 128;   Com.  v. McCulloch,  15 Mass. 229;  Ex
     parte McCloskey, 82 Tex.Cr.R. 531, 199 S.W. 1101, 1102.
 
          In maritime  law.   An act  committed by the masters or
     mariners of  a  vessel,  for  some  unlawful  or  fraudulent
     purpose, contrary  to their  duty to the owners, whereby the
     latter sustain  injury.   It may  include negligence,  if so
     gross as  to evidence fraud.  Hansen v. Barnard, C.C.A.N.Y.,
     270 F. 163, 166.
 
          Some fraudulent  act of the master or mariners, tending
     to their  own benefit,  to the prejudice of the owner of the
     vessel,  without  his  privity  or  consent.    Kendrick  v.
     Delafield, 2 Caines N.Y. 67.
 
 
                 Petition for Rehearing En Banc:
                          Page 3 of 8

          A generic  term, which  includes many  acts of  various
     kinds and degrees.  It comprehends any unlawful, fraudulent,
     or dishonest  act of  the  master  or  mariners,  and  every
     violation of  duty by  them arising  from gross and culpable
     negligence contrary  to their  duty  to  the  owner  of  the
     vessel, and  which might  work loss  or injury to him in the
     course of  the voyage  insured.   A mutiny  of the crew, and
     forcible dispossession  by them  of  the  master  and  other
     officers from  the ship,  is a  form of barretry.  Greene v.
     Pacific Mut. Ins. Co., 9 Allen, Mass., 217.
 
                         [Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition]
 
 
     This honorable  Court of  Appeals appears to have overlooked
 
more than  15 years  of  deliberate,  criminal  harassment  which
 
Petitioner has  suffered at  the hands  of the U.S. Department of
 
Justice and  of the  "Internal Revenue Service," which harassment
 
is amply  documented in  the affidavits and other pleadings which
 
He has  submitted in  support of His appeal and EMERGENCY MOTION.
 
Petitioner began  deep in his own end zone, and struggled against
 
great odds, across 100 yards, to come within one foot of the goal
 
line, only  to be  told that He must go back and litigate further
 
still,  because   of  some   federal  statute   requiring  "final
 
judgements" [sic].  This is barretry, in Petitioner's opinion.
 
     Petitioner submits  that the  decisions by  John M.  Roll to
 
ignore some  twenty-five (25)  different pleadings  submitted  on
 
behalf of  the Trust  and the Petitioner, in blatant violation of
 
the Petition  Clause in  the First  Amendment, amount  to  "final
 
judgments" because  said decisions  deprived  Petitioner  of  due
 
process  of  law.    Such  deprivations  are  indeed  within  the
 
appellate  jurisdiction  of  this  honorable  Court  of  Appeals,
 
whenever and wherever they might occur.  See Fifth Amendment.
 
 
                 Petition for Rehearing En Banc:
                          Page 4 of 8

     3.   Petitioner hereby asserts His fundamental Right to know
 
why the  Honorable Alex  Kozinski's office  informed Petitioner's
 
Counsel that  the rules  for appealing  to specific judges on the
 
Ninth Circuit  had "recently changed."  Petitioner's Counsel made
 
a point  of serving  all pleadings in the instant case upon Judge
 
Kozinski, in order to provide him with adequate written notice of
 
probable mail  fraud, jury  tampering, and obstruction of justice
 
by federal  officers in  the  instant  case,  and  informally  to
 
solicit his  oversight of  these crimes  within the executive and
 
judicial branches of the United States (federal government).
 
     When John  M. Roll  issued a bench warrant for the arrest of
 
Petitioner, after receiving notice of appeal in the instant case,
 
it was  Petitioner's position  that Roll had lost jurisdiction to
 
proceed any  further, except  to  disqualify  in  forma  pauperis
 
status because,  in the opinion of the district court, the appeal
 
was being taken in bad faith.  The opportunity for such a finding
 
was not  available to  John M.  Roll, because  Petitioner was not
 
proceeding in forma pauperis, rendering 28 U.S.C. 1915 irrelevant
 
to the instant appeal.
 
     Petitioner's Counsel  attempted to  contact  Judge  Kozinski
 
immediately after  the bench  warrant was issued by John M. Roll,
 
in order  to make a personal appeal to Judge Kozinski to quash or
 
otherwise vacate  the bench  warrant, for  good causes which were
 
amply documented  in all  the prior  pleadings which  had already
 
been served  upon Judge  Kozinski, via  first class United States
 
Mail.  See Proofs of Service.  Counsel was told that He could not
 
make such  a personal appeal to Judge Kozinski, because the rules
 
for same had been changed.  Counsel was not then, and is not now,
 
aware that  the rules  for making  personal appeals  to  specific
 
Judges on  the Ninth  Circuit Court  of Appeals have changed and,
 
accordingly, Petitioner asserts his Right to hear from Judge Alex
 
Kozinski in writing on this point.
 
 
                 Petition for Rehearing En Banc:
                          Page 5 of 8

     4.   Petitioner submits that requiring a notice of appeal to
 
be signed by an "attorney" admitted to practice before this Court
 
is a  violation of the original Thirteenth Amendment, ratified in
 
the year  1819.   Evidence of  said amendment,  and of its lawful
 
ratification, were  made a  permanent part  of the  record in the
 
instant case.   This  Court is under an affirmative obligation to
 
enforce all  provisions of the Constitution for the United States
 
of America,  as lawfully  amended, pursuant to Article VI, Clause
 
3, in said Constitution:
 
     The Senators  and Representatives  before mentioned, and the
     Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive
     and judicial  Officers, both of the United States and of the
     several States,  shall be  bound by  Oath or Affirmation, to
     support this Constitution ....
 
                        [U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 3]
                                                 [emphasis added]
 
 
The Court  is directed  to examine  the English  etymology of the
 
term "attorn"  as  documented  in  the  COMPANY'S  OPPOSITION  TO
 
PLAINTIFF'S  MOTION   TO  STRIKE,  DEMAND  FOR  JURY  TRIAL,  AND
 
CHALLENGE  TO   CONSTITUTIONALITY  OF   "ILLEGAL  TAX  PROTESTOR"
 
CLASSIFICATIONS, previously filed in the instant case.
 
     Petitioner also  herein  argues  that  it  is  quite  simply
 
impossible for  any public  officials to perform, and it is quite
 
simply impossible  for any  Citizens to enforce, a solemn oath to
 
support the  Constitution for  the United  States of  America, as
 
lawfully amended,  if the weight of material evidence should show
 
that the  exact provisions  of that  Constitution  are  still  in
 
doubt, for any reason whatsoever.
 
 
                 Petition for Rehearing En Banc:
                          Page 6 of 8

                          RELIEF SOUGHT
 
     Wherefore, Petitioner  respectfully requests  a rehearing en
 
banc by  the Ninth  Circuit Court  of Appeals and that the relief
 
sought in  His  EMERGENCY  MOTION  UNDER  CIRCUIT  RULE  27-3  be
 
granted.
 
 
Executed on July 10, 1996
 
 
Respectfully submitted,
 
 
______________________________________________
Dr. Eugene Arthur, Burns, Sui Juris
Citizen of Arizona state and Managing Director
New Life Health Center Company
An Unincorporated Business Trust
domiciled in the Arizona Republic
 
 
                 Petition for Rehearing En Banc:
                          Page 7 of 8

                        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):
 
                 PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
 
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 10, 1996          Clerk of Court
                                   Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
                                   121 Spear Street
                                   San Francisco, California
 
 
____________________________________________
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state and federal witness
 
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
 
 
                 Petition for Rehearing En Banc:
                          Page 8 of 8
 
 
                             #  #  #