Certified U.S. Mail                   c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776
Serial Number #P-899-777-085                Tucson, Arizona state
Return Receipt Requested                          zip code exempt
Restricted Delivery Requested                        May 27, 1996


Mr. Robert A. Johnson
3225 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500
Phoenix, Arizona state
zip code exempt

Dear Mr. Johnson:

This is  to inform  you that you have been implicated in barratry
and criminal  conspiracy because  of verified  statements of fact
which have  been made in EXHIBIT "D" attached to the AFFIDAVIT OF
CAUSES AND  OBJECTIONS TO  O.S.C. which  I executed  and filed on
behalf on  the Company  In re:  Grand Jury Subpoena Served on New
Life Health Center Company, U.S. District Court Case No. GJ-95-1-
6, Tucson, Arizona.

You will  have at most thirty (30) calendar days, as of the above
date, to  file any  verified affidavit(s)  of  rebuttal  to  this
EXHIBIT "D",  a  copy  of  which  is  attached  hereto  for  your
convenience.   Under applicable  rules of  the Common  Law, which
have been  formally invoked  in this  case, your failure to rebut
said EXHIBIT  will render it conclusive fact and the truth of the
case for all time.  Silence creates estoppel by acquiescence.

     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. ...  We
     cannot condone  this shocking  conduct by the IRS.  Our
     revenue system  is based  upon the  good faith  of  the
     taxpayers and  the taxpayers  should be  able to expect
     the  same   from  government  in  its  enforcement  and
     collection activities....   This sort of deception will
     not be tolerated and if this is the "routine" it should
     be corrected immediately.

                  [U. S. vs Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977)]
       [quoting U.S. vs Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032 (1970)]
                                            [emphasis added]

     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 vs Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906), emphasis added]

Pleased be  advised that  the Company  and its  officers and  co-workers have  explicitly reserved  their right  to have a jury of
peers resolve controversies of fact and law in this case.

Thank you  very much  in advance for your cooperation.  The clock
is now running.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Mitchell

Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state
(520) 323-3921 phone/VM
(520) 323-3922 fax/24-hour
email: supremelaw@ibm.net

copies:  Judge John M. Roll, U.S. District Court, Tucson
         Judge Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit, Pasadena
         Judge George Nielsen, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Phoenix
         Albert M. Rau, Chapter 13 Trustee, Phoenix
         James J. Everett, Counsel for Debtors, Phoenix

                             #  #  #

Return to the Table of Contents for