Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Counselor at Law and federal witness
c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776
Tucson, Arizona state
zip code exempt
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 ) NOTICE OF OFFER WITHDRAWAL;
) PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION,
) FOR RECONSIDERATION,
) FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS,
) AND FOR ORDERS TO SHOW CAUSE;
) WITH POINTS AND AUTHORITIES:
) Art. I, Sec. 10, Cl. 1;
) Art. III; Art. IV, Sec. 2;
) Art. VI,; First, Fourth,
) Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth and
) Thirteenth Amendments,
) U.S. Constitution (ao 1867);
) 28 U.S.C. 82, 297, 1333(1),
) 1339, 1356, 1361, 1366,1367(a),
) 1411, 1651(a), 1652, 2072(b),;
) U.C.C. 1-207; IRC 3121(e),
) 7701(a)(9),(10),(31), and
_______________________________) 7851(a)(6)(A)
FORMAL NOTICE
TO: ROBERT I. MISKELL
JANET NAPOLITANO
Office of the United States Attorney
110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310
Tucson, Arizona state
Clerk
United States District Court
55 E. Broadway
Tucson, Arizona state
Postmaster
United States Postal Service
Downtown Station
Tucson, Arizona state
Evangelina Cardenas
"Internal Revenue Service"
300 West Congress
Tucson, Arizona state
FROM: Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state and federal witness
c/o 2509 North Campbell, #1776
Tucson, Arizona state
Notice of Petition:
Page 1 of 2
So let it be known that I, Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A.,
M.S., Citizen of Arizona state and federal witness, do hereby
give notice to you that, upon my verified PETITION, a copy of
which is served herewith, the undersigned will apply to this
honorable Court on the twenty-fourth day of May, 1992 Anno
Domini, at 10:00 a.m. of that day, or as soon thereafter as the
matter can be heard, for the issuance of a Peremptory Writ of
Mandamus to compel you:
(1) to deliver My PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION and My FORMAL
REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION to the federal grand jury presently
convened in the matter of the New Life Health Center Company;
(2) to provide all other judicial remedies requested of you
in the PRAYER section of My PETITION.
Executed on May 14, 1996 Anno Domini
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
__________________________________________________
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state and federal witness
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Notice of Petition:
Page 2 of 2
# # #
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Counselor at Law and federal witness
c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776
Tucson, Arizona state
zip code exempt
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 ) NOTICE OF OFFER WITHDRAWAL;
) PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION,
) FOR RECONSIDERATION,
) FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS,
) AND FOR ORDERS TO SHOW CAUSE;
) WITH POINTS AND AUTHORITIES:
) Art. I, Sec. 10, Cl. 1;
) Art. III; Art. IV, Sec. 2;
) Art. VI,; First, Fourth,
) Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth and
) Thirteenth Amendments,
) U.S. Constitution (ao 1867);
) 28 U.S.C. 82, 297, 1333(1),
) 1339, 1356, 1361, 1366,1367(a),
) 1411, 1651(a), 1652, 2072(b),;
) U.C.C. 1-207; IRC 3121(e),
) 7701(a)(9),(10),(31), and
_______________________________) 7851(a)(6)(A)
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
"Company"): (1) to petition this honorable Court (a) for
clarification and reconsideration of its rulings and orders in
the two (2) most recent hearings in the above entitled case, (b)
for a Writ of Mandamus compelling the Office of the United States
Attorney to deliver documents to the federal grand jury; and (2)
to withdraw an offer made at the later of said hearings.
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 1 of 38
Clarification Needed
At the first hearing on April 25, 1996, this Court ruled
that Counsel was unqualified to represent the Company because He
is not a licensed attorney and because He was not at that time an
officer of the Company. For this reason, Counsel was not
permitted to address the Court after these undisputed facts were
disclosed to the Court and made a matter of Court record. At the
end of that hearing, the Court instead ordered Dr. Eugene A.
Burns, Managing Director (hereinafter "Dr. Burns"), to appear on
behalf of the Company at a hearing scheduled for May 3, 1996.
At the hearing on May 3, 1996, Dr. Burns was allowed to
address the Court on behalf of the Company, even though He is not
a licensed attorney either. Prior to this hearing and subsequent
to the hearing on April 25, 1996, Counsel was appointed to the
position of Vice President for Legal Affairs of the Company,
making Him an officer of the Company.
At the hearing on May 3, 1996, however, Counsel was again
not permitted to address the Court, because He is still not a
licensed attorney, and intends to remain unlicensed because of
His understanding of the legislative intent, and because of His
understanding of the statutory construction, of the original 13th
Amendment, evidence of which was entered into the official Court
record of the instant case.
On behalf of the Company and all its officers and
co-workers, Counsel seeks clarification of this Court's earlier
ruling that only an officer or a licensed attorney would be
permitted to speak on the Company's behalf. Counsel interprets
said ruling to conform to the following decision matrix:
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 2 of 38
Company Licensed Permitted to
Officer Attorney Address Court
NO NO NO
NO YES YES
YES NO YES
YES YES YES
Counsel is confused by the apparent prejudice exhibited by
the Court at the hearing on May 3, 1996, because both Dr. Burns
and Counsel were officers but not licensed attorneys on that
date. Yet, Dr. Burns was permitted to address the Court, but
Counsel was not permitted to address the Court, even though
Counsel had recently been appointed to the office of Vice
President for Legal Affairs. "... [P]rejudice will be inferred
from denial of assistance of counsel. U.S.C.A.Const. Amends. 5,
6." Audett v. U.S., 265 F.2d 837 (9th Cir. 1959), citing
Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 76, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942).
Such prejudice worked an unnecessary hardship upon Dr. Burns, who
was depending on Counsel to carry some, if not all, of the
Company's civil defense burden at said hearing.
One demonstrable consequence of this prejudice was the
reversible error which Dr. Burns committed by "offering" to
produce the subpoenaed books and records without first hearing
Counsel demonstrate how the Company, as an Unincorporated
Business Trust organization, enjoys all the same fundamental
Rights, Privileges, and Immunities enjoyed by common law Citizens
of Arizona state. See Privileges and Immunities Clause. This
"offer" was not a knowing, intentional, and voluntary ("KIV") act
done with sufficient awareness of its relevant circumstances and
likely consequences. See Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742 at 748
(1970).
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 3 of 38
Before He had become an officer of the Company, Counsel made
a similar error when both He and Dr. Burns relied upon the advice
of a licensed bar member, Attorney Lowell Becraft of Huntsville,
Alabama, to prepare and fax an offer to produce books and records
to the Plaintiff(s) in the instant case. Bar members induce
prejudice when they have knowingly forfeited their Citizenship
forever, and such a forfeiture places them in immediate jeopardy
of being unregistered foreign agents and also illegal aliens,
without being lawfully admitted to permanent residence, i.e. a
"resident alien". See original Thirteenth Amendment, Foreign
Agents Registration Act, Immigration and Naturalization Act,
Uniform Commercial Code.
Dr. Burns erred, and hereby reverses the error which He
committed, by implying that He had, KIV, chosen to waive His
fundamental, unalienable Immunities against unreasonable search
and seizure and against providing compelled testimony against
Himself. See Privileges and Immunities Clause, and Boyd v. U.S.,
116 U.S. 746 (1886), to wit:
3. It does not require actual entry upon premises and
search for and seizure of papers to constitute an
unreasonable search and seizure within the meaning of
the Fourth Amendment. A compulsory production of a
party's private books and papers to be used against
himself or his property in a criminal or penal
proceeding, or for a forfeiture, is within the spirit
and meaning of the Amendment.
4. It is equivalent to a compulsory production of papers,
to make the nonproduction of them a confession of the
allegations which it is pretended they will prove.
5. A proceeding to forfeit a person's goods for an offense
against the laws, though civil in form, and whether in
rem or in personam, is a criminal case within the
meaning of that part of the Fifth Amendment which
declares that no person "shall be compelled, in any
criminal case, to be a witness against himself."
[from headnotes of Boyd v. U.S. supra]
[emphasis added]
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 4 of 38
In the Boyd case, the Supreme Court then went on to explain the
"intimate relationship" that exists among the Rights guaranteed
by the Fourth Amendment and the Rights guaranteed by the Fifth
Amendment, to wit:
We have already noticed the intimate relationship between
the two Amendments. They throw great light on each other.
For the "unreasonable searches and seizures" condemned in
the Fourth Amendment are almost always made for the purpose
of compelling a man to give evidence against himself, which
in criminal cases is condemned in the Fifth Amendment; and
compelling a man "in a criminal case to be a witness against
himself," which is condemned in the Fifth Amendment, throws
light on the question as to what is an "unreasonable search
and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
And we have been unable to perceive that the seizure of a
man's private books and papers to be used in evidence
against him is substantially different from compelling him
to be a witness against himself.
[Boyd v. U.S. at 752]
[emphasis added]
Furthermore, the presiding Judge of this honorable Court is
herein rebuttably presumed to have executed the solemn Oath of
Office required of him by Article VI, Clause 3 (6:3), and by 28
U.S.C. 453. This Oath is like an on-off light switch in that,
per force, its execution activates all the guarantees in the
federal and state constitutions. This causal connection between
those guarantees and a judge's Oath of Office is tersely
expressed as follows:
A district judge is bound by oath of office to uphold the
Constitutions of the United States and the State of Hawaii;
rule excluding illegally seized evidence falls within scope
of such oath as such rule is a sanction essential to
upholding federal and state constitutional safeguards
against unreasonable searches and seizures. State v.
Wilson, 519 P.2d 228.
[American Digest System, Eighth Decennial Digest]
["Judges", page 969, Section 5: "Qualifications"]
[emphasis added]
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 5 of 38
Therefore, using this elegant logic, all the Rights which
are guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions are
sanctions which fall within the scope of the Oath of Office. The
safeguard against unreasonable searches and seizures is a Right
which is on a par with a multitude of other Rights which are
guaranteed by those constitutions, whether or not they are
enumerated. Together, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide
explicit guarantees for that multitude, without any need to
enumerate them.
These Rights, therefore, stand in stark contrast with the
enumerated powers which are granted to the federal government.
Espressio unius est exclusio alterius. If a power was not
expressly granted to the federal government by the Constitution
for the United States of America, as lawfully amended
(hereinafter "U.S. Constitution"), then its absence from that
Charter was intentional, and this intent We are allowed to infer
under authority of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. See U.S. v.
Lopez, 115 S.Ct. 1624 (1995).
Counsel will prove infra, using pertinent authorities from
the U.S. Supreme Court and other published sources, that the
Company and Dr. Burns enjoy the same fundamental Rights, because
the Company is not a corporation chartered by any freely
associated compact state, nor was it chartered by the United
States. See 28 U.S.C. 297. On the contrary, its creation arose
out of fundamental Rights to enter and exit contracts, which
Rights antedate, and are guaranteed by, the U.S. Constitution;
and neither the United States nor any freely associated compact
state can impair any of the Rights, obligations, and
responsibilities which inure to said Company, its officers and
its co-workers. See 1:10:1, 3:2:1, 4:2:1.
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 6 of 38
This United States District Court is an Article III court,
by Act of Congress. See 28 U.S.C. 1367(a). The "United States
Constitution" and the "Constitution for the United States of
America", both as lawfully amended, are one and the same. See
Preamble in the U.S. Constitution.
Reconsideration Needed:
Mail Fraud, Jury Tampering, Obstruction of Justice
The questions of mail fraud, jury tampering, and obstruction
of justice by the Office of the United States Attorney have been
raised by facts and allegations contained in Counsel's AFFIDAVIT
OF CAUSES AND OBJECTIONS TO O.S.C., filed with this Court on
April 25, 1996. Counsel subsequently prepared a FORMAL REQUEST
FOR INVESTIGATION to the federal grand jury in the matter of the
New Life Health Center Company, and mailed this FORMAL REQUEST,
with Exhibits, via Certified U.S. Mail, Return Receipt and
Restricted Delivery both Requested, to the Grand Jury Foreperson
and to the Grand Jury (see EXHIBIT "A" attached hereto and
incorporated herein as if set forth fully).
Copies of this FORMAL REQUEST, without Exhibits, were also
mailed via Certified U.S. Mail, Return Receipt and Restricted
Delivery both requested, to U.S. District Judge John M. Roll and
Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, for appropriate oversight and
advance notice of possible mail fraud, obstruction of justice,
and tampering with the grand jury in the instant case.
At the hearing on May 3, 1996, Judge John M. Roll indicated
on the record that he had intercepted, but had not opened, the
sealed package addressed to the "Grand Jury Foreperson and the
Grand Jury In re: New Life Health Center Company" (see EXHIBIT
"A"). This fact is substantiated by the U.S. Postal Service PS
Form 3811 Return Receipt which was received by Counsel after
mailing said FORMAL REQUEST. Said Return Receipt was signed by
one "Katy Higgins Secrty [sic] to Judge Roll". Date of Delivery
was shown as "4-30-96" (see EXHIBIT "B").
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 7 of 38
Counsel is not aware of any federal or state statutes which
authorize federal judges, or any other officers or employees of
the federal judiciary, to intercept or otherwise divert
Registered and/or Certified United States Mail away from its
intended recipient, particularly when extra fees were paid for
Restricted Delivery services. Nor is Counsel aware of any United
States Postal Service PS Form 3801, Standing Delivery Order,
which has been correctly completed by the Grand Jury Foreperson
in the matter of the Company. Specifically, said PS Form 3801
contains the following caveat:
Where RESTRICTED DELIVERY MAIL is to be included, the
statement "This authorization is extended to include
RESTRICTED DELIVERY MAIL" must be entered on the delivery
order by the person signing it. This notation is to be made
on the part of the form for signatures of authorized agent.
NOTE: Unknown signatures must be identified.
To this end, Counsel wishes to place all interested parties
on formal notice, provided herein, of His recent Freedom of
Information Act ("FOIA") Request, filed with the Postmaster of
the United States Postal Service, Downtown Station, Tucson,
Arizona, Postal Zone 85701/tdc, for a certified copy of any PS
Form 3801, Standing Delivery Order, authorized by the Grand Jury
Foreperson in the matter of New Life Health Center Company, Case
No. GJ-95-1-6. On May 3, 1996, Dr. Burns also filed a PS Form
4314-C, U.S. Postal Service Consumer Service Card, serial number
M-16-837-936, requesting information about the problem of
nonreceipt of a certified package:
Certified Mail P-475-457-158, Restricted Delivery, addressed
to "Grand Jury Foreperson In re: New Life Health Center,
Grand Jury Room, 4th Floor, U.S. District Court, 55 E.
Broadway, Tucson, Arizona" was not delivered to addressee,
but was signed by one "Katy Kiggins, Secretary to Judge
Roll." Is there a PS Form 3801 for Grand Jury Foreperson?
See EXHIBIT "C".
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 8 of 38
In the event that said Form 3801 has not been completed by
the Grand Jury Foreperson, Counsel reserves the Right to
challenge the instant proceedings for irreversible prejudice
against the Company and against its officers and co-workers.
Counsel also reserves the fundamental Right to know and enter
into evidence, testimony taken under oath with respect to whether
or not the office of the United States Attorney in the instant
case ever did deliver to the grand jury the package containing
the FORMAL REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION and all of its associated
Exhibits. Undelivered mail is a criminal breach of contract.
Counsel also reserves His fundamental Right to compel
discovery of the oaths of office, fidelity bonds, delegations of
authority, and licenses to practice law in the state of Arizona
of Robert L. Miskell, Evangelina Cardenas, and Janet Napolitano
(see EXHIBIT "D"). If any requisite credentials are lacking,
Counsel places all interested parties on notice of His immediate
intent, at a minimum, to Petition this honorable Court, or other
court of competent jurisdiction, for a Writ of Quo Warranto,
proceeding under Article III, to oust Mr. Robert L. Miskell from
the office of Assistant United States Attorney (hereinafter
"AUSA"), and to hold him liable for actual, consequential, and
exemplary damages which he has inflicted on the Company, its
officers, and its co-workers. See 51 Corpus Juris 307 et seq.
(i.e. pages 307-365), reproduced in EXHIBIT "E".
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 9 of 38
At the hearing on May 3, 1996, AUSA Robert L. Miskell
admitted that the parcel given to him by Judge Roll contained a
request for a formal grand jury investigation into allegations
that he (Miskell) had violated federal law. From this admission,
and from the admission by Judge Roll that he (Roll) had not
opened the parcel in question, Counsel infers that Mr. Miskell
took it upon himself to open the Certified United States Mail
addressed to the Grand Jury Foreperson, also in violation of
federal law. Counsel makes this inference specifically because a
copy of the FORMAL REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION was not mailed to
Mr. Miskell.
Counsel is not aware of any federal or state statutes which
authorize any officers, or any other employees of the Executive
Branch of the federal government, to intercept or otherwise
divert Registered or Certified United States Mail away from its
intended recipient, particularly when extra fees are paid for
Restricted Delivery services.
Moreover, as eloquently stated by Dr. Burns during the
hearing on May 3, 1996, the issue of Citizen access to the grand
jury is one which goes to the very root of the Petition Clause,
compulsory discovery, and due process of law under the
Constitution. A Formal Request for Investigation submitted by a
Citizen to a federal grand jury, convened to investigate possible
violations of federal law, is a Petition to Government for
Redress of Grievances, deserving the special treatment afforded
to fundamental Rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. On this
point, the U.S. Supreme Court has already stressed that the
Petition Clause guarantees a fundamental (i.e. unalienable) Right
which underpins all other Rights:
The Right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative
to force. In an organized society, it is the right
conservative of all other rights and lies at the foundation
of orderly government.
[Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R.]
[207 U.S. 142, 148 (1907)]
[emphasis added]
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 10 of 38
The Petition Right is the most important of all Rights
because, without it, government cannot be held to account for its
wrongs; and with it, every person has the effective right to
compel government to obey the law with respect to His Rights, and
to command just compensation for injuries He has suffered. On
this point, the California Supreme Court, based on a
comprehensive and careful analysis of U.S. Supreme Court
holdings, has found that:
The authorities make it clear that the right of petition
protects attempts to obtain redress through the institution
of judicial proceedings as well as through importuning
executive officials and the Legislature. It is equally
apparent that the right encompasses the act of filing a
lawsuit solely to obtain monetary compensation for
individualized wrongs, as well as filing suit to draw
attention to issues of broader public interest or political
significance. ... Hence, the act of filing suit against a
governmental entity represents an exercise of the right of
petition and thus invokes constitutional protection.
[City of Long Beach v. Bozek]
[31 Cal 3d 527, 533-34 (1982)]
[emphasis added]
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 11 of 38
That court went on, at page 535, to address the issue in some
detail:
The right of petition is of parallel importance to the right
of free speech and the other overlapping, cognate rights
contained in the First Amendment and in equivalent
provisions of the California Constitution. Although it has
seldom been independently analyzed, it does contain an
inherent meaning and scope distinct from the right of free
speech. It is essential to protect the ability of those who
perceive themselves to be aggrieved by the activities of
governmental authorities to seek redress through all the
channels of government.
[ibid., page 535, emphasis added]
In U.S. v. Hylton, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that
filing a complaint against federal officers with state agencies
is a petition for redress of grievances which is protected by the
Petition Clause in the U.S. Constitution:
As the U.S. Supreme Court has held, the right to petition
for redress of grievances is "among the most precious of the
liberties safeguarded in the bill of rights." (cites)
Inseparable from the guaranteed rights entrenched in the
First Amendment, the right to petition for redress of
grievances occupies a "preferred place" in our system of
representative government and enjoys a "sanctity and a
sanction not permitting dubious intrusions." Thomas v.
Collins, 323 U.S. 516; 65 S.Ct 315, 322. Indeed, "It was
not by accident or coincidence that the rights to freedom in
speech and press were coupled in a single guarantee with the
rights of the people peacebly to assemble and to petition
for redress of grievances." Id. at 323.
[U.S. v. Hylton, 710 F.2d 1111]
[emphasis added]
It seems to reason that, if filing with a grand jury a
FORMAL REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION is protected by the First
Amendment, then surely the object of the protected Right -- of
obtaining a due process guaranteed fair hearing of the grievance
and redress thereon -- is the very essence of the Petition
Clause. Mail fraud, jury tampering, and obstruction are, indeed,
dubious intrusions.
In fact, the characteristic which distinguishes petitioning
through courts from other forms of petition is the access to the
compulsory process of law, wherein the parties are equal before
the law. Without ultimate recourse to that compulsory process,
there is no reason for government to listen to grievances at all,
let alone to redress them fairly. It is therefore axiomatic
that, underlying all civil relations between government and the
Governed is the right of the Governed to compel government's
obedience to law through the compulsory processes of law.
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 12 of 38
Moreover, two international treaties to which the United
States is now a party impose upon all officers and employees of
the federal government affirmative legal and moral duties to
provide effective judicial remedies for violations of fundamental
Rights, notwithstanding that the violations were committed by
persons acting in their official capacities. These treaties are
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; they are rendered
supreme Law by virtue of the Supremacy Clause. The latter treaty
was ratified by the Senate on April 2, 1992, and confirmed by
President Bush on June 1, 1992. Article 2 requires state
parties:
(3)(a) To ensure that any person ... shall have an
effective remedy notwithstanding that the violation has been
committed by persons acting in an official capacity.
[emphasis added]
Moreover, Part (3)(b) requires that state parties "develop the
possibilities of judicial remedy." Similarly, the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights states:
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the
competent national tribunals for acts violating the
fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by
law.
[emphasis added]
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 13 of 38
Counsel wishes to argue here that the fundamental Rights
guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution are not thereby granted to
the American People by that Constitution, because the existence
of those Rights antedated its ratification (see Declaration of
Independence (1776)). These treaties attempted to accommodate
the inevitable conflicts of law that exist among the various
constitutions of the states party to these two international
treaties. Specifically, many nations regard civil and political
rights to be granted to their people (read "subjects") by their
constitutions.
In America, the situation is radically different because, as
Sovereigns without subjects, Our fundamental Rights were
expressly granted to Us by Our Creator, and Our Constitution was
specifically written to guarantee those Rights to Us and to Our
Posterity, in perpetuity, and to grant only enumerated powers to
the officers and employees of the federal government. See U.S.
v. Lopez, 115 S.Ct. 1624 (1995) and citations therein.
Counsel also reserves His fundamental Right to withdraw
arguments as to the enforcement of these two international
treaties, should subsequent findings of fact and conclusions of
law, by a lawfully convened trial jury, show that the Congresses
which ratified said treaties were not themselves lawfully
convened because their "members" (House and Senate), and the
"President" who approved said treaties, were disqualified from
serving because they were exercising titles of nobility
prohibited by the original Thirteenth Amendment, thus rendering
as frivolous all claims to Rights allegedly guaranteed by those
treaties. See 1:2:2, 1:3:3, and 2:1:5.
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 14 of 38
Counsel argues that, in the absence of clear statutory and
regulatory authority for officers and/or employees of the
Executive Branch to do so, the interceptions and/or diversions of
His FORMAL REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION, dated April 28, 1996, and
sent via Certified United States Mail with Return Receipt and
Restricted Delivery both Requested, and of His PRIVILEGED
COMMUNICATION, dated March 20, 1996, and sent via Registered
United States Mail with Return Receipt and Restricted Delivery
both Requested, together constitute repetitive, overt acts of
mail fraud, jury tampering, and obstruction of justice by AUSA
Robert L. Miskell in the instant case, thus denying effective
judicial remedies to Counsel, Dr. Burns, and the Company.
Until such time as the presiding Judge in the instant case
can clarify his actions and demonstrate clear statutory and
regulatory authority for intercepting and/or diverting Counsel's
FORMAL REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION, particularly if there is no
Standing Delivery Order, PS Form 3801, properly executed by the
grand jury Foreperson in the matter of the New Life Health Center
Company and designating to one or more agents authority to sign
for Certified and Registered United States mail, Counsel reserves
His fundamental Rights to direct similar allegations at said
Judge, to have the instant case dismissed with prejudice, to have
said allegations heard by a lawfully convened common law jury of
His peers, observing compulsory due process of law, and to
petition said jury for appropriate declaratory, compensatory, and
exemplary relief, should the accused be found guilty of violating
applicable federal law.
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 15 of 38
Counsel also reserves His fundamental Right to compel the
office of the United States Attorney, and possibly also the
presiding Judge in the instant case (if necessary), to deliver
both the original PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION and the FORMAL REQUEST
FOR INVESTIGATION to the Grand Jury Foreperson and to the other
members of the federal Grand Jury in the matter of New Life
Health Center Company, by whatever lawful means are necessary,
available, and appropriate, in light of the enormous gravity of
the issues which have already been documented permanently for the
record in said PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION and in said FORMAL
REQUEST, including but not limited to all exhibits attached
thereto. For the record, Counsel is trying to prevent a second
civil war in America; foreign troop movements have been
photographed on American interstate highways.
To deny Citizens access to a lawfully convened federal grand
jury, particularly when the violations were committed by federal
officers allegedly acting in their official capacities, is to
alienate Them from Their fundamental Rights to petition
government for redress of grievances, to compulsory discovery of
crucial matters of evidence which are relevant and material to
the instant case, and to due process of law; and it unlawfully
alienates Them from Their fundamental immunities against
unreasonable searches and seizures and being compelled to testify
against Themselves, all in blatant violation of the supreme Law
of the Land, specifically including, but not limited to, the
First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to said supreme Law.
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 16 of 38
Impairment of Contracts Prohibited
In the instant case, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments are
reflections of the Impairment of Contracts Clause, 1:10:1, in the
U.S. Constitution. Dr. Burns is legally bound by a non-
disclosure contract with the Company Trustee which bars Him from
releasing any books or records belonging to the Company, without
prior authorization of the Trustee. In particular, said contract
imposes criminal penalties on Him for any willful violation of
its non-disclosure provisions.
This non-disclosure agreement was first explained in the
original PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION to the federal grand jury,
delivery of which remains an open question due to possible mail
fraud, jury tampering, and obstruction of justice by AUSA Robert
L. Miskell in the instant case. Counsel argues, on behalf of Dr.
Burns and all other officers and co-workers at the Company, that
the United States is unequivocally barred from impairing the
obligations of His non-disclosure contract with the Trustee of
the Company. This bar originates from the Company's character as
an Unincorporated Business Trust, and from the original intent of
the U.S. Constitution.
The Company is a pure trust estate which is foreign with
respect to the federal zone. See U.S. v. Lopez supra. As such,
it constitutes a non-statutory common law contractual
organization. See 28 U.S.C. 1652 and ARS 1-201, to wit:
The common law only so far as it is consistent with and
adapted to the natural and physical conditions of this state
and the necessities of the people thereof, and not repugnant
to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United
States or the constitution or laws of this state, or
established customs of the people of this state, is adopted
and shall be the rule of decision in all courts of this
state.
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 17 of 38
The term "trust estate" as used herein means a contractual
organization, or a common law contract and declaration in the
form of a constitutional, irrevocable, private, express, pure,
true trust. The term "trust estate" as used herein in no manner
means a corporation, association, partnership, statutory trust,
grantor trust, revocable living trust, or any other statutory
entity, or entity created by statute. The Company was created
under the common law of contracts and does not depend for its
existence upon any statute or statutory entity. An Illinois
court expressed this important distinction as follows:
The term "common law trust" ... is not descriptive of any
particular characteristics of such organizations. The basis
for the terminology, "common law trust" is not that such
organizations are the creatures of the common law, as
distinguished from equity, but that they are created under
the common law of contracts and do not depend upon any
statute.
[Schumann-Heink v. Folsom, 159 NE 250]
The legal genesis of a common law or pure trust is, therefore,
quite distinct from that of a corporation, and it enjoys a unique
advantage over that of a corporation. According to the U.S.
Supreme Court:
The fact that a business trust is not regarded as a legal
entity distinct from its trustees, if a true trust ... may
result in this advantage to the trust, which a corporation
does not possess: The trust consists of individuals ... who
are Citizens, and who, therefore, are entitled to certain
rights and immunities such as those guaranteed by the
privileges and immunities clause [Art. IV, Sec. 2, Cl. 1] of
the Federal Constitution, which do not apply to
corporations.
[296 U.S. 344, 56 S.Ct. 289]
The Company is a trust estate which constitutes a non-
statutory common law contractual organization. It is a creation
of the Sovereign prerogatives and contractual powers of natural
born, de jure Preamble Citizens of the freely associated compact
states of the American union. The creation of such a contractual
organization is protected by Article I, Section 10 of the U.S.
Constitution as of 1867. It is "... created under the common law
of contract and does not depend upon any statute for its
existence." See 156 American Law Reports 28.
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 18 of 38
Such a trust estate is not dependent upon, and accepts no
powers, benefits, or privileges from, any statute, either state
or federal. It is thus not subject to any statute governing
statutory trusts, corporations, associations, partnerships, or
any other statutory type of business or any statutory Act rela-
tive to trusts. Such statutory Acts shall have no applicability
or force of law upon the originating trust contract.
A pure trust is not subject to legislative control. The
U.S. Supreme Court has held that such a trust is created under
the realm of equity, under the common law, and is not subject to
legislative restrictions, as are corporations and other statutory
entities created pursuant to legislative authority. See Croker
v. MacCloy, 649 F.Supp. 39.
All subjects over which the sovereign power of the state
extends [i.e. corporations or other statutory entities] are
objects of taxation [and regulation] but those over which it
does not extend are exempt from taxation [and regulation].
This proposition may almost be pronounced as self-evident.
The sovereignty of the state extends to everything which
exists by its authority or its permission.
[McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316]
The Pure Trust derives no power, benefit, or privilege from
any statute.
[Crocker v. Malley, 264 U.S. 144]
These trusts -- whether pure trusts or partnerships -- are
unincorporated. They are not organized under any statute;
and they derive no power, benefit, or privilege from any
statute.
[Hecht v. Malley, 68 L.Ed. 949]
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 19 of 38
The U.S. Supreme Court has, for some time, held that a Pure Trust
is not subject to legislative control. See Elliot v. Freeman, 20
U.S. 178. A trust relationship comes under the realm of equity,
based upon the common law, and is not subject to the legislative
restrictions to which corporations and other organizations
created by legislative authority are subject:
One of the objectives of business trusts is to obtain for
the trust associates, most of the advantages of
corporations, without the authority of any legislative act
and with the freedom from the restrictions and regulations
generally imposed by law upon corporations.
[13 Am Jur 2d 379, paragraph 51]
[emphasis added]
The laws governing the Company are the Holy Bible, the Magna
Charta, the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of
Independence (1776), the Constitution for the United States of
America (1787), the Bill of Rights (1791), Article III Supreme
Court decisions defining the protections of said Constitution,
and the common law of the original constitutional Republic of
these united states of America, in that it is not repugnant to
said Constitution.
Pursuant to the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,
the Company, as a trust estate, shall be subject only to those
federal laws enacted pursuant to the powers specifically
enumerated and delegated to Congress by Us the People in and
through the U.S. Constitution.
The Trustee of this trust estate binds the United States
Government to its Article IV, Section 4 (4:4), constitutional
guarantee of a Republican Form of Government, to wit: "The
United States shall guarantee to Every State in this Union a
Republican Form of Government ...." A "Republic" is defined to
mean: "A state or nation in which the supreme power rests in the
body of citizens." See Webster's Dictionary.
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 20 of 38
What exactly is a "Republican Form" of government? It is
one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the People
and exercised by the People. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth
Edition, makes this very clear in its various definitions of the
term "government":
Republican government. One in which the powers of
sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by
the people, either directly, or through representatives
chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially
delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35
L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22
L.Ed. 627.
If any action is filed against the trust estate of the
Company in any Court other than a de jure Article III Court of
Equity under the common law, the Trustee is empowered and
entitled by Sovereign Right to instruct its Counsel, pursuant to
its Sovereign prerogatives, to remove such case to a court of
competent and proper jurisdiction. Any pleading in a Court other
than that of competent and proper jurisdiction shall be coram non
judice, i.e. "... before one not the proper judge; applied to
the acts of a court which has no jurisdiction over the person,
the subject matter or process. Such acts are wholly void." See
Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, Anderson Publishing. "In the
presence of a person not a judge." See Black's Law Dictionary,
Fourth Edition with Guide to Pronunciation.
Even Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, when brought
inland, is subject to the Common Law remedy, the same as
Equity; and cannot supersede the sovereign citizens' God
endowed/given unalienable/inalienable rights, and these same
rights as secured in and under the Constitution of the
United States of America.
[Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1966)]
[see also 28 U.S.C. 2072(b)]
... [W]hile sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies
of government, sovereignty itself remains with the People,
by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
[Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356]
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 21 of 38
No Creator nor current Trustee of the Company is a "United
States resident", a "United States citizen", or a resident "of
the State" or "of this State" or currently deriving income from
sources located within the United States or "within this State",
as such terms are defined in the United States and State tax
laws. See EXHIBIT "F", IRC 3121(e). The Company's Creators were
Citizens of one of the freely associated compact states in the
American Union, in which they were born. There are no published
regulations for the Buck Act. See 4 CFR, 28 U.S.C. 297: Union
states are "countries".
Further, no current Trustee is an inhabitant of, franchisee
of, subject of, ward of, property of, chattel of, or subject to
the jurisdiction of the corporate United States, corporate State,
corporate County, or corporate Municipal body politic created
under the primary authority of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17
(1:8:17), or Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2), of the U.S.
Constitution. Further, the Company is not subject to any
statutes, acts, or corporate entities owing their original
existence to such an authority:
Legislation enacted by Congress applicable to the inferior
federal courts in the exercise of power under Article III of
the Constitution cannot be affected by legislation enacted
by Congress under Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 of the
Constitution.
[D.C. Code, Title 11 at page 13]
Judges of administrative tribunals, quasi and de facto
judges constituted under 1:8:17, 4:3:2, and the Administrative
Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 701-706, are prohibited from hearing any
issue at law or at common law; this power is delegated by the
People only to Constitutional Article III Courts. Article I and
Article IV administrative tribunals are without jurisdiction to
hear any cases against the trust estate of the Company.
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 22 of 38
Seizure Actions Under Admiralty In Rem
Counsel alleges that the original grand jury subpoena issued
to the Company by ASUA Robert L. Miskell is actually a seizure
action proceeding in rem under the Supplemental Rules for Certain
Admiralty and Maritime Claims, effective July 1, 1966, amendments
received to January 3, 1996. See Rule 9(h), Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
Unfortunately for the Company, these Rules remain
unpublished and must be obtained under compulsory rules of
discovery or, in the alternative, under Freedom of Information
Act ("FOIA") requests, which need not demonstrate relevance or
materiality. See U.S. v. Gaudin, 132 L.Ed.2d 444 (1995), whereby
juries were held to retain power to determine materiality of
evidence.
To this end, Counsel places all interested parties on formal
notice of His recent FOIA request to obtain a current, certified
copy of said Supplemental Rules. Until such time as said Rules
can be made available to Counsel for review, analysis, and
application to the instant case, the Company notoriously protests
the instant action for proceeding without adequate notice to the
Company.
It is evident that the federal grand jury is being abused to
accomplish an in rem admiralty seizure of the Company's chattel
papers, and to force it to expend resources it would not
otherwise expend, by way of summary punishment which is
prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. The Plaintiff(s) have
failed to demonstrate their right(s), title(s), or interest(s),
if any, in the Company's chattel papers, nor have the real
parties at interest adequately identified themselves.
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 23 of 38
Specifically, "SA Cardenas" is allegedly employed by the
United States Department of the Treasury, and yet her
organizational affiliation is not listed among the bureaus and
other agencies of the United States Department of the Treasury.
See Title 31, United States Code, which has been enacted into
positive law, unlike Title 26 of the United States Codes.
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for Title 31, U.S.C.,
exhibits two (2) separate treasuries, see 31 CFR 51.2 and 52.2.
Specifically, compare definitions of "Governor" at 31 CFR 51.2(i)
and 52.2(f), of "Secretary" at 51.2(o) and 52.2(n), and of "State
government" at 51.2(q) and 52.2(o). The parallel definitions
therein describe a "Secretary of the Treasury" and a "Secretary
of the U.S. Department of the Treasury", in addition to de facto
corporate "States" and de jure Republic "states". Since
its creation, the Company has been domiciled within the latter
jurisdiction (a/k/a the state zone), wherein all restraints of
the U.S. Constitution remain in full force and effect upon all
agents of the federal government in their interactions with
Citizens of the 50 states. See jus soli.
The doctrine of "Two United States" admits to the existence
of a second federal jurisdiction (a/k/a the federal zone),
wherein these same restraints are not in full force and effect,
see Justice Harlan's eloquent dissent in Downes v. Bidwell, 182
U.S. 244 (1901); see also 1:8:17 and 4:3:2 and Hooven & Allison
Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945).
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 24 of 38
The "Internal Revenue Service" is not listed among the
bureaus and other departments which are authorized by Congress
and comprise the U.S. Department of the Treasury, see 31 U.S.C.,
Chapter 3, Subchapter I, Organization, which has been enacted
into positive law; see also Foreign Agents Registration Act.
Silence creates estoppel by acquiescence. See People v. Boxer,
California Supreme Court case number S-030016, December 1992, and
plaintiffs' pleadings therein which quoted the following:
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]
Plaintiffs are attempting to compel the Company's
performance in a setting which is 100% voluntary for a Sovereign
Arizona Citizens, see Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 176
(1960); Bothke v. Fluor, 713 F.2d 1405, 1414 (1983); and 26 CFR
601.103(a). Title 26, U.S.C., as such has not been enacted into
positive law. Respondent objects to Plaintiffs' evident
presumption that Title 26 and the IRC are one and the same. The
provisions of subtitle F shall take effect on the day after the
date of enactment of this title, see IRC 7851(a)(6)(A).
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 25 of 38
Thus, none of the procedural and administrative provisions
of subtitle F has taken effect and, therefore, they impose no
obligation upon Counsel, the Company, or any of its officers or
co-workers, without Their consent, which must be knowing,
intentional and voluntary ("KIV") to be real and free. Counsel
waives no rights for revealing the ambiguity and recursive (self-
referencing) effect which IRC 7851(a)(6)(A) has upon itself;
section 7851 falls within subtitle F!
VERIFICATION
I, Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Citizen of Arizona
state, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws
of the United States of America, without the United States, that
the above statements of facts are true and correct, to the best
of my current information, knowledge, and belief, so help me God,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
PRAYER
Wherefore, Counsel prays, on behalf of the Company, for this
honorable Court to grant the following effective judicial
remedies:
1. clarify its decision at the hearing on May 3, 1996, denying
Counsel the opportunity to address the Court, even though He
was an officer of the Company but not a member of any bar
association;
2. order the office of the United States Attorney to show cause
why said decision did not cause irreversible prejudice and
irreparable damage to Counsel, to the Company, and to Dr.
Burns;
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 26 of 38
3. reconsider its order of May 3, 1996, "that Mr. Burns appear
before the Grand Jury on Wed., May 22, 1996 at 9:10 a.m.
with copies of the requested document [sic]"; is appearance
all that is required? which document? how many copies?
4. issue a writ of mandamus compelling the office of the United
States Attorney to certify delivery of the Company's
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION and its FORMAL REQUEST FOR
INVESTIGATION to the federal grand jury;
5. order Mr. Robert L. Miskell to show cause why he should not
be charged with mail fraud, jury tampering and obstruction
of justice in the instant case;
6. order the office of the United States Attorney to prepare a
Memorandum of Points and Authorities explaining how Dr.
Burns can be compelled to deliver the Company's books and
records to the grand jury without also violating any of His
or the Company's fundamental, unalienable Rights;
7. order the office of the United States Attorney to prepare a
Memorandum of Points and Authorities explaining how
executive and judicial officers of the United States can
intercept Registered and Certified United States Mail, when
Return Receipt and Restricted Delivery services were
requested, without also violating federal postal laws;
8. order the offices of the United States Attorney, Clerk of
the U.S. District Court, "Internal Revenue Service" and
Postmaster to obey the Freedom of Information Act requests
which have already been mailed to Mr. Miskell, Ms.
Napolitano, Mr. Weare, Ms. Cardenas and Postmaster,
respectively;
9. order a routine continuance of this matter until the above
offices can comply with the above orders.
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 27 of 38
Executed: May 14, 1996
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Eugene A. Burns
Eugene A. Burns,
Citizen of Arizona state
Managing Director
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state
Vice President of Legal Affairs
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 28 of 38
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Linda H. Burns, 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, that I am not currently a
Party to this action, and that I personally served the following
document:
NOTICE OF OFFER WITHDRAWAL;
PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION,
FOR RECONSIDERATION,
FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS,
AND FOR ORDERS TO SHOW CAUSE;
WITH POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
by placing said document with exhibits in first class U.S. Mail,
with postage prepaid and properly addressed to the following
individuals:
ROBERT L. MISKELL John M. Roll
Acapulco Building, Suite 8310 U.S. District Court
110 South Church Avenue 55 E. Broadway
Tucson, Arizona Tucson, Arizona
JANET NAPOLITANO 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
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals "Internal Revenue Service"
125 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 200 300 West Congress
Pasadena, California Tucson, Arizona
Dated: May 14, 1996
/s/ Linda Burns
________________________________________
Linda H. Burns, Citizen of Arizona state
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 29 of 38
EXHIBIT A:
FORMAL REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
TO FEDERAL GRAND JURY
[under separate cover]
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 30 of 38
EXHIBIT B:
PS FORM 3811
SIGNED BY "KATY HIGGINS"
"SECRTY TO JUDGE ROLL"
[under separate cover]
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 31 of 38
EXHIBIT C:
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST
TO UNITED STATES POSTMASTER
[under separate cover]
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 32 of 38
EXHIBIT D:
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUESTS
TO VARIOUS FEDERAL OFFICES
[under separate cover]
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 33 of 38
EXHIBIT E:
CORPUS JURIS ENTRIES ON
WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO
[under separate cover]
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 34 of 38
EXHIBIT F:
LETTER FROM REP. BARBARA B. KENNELLY
CONCERNING IRC Sec. 3121(e)
[under separate cover]
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 35 of 38
EXHIBIT G:
SUPPLEMENTAL RULES FOR CERTAIN
ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME CLAIMS
[under separate cover]
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 36 of 38
EXHIBIT H:
"Pretext Seizures: The Constitutional Question""
by Kimberly A. Crawford, J.D., FBI Special Agent
[under separate cover]
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 37 of 38
EXHIBIT I:
"People v. Boxer"
California Supreme Court
Case No. S-030016
December 1992
[under separate cover]
Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order:
Page 38 of 38
# # #
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Counselor at Law and federal witness
c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776
Tucson, Arizona state
zip code exempt
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 )
_______________________________)
ORDER TO ISSUE
TO: Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Judicial District of Arizona
55 E. Broadway
Tucson, Arizona state
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus, in due
form of law, be issued requiring JANET NAPOLITANO and ROBERT I.
MISKELL to:
1. show cause why violations of Their fundamental Rights were
not inflicted upon New Life Health Center Company, Dr.
Eugene Burns, Managing Director, and Paul Andrew, Mitchell,
B.A., M.S., Vice President of Legal Affairs, by this Court's
decision on May 3, 1996, not to allow Mr. Mitchell to
address this Court during the hearing on this matter;
2. deliver and certify delivery of the Company's PRIVILEGED
COMMUNICATION and its FORMAL REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION to
the federal grand jury convened in this matter;
Order to Issue:
Page 1 of 2
3. show cause why ROBERT I. MISKELL should not be charged with
mail fraud, jury tampering, and obstruction of justice;
4. submit a Memorandum of Points and Authorities explaining how
Dr. Eugene Burns can be compelled to deliver the Company's
books and records to the grand jury without also violating
any of His or the Company's fundamental, unalienable Rights;
5. submit a Memorandum of Points and Authorities explaining how
executive and judicial officers of the United States can
intercept Registered and Certified United States Mail, when
Return Receipt and Restricted Delivery services are
requested, without also violating federal postal laws;
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus, in due
form of law, be issued requiring JANET NAPOLITANO, ROBERT I.
MISKELL, EVANGELINA CARDENAS, the CLERK of this Court, and the
POSTMASTER, Downtown Station, to:
6. obey the Freedom of Information Act Requests ("FOIAs") which
have already been mailed to Mr. Miskell, Ms. Napolitano, Mr.
Weare, Ms. Cardenas, and the Postmaster.
Dated this ________ day of ____________________, 1996 Anno Domini
_______________________________________________
Judge, United States District Court
Order to Issue:
Page 2 of 2
# # #
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Counselor at Law and federal witness
c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776
Tucson, Arizona state
zip code exempt
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 )
_______________________________)
PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS
TO: ROBERT I. MISKELL
JANET NAPOLITANO
Office of the United States Attorney
110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310
Tucson, Arizona state
Clerk
United States District Court
55 E. Broadway
Tucson, Arizona state
Postmaster
United States Postal Service
Downtown Station
Tucson, Arizona state
Evangelina Cardenas
"Internal Revenue Service"
300 West Congress
Tucson, Arizona state
Peremptory Writ of Mandamus:
Page 1 of 4
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that JANET NAPOLITANO and ROBERT I.
MISKELL:
1. show cause why violations of Their fundamental Rights were
not inflicted upon New Life Health Center Company, Dr.
Eugene Burns, Managing Director, and Paul Andrew, Mitchell,
B.A., M.S., Vice President of Legal Affairs, by this Court's
decision on May 3, 1996, not to allow Mr. Mitchell to
address this Court during the hearing on this matter;
2. deliver and certify delivery of the Company's PRIVILEGED
COMMUNICATION and its FORMAL REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION to
the federal grand jury convened in this matter;
3. show cause why ROBERT I. MISKELL should not be charged with
mail fraud, jury tampering, and obstruction of justice;
4. submit a Memorandum of Points and Authorities explaining how
Dr. Eugene Burns can be compelled to deliver the Company's
books and records to the grand jury without also violating
any of His or the Company's fundamental, unalienable Rights;
5. submit a Memorandum of Points and Authorities explaining how
executive and judicial officers of the United States can
intercept Registered and Certified United States Mail, when
Return Receipt and Restricted Delivery services are
requested, without also violating federal postal laws;
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that JANET NAPOLITANO, ROBERT I. MISKELL,
EVANGELINA CARDENAS, the CLERK of this Court, and the POSTMASTER,
Downtown Station:
6. obey the Freedom of Information Act Requests ("FOIAs") which
have already been mailed to Mr. Miskell, Ms. Napolitano, Mr.
Weare, Ms. Cardenas, and the Postmaster.
Peremptory Writ of Mandamus:
Page 2 of 4
Dated this ________ day of ____________________, 1996 Anno Domini
_______________________________________________
CLERK, United States District Court
Peremptory Writ of Mandamus:
Page 3 of 4
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 have personally served the following documents:
Case No. GJ-95-1-6:
FORMAL NOTICE,
PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS,
and
ORDER TO ISSUE
by placing said documents in first class U.S. Mail, with postage
prepaid and properly addressed to the following individuals:
ROBERT L. MISKELL John M. Roll
Acapulco Building, Suite 8310 U.S. District Court
110 South Church Avenue 55 E. Broadway
Tucson, Arizona Tucson, Arizona
JANET NAPOLITANO 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
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals "Internal Revenue Service"
125 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 200 300 West Congress
Pasadena, California Tucson, Arizona
Dated: May 14, 1996
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
________________________________________
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Peremptory Writ of Mandamus:
Page 4 of 4
# # #
Return to Table of Contents for
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena