c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776
                                         Tucson [zip code exempt]
                                                    ARIZONA STATE

                                               September 20, 1996

Carol S. Sefren, Chief
Judges Compensation and Benefits Branch
Article III Judges Division
Administrative Office of the United States Courts
Washington, D.C.

Subject:  Credentials of John M. Roll

Dear Ms. Sefren:

     Thank you  for your  letter to  Me, dated September 6, 1996,
with attachments.   I  regret to  inform you  that We must refuse
your letter for cause.  Our reasons for refusing your letter, and
all of its attachments, are stated as follows:

     Our requests  for  the  credentials  of  one  John  M.  Roll
required certified  copies of  these  credentials,  in  order  to
render the  requisite documents  admissible in  a court  of  law.
Without  the  requested  certification,  the  documents  are  not
admissible.   Although you  may not have known this, We have seen
many rulings against the admissibility of uncertified documents.

     Your response  is also  inadmissible under  the doctrine  of
estoppel.   You will  note from  the attached  documents that Our
original request for John M. Roll's official credentials, if any,
was originally  dated May  12, 1996.   An appeal was filed on May
24, 1996.   A final notice and demand were made upon the District
Court Executive  on June 24, 1996, with a deadline of seventy-two
(72) hours  hence (i.e. June 27, 1996).  Your letter was not sent
until September  6,  1996,  almost  four  (4)  months  after  the
original request.   Pursuant  to Article  VI, Clause  3, Citizens
have a  fundamental Right  to know  that federal  employees  have
taken the  requisite oath of office, and evidence of said oath is
not protected by any restrictions of the Privacy Act.

     Because the  requisite  credentials  were  not  produced  in
response to  any  of  Our  requests,  I  prepared  and  filed  an
District Court  on July  3, 1996  (see enclosed).   Silence  is a
species of  conduct and  represents an  implied representation of
the existence  of the state of facts in question.  On estoppel by
acquiescence, see  Carmine v.  Bowen, 64  A. 932 (1906).  Silence
can also  be equated with fraud where there is a legal or a moral
duty to  speak, or  where an  inquiry left  unanswered  would  be
intentionally misleading.   See  U.S. v.  Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, at
299 (1977),  quoting U.S.  v. Prudden,  424 F.2d  1021,  at  1032

     I do  apologize in  advance if  this letter should cause you
any inconvenience,  but  timeliness  and  certification  are  two
essential prerequisites  to proper  adjudication of  the  matters
which were  raised by our original request for the credentials of
one John M. Roll.

     Thank you very much for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness
and Counselor at Law


email:    supremelawfirm@altavista.net

website:  http://supremelaw.com

copy:     Federal Bureau of Investigation, Tucson, Arizona

                             #  #  #

Return to Table of Contents for

In Re Grand Jury Subpoena