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

                                                December 13, 1996

Mr. and Mrs. Neil T. Nordbrock
c/o 6642 East Calle de San Alberto
Tucson, Arizona state

Dear Neil & Evelyn,

I must  immediately address  Neil's letter,  which I  received in
today's mail,  because it  contains many  false, misleading,  and
misrepresentative statements.

re: "legal representation" [sic]

     Neil wrote:

     "According to what I know, of those you have assisted with
     legal problems since coming to Tucson, here are the results:

         "Charles Taylor, convicted
          Sheila Wallen, convicted
          Dr. Burns, bench warrant issued.
          Elizabeth Broderick, et al, convicted
          Leroy Schweitzer, still in jail (and it is my
          understanding that you are now persona non grata with
          that group)
          ".....Not a very impressive record....."

My response follows:

re:  "Charles Taylor, convicted."

Charles Taylor was convicted before I ever met him.  He requested
my assistance to defeat his pending sentence of 21 years.  On the
day before  sentencing,  I  met with Mr. Taylor and discussed his
options with  him.   We mutually  decided that  I would go to the
sentencing hearing, but that he would not appear at that hearing.
When the  judge finally  called Taylor's  case, I  stood  up  and
declared that  the court  was proceeding  ultra vires.  The judge
then ordered  me to sit down and stated that I had no standing in
that  court.     That  judge  then  called  a  15-minute  recess,
immediately after stating that he would issue a bench warrant for
Charles Taylor  if Taylor was not brought to the courtroom during
that recess.

As the judge left the courtroom, I rushed to the security office,
with a  request to  see the presiding judge with an emergency.  I
had in  my hands the pleading which I had prepared for Mr. Taylor
the prior  day.  This pleading was a request that the trial judge
be recused  for obvious  bias.   Security  called  the  presiding
judge's chambers,  and then  informed me that I had permission to
enter the chambers and that they were waiting for me there.  When
I arrived  at  the  presiding  judge's  chambers,  his  secretary
greeted me  with a  startled look.   When  she asked  me  what  I
wanted, I  told her  I had just obtained permission from security
to present  the presiding  judge with  an emergency  motion.  She
left the  room in a hurry, and when she returned, she informed me
that the judge was on the phone, and that I would have to wait.

               Detailed Rebuttal to Neil Norbrock:
                          Page 1 of 10

After about  10 minutes  of waiting, I informed my companion that
he had  better return to the courtroom, to determine if the judge
was going  to issue  a bench  warrant for  Mr.  Taylor's  arrest.
After waiting another 10 minutes, a Sheriff's deputy arrived with
a puzzled  look on  his face.   The  presiding judge's  secretary
tried to  explain to  him that everything was okay, but he waited
anyway, in the hallway just outside the secretary's office.

When the  secretary returned  a second time, she informed me that
the presiding  judge had  consented to  hear the pleading which I
had prepared  for Mr.  Taylor, and which Mr. Taylor had signed In
Propria Persona.   Then  she informed me that I would never again
be permitted  to enter  that part of the building.  I said to her
that it  was my hope that there would be no more emergencies like
this.    The  Sheriff's  deputy  was  quiet  during  this  entire
exchange, and  his eyes darted from her to me and back to her, as
each of us took turns speaking.

The upshot  of this  day was  that I succeeded in keeping Charles
Taylor out  of jail  for 21 years.  So, it is totally and utterly
false to  suggest, imply,  or to  state that I was responsible in
any way  for Mr. Taylor's conviction.  In fact, it is a lie, Neil
and Evelyn.   If you want confirmation on this point, contact Mr.
Vernon L.  Schrader.   I do  not know  the current whereabouts of
Charles Taylor  at this  point in  time, nor  do I really want to
know his  whereabouts, because  he could  never bring  himself to
thank me  in any  way for  what I did that day to keep him out of
state prison.  He still has not thanked me, to this day.

re:  "Sheila Wallen, convicted."

You are  correct that  I was  retained by Sheila Wallen to be her
assistant Counsel  during her  criminal trial.  Since you did not
attend that trial,  and I did, you are at a big disadvantage when
it comes  to describing  what happened  that day.   I  am frankly
shocked that  you would  presume to  know what  happened, and  to
blame me  for what  did happen.  At the outset of that trial, the
judge refused  to allow  me to  pass the  bar at  Sheila's  side.
Instead, he  ordered me to the back row of the courtroom, where I
was prevented  from having  any contact  with Sheila  during  the
entire duration  of that trial.  The only contact I did have with
her was during recesses, of which there were 3, including a lunch
break.   At one point in the trial, several others in the gallery
vocally objected  to the  judge's behavior  of refusing Sheila to
allow any Counsel to assist her by her side.  David Wallen's girl
friend, Anna  Marie, spoke one too many times for Judge Browning,
and Browning had her ejected from the courtroom by U.S. Marshals.
Anna Marie  had to  be carried  out of the courtroom, because she
refused to  budge when  the  Marshals  asked  her  to  stand  up.
Sheila's father also spoke out against the Judge.

               Detailed Rebuttal to Neil Norbrock:
                          Page 2 of 10

Sheila was  convicted, after conducting herself bravely and quite
effectively, I  might add,  with no assistance whatsoever.  After
that conviction,  she continued  to retain me for post-conviction
relief.   I did  my best  to develop  a powerful  and  innovative
challenge to  the absence  of any  criminal jurisdiction  in  the
United States District Court,  and to develop and implement, with
her full  approval, a  removal action  into the District Court of
the United States.  You did attend the first Supreme Law Seminar,
and I  presume that  you understood  what I  presented on both of
those days,  so I  must presume  that you  are more familiar than
most with the legal basis of the removal action which I developed
on her  behalf.  The matter was presented to the Ninth Circuit in
the form  of a  formal Notice  and  Demand,  which  was  actually
docketed by the Clerk of the Ninth Circuit.

At that  point, Sheila came over to my apartment, quite angry and
perturbed by  what she characterized as emotional instability and
"victim" psychosis.   She  went so far as to accuse me of being a
federal informant,  and she  denied that  I am a federal witness,
this after  she, herself,  had called  me to the witness stand to
testify in her own trial.  She used these reasons as an excuse to
refuse payment  on my invoice to her for all the legal work which
I had  done on  her behalf,  before, during, and after the trial.
At that  time, she  was sleeping  until 11:00  a.m.,  and  taking
upwards of 2 hours to get ready for her day.  She was not working
and not seeking any  employment,  thus minimizing the probability
that I  would be paid for all the legal work I did on her behalf.
Would you  like to  see copies of all the pleadings I researched,
wrote, and  helped her  file?   They are  on file  in the  United
States District  Court in  Tucson.   Help yourself;  they are all
public record.

I was  forced at  that point in time to attribute to her brother,
David Wallen, and to Herb Crawford, her false belief that I was a
federal informant.  For many other reasons like these, I recently
requested a private meeting  with the Sheriff of Pima county,  in
order to solicit his advice for me in this situation.  As you may
already know, Mr. Crawford stooped to threatening me twelve times
in my  own home.   He  did this, I believe, because I made such a
direct point  of telling  him, one morning while he was living in
my  apartment,  that I had decided  to testify  against Elizabeth
Broderick for  filing a bogus commercial lien, i.e. one which was
stamped with a bogus rubber stamp reading "U S CRIMINAL COURT".

After Herb threatened me with bodily harm (he threatened to throw
me through the sliding glass window), I demanded that he move out
immediately.   With the  assistance of  David Wallen, while I was
not present, the two of them removed personal belongings of mine,
including computer  equipment and  cash, which  both of them have
refused to  return in accordance with my written instructions.  I
did not  want to  be around  Mr. Crawford,  because  I  then  had
probable cause to believe that he might become violent around me.
It was  for that  reason that  I demanded the he and David Wallen
return all  of my  personal belongings  into your care.  That has
never happened.  For your information, Herb Crawford was arrested
today in  conjunction with  the indictment  which a federal grand
jury  has  issued  against  him  for  conspiracy  to  manufacture
methamphetamine in  Oregon state.  Herb showed me that indictment
just before he moved into my apartment.  I helped him prepare one
letter to the Forfeiture Counsel who was assigned to that case.

               Detailed Rebuttal to Neil Norbrock:
                          Page 3 of 10

re:  "Dr. Burns, bench warrant issued."

This is  a very  sore point  with me,  as you already know, and I
thought you  knew the  facts of  this situation, so I am entirely
taken aback  by your  attempt to  blame me  for the  issuance  of
Gene's bench  warrant, and  subsequent surrender  to John  Roll's
court, with  the FBI  and a licensed bar member by his sides.  On
the morning  of the day that arrest warrant was issued, I arrived
in my  New Life office early, which was my normal schedule.  Gene
arrived early  too, and  we learned from Martha that Judge Roll's
secretary had called to inform us that our Motion for Continuance
had been  denied, despite the fact that I was scheduled to appear
before Garfield  county court  in Montana,  and I  needed time to
travel and  to prepare for that appearance.  You will recall that
I was  under court  order to  appear in Montana.  When Gene and I
discussed Judge  Roll's refusal  to grant  a routine continuance,
even when  I had  obvious scheduling conflicts, Gene decided that
he had  seen enough  arbitrary and  capricious behavior  by Judge
Roll (remember  the 27 counts of mail fraud, etc.?), and together
we decided  to prepare  and file  a Notice of Appeal.  After this
meeting with  Gene, I  prepared the  Notice and drove down to the
court to file it, at approximately 10:30 a.m.

When I  returned, I  spoke with  Gene again  about his  plans  to
attend the  hearing, or  not.  He informed me that Judge Roll had
lost jurisdiction when the Notice of Appeal was filed, and it was
for this  reason that  Gene decided  he was  not going to appear,
despite the fact that he was under court order to appear in Judge
Roll's courtroom  that afternoon, at 4:00 p.m. I think it was.  I
stressed to  Gene, two  separate times,  that he  needed  to  go,
despite the  Notice of  Appeal, because Judge Roll might not have
had time  to see  it, or  to review it, before the hearing.  I am
sure that  I did  urge Gene,  two separate  times, to  attend the
hearing anyway,  in obedience  to the  court order.   Both times,
Gene disagreed  with me.  At that point, I decided that I was not
going to be persuasive with him, and I dropped the matter.  I did
attend the  hearing myself,  where Judge  Roll struck  all of  my
pleadings and  issued a  bench warrant  for Gene's  arrest.  As a
point of  fact, when I started to argue with Linda later, because
she  had   begun  to   blame  me  for  Judge  Roll's  "upset,"  I
specifically remember  hearing Gene say to Linda that I had urged
Gene, two  separate times,  to attend the hearing in obedience to
the court  order.   This did not sit very well with Linda, as you
might imagine.  She had been persuaded by people unknown to me to
believe that  I was  solely to blame for the fact that Judge Roll
was "pissed  off," as  she put it.  Never mind that we had caught
Roll and  Miskell red-handed  in a conspiracy to commit 27 counts
of mail  fraud,  27  counts  of  jury  tampering,  27  counts  of
obstruction of justice, and 27 counts of conspiracy to commit all
of the  above.  That's why Roll was "pissed off."  Linda chose to
kill the messenger instead.

               Detailed Rebuttal to Neil Norbrock:
                          Page 4 of 10

Since then,  I have  continued to pursue this matter, in a number
of ways  that are  presently unknown  to you.   For the record, I
have now  filed a  formal Judicial  Complaint against  John Roll,
because another  count of mail fraud, jury tampering, obstruction
of justice,  and conspiracy,  because of  another item  of  first
class U.S.  Mail which he and Miskell have intercepted.  This one
was sent  to the  Grand Jury  Foreperson  from  New  Life  Health
Center.   The Clerk  made the  serious mistake  of returning that
envelope to  me.   Without opening it, I delivered it to the USPS
Postal Inspection  Service, with  another complaint of mail fraud
against John Roll, Robert Miskell, et al.

I have  also continued  to pursue  Miskell and  Napolitano et al.
with formal Notices of Intent to File Criminal Complaints against
all of  them, for  felony conduct which has been committed either
in my  presence, or with me as an eyewitness to material evidence
which  constitutes   probable  cause   to  charge  these  federal
employees with  the 28  separate counts I have itemized above.  I
have done  all of  this at my own expense, paying for the postage
and office supplies out of my own pocket.

re:  "Elizabeth Broderick et al, convicted."

This is  another low blow from you, Neil.  I had worked very hard
on the  Broderick case,  developing the  kind of foundation which
you saw me prepare on Gene's behalf.  During the period of time I
was working  on her  two civil cases, I was given a car by one of
her associates  which had  tampered front  brakes.   Also, when I
returned to  Tucson for  2 days  to attend  a New Life hearing in
John Roll's  courtroom, little  did I know that all of the office
equipment, furniture,  and files which I had set up in the Colton
condominium were  being stolen while I was away.  When I returned
to Colton, I walked into an empty condominium;  all that was left
was the carpeting on the floor.

At that point in time, I began to use a spare bedroom in the home
of  Adolf Hoch's  girl friend, Holly.   Holly was not too keen on
having me work there, but she tolerated the situation, only up to
a point.   I  had recently submitted my first invoice for all the
work I  had done  for those  5 defendants, on 3 separate cases (2
civil and  1 criminal).   Broderick  and 4  of her associates had
witnessed me  quote my professional rate to her, and I waived the
retainer, because  I had  already been  paid for  2 speaker fees.
After doing approximately 175 hours of work for her, I billed her
for approximately  $10,000, plus  the  travel  and  miscellaneous
expenses which  I had  incurred at  New Life,  such as  telephone
charges, photocopying,  and air  fare (which Gene lent to me).  I
specifically agreed,  in writing,  to reimburse  Gene as  soon as
Broderick paid all or part of my first invoice.  Gene agreed.

               Detailed Rebuttal to Neil Norbrock:
                          Page 5 of 10

When it  became painfully obvious that neither Broderick, nor any
of her  associates, were  going to  pay any  part of  my  $10,000
invoice, I  became extremely  upset at that turn of events.  This
was particularly  painful, in light of the fact that I had helped
Broderick store  some $50,000 in cash in a private locker, at her
request.   I helped  her find  a locker, and when we had finished
locking up  the money, I gave her all the keys to it, in addition
to all  of the  paperwork associated  with  that  private  rental
contract.   No sooner  had I submitted my $10,000 invoice, when I
came to  discover that  all the  money which  Broderick and I had
placed in that locker had been removed, by Broderick's secretary,
Cydi Valdez.  When I confronted Valdez about this money, she then
persisted in  denying that  I ever  had any kind of contract with
Elizabeth whatsoever.   This  was a lie.  Valdez even went so far
as to put this lie into U.S. Mail.

After doing  my own private investigation into this whole mess, I
came to  suspect that Broderick is a federal informant.  This was
recently confirmed by an open admission on the Internet by one of
the members  of a  private email  list which  I share  with  that
member.   Remember, the reason why Herb Crawford threatened me 12
times was  because of  my  spoken  decision  to  testify  against
Broderick, in part because of her bogus rubber stamp reading "U S
CRIMINAL COURT."   During one of my private trips with Adolf Hoch
in his  new $35,000 Buick Riviera, he told me that Gene Burns had
been the  beneficiary of several Broderick warrants, and that New
Life had  benefitted enormously  from this  extra flush of funds.
That was  a  real  eye-opener  to  me!    I  have  also  received
confirmation from  the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C.,
that the  head U.S.  Attorney who  prosecuted Broderick, one Nora
Manella, has  no credentials  whatsoever.   Upon  receiving  that
confirmation, I  have petitioned  the USDC  in  Los  Angeles  for
Intervention of  Right, under  FRCP  Rule  24(a).    Manella  has
decided to  oppose that  petition, and  I am now prosecuting that
matter on my own meager funds, such as they are.

re:  "Leroy Schweitzer, still in jail (and it is your
understanding that I am now persona non grata with that group)."

This is  another cruel,  low, mean,  and  unnecessary  blow  from
someone who  should know better.  To make a very long story short
(this letter  is already up to 6 pages), I took it upon myself to
publish on the Internet a broad strategy for assisting Schweitzer
and his  co-defendants.   When the  Freedom Center solicited help
from attorneys,  I was the only one who responded.  After hearing
my terms ($75 per hour, $500 retainer, no change) they flew me up
there to  begin implementing the plan.  After 18.5 days of double
time work  (18 hours  per day,  sleeping on  a couch  most of the
time), Randy  Parsons requested  that I  prepare an invoice.   My
first invoice  to them was for approximately fifty percent of the
many hours  I had worked on behalf of Schweitzer et al.  I had to
return to  Tucson for  the first Supreme Law Seminar, and I fully
expected to  return to  Billings, to  finish the  work up  there.
Upon mailing  my invoice,  this one  again for  about $10,000,  I
started to  get this  gnawing feeling  that I  was going  to  get
stiffed again.  I first began to suspect something was wrong when
they would  not contact  me after  I returned  to Tucson.  As the
days wore  on, and  as Richard  McDonald continued to report this
and that  "promise" which they were making to him, promises which
never materialized,  I slowly  came to realize that they were not
going to  pay any  of the  invoice which they had requested me to
submit to  them.   This was  another terrible  blow, after  I had
worked so  hard to  develop the  necessary  pleadings  to  defend
Schweitzer,  lay   a  proper   foundation,  and   also   continue
prosecuting the  civil case, People v. United States, which I had
filed, on  my own,  using my  own  money,  in  order  to  prevent
bloodshed during the Montana standoff.

               Detailed Rebuttal to Neil Norbrock:
                          Page 6 of 10

After many  attempts to  get  my  personal  belongings  returned,
including your leather jacket, law books and dictionaries, IOmega
ZIP drive  and disks,  important files  with  evidence,  clothes,
toiletries, and  a number of other personal belongings, it became
obvious to  me that  I was  being singled  out for persecution by
members of  the Freedom Center, in part because of a disagreement
we had, while I was up there, concerning the lack of any biblical
authority for  apartheid.   Evidently,  Keven Entzel is convinced
that there  is  biblical  authority  for  discrimination  against
Negroes, but  when I confronted him on that point, he answered by
saying that he could not remember the specific chapter or verse.

Richard McDonald,  Kamala Webb,  Red Beckman, and two others with
access to  the  Freedom  Center  have  attempted  to  recover  my
personal belongings  from their "bunk house" near the Yellowstone
River, with  absolutely no  success.   Just yesterday, however, I
did receive a large manila envelope, which contained 16 pieces of
important legal  mail, from  such places  as  the  Department  of
Justice in  Washington, D.C.,  the Internal  Revenue Service, and
the U.S.  District Court  Clerk in Billings, Montana.  A total of
12 of  those pieces  of mail had already been opened, most likely
by Randy  Parsons and/or  Keven Entzel.  I was forced to document
these gross violations of U.S. Mail fraud statutes by preparing a
detailed Notice  of Intent,  which was  mailed yesterday  to  the
Postmaster in  Billings, and  to all the senders of the 16 pieces
of mail  which had been unnecessarily, and criminally, delayed by
the Freedom  Center,  the  place  where  all  my  mail  had  been
delivered by  the U.S.  Postal Service.   For your information, I
attach that  Notice of  Intent, so  that you  will all  the facts
available to you.

re:  "pocketing the $100 checks that I am getting through my
      efforts via the Internet to get patriots to join in the
      Schweitzer suit"

This is  a flat-out lie, Neil, and I want you to cease and desist
immediately with this deliberately false, libelous, and injurious
lie.  The two press releases which I have prepared to raise funds
for Schweitzer  both listed the Freedom Center as the destination
for those  $100 payments.   To date, only one person has made the
mistake of  mailing a  $100 payment  to me in Tucson, whereupon I
immediately  forwarded  that  U.S.  Postal  Money  order  to  the
attention of  Randy Parsons  at the  Freedom  Center.    You  are
evidently ignorant of just how wrong this statement is, because I
would never  even  consider  embezzling  money  which  rightfully
belongs to  Schweitzer's defense  fund, such  as it is.  I hereby
demand that  you retract this ugly, false, libelous and injurious
lie, because  I know  for a  fact that  you  have  absolutely  no
evidence to back it up, whatsoever.  You know you are lying here,
and you  are fabricating  a vicious  lie to retaliate against me,
because I  complained bluntly  about your abuse of alcohol, in my
presence:   slurring  your  words,  staggering  and  losing  your
balance in your own kitchen, repeatedly spilling drinks and gravy
with your  right hand,  failing to understand complex computer or
legal concepts  I was  trying to  communicate to  you.  Neil, for
your own  sake and  the sake  of your  immediate family, get some
help, will you please?

               Detailed Rebuttal to Neil Norbrock:
                          Page 7 of 10

re: "frivolous attempts to extort money"

I have  mailed to  Gene Burns  two separate  Notices and Demands,
with deadlines,  for wrongful discharge, unpaid compensation, and
other unspecified  damages.   On both occasions, Burns has failed
to answer  within my  stated deadline.  I have sent you copies of
both of those Notices.  You may recall that you did nothing about
the first  one, except to console me for the fact that things did
not turn  out as  you had  hoped at New Life.  Now you are saying
that my second Notice and Demand is extortion.  Again, Neil, this
is a  lie, and  I am not threatening Burns with bodily harm; I am
not calling  him on  the telephone;  I am not attempting to visit
his office;   I  am not even attempting to send him any email.  I
am merely documenting the specified and unspecified damages which
I am  claim to  have suffered  from being  wrongfully discharged,
falsely accused,  and having  my privacy  invaded.   I have  also
written to his new "attorney" with a demand for production of the
attorney's legal credentials, if any.  To date, that attorney has
failed to  produce any credentials, or proof that he has actually
been retained  by Gene.    So,  until  such  time  as  I  receive
confirmation that he is a licensed bar member, and that he has in
fact been  retained by  Burns, I  am entitled  to proceed  on the
basis of  the conclusive  presumption that this "attorney" is not
who he  says he  is.   I cannot  be faulted  for that  attorney's
failure to  produce proof of his claims.  Evidently, you now want
to blame  me for  doing what  anybody in this business should do,
upon entering  a contract with a licensed bar member.  But, don't
let me  tell you  what to do.  I have witnessed you say to Burns,
on numerous  occasions, that  he had  been burned  each and every
time he  ever retained  a licensed  bar member;   then,  you turn
around and  retain one  yourself.  Evidently, you are not willing
to practice  what you  preach, even after you complained bitterly
to me about the poor professional services you have received from
your various  attorneys, including  the one in Escondido, and the
other one in Phoenix.

re:  "deliberately picking fights with the CDC"

This is  another extremely  low blow,  coming  from  someone  who
should know  better than to jump to this ugly conclusion, without
first obtaining the true facts of the situation.  I have evidence
in my  possession which  directly  implicates  officials  at  the
Centers for  Disease Control  in premeditated  murder for  having
failed to prevent the inoculation of American soldiers, bound for
Iraq, with a serum that had been tainted with Anthrax.  This came
out in  testimony which  Senator Riegle  gave, under  oath, to  a
Senate committee  investigating biological  weapons usage  during
the Gulf  War.  I took a huge risk doing what I did, but I remain
convinced that  it was  worth every  bit of that risk, because of
evidence which  is now  pouring forth  proving that  the  tainted
serum  is  highly  contagious  and  is  now  affecting  soldiers'
families, friends, children, and even casual contacts.  Coming to
learn what  I was  forced to  witness, I  had a legal and a moral
duty to  intervene, in  the best way I knew how.  Confronting the
CDC in  the way I did, by exposing the truth on the Internet, was
the decision  I made, and I remain convinced, even today, even in
the face  of repeated  skeptics who  express  juvenile  and  even
infantile fears  about the  rectitude of  what I did, that it was
truly the  right thing  to do.   I  say this  on the  Holy Bible,
before Almighty  God.   Doing anything  less would  have made  me
complicit with  premeditated genocide  because of  a pandemic  of
Gulf War  Syndrome which  is  now  racing  through  the  American
population, unchecked  and out  of control.   Neil,  you ought to
have your head examined for saying this.

               Detailed Rebuttal to Neil Norbrock:
                          Page 8 of 10

re:  "I apparently flew to Texas to have a rendezvous with an
      e-mail pen pal last month."

Yes, I  did fly  to Texas last month, but it was a free gift from
some new  friends I  have recently made there.  They paid for the
air fare,  the ground transportation, and they fed me for the few
days I  was there.  I did do a little legal work for them while I
was there,  and I  sent them  some documents via email which they
had requested as soon as I returned to Tucson.  Just so you know,
I slept  most of  the time,  because I  had become  so  exhausted
fighting so  many different  fronts, not  knowing if I would even
have food  on the  table from  one day  to the next.  I also made
friends with  their many animals, and in particular, one of their
special cats  took a  liking to  me, so  the two of us spent many
hours sleeping  on the  couch, in front of a television set which
was off  most of  the time.   If  you are attempting to insinuate
that I  flew to  Texas on  my own funds, again you are sadly, and
ferociously, wrong,  again, for  jumping to  conclusions with  no
basis in fact whatsoever.  If you like, I can have my new friends
in Texas  call you,  or write  to you,  to confirm how much money
they actually spent on flying me there and back.

re:  "Many believe I am a government informant."

Yes, I  seem to  remember your asking me that very same question,
on three  different occasions.   I could understand that question
the first  time.   The second  time, I began to wonder why it was
that you  were so concerned about that question.  The third time,
I really  began to  wonder why  it was  that  you  are  still  so
terribly worried  about my  being a  federal informant.  Well, if
you had  bothered to  ask the  right questions,  you  would  have
discovered that,  last May,  I filed in Broderick's civil case an
affidavit of  non-governmental affiliation.    The  last  time  I
worked for  the federal  government, I  was  a  computer  systems
development consultant to a secured Naval Shipyard in California,
during the mid-1980's.  The Affidavit attests to this fact, under
penalty of  perjury.   If this is not good enough for you, and if
my word to you on three separate occasions is not good enough for
you, then please tell me immediately what it is going to take for
you to  believe me  when I tell you, now a fourth time, that I am
not a government informant.  I will say this much, when I witness
felony conduct  by federal  employees, it  is  my  obligation  to
report it to the proper authorities.  You have witnessed my doing
that, in the New Life case.  I have also helped you report to the
proper authorities  the criminal conduct which has victimized you
and your  wife, although  I was  not an eyewitness to any of that
conduct, with  the sole exception of Miskell's misconduct against
Burns and  New Life.   Would  you consider  that to  be  more  of
Miskell's conduct  towards you too?  You tell me, Neil.  I am all
ears at this point in my life.

               Detailed Rebuttal to Neil Norbrock:
                          Page 9 of 10


The Undersigned,  Paul Andrew,  Mitchell, B.A.,  M.S. Citizen  of
Arizona state,  federal witness,  and Counselor  at  Law,  hereby
verify, under  penalty of  perjury, under  the laws of the United
States of  America, without  the "United  States", that the above
statements of  fact are  true and correct, the best of my current
information, knowledge,  and belief,  so help Me God, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. 1746(1).

Executed on December 13, 1996

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness,
and Counselor at Law

email:    supremelawfirm@yahoo.com

website:  http://supremelaw.com

               Detailed Rebuttal to Neil Norbrock:
                          Page 10 of 10

                             #  #  #

Return to Table of Contents for

Mitchell v. Nordbrock