NOTICE OF DEFAULT to Bauman

c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776

Tucson [zip code exempt]

ARIZONA REPUBLIC

March 7, 1997

NOTICE OF DEFAULT

Henry J. Bauman

Independent Counsel

Office of the Chief Postal Inspector

United States Postal Inspection Service

475 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W., Room 3417

Washington, D.C.

Re: Criminal Conspiracy by United States

District Judge John M. Roll

Dear Mr. Bauman:

Thank you very much for your letter dated February 25, 1997, concerning the criminal conspiracy to obstruct correspondence by U.S. District Judge John M. Roll, by all his co-conspirators, and by all his accessories.

Although your letter did not arrive until after the stated deadline of 5:00 p.m. on Monday, March 3, 1997, it was dated prior to that deadline and, for this reason, I will waive the deadline and treat your latest letter as the official response of the USPS to My NOTICE AND DEMAND dated February 11, 1997.

As expected, you have not produced certified copies of any constitutional provisions, statutes, or regulations which specifically authorize United States District Judges to obstruct registered, certified, and first class U.S. Mail, when restricted delivery and return receipt services have been requested, and when said mail was directed specifically to the foreperson of a federal grand jury convened under auspices of a United States District Court. You are now in default in this regard.

You did, however, make a point of citing Title 18, United States Code, Section 1504, influencing juror by writing. You did not explain why it was that you were citing this statute. I am presently unaware that there is any probable cause to charge either John M. Roll, or any of his accessories or co-conspirators, with violating this particular criminal statute. Section 1504 certainly does not constitute any authority for a federal judge to obstruct correspondence, obstruct justice, tamper with a jury, or conspire with others to commit any of these crimes. See 18 U.S.C. 1504, second paragraph.

You go on to cite Poster 296 as stating that the USPS offers a reward for information and services "LEADING TO THE ARREST AND CONVICTION of any person for crimes specified on the poster." Furthermore, you allege that I do not qualify to make a claim for any reward in this matter, as there have been no arrests or convictions as a result of the information I provided.

Mr. Bauman, you did not read far enough on Poster 296!

Evidently, you were quoting from the section of Poster 296 which is entitled "RELATED OFFENSES" [sic]. If you will kindly read the next section, which is entitled "GENERAL PROVISIONS", you will find the following five (5) points there, to wit:

1. The Postal Inspection Service investigates the above described crimes. Information concerning the violations, requests for applications for rewards, and written claims for rewards should be furnished to the nearest Postal Inspector. The written claim for reward payment must be submitted within six months from the date of conviction of the offender, or the date of formally deferred prosecution or the date of the offender's death, if killed in committing a crime or resisting lawful arrest for one of the above offenses.

2. The amount of any reward will be based on the significance of services rendered, character of the offender, risks and hazards involved, time spent, and expenses incurred. Amounts of rewards shown above are the maximum amounts which will be paid.

3. The term "custodian" as used herein includes any person having lawful charge, control, or custody of any mail matter, or any money or other property of the United States under the control and jurisdiction of the USPS.

4. The USPS reserves the right to reject a claim for reward where there has been collusion, criminal involvement, or improper methods have been used to effect an arrest or to secure a conviction. It has the right to allow only one reward when several persons were convicted of the same offense, or one person was convicted of several of the above offenses.

5. Other rewards not specifically referred to in this notice may be offered upon approval of the Chief Postal Inspector (39 USC 404(a)(8)).

[emphasis added]

I draw your attention specifically to the following sentence from point 1 above:

The written claim for reward payment must be submitted within six months from the date of conviction of the offender, or the date of formally deferred prosecution ....

As I have already stated in several different letters to employees of the USPS, I regard the September 19 letter from Thomas H. Basham, Supervisory Senior Resident Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (Phoenix), to be the date of formally deferred prosecution. My letter dated January 21, 1997, to James A. Crawford, Postal Inspector (Tucson), explained that the FBI's decision to shelve the evidence which I supplied to them can, and should, be considered as the date of formally deferred prosecution. This latter date falls within the six (6) month deadline after the date of formally deferred prosecution.

Moreover, I have assembled and transmitted to the FBI, to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and to your offices, evidence identifying accessories to the criminal conspiracy, evidence identifying persons having unlawful possession of mail and other property secured through said conspiracy, and evidence of the conspiracy itself. See RELATED OFFENSES in Poster 296. I hereby express My intent to claim reward(s) for the services of assembling and transmitting all of this evidence to the government offices mentioned. I have received no rewards to date in this matter.

In conclusion, please expedite the delivery to Me of an official USPS application for rewards, and please accept this letter as My second notice of intent to present a written claim for reward payment. Poster 296 directs Me to write to the nearest Postal Inspector to file these claims, so I am sending a copy of this letter to James A. Crawford in the Tucson office of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and all others listed below.

I also hereby reserve My Right to prosecute Johm M. Roll and all of his accessories and co-conspirators for all the crimes previously mentioned, and to hold them all liable for actual, consequential, and exemplary damages to Me, and to the New Life Health Center Company ("New Life"), of which I am presently the Vice President for Legal Affairs, pursuant to a Trustee's appointment to said office. For your information, that appointment was officially recognized by United States District Judge John M. Roll at the second hearing in the matter of the grand jury subpoena served upon New Life and, for this reason, My pleadings were officially filed in that case and I was also permitted to address the court in My capacity as an officer of New Life. Please be advised that you may be called as a material witness in the litigation which will be forthcoming in this matter.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

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

Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness,

Vice President for Legal Affairs,

New Life Health Center Company

copies: USPS Board of Governors, Washington, D.C.

James A. Crawford, Postal Inspector, USPS, Tucson

Chief Postal Inspector, USPS, Washington, D.C.

Sharon H. Turner, Supervisor, USPS, Tucson

Postmaster, USPS, point of origin

I. M. Moriarty, USPS, Washington, D.C.

Cathy Catterson, Clerk of Court, Ninth Circuit

Chief Judge Broomfield, USDC, District of Arizona

service list attached infra

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the "United States", that I am at least 18 years of age and a Citizen of one of the United States of America, and that I personally served the following document(s):

Letter from Paul Mitchell, dated March 7, 1997,

to Henry J. Bauman, Independent Counsel, USPS

by placing said document(s) with exhibits in first class United States Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed to the following individuals:

ROBERT L. MISKELL [sic] John M. Roll [sic]

Acapulco Building, Suite 8310 U.S. District Court

110 South Church Avenue 55 E. Broadway

Tucson, Arizona state Tucson, Arizona state

JANET NAPOLITANO [sic] Clerk of Court

Acapulco Building, Suite 8310 United States District Court

110 South Church Avenue 55 E. Broadway

Tucson, Arizona state Tucson, Arizona state

Grand Jury Foreperson Postmaster

In re: New Life Health Center Co. U.S. Post Office

55 E. Broadway Downtown Station

Tucson, Arizona state Tucson, Arizona state

Judge Alex Kozinski (supervising) Evangelina Cardenas [sic]

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals "Internal Revenue Service"

125 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 200 300 West Congress

Pasadena, California state Tucson, Arizona state

Attorney General Solicitor General

Department of Justice Department of Justice

10th and Constitution, N.W. 10th and Constitution, N.W.

Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.

Thomas H. Basham, Agent Eugene A. Burns

Federal Bureau of Investigation New Life Health Center Company

201 East Indianola 4500 East Speedway, Suite 27

Phoenix, Arizona state Tucson, Arizona state

Chief Judge Chief Judge Broomfield

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals United States District Court

c/o P.O. Box 193939 55 E. Broadway

San Francisco, California state Tucson, Arizona state

Executed on March 7, 1997:

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

_________________________________

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

Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness,

Counselor at Law, and Vice President for Legal Affairs,

New Life Health Center Company, Tucson, Arizona state