Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness,
Counselor at Law, and Vice President,
New Life Health Center Company
c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776
Tucson, Arizona state, USA
zip code exempt (formerly DMM 122.32)

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 )  AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT
                               )  AND OF PROBABLE CAUSE:
                               )  28 U.S.C. 1746(1);
                               )  Rule 201(d), Federal
                               )  Rules of Evidence
_______________________________)


COMES NOW  Paul Andrew,  Mitchell, Sui  Juris, Citizen of Arizona

state  (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"), to  provide formal Notice to all interested party(s),

and to  demand mandatory judicial Notice by this honorable Court,

pursuant to  Rule 201(d)  of the  Federal Rules  of Evidence,  of

this, Counsel's AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT AND OF PROBABLE CAUSE.


                          VERIFICATION

     Counsel hereby verifies, under penalty of perjury, under the

laws of  the  United  States  of  America,  without  the  "United

States", that  the following  statement  of  facts  is  true  and

correct, to the best of Counsel's current information, knowledge,

and belief, so help Me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).


    Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause:  Page 1 of 7


     When Counsel  was first  retained by  the General Manager of

the Company  to prepare  a civil  defense  against  the  subpoena

allegedly served  upon the  Company in  the instant case, Counsel

first contacted  the office  of Mr.  Robert L.  Miskell [sic]  to

request a  copy of the original application mentioned on subpoena

numbered GJ #95-1-137, dated March 5, 1996, to wit:

     "This subpoena is issued on application of the United States
     of America
          RLM:js
          9500556
          SA Cardenas, IRS"

In response  to Counsel's telephone request for said application,

Mr. Miskell  said, "You've  got all  you're gonna  get."  Counsel

then answered, "Thank you very much."  Mr. Miskell then hung up.

     Counsel attaches hereto a copy of the MEMO by Counsel to Dr.

Gene Burns,  dated March 11, 1996, which documents this telephone

request.   Said MEMO  is incorporated here by reference as if set

forth fully herein.

     Subsequently, on  May 12,  1996, Counsel  submitted a proper

request under  the Freedom  of Information Act ("FOIA") to ROBERT

L. MISKELL  [sic] for  said application.  A true and correct copy

of this original FOIA request is attached hereto and incorporated

by reference, as if set forth fully herein.

     Upon  receiving  no  documents  in  response  to  said  FOIA

request, Counsel submitted a proper and timely FOIA appeal, dated

May 24,  1996.   A true  and correct  copy of  the original  FOIA

appeal is  attached hereto  and incorporated  by reference, as if

set forth fully herein.

     On June  6, 1996, Counsel filed a pleading with the Clerk of

this honorable  Court, which  pleading was  entitled PETITION FOR


    Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause:  Page 2 of 7


CLARIFICATION, STATUS  REPORT ON  FOIA REQUESTS  NOW PENDING, AND

NOTICE OF  CHALLENGE TO  CONSTITUTIONALITY OF  STATUTE: 5  U.S.C.

551(1)(A), (B):  FOIA Exemption  for Judiciary.   In  the  STATUS

REPORT section  of this pleading, Counsel provided this honorable

Court with  an up-to-date  status report of all FOIA requests and

appeals  then   outstanding.    At  that  time,  the  application

requested in  the original  FOIA request  and the  original  FOIA

appeal had still not been produced.

     On January  6, 1997, Counsel filed another pleading entitled

NOTICE AND  DEMAND FOR  PROOF OF JURISDICTION IN THE PARTICULARS:

Rule 201(d),  Federal Rules of Evidence.  Said pleading contained

the following crucial paragraph, to wit:

     Accordingly,  the  "Application  of  the  United  States  of
     America" appears  to be  fraudulent on its face, and must be
     entered into the permanent court record of the instant case,
     as a  matter of  law, to prove, once and for all, whether or
     not this  honorable Court  had any  jurisdiction to  proceed
     over the  subject matter  in the first instance.  It is well
     established that  subject matter  jurisdiction can be raised
     at any time.

Said pleading,  dated January  6, 1997,  provided an explicit and

conspicuous NOTICE  OF DEADLINE, demanding that said application,

with the requisite proof of subject matter jurisdiction, be filed

in the  official court  record and  also served on all interested

party(s) no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, January 17, 1997.

     Counsel hereby  testifies, under  penalty of  perjury, under

the laws  of the  United States  of America,  without the "United

States", that  said deadline  passed without production of either

the requested  application, or  of any  proof whatsoever  of this

honorable Court's jurisdiction to proceed over the subject matter

of the instant case in the first instance.


    Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause:  Page 3 of 7


     Accordingly, Counsel hereby invokes the doctrine of estoppel

by acquiescence  to assert Counsel's fundamental Right, on behalf

of the  Company, to  declare this  entire proceeding to have been

ultra  vires   ab  initio   (without  authority   from  the  very

beginning).  See Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906).

     Counsel hereby  declares, notoriously  on record and for the

benefit of  all interested party(s), Counsel's intent to take all

appropriate legal  and lawful actions to enforce all rights which

have been impaired, in whole or in part, and to recover all real,

consequential, and  exemplary damages  inflicted, by  all persons

alleging to be federal officers, employees and/or contract agents

of the United States (federal government) in the instant case.

     In particular,  Counsel hereby  holds the man claiming to be

United States  District Judge John M. Roll personally responsible

for over  112 felony  violations of Title 18, United States Code,

together with  all his accomplices and co-conspirators, acting in

concert to  violate  18  U.S.C.  242  and  241,  in  addition  to

violating the prohibitions against obstruction of correspondence,

jury  tampering,   obstruction  of   justice,  perjury  of  oath,

barratry, and contempt of court.

     Other accessories  and co-conspirators  with  John  M.  Roll

include, but  are not  limited to,  Janet Napolitano,  Robert  L.

Miskell, Evangelina Cardenas, Robert A. Johnson, Richard H. Weare,

and William  M. McCool,  all employed either in the Department of

Justice, in  the "Internal  Revenue Service"  [sic],  or  in  the

United States District Court in Arizona state


    Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause:  Page 4 of 7


Executed on February 25, 1997:

/s/ Paul 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
all rights reserved without prejudice


    Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause:  Page 5 of 7


                        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):

           AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT AND OF PROBABLE CAUSE:
    28 U.S.C. 1746(1); Rule 201(d), Federal Rules of Evidence

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                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                   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
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
c/o P.O. Box 193939
San Francisco, California


    Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause:  Page 6 of 7


Executed on February 25, 1997:

/s/ Paul 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
all rights reserved without prejudice


    Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause:  Page 7 of 7


                             #  #  #


MEMO

TO:       Dr. Gene Burns

FROM:     Paul Andrew, Mitchell,
          Counselor at Law

DATE:     March 11, 1996

SUBJECT:  Subpoena to Testify before Grand Jury


Per your request, I contacted Mr. Robert L. Miskell, AUSA, in the
U.S. Attorney's Office in Tucson, Arizona, and requested a copy
of the "application" which is mentioned on the face page of the
Subpoena numbered GJ #95-1-137, dated March 5, 1996, to wit:

     "This subpoena is issued on application of the United States
     of America
          RLM:js
          9500556
          SA Cardenas, IRS"

Mr. Miskell responded by stating, "You've got all you're gonna
get."

I answered, "Thank you very much."  Then he hung up.


Yours truly,

/s/ Paul Andrew, Mitchell


attachment:  copy of Subpoena dated March 5, 1996


                             #  #  #


Certified U.S. Mail                   c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776
Serial Number #P-476-216-397                Tucson, Arizona state
Return Receipt Requested                          zip code exempt

                                                     May 12, 1996

               FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST

ROBERT L. MISKELL
Acapulco Building, Suite 8310
110 South Church Avenue
Tucson, Arizona state

Dear Mr. Miskell

This is  a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.
552 et seq., and regulations thereunder.  This is My firm promise
to pay  fees and  costs for locating, duplicating, and mailing to
Me certified copies of the records requested below.

If some of this request is exempt from release, please furnish Me
with those  portions  reasonably  segregable.    I  am  requiring
certified copies  of the documents requested, in lieu of personal
inspection of same.

Documents requested:

     1.   "Application of  the United  States  of  America"  upon
          which the  Subpoena to Testify before Grand Jury, dated
          March 5, 1996, was issued to the New Life Health Center
          Company, Tucson, Arizona

The requested  records are  not exempt  from  disclosure  because
they:

     (A)  could not  reasonably be expected to interfere with law
          enforcement proceedings;

     (B)  would not  deprive a  person of a right to a fair trial
          or an impartial adjudication;

     (C)  could not  reasonably  be  expected  to  constitute  an
          unwarranted invasion of personal property;

     (D)  could  not  reasonably  be  expected  to  disclose  the
          identity of a confidential source;

     (E)  would not  disclose techniques  and procedures  for law
          enforcement investigations  or prosecutions,  and would
          not   disclose    guidelines   for    law   enforcement
          investigations or prosecutions;

     (F)  could not  reasonably be  expected to endanger the life
          or physical safety of any individual.

                                        [see Exemption 7 in FOIA]

If you  are not  the correct  person  to  whom  this  Freedom  of
Information Act  Request should be directed, kindly forward it to
the correct person.

Time is  of the  essence.   If you  have any questions about your
rights and  obligations under 5 U.S.C. 552, may we recommend that
you contact  the office  of the  Attorney General  in Washington,
D.C., for immediate assistance.

Thank you  very much  for your consideration, and for your timely
obedience to  the controlling  laws in  this matter, specifically
the Freedom  of Information  Act and  the  Constitution  for  the
United States of America, as lawfully amended.


Respectfully submitted,

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

Citizen of Arizona state
all rights reserved without prejudice


                             #  #  #


Certified U.S. Mail                   c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776
Serial Number # P-476-233-157               Tucson, Arizona state
Return Receipt Requested                          zip code exempt
Restricted Delivery Requested
                                                     May 24, 1996

                FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL

ROBERT L. MISKELL
Acapulco Building, Suite 8310
110 South Church Avenue
Tucson, Arizona state
Postal Zone 85701/tdc

Dear Mr. Miskell:

This is an appeal under the Freedom of Information Act.

On May  12, 1996,  I requested  documents under  the  Freedom  of
Information Act.   To date, the requested documents have not been
produced.

I hereby appeal your failure to produce the requested documents.

The documents that were withheld must be disclosed under the FOIA
because the  original Thirteenth  Amendment  prevents  government
officials from exercising privileges of a nobility class, such as
being exempt  from the  principles of open government and freedom
of information.   Evidence  of the  original Thirteenth Amendment
has been filed with the Foreperson of the Grand Jury and with the
Clerk of  the United  States District  Court in  Tucson,  Arizona
state (a Republic).

Disclosure of  the documents  which I  requested is in the public
interest because the information, and the procedure for obtaining
the information, are likely to contribute significantly to public
understanding of  the operations and activities of government and
are not primarily in My commercial interest.

Moreover, the  information requested  will help to improve public
confidence in  the integrity  of  the  Executive  Branch  of  the
federal  government,   or  to   confirm  that  there  are  people
attempting to exercise executive branch powers in America without
any authority whatsoever.

Thank you for your careful consideration of this appeal.

Respectfully submitted,

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

Citizen of Arizona state
all rights reserved without prejudice

copy:  Judge Alex Kozinski, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals


                             #  #  #


Certified U.S. Mail                   c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776
Serial Number #P-502-472-505             Tucson [zip code exempt]
Return Receipt Requested                            ARIZONA STATE

                                                February 11, 1997

                        NOTICE AND DEMAND

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:  Mail Fraud Conspiracy by United States District
     Judge John M. Roll

Dear Mr. Bauman:

     This is  My formal  NOTICE to  you that I have received, but
not accepted,  your letter to Me dated January 21, 1997, in which
you made  an administrative  determination,  without  citing  any
authorities, that  the conduct  of United  States District  Judge
John M. Roll does not constitute a violation of Title 18, U.S.C.,
Section 1341,  Mail Fraud.  Please be informed of the fact that I
am specifically complaining of obstruction of mail generally, and
obstruction of  correspondence, specifically.  See 18 U.S.C. 1701
and 1702,  respectively.   Mr. Bauman,  there are  a  very  large
number of  things which John M. Roll's conduct was not;  but, his
conduct  clearly   obstructed  numerous   pieces  of  registered,
certified, and  first class U.S. Mail which I prepared and mailed
myself, specifically to the foreperson of a federal grand jury.

     Please be  informed that  I have  previously discussed  this
matter with  several USPS  employees, including  counter  clerks,
route carriers,  and  postmasters.    Their  opinions  have  been
unanimous in responding that federal judges do not have authority
to obstruct  registered, certified,  and/or  first  class  United
States Mail,  particularly when  return  receipt  and  restricted
delivery  services   have  been   requested  and  purchased,  and
particularly when  said mail  has been specifically directed to a
federal grand  jury foreperson.   I relied upon those opinions in
My subsequent  efforts to  bring  Judge  Roll's  conduct  to  the
atttention of  proper government  employees,  and  to  claim  the
rewards which  are now rightfully Mine, regardless of whether you
prosecute the employees involved, or not.


                             DEMAND

     Accordingly, I  hereby make this formal demand upon you, and
upon the  United States  Postal Service in general, to provide Me
with a certified copy of all constitutional provisions, statutes,
and  regulations   which  specifically  authorize  United  States
District Judges  to obstruct  registered,  certified,  and  first
class United  States 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.


                       NOTICE OF DEADLINE

     Time is  now of  the essence.   If  you do  not provide  the
certified documents  demanded above,  on or  before 5:00  p.m. on
Monday, March  3, 1997,  I shall  be entitled  to proceed  on the
basis of  the conclusive  presumption that the documents demanded
do not  exist, as  a matter  of  fact,  and  that  there  are  no
constitutional, statutory,  or regulatory authorities anywhere in
federal law  which authorize  United States  District  Judges  to
obstruct registered,  certified, and  first class  United  States
Mail, when  restricted delivery  and return receipt services have
been requested, and when said mail has been directed specifically
to the  foreperson of a federal grand jury.  Your silence in this
matter will  cause a  fraud to  be committed upon Me, pursuant to
U.S. v.  Tweel, 550  F.2d 297,  299 (1977), and your silence will
activate estoppel  by acquiescence, pursuant to Carmine v. Bowen,
64 A. 932 (1906).

     Thank you  very much  for your  consideration.   I will look
forward to  your timely  and considerate  response to this proper
and lawful Notice and Demand.


Sincerely yours,

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

Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness

copy:     James A. Crawford
          Postal Inspector
          U.S. Postal Inspection Service
          c/o P.O. Box 26320
          Tucson, Arizona state

          Postmaster
          Coronado Station (point of origin)
          United States Postal Service
          c/o 255 North Rosemont Boulevard
          Tucson, Arizona state


                             #  #  #


MEMO

TO:       I. M. Moriarty
          Senior Consumer Affairs Associate
          United States Postal Service
          c/o 475 L'Enfant Plaza S.W.
          Washington [20260-2200]
          DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FROM:     Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
          Counselor at Law

DATE:     February 25, 1997

SUBJECT:  Obstruction of Correspondence by
          U.S. District Judge John M. Roll

REFERENCE: 70300084:yla


Thank you  for your  letter dated  February 21,  1997.   For your
information,  I   have  enclosed   materials  which  explain  the
complaint which  I have  brought against U.S. District Judge John
M. Roll for 28 counts of obstruction of correspondence, 28 counts
of jury  tampering, 28  counts of  obstruction of justice, and 28
counts of  conspiracy to  commit all  of the  above.   See  Ninth
Circuit Docket Number #96-80380, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 372(c).

I hereby add to these charges 28 additional counts of deprivation
of fundamental  Rights under  color of  law, in  violation of  18
U.S.C. 242,  since the  conduct of  John M.  Roll and his several
accomplices and  co-conspirators deprived  Me of  My  fundamental
Right to  Petition  Government  for  Redress  of  Grievances,  in
violation of  the Petition  Clause in  the First  Amendment.  See
also 18 U.S.C. 241, the conspiracy statute. For your information,
the U.S.  Supreme Court  has ruled that the Petition Clause Right
is the  Right conservative  of all  other rights.  See Chambers v
Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 207 U.S. 142, 148 (1907).

Please note  also that, in my letter to Postal Inspector James A.
Crawford dated  January 21,  1997, I  have formally  requested an
application for  monetary rewards  and  submitted  notice  of  my
intent to  present a  written claim  for reward  payment.  Please
expedite the delivery of this application to Me immediately.  See
USPS Poster #296, May 1995.

I trust that the enclosed materials are self-explanatory.  If you
should have any additional questions in this matter, please don't
hesitate to write to the lawful mailing location as shown below.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,

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

Counselor at Law and federal witness
c/o 2509 N. Campbell Avenue, #1776
Tucson [85719]
ARIZONA STATE

email:       supremelaw@ibm.net (586/Eudora Pro 3.0:
             preferred, to conserve all resources)
phone:       (520) 320-1514 (private line:
             please get permission to disclose)
fax machine: (520) 320-1256 (dedicated hard copy:
             available 24-hours per day or night)
fax modem:   (520) 320-1513 (dedicated email line:
             please call phone to switch software)
web site:    http://www.supremelaw.com

copies:

     James A. Crawford, Postal Inspector, Tucson, Arizona state
     Henry J. Bauman, Independent Counsel, USPS, Washington, D.C.
     Cathy Catterson, Deputy Clerk, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
     Chief Judge Procter Hug, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
     Chief Judge Broomfield, U.S.D.C., District of Arizona


                             #  #  #


Return to the Table of Contents for

IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENA SERVED ON NEW LIFE HEALTH CENTER COMPANY