Dr. Eugene Arthur, Burns, Sui Juris
Citizen of Arizona state
c/o 4500 East Speedway, Suite 27
Tucson, Arizona state, USA
zip code exempt

In Propria Persona

Under Protest and by Special Visitation
with explicit reservation of all rights





                 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                      FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT


IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENA      ) Case No. _______________________
SERVED ON                      )
NEW LIFE HEALTH CENTER COMPANY ) U.S.D.C. No. GJ-95-1-6 (JMR)
                               )
                               )    EMERGENCY MOTION UNDER
                               )      CIRCUIT RULE 27-3
_______________________________)


COMES NOW  Dr. Eugene  Arthur, Burns,  Citizen of  Arizona  state

(hereinafter "Petitioner") and General Manager of New Life Health

Center Company, an Unincorporated Business Trust domiciled in the

Arizona Republic  (hereinafter the  "Trust"),  to  petition  this

honorable Court  for an  emergency stay of execution, pursuant to

Circuit Rule  27-3, of the warrant for His arrest issued from the

bench by  United States  District Judge  John M.  Roll  during  a

hearing on the matter held at 4:30 p.m. on Monday, June 17, 1996,

and for other relief specified infra.

     Pursuant to  28 U.S.C. 1746(1), Petitioner hereby certifies,

under penalty  of perjury, under the laws of the United States of

America, without  the "United States", that irreparable harm will

occur to Petitioner in the event that said warrant for His arrest

is executed,  that immediate  relief is  required on the same day


         Emergency Motion Under Rule 27-3:  Page 1 of 7


this Motion  is filed,  and that  true and correct copies of this

Motion have  been served  on opposing  Counsel by  means of first

class United  States Mail,  posted with  the United States Postal

Service on June 18, 1996.


                   SUMMARY OF PERTINENT FACTS

     On June  10, 1996, United States District Judge John M. Roll

issued an  Order to  Petitioner to show cause as to why He should

not  be  held  in  contempt  for  allegedly  failing  to  produce

documents subpoenaed  by the  Grand Jury.   On June 12, 1996, the

Trust filed its MOTION TO CONTINUE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING, a

copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as

if  set  forth  fully  herein.    This  MOTION  cited  scheduling

conflicts for  Petitioner, and  for His  Counsel of  choice, Paul

Andrew, Mitchell, B.S., M.S., as the main reasons why the hearing

should be continued.

     On June  12, 1996,  the Trust  also filed  its  REQUEST  FOR

JUDICIAL NOTICE  AND FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO CHALLENGE TO HOLDINGS OF

U.S. SUPREME  COURT, a  copy of  which  is  attached  hereto  and

incorporated by  reference as  if  set  forth  fully  herein,  to

reinforce its  written arguments  that the  term "United  States"

(the federal  government) and the term "United States of America"

(the several  Union states) have completely different meanings in

law, and  that this  difference has  a  crucial  bearing  on  the

standing of  the parties  and, hence,  on the jurisdiction of the

District Court, in the instant case.

     On June  14, 1996,  the Trust filed its NOTICE OF FREEDOM OF

INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) APPEAL RESPONSE BY IRS DISCLOSURE OFFICER,

NOTICE OF  PROBABLE FRAUD, AND MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, a


         Emergency Motion Under Rule 27-3:  Page 2 of 7


copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as

if set  forth fully  herein, to  request the District Court for a

Declaratory Judgment  that the  credentials of one "Evangelina A.

Cardenas" now  in evidence  do not  exhibit authority to act as a

"Special Agent" for the "Internal Revenue Service," as alleged on

the original Grand Jury Subpoena, and that her Oath of Office now

in evidence  did bind  her to support and defend a version of the

U.S. Constitution  which was,  at  the  time  when  Ms.  Cardenas

executed said  Oath, incorrectly  published in federal depository

libraries and  in the  official law books upon which the District

Court relied for conclusive evidence of the Law, then as now.

     On June 14, 1996, the Trust also filed its timely NOTICE AND

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY OF PEERS OF ALL FACTS AND LAWS AT ISSUE,

a copy  of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference

as if  set forth  fully herein.   Said  NOTICE AND  DEMAND made a

formal demand  upon the District Court for a Jury Trial of Right,

pursuant to  Rules 38  and 39  of  the  Federal  Rules  of  Civil

Procedure and  the  Seventh  Amendment,  to  try  all  issues  so

triable, including but not limited to the issues itemized in said

NOTICE AND DEMAND (see attached).

     Early in  the day,  on Monday, June 17, 1996, a secretary to

District Judge  John M. Roll called the administrative offices of

the Trust  and told a Trust Co-worker that the MOTION TO CONTINUE

ORDER TO  SHOW CAUSE  HEARING had  been  denied  by  Judge  Roll.

Evidently,  Judge  Roll  regarded  said  MOTION  as  having  been

properly filed  and as  having been  properly before  his  Court.

Upon  learning  of  this  telephone  call  denying  said  MOTION,

Petitioner consulted  with his  Counsel of  choice, Paul  Andrew,


         Emergency Motion Under Rule 27-3:  Page 3 of 7


Mitchell, B.A.,  M.S., who  is  also  Vice  President  for  Legal

Affairs of  the Trust,  and They  mutually agreed that it was now

time to  appeal the  entire matter  to the United States Court of

Appeals for  the Ninth  Circuit.   Whereupon, Counsel drafted and

filed a  proper NOTICE  OF APPEAL, dated June 17, 1996, and time-

stamped 10:34  a.m.   A copy of said NOTICE OF APPEAL is attached

hereto and  incorporated by  reference  as  if  set  forth  fully

herein.

     Petitioner also wishes to incorporate by reference all other

pleadings which  have already been submitted in the instant case,

and  to  certify  that  He  personally  authorized  all  of  said

pleadings to  be prepared and submitted by His Counsel of choice,

Paul Andrew,  Mitchell, B.A.,  M.S., on  behalf of  the Trust, of

which He is the General Manager.

     Petitioner stands  by those  pleadings as  if He  personally

executed them  Himself proceeding In Propria Persona and Nunc Pro

Tunc from  the time  and date  of their signing.  Those pleadings

which could  be swiftly  copied and  transmitted via  fax to  the

Clerk of  the Ninth  Circuit Court of Appeals are attached hereto

and also incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein.

     Counsel has  been advised  by Mr.  Stephen Cassidy  that the

rules prohibit  the faxing  of pleadings  in excess  of 40 pages.

So,  Petitioner   has  dispatched   Counsel  to   hand-carry  the

additional pleadings  directly to  the Clerk of the Ninth Circuit

with all  deliberate speed.   Counsel  expects  to  deliver  said

additional pleadings  by noon  on Tuesday,  June 18, 1996.  He is

booked on  America West  flight #2604, scheduled to leave Tucson,

Arizona at  6:30 a.m. and to arrive in San Francisco, California,


         Emergency Motion Under Rule 27-3:  Page 4 of 7


at 10:39 a.m., at which time he will take the first available bus

to downtown  San Francisco,  and then  take a cab directly to the

Clerk  of  the  Ninth  Circuit  Court,  to  serve  the  remaining

pleadings upon the Clerk in support of this EMERGENCY MOTION.


           RELIEF WAS AVAILABLE IN THE DISTRICT COURT

     Petitioner submits  that He  was entitled to a Jury Trial of

Right, pursuant  to Rules 38 and 39 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure,  but  the  District  Judge  chose  instead  to  ignore

Petitioner's previously filed NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

OF PEERS OF ALL FACTS AND LAWS AT ISSUE.

     Petitioner hereby  contends that  He  has  been  denied  His

fundamental Right to have a jury of His Peers render a verdict as

to whether  or not He should be found guilty of contempt of court

in the  instant case,  and to have a jury of His Peers make other

findings of fact and conclusions of Law which a jury of His Peers

is entitled to do, under the Seventh Amendment.

     Furthermore, Petitioner submits that the District Court lost

jurisdiction at  the moment  a proper  NOTICE OF APPEAL was filed

with the  Clerk of  the District  Court (see attached), rendering

the arrest  warrant and all other decisions made by Judge Roll on

June 17,  1996, null  and void  ab initio.  This challenge to the

jurisdiction of  the District  Court is  made in  addition to the

other stated  challenges to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  District

Court, which  are now  a matter of record in the instant case and

deserve to be reviewed by means of a proper hearing of all issues

before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.


         Emergency Motion Under Rule 27-3:  Page 5 of 7


                          RELIEF SOUGHT

     Petitioner hereby  respectfully requests that this honorable

Court:

     (1) issue an immediate and indefinite stay of execution upon

the warrant for His arrest which was issued by Judge John M. Roll

from the bench on Monday, June 17, 1996;

     (2) vacate the Order striking pleadings filed by Counsel;

     (3) order the Appeal to run its normal course, observing all

applicable rules of due process of Law;  and

     (4) order  that all  pleadings submitted  to date by Counsel

separately,  and   by  Petitioner   and  Counsel   together,   be

transmitted to  the Clerk  of the  Ninth  Circuit  forthwith  and

incorporated in the official record of the District Court.


                          VERIFICATION

     I, Dr.  Eugene Arthur, Burns, D.C., N.D., 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 fact  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).


Respectfully submitted in propria persona
on the eighteenth day of the sixth month
of the year one thousand nine hundred ninety-six Anno Domini

/s/ Eugene A. Burns

Dr. Eugene Arthur, Burns, D.C., N.D.
Citizen of Arizona state and
General Manager, New Life Health Center Company,
an Unincorporated Business Trust
domiciled in the Arizona Republic


         Emergency Motion Under Rule 27-3:  Page 6 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):

                     EMERGENCY MOTION UNDER
                        CIRCUIT RULE 27-3

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                  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

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.


Dated:  June 18, 1996

/s/ Paul Mitchell
________________________________________
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Arizona state
all rights reserved without prejudice


         Emergency Motion Under Rule 27-3:  Page 7 of 7


                             #  #  #


Return to the Table of Contents for

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