Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Counselor at Law and federal witness c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson, Arizona state zip code exempt 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 ) NOTICE OF OFFER WITHDRAWAL; ) PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION, ) FOR RECONSIDERATION, ) FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, ) AND FOR ORDERS TO SHOW CAUSE; ) WITH POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: ) Art. I, Sec. 10, Cl. 1; ) Art. III; Art. IV, Sec. 2; ) Art. VI,; First, Fourth, ) Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth and ) Thirteenth Amendments, ) U.S. Constitution (ao 1867); ) 28 U.S.C. 82, 297, 1333(1), ) 1339, 1356, 1361, 1366,1367(a), ) 1411, 1651(a), 1652, 2072(b),; ) U.C.C. 1-207; IRC 3121(e), ) 7701(a)(9),(10),(31), and _______________________________) 7851(a)(6)(A) FORMAL NOTICE TO: ROBERT I. MISKELL JANET NAPOLITANO Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 Tucson, Arizona state Clerk United States District Court 55 E. Broadway Tucson, Arizona state Postmaster United States Postal Service Downtown Station Tucson, Arizona state Notice of Petition: Page 1 of 2 Evangelina Cardenas "Internal Revenue Service" 300 West Congress Tucson, Arizona state FROM: Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state and federal witness c/o 2509 North Campbell, #1776 Tucson, Arizona state So let it be known that I, Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Citizen of Arizona state and federal witness, do hereby give notice to you that, upon my verified PETITION, a copy of which is served herewith, the undersigned will apply to this honorable Court on the twenty-fourth day of May, 1992 Anno Domini, at 10:00 a.m. of that day, or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard, for the issuance of a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus to compel you: (1) to deliver My PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION and My FORMAL REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION to the federal grand jury presently convened in the matter of the New Life Health Center Company; (2) to provide all other judicial remedies requested of you in the PRAYER section of My PETITION. Executed on May 14, 1996 Anno Domini /s/ Paul Mitchell __________________________________________________ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state and federal witness all rights reserved without prejudice Notice of Petition: Page 2 of 2 # # # Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Counselor at Law and federal witness c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson, Arizona state zip code exempt 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 ) NOTICE OF OFFER WITHDRAWAL; ) PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION, ) FOR RECONSIDERATION, ) FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, ) AND FOR ORDERS TO SHOW CAUSE; ) WITH POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: ) Art. I, Sec. 10, Cl. 1; ) Art. III; Art. IV, Sec. 2; ) Art. VI,; First, Fourth, ) Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth and ) Thirteenth Amendments, ) U.S. Constitution (ao 1867); ) 28 U.S.C. 82, 297, 1333(1), ) 1339, 1356, 1361, 1366,1367(a), ) 1411, 1651(a), 1652, 2072(b),; ) U.C.C. 1-207; IRC 3121(e), ) 7701(a)(9),(10),(31), and _______________________________) 7851(a)(6)(A) COMES NOW Paul Andrew, Mitchell, Sui Juris, Sovereign Arizona Citizen (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"): (1) to petition this honorable Court (a) for clarification and reconsideration of its rulings and orders in the two (2) most recent hearings in the above entitled case, (b) for a Writ of Mandamus compelling the Office of the United States Attorney to deliver documents to the federal grand jury; and (2) to withdraw an offer made at the later of said hearings. Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 1 of 38 Clarification Needed At the first hearing on April 25, 1996, this Court ruled that Counsel was unqualified to represent the Company because He is not a licensed attorney and because He was not at that time an officer of the Company. For this reason, Counsel was not permitted to address the Court after these undisputed facts were disclosed to the Court and made a matter of Court record. At the end of that hearing, the Court instead ordered Dr. Eugene A. Burns, Managing Director (hereinafter "Dr. Burns"), to appear on behalf of the Company at a hearing scheduled for May 3, 1996. At the hearing on May 3, 1996, Dr. Burns was allowed to address the Court on behalf of the Company, even though He is not a licensed attorney either. Prior to this hearing and subsequent to the hearing on April 25, 1996, Counsel was appointed to the position of Vice President for Legal Affairs of the Company, making Him an officer of the Company. At the hearing on May 3, 1996, however, Counsel was again not permitted to address the Court, because He is still not a licensed attorney, and intends to remain unlicensed because of His understanding of the legislative intent, and because of His understanding of the statutory construction, of the original 13th Amendment, evidence of which was entered into the official Court record of the instant case. On behalf of the Company and all its officers and co-workers, Counsel seeks clarification of this Court's earlier ruling that only an officer or a licensed attorney would be permitted to speak on the Company's behalf. Counsel interprets said ruling to conform to the following decision matrix: Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 2 of 38 Company Licensed Permitted to Officer Attorney Address Court NO NO NO NO YES YES YES NO YES YES YES YES Counsel is confused by the apparent prejudice exhibited by the Court at the hearing on May 3, 1996, because both Dr. Burns and Counsel were officers but not licensed attorneys on that date. Yet, Dr. Burns was permitted to address the Court, but Counsel was not permitted to address the Court, even though Counsel had recently been appointed to the office of Vice President for Legal Affairs. "... [P]rejudice will be inferred from denial of assistance of counsel. U.S.C.A.Const. Amends. 5, 6." Audett v. U.S., 265 F.2d 837 (9th Cir. 1959), citing Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 76, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). Such prejudice worked an unnecessary hardship upon Dr. Burns, who was depending on Counsel to carry some, if not all, of the Company's civil defense burden at said hearing. One demonstrable consequence of this prejudice was the reversible error which Dr. Burns committed by "offering" to produce the subpoenaed books and records without first hearing Counsel demonstrate how the Company, as an Unincorporated Business Trust organization, enjoys all the same fundamental Rights, Privileges, and Immunities enjoyed by common law Citizens of Arizona state. See Privileges and Immunities Clause. This "offer" was not a knowing, intentional, and voluntary ("KIV") act done with sufficient awareness of its relevant circumstances and likely consequences. See Brady vs U.S., 397 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970). Before He had become an officer of the Company, Counsel made Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 3 of 38 a similar error when both He and Dr. Burns relied upon the advice of a licensed bar member, Attorney Lowell Becraft of Huntsville, Alabama, to prepare and fax an offer to produce books and records to the Plaintiff(s) in the instant case. Bar members induce prejudice when they have knowingly forfeited their Citizenship forever, and such a forfeiture places them in immediate jeopardy of being unregistered foreign agents and also illegal aliens, without being lawfully admitted to permanent residence, i.e. a "resident alien". See original Thirteenth Amendment, Foreign Agents Registration Act, Immigration and Naturalization Act, Uniform Commercial Code. Dr. Burns erred, and hereby reverses the error which He committed, by implying that He had, KIV, chosen to waive His fundamental, unalienable Immunities against unreasonable search and seizure and against providing compelled testimony against Himself. See Privileges and Immunities Clause, and Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 746 (1886), to wit: 3. It does not require actual entry upon premises and search for and seizure of papers to constitute an unreasonable search and seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. A compulsory production of a party's private books and papers to be used against himself or his property in a criminal or penal proceeding, or for a forfeiture, is within the spirit and meaning of the Amendment. 4. It is equivalent to a compulsory production of papers, to make the nonproduction of them a confession of the allegations which it is pretended they will prove. 5. A proceeding to forfeit a person's goods for an offense against the laws, though civil in form, and whether in rem or in personam, is a criminal case within the meaning of that part of the Fifth Amendment which declares that no person "shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself." [from headnotes of Boyd v. U.S. supra] [emphasis added] Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 4 of 38 In the Boyd case, the Supreme Court then went on to explain the "intimate relationship" that exists among the Rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment and the Rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, to wit: We have already noticed the intimate relationship between the two Amendments. They throw great light on each other. For the "unreasonable searches and seizures" condemned in the Fourth Amendment are almost always made for the purpose of compelling a man to give evidence against himself, which in criminal cases is condemned in the Fifth Amendment; and compelling a man "in a criminal case to be a witness against himself," which is condemned in the Fifth Amendment, throws light on the question as to what is an "unreasonable search and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. And we have been unable to perceive that the seizure of a man's private books and papers to be used in evidence against him is substantially different from compelling him to be a witness against himself. [Boyd v. U.S. at 752] [emphasis added] Furthermore, the presiding Judge of this honorable Court is herein rebuttably presumed to have executed the solemn Oath of Office required of him by Article VI, Clause 3 (6:3), and by 28 U.S.C. 453. This Oath is like an on-off light switch in that, per force, its execution activates all the guarantees in the federal and state constitutions. This causal connection between those guarantees and a judge's Oath of Office is tersely expressed as follows: A district judge is bound by oath of office to uphold the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Hawaii; rule excluding illegally seized evidence falls within scope of such oath as such rule is a sanction essential to upholding federal and state constitutional safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures. State v. Wilson, 519 P.2d 228. [American Digest System, Eighth Decennial Digest] ["Judges", page 969, Section 5: "Qualifications"] [emphasis added] Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 5 of 38 Therefore, using this elegant logic, all the Rights which are guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions are sanctions which fall within the scope of the Oath of Office. The safeguard against unreasonable searches and seizures is a Right which is on a par with a multitude of other Rights which are guaranteed by those constitutions, whether or not they are enumerated. Together, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide explicit guarantees for that multitude, without any need to enumerate them. These Rights, therefore, stand in stark contrast with the enumerated powers which are granted to the federal government. Espressio unius est exclusio alterius. If a power was not expressly granted to the federal government by the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended (hereinafter "U.S. Constitution"), then its absence from that Charter was intentional, and this intent We are allowed to infer under authority of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. See U.S. v. Lopez, 115 S.Ct. 1624 (1995). Counsel will prove infra, using pertinent authorities from the U.S. Supreme Court and other published sources, that the Company and Dr. Burns enjoy the same fundamental Rights, because the Company is not a corporation chartered by any freely associated compact state, nor was it chartered by the United States. See 28 U.S.C. 297. On the contrary, its creation arose out of fundamental Rights to enter and exit contracts, which Rights antedate, and are guaranteed by, the U.S. Constitution; and neither the United States nor any freely associated compact state can impair any of the Rights, obligations, and responsibilities which inure to said Company, its officers and its co-workers. See 1:10:1, 3:2:1, 4:2:1. Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 6 of 38 This United States District Court is an Article III court, by Act of Congress. See 28 U.S.C. 1367(a). The "United States Constitution" and the "Constitution for the United States of America", both as lawfully amended, are one and the same. See Preamble in the U.S. Constitution. Reconsideration Needed: Mail Fraud, Jury Tampering, Obstruction of Justice The questions of mail fraud, jury tampering, and obstruction of justice by the Office of the United States Attorney have been raised by facts and allegations contained in Counsel's AFFIDAVIT OF CAUSES AND OBJECTIONS TO O.S.C., filed with this Court on April 25, 1996. Counsel subsequently prepared a FORMAL REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION to the federal grand jury in the matter of the New Life Health Center Company, and mailed this FORMAL REQUEST, with Exhibits, via Certified U.S. Mail, Return Receipt and Restricted Delivery both Requested, to the Grand Jury Foreperson and to the Grand Jury (see EXHIBIT "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein as if set forth fully). Copies of this FORMAL REQUEST, without Exhibits, were also mailed via Certified U.S. Mail, Return Receipt and Restricted Delivery both requested, to U.S. District Judge John M. Roll and Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, for appropriate oversight and advance notice of possible mail fraud, obstruction of justice, and tampering with the grand jury in the instant case. At the hearing on May 3, 1996, Judge John M. Roll indicated on the record that he had intercepted, but had not opened, the sealed package addressed to the "Grand Jury Foreperson and the Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 7 of 38 Grand Jury In re: New Life Health Center Company" (see EXHIBIT "A"). This fact is substantiated by the U.S. Postal Service PS Form 3811 Return Receipt which was received by Counsel after mailing said FORMAL REQUEST. Said Return Receipt was signed by one "Katy Higgins Secrty [sic] to Judge Roll". Date of Delivery was shown as "4-30-96" (see EXHIBIT "B"). Counsel is not aware of any federal or state statutes which authorize federal judges, or any other officers or employees of the federal judiciary, to intercept or otherwise divert Registered and/or Certified United States Mail away from its intended recipient, particularly when extra fees were paid for Restricted Delivery services. Nor is Counsel aware of any United States Postal Service PS Form 3801, Standing Delivery Order, which has been correctly completed by the Grand Jury Foreperson in the matter of the Company. Specifically, said PS Form 3801 contains the following caveat: Where RESTRICTED DELIVERY MAIL is to be included, the statement "This authorization is extended to include RESTRICTED DELIVERY MAIL" must be entered on the delivery order by the person signing it. This notation is to be made on the part of the form for signatures of authorized agent. NOTE: Unknown signatures must be identified. To this end, Counsel wishes to place all interested parties on formal notice, provided herein, of His recent Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") Request, filed with the Postmaster of the United States Postal Service, Downtown Station, Tucson, Arizona, Postal Zone 85701/tdc, for a certified copy of any PS Form 3801, Standing Delivery Order, authorized by the Grand Jury Foreperson in the matter of New Life Health Center Company, Case No. GJ-95-1-6. On May 3, 1996, Dr. Burns also filed a PS Form 4314-C, U.S. Postal Service Consumer Service Card, serial number Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 8 of 38 M-16-837-936, requesting information about the problem of nonreceipt of a certified package: Certified Mail P-475-457-158, Restricted Delivery, addressed to "Grand Jury Foreperson In re: New Life Health Center, Grand Jury Room, 4th Floor, U.S. District Court, 55 E. Broadway, Tucson, Arizona" was not delivered to addressee, but was signed by one "Katy Kiggins, Secretary to Judge Roll." Is there a PS Form 3801 for Grand Jury Foreperson? See EXHIBIT "C". In the event that said Form 3801 has not been completed by the Grand Jury Foreperson, Counsel reserves the Right to challenge the instant proceedings for irreversible prejudice against the Company and against its officers and co-workers. Counsel also reserves the fundamental Right to know and enter into evidence, testimony taken under oath with respect to whether or not the office of the United States Attorney in the instant case ever did deliver to the grand jury the package containing the FORMAL REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION and all of its associated Exhibits. Undelivered mail is a criminal breach of contract. Counsel also reserves His fundamental Right to compel discovery of the oaths of office, fidelity bonds, delegations of authority, and licenses to practice law in the state of Arizona of Robert L. Miskell, Evangelina Cardenas, and Janet Napolitano (see EXHIBIT "D"). If any requisite credentials are lacking, Counsel places all interested parties on notice of His immediate intent, at a minimum, to Petition this honorable Court, or other court of competent jurisdiction, for a Writ of Quo Warranto, proceeding under Article III, to oust Mr. Robert L. Miskell from the office of Assistant United States Attorney (hereinafter "AUSA"), and to hold him liable for actual, consequential, and exemplary damages which he has inflicted on the Company, its Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 9 of 38 officers, and its co-workers. See 51 Corpus Juris 307 et seq. (i.e. pages 307-365), reproduced in EXHIBIT "E". At the hearing on May 3, 1996, AUSA Robert L. Miskell admitted that the parcel given to him by Judge Roll contained a request for a formal grand jury investigation into allegations that he (Miskell) had violated federal law. From this admission, and from the admission by Judge Roll that he (Roll) had not opened the parcel in question, Counsel infers that Mr. Miskell took it upon himself to open the Certified United States Mail addressed to the Grand Jury Foreperson, also in violation of federal law. Counsel makes this inference specifically because a copy of the FORMAL REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION was not mailed to Mr. Miskell. Counsel is not aware of any federal or state statutes which authorize any officers, or any other employees of the Executive Branch of the federal government, to intercept or otherwise divert Registered or Certified United States Mail away from its intended recipient, particularly when extra fees are paid for Restricted Delivery services. Moreover, as eloquently stated by Dr. Burns during the hearing on May 3, 1996, the issue of Citizen access to the grand jury is one which goes to the very root of the Petition Clause, compulsory discovery, and due process of law under the Constitution. A Formal Request for Investigation submitted by a Citizen to a federal grand jury, convened to investigate possible violations of federal law, is a Petition to Government for Redress of Grievances, deserving the special treatment afforded to fundamental Rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. On this Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 10 of 38 point, the U.S. Supreme Court has already stressed that the Petition Clause guarantees a fundamental (i.e. unalienable) Right which underpins all other Rights: The Right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative to force. In an organized society, it is the right conservative of all other rights and lies at the foundation of orderly government. [Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R.] [207 U.S. 142, 148 (1907)] [emphasis added] The Petition Right is the most important of all Rights because, without it, government cannot be held to account for its wrongs; and with it, every person has the effective right to compel government to obey the law with respect to His Rights, and to command just compensation for injuries He has suffered. On this point, the California Supreme Court, based on a comprehensive and careful analysis of U.S. Supreme Court holdings, has found that: The authorities make it clear that the right of petition protects attempts to obtain redress through the institution of judicial proceedings as well as through importuning executive officials and the Legislature. It is equally apparent that the right encompasses the act of filing a lawsuit solely to obtain monetary compensation for individualized wrongs, as well as filing suit to draw attention to issues of broader public interest or political significance. ... Hence, the act of filing suit against a governmental entity represents an exercise of the right of petition and thus invokes constitutional protection. [City of Long Beach v. Bozek] [31 Cal 3d 527, 533-34 (1982)] [emphasis added] That court went on, at page 535, to address the issue in some detail: Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 11 of 38 The right of petition is of parallel importance to the right of free speech and the other overlapping, cognate rights contained in the First Amendment and in equivalent provisions of the California Constitution. Although it has seldom been independently analyzed, it does contain an inherent meaning and scope distinct from the right of free speech. It is essential to protect the ability of those who perceive themselves to be aggrieved by the activities of governmental authorities to seek redress through all the channels of government. [ibid., page 535, emphasis added] In U.S. v. Hylton, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that filing a complaint against federal officers with state agencies is a petition for redress of grievances which is protected by the Petition Clause in the U.S. Constitution: As the U.S. Supreme Court has held, the right to petition for redress of grievances is "among the most precious of the liberties safeguarded in the bill of rights." (cites) Inseparable from the guaranteed rights entrenched in the First Amendment, the right to petition for redress of grievances occupies a "preferred place" in our system of representative government and enjoys a "sanctity and a sanction not permitting dubious intrusions." Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516; 65 S.Ct 315, 322. Indeed, "It was not by accident or coincidence that the rights to freedom in speech and press were coupled in a single guarantee with the rights of the people peacebly to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances." Id. at 323. [U.S. v. Hylton, 710 F.2d 1111] [emphasis added] It seems to reason that, if filing with a grand jury a FORMAL REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION is protected by the First Amendment, then surely the object of the protected Right -- of obtaining a due process guaranteed fair hearing of the grievance and redress thereon -- is the very essence of the Petition Clause. Mail fraud, jury tampering, and obstruction are, indeed, dubious intrusions. In fact, the characteristic which distinguishes petitioning through courts from other forms of petition is the access to the compulsory process of law, wherein the parties are equal before the law. Without ultimate recourse to that compulsory process, Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 12 of 38 there is no reason for government to listen to grievances at all, let alone to redress them fairly. It is therefore axiomatic that, underlying all civil relations between government and the Governed is the right of the Governed to compel government's obedience to law through the compulsory processes of law. Moreover, two international treaties to which the United States is now a party impose upon all officers and employees of the federal government affirmative legal and moral duties to provide effective judicial remedies for violations of fundamental Rights, notwithstanding that the violations were committed by persons acting in their official capacities. These treaties are the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; they are rendered supreme Law by virtue of the Supremacy Clause. The latter treaty was ratified by the Senate on April 2, 1992, and confirmed by President Bush on June 1, 1992. Article 2 requires state parties: (3)(a) To ensure that any person ... shall have an effective remedy notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity. [emphasis added] Moreover, Part (3)(b) requires that state parties "develop the possibilities of judicial remedy." Similarly, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. [emphasis added] Counsel wishes to argue here that the fundamental Rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution are not thereby granted to Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 13 of 38 the American People by that Constitution, because the existence of those Rights antedated its ratification (see Declaration of Independence (1776)). These treaties attempted to accommodate the inevitable conflicts of law that exist among the various constitutions of the states party to these two international treaties. Specifically, many nations regard civil and political rights to be granted to their people (read "subjects") by their constitutions. In America, the situation is radically different because, as Sovereigns without subjects, Our fundamental Rights were expressly granted to Us by Our Creator, and Our Constitution was specifically written to guarantee those Rights to Us and to Our Posterity, in perpetuity, and to grant only enumerated powers to the officers and employees of the federal government. See U.S. v. Lopez, 115 S.Ct. 1624 (1995) and citations therein. Counsel also reserves His fundamental Right to withdraw arguments as to the enforcement of these two international treaties, should subsequent findings of fact and conclusions of law, by a lawfully convened trial jury, show that the Congresses which ratified said treaties were not themselves lawfully convened because their "members" (House and Senate), and the "President" who approved said treaties, were disqualified from serving because they were exercising titles of nobility prohibited by the original Thirteenth Amendment, thus rendering as frivolous all claims to Rights allegedly guaranteed by those treaties. See 1:2:2, 1:3:3, and 2:1:5. Counsel argues that, in the absence of clear statutory and regulatory authority for officers and/or employees of the Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 14 of 38 Executive Branch to do so, the interceptions and/or diversions of His FORMAL REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION, dated April 28, 1996, and sent via Certified United States Mail with Return Receipt and Restricted Delivery both Requested, and of His PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION, dated March 20, 1996, and sent via Registered United States Mail with Return Receipt and Restricted Delivery both Requested, together constitute repetitive, overt acts of mail fraud, jury tampering, and obstruction of justice by AUSA Robert L. Miskell in the instant case, thus denying effective judicial remedies to Counsel, Dr. Burns, and the Company. Until such time as the presiding Judge in the instant case can clarify his actions and demonstrate clear statutory and regulatory authority for intercepting and/or diverting Counsel's FORMAL REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION, particularly if there is no Standing Delivery Order, PS Form 3801, properly executed by the grand jury Foreperson in the matter of the New Life Health Center Company and designating to one or more agents authority to sign for Certified and Registered United States mail, Counsel reserves His fundamental Rights to direct similar allegations at said Judge, to have the instant case dismissed with prejudice, to have said allegations heard by a lawfully convened common law jury of His peers, observing compulsory due process of law, and to petition said jury for appropriate declaratory, compensatory, and exemplary relief, should the accused be found guilty of violating applicable federal law. Counsel also reserves His fundamental Right to compel the office of the United States Attorney, and possibly also the presiding Judge in the instant case (if necessary), to deliver Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 15 of 38 both the original PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION and the FORMAL REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION to the Grand Jury Foreperson and to the other members of the federal Grand Jury in the matter of New Life Health Center Company, by whatever lawful means are necessary, available, and appropriate, in light of the enormous gravity of the issues which have already been documented permanently for the record in said PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION and in said FORMAL REQUEST, including but not limited to all exhibits attached thereto. For the record, Counsel is trying to prevent a second civil war in America; foreign troop movements have been photographed on American interstate highways. To deny Citizens access to a lawfully convened federal grand jury, particularly when the violations were committed by federal officers allegedly acting in their official capacities, is to alienate Them from Their fundamental Rights to petition government for redress of grievances, to compulsory discovery of crucial matters of evidence which are relevant and material to the instant case, and to due process of law; and it unlawfully alienates Them from Their fundamental immunities against unreasonable searches and seizures and being compelled to testify against Themselves, all in blatant violation of the supreme Law of the Land, specifically including, but not limited to, the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to said supreme Law. Impairment of Contracts Prohibited In the instant case, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments are reflections of the Impairment of Contracts Clause, 1:10:1, in the Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 16 of 38 U.S. Constitution. Dr. Burns is legally bound by a non- disclosure contract with the Company Trustee which bars Him from releasing any books or records belonging to the Company, without prior authorization of the Trustee. In particular, said contract imposes criminal penalties on Him for any willful violation of its non-disclosure provisions. This non-disclosure agreement was first explained in the original PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION to the federal grand jury, delivery of which remains an open question due to possible mail fraud, jury tampering, and obstruction of justice by AUSA Robert L. Miskell in the instant case. Counsel argues, on behalf of Dr. Burns and all other officers and co-workers at the Company, that the United States is unequivocally barred from impairing the obligations of His non-disclosure contract with the Trustee of the Company. This bar originates from the Company's character as an Unincorporated Business Trust, and from the original intent of the U.S. Constitution. The Company is a pure trust estate which is foreign with respect to the federal zone. See U.S. v. Lopez supra. As such, it constitutes a non-statutory common law contractual organization. See 28 U.S.C. 1652 and ARS 1-201, to wit: The common law only so far as it is consistent with and adapted to the natural and physical conditions of this state and the necessities of the people thereof, and not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States or the constitution or laws of this state, or established customs of the people of this state, is adopted and shall be the rule of decision in all courts of this state. The term "trust estate" as used herein means a contractual organization, or a common law contract and declaration in the form of a constitutional, irrevocable, private, express, pure, Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 17 of 38 true trust. The term "trust estate" as used herein in no manner means a corporation, association, partnership, statutory trust, grantor trust, revocable living trust, or any other statutory entity, or entity created by statute. The Company was created under the common law of contracts and does not depend for its existence upon any statute or statutory entity. An Illinois court expressed this important distinction as follows: The term "common law trust" ... is not descriptive of any particular characteristics of such organizations. The basis for the terminology, "common law trust" is not that such organizations are the creatures of the common law, as distinguished from equity, but that they are created under the common law of contracts and do not depend upon any statute. [Schumann-Heink v. Folsom, 159 NE 250] The legal genesis of a common law or pure trust is, therefore, quite distinct from that of a corporation, and it enjoys a unique advantage over that of a corporation. According to the U.S. Supreme Court: The fact that a business trust is not regarded as a legal entity distinct from its trustees, if a true trust ... may result in this advantage to the trust, which a corporation does not possess: The trust consists of individuals ... who are Citizens, and who, therefore, are entitled to certain rights and immunities such as those guaranteed by the privileges and immunities clause [Art. IV, Sec. 2, Cl. 1] of the Federal Constitution, which do not apply to corporations. [296 U.S. 344, 56 S.Ct. 289] The Company is a trust estate which constitutes a non- statutory common law contractual organization. It is a creation of the Sovereign prerogatives and contractual powers of natural born, de jure Preamble Citizens of the freely associated compact states of the American union. The creation of such a contractual organization is protected by Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution as of 1867. It is "... created under the common law Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 18 of 38 of contract and does not depend upon any statute for its existence." See 156 American Law Reports 28. Such a trust estate is not dependent upon, and accepts no powers, benefits, or privileges from, any statute, either state or federal. It is thus not subject to any statute governing statutory trusts, corporations, associations, partnerships, or any other statutory type of business or any statutory Act rela- tive to trusts. Such statutory Acts shall have no applicability or force of law upon the originating trust contract. A pure trust is not subject to legislative control. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that such a trust is created under the realm of equity, under the common law, and is not subject to legislative restrictions, as are corporations and other statutory entities created pursuant to legislative authority. See Croker v. MacCloy, 649 F.Supp. 39. All subjects over which the sovereign power of the state extends [i.e. corporations or other statutory entities] are objects of taxation [and regulation] but those over which it does not extend are exempt from taxation [and regulation]. This proposition may almost be pronounced as self-evident. The sovereignty of the state extends to everything which exists by its authority or its permission. [McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316] The Pure Trust derives no power, benefit, or privilege from any statute. [Crocker v. Malley, 264 U.S. 144] These trusts -- whether pure trusts or partnerships -- are unincorporated. They are not organized under any statute; and they derive no power, benefit, or privilege from any statute. [Hecht v. Malley, 68 L.Ed. 949] The U.S. Supreme Court has, for some time, held that a Pure Trust is not subject to legislative control. See Elliot v. Freeman, 20 U.S. 178. A trust relationship comes under the realm of equity, Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 19 of 38 based upon the common law, and is not subject to the legislative restrictions to which corporations and other organizations created by legislative authority are subject: One of the objectives of business trusts is to obtain for the trust associates, most of the advantages of corporations, without the authority of any legislative act and with the freedom from the restrictions and regulations generally imposed by law upon corporations. [13 Am Jur 2d 379, paragraph 51] [emphasis added] The laws governing the Company are the Holy Bible, the Magna Charta, the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence (1776), the Constitution for the United States of America (1787), the Bill of Rights (1791), Article III Supreme Court decisions defining the protections of said Constitution, and the common law of the original constitutional Republic of these united states of America, in that it is not repugnant to said Constitution. Pursuant to the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Company, as a trust estate, shall be subject only to those federal laws enacted pursuant to the powers specifically enumerated and delegated to Congress by Us the People in and through the U.S. Constitution. The Trustee of this trust estate binds the United States Government to its Article IV, Section 4 (4:4), constitutional guarantee of a Republican Form of Government, to wit: "The United States shall guarantee to Every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government ...." A "Republic" is defined to mean: "A state or nation in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens." See Webster's Dictionary. Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 20 of 38 What exactly is a "Republican Form" of government? It is one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the People and exercised by the People. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, makes this very clear in its various definitions of the term "government": Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. If any action is filed against the trust estate of the Company in any Court other than a de jure Article III Court of Equity under the common law, the Trustee is empowered and entitled by Sovereign Right to instruct its Counsel, pursuant to its Sovereign prerogatives, to remove such case to a court of competent and proper jurisdiction. Any pleading in a Court other than that of competent and proper jurisdiction shall be coram non judice, i.e. "... before one not the proper judge; applied to the acts of a court which has no jurisdiction over the person, the subject matter or process. Such acts are wholly void." See Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, Anderson Publishing. "In the presence of a person not a judge." See Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition with Guide to Pronunciation. Even Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, when brought inland, is subject to the Common Law remedy, the same as Equity; and cannot supersede the sovereign citizens' God endowed/given unalienable/inalienable rights, and these same rights as secured in and under the Constitution of the United States of America. [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1966)] [see also 28 U.S.C. 2072(b)] ... [W]hile sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the People, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. [Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356] Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 21 of 38 No Creator nor current Trustee of the Company is a "United States resident", a "United States citizen", or a resident "of the State" or "of this State" or currently deriving income from sources located within the United States or "within this State", as such terms are defined in the United States and State tax laws. See EXHIBIT "F", IRC 3121(e). The Company's Creators were Citizens of one of the freely associated compact states in the American Union, in which they were born. There are no published regulations for the Buck Act. See 4 CFR, 28 U.S.C. 297: Union states are "countries". Further, no current Trustee is an inhabitant of, franchisee of, subject of, ward of, property of, chattel of, or subject to the jurisdiction of the corporate United States, corporate State, corporate County, or corporate Municipal body politic created under the primary authority of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 (1:8:17), or Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2), of the U.S. Constitution. Further, the Company is not subject to any statutes, acts, or corporate entities owing their original existence to such an authority: Legislation enacted by Congress applicable to the inferior federal courts in the exercise of power under Article III of the Constitution cannot be affected by legislation enacted by Congress under Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 of the Constitution. [D.C. Code, Title 11 at page 13] Judges of administrative tribunals, quasi and de facto judges constituted under 1:8:17, 4:3:2, and the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 701-706, are prohibited from hearing any issue at law or at common law; this power is delegated by the People only to Constitutional Article III Courts. Article I and Article IV administrative tribunals are without jurisdiction to hear any cases against the trust estate of the Company. Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 22 of 38 Seizure Actions Under Admiralty In Rem Counsel alleges that the original grand jury subpoena issued to the Company by ASUA Robert L. Miskell is actually a seizure action proceeding in rem under the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims, effective July 1, 1966, amendments received to January 3, 1996. See Rule 9(h), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Unfortunately for the Company, these Rules remain unpublished and must be obtained under compulsory rules of discovery or, in the alternative, under Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") requests, which need not demonstrate relevance or materiality. See U.S. v. Gaudin, 132 L.Ed.2d 444 (1995), whereby juries were held to retain power to determine materiality of evidence. To this end, Counsel places all interested parties on formal notice of His recent FOIA request to obtain a current, certified copy of said Supplemental Rules. Until such time as said Rules can be made available to Counsel for review, analysis, and application to the instant case, the Company notoriously protests the instant action for proceeding without adequate notice to the Company. It is evident that the federal grand jury is being abused to accomplish an in rem admiralty seizure of the Company's chattel papers, and to force it to expend resources it would not otherwise expend, by way of summary punishment which is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. The Plaintiff(s) have failed to demonstrate their right(s), title(s), or interest(s), Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 23 of 38 if any, in the Company's chattel papers, nor have the real parties at interest adequately identified themselves. Specifically, "SA Cardenas" is allegedly employed by the United States Department of the Treasury, and yet her organizational affiliation is not listed among the bureaus and other agencies of the United States Department of the Treasury. See Title 31, United States Code, which has been enacted into positive law, unlike Title 26 of the United States Codes. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for Title 31, U.S.C., exhibits two (2) separate treasuries, see 31 CFR 51.2 and 52.2. Specifically, compare definitions of "Governor" at 31 CFR 51.2(i) and 52.2(f), of "Secretary" at 51.2(o) and 52.2(n), and of "State government" at 51.2(q) and 52.2(o). The parallel definitions therein describe a "Secretary of the Treasury" and a "Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury", in addition to de facto corporate "States" and de jure Republic "states". Since its creation, the Company has been domiciled within the latter jurisdiction (a/k/a the state zone), wherein all restraints of the U.S. Constitution remain in full force and effect upon all agents of the federal government in their interactions with Citizens of the 50 states. See jus soli. The doctrine of "Two United States" admits to the existence of a second federal jurisdiction (a/k/a the federal zone), wherein these same restraints are not in full force and effect, see Justice Harlan's eloquent dissent in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901); see also 1:8:17 and 4:3:2 and Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945). Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 24 of 38 The "Internal Revenue Service" is not listed among the bureaus and other departments which are authorized by Congress and comprise the U.S. Department of the Treasury, see 31 U.S.C., Chapter 3, Subchapter I, Organization, which has been enacted into positive law; see also Foreign Agents Registration Act. Silence creates estoppel by acquiescence. See People v. Boxer, California Supreme Court case number S-030016, December 1992, and plaintiffs' pleadings therein which quoted the following: Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. [U.S. vs Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977) emphasis added] [quoting U.S. vs Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032 (1970)] Silence is a species of conduct, and constitutes an implied representation of the existence of the state of facts in question, and the estoppel is accordingly a species of estoppel by misrepresentation. [cite omitted] When silence is of such a character and under such circumstances that it would become a fraud upon the other party to permit the party who has kept silent to deny what his silence has induced the other to believe and act upon, it will operate as an estoppel. [Carmine vs Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906)] [emphasis added] Plaintiffs are attempting to compel the Company's performance in a setting which is 100% voluntary for a Sovereign Arizona Citizens, see Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 176 (1960); Bothke v. Fluor, 713 F.2d 1405, 1414 (1983); and 26 CFR 601.103(a). Title 26, U.S.C., as such has not been enacted into positive law. Respondent objects to Plaintiffs' evident presumption that Title 26 and the IRC are one and the same. The provisions of subtitle F shall take effect on the day after the date of enactment of this title, see IRC 7851(a)(6)(A). Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 25 of 38 Thus, none of the procedural and administrative provisions of subtitle F has taken effect and, therefore, they impose no obligation upon Counsel, the Company, or any of its officers or co-workers, without Their consent, which must be knowing, intentional and voluntary ("KIV") to be real and free. Counsel waives no rights for revealing the ambiguity and recursive (self- referencing) effect which IRC 7851(a)(6)(A) has upon itself; section 7851 falls within subtitle F! VERIFICATION I, Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., 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 facts 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). PRAYER Wherefore, Counsel prays, on behalf of the Company, for this honorable Court to grant the following effective judicial remedies: 1. clarify its decision at the hearing on May 3, 1996, denying Counsel the opportunity to address the Court, even though He was an officer of the Company but not a member of any bar association; 2. order the office of the United States Attorney to show cause why said decision did not cause irreversible prejudice and irreparable damage to Counsel, to the Company, and to Dr. Burns; Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 26 of 38 3. reconsider its order of May 3, 1996, "that Mr. Burns appear before the Grand Jury on Wed., May 22, 1996 at 9:10 a.m. with copies of the requested document [sic]"; is appearance all that is required? which document? how many copies? 4. issue a writ of mandamus compelling the office of the United States Attorney to certify delivery of the Company's PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION and its FORMAL REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION to the federal grand jury; 5. order Mr. Robert L. Miskell to show cause why he should not be charged with mail fraud, jury tampering and obstruction of justice in the instant case; 6. order the office of the United States Attorney to prepare a Memorandum of Points and Authorities explaining how Dr. Burns can be compelled to deliver the Company's books and records to the grand jury without also violating any of His or the Company's fundamental, unalienable Rights; 7. order the office of the United States Attorney to prepare a Memorandum of Points and Authorities explaining how executive and judicial officers of the United States can intercept Registered and Certified United States Mail, when Return Receipt and Restricted Delivery services were requested, without also violating federal postal laws; 8. order the offices of the United States Attorney, Clerk of the U.S. District Court, "Internal Revenue Service" and Postmaster to obey the Freedom of Information Act requests which have already been mailed to Mr. Miskell, Ms. Napolitano, Mr. Weare, Ms. Cardenas and Postmaster, respectively; Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 27 of 38 9. order a routine continuance of this matter until the above offices can comply with the above orders. Executed: May 14, 1996 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Eugene A. Burns Eugene A. Burns, Citizen of Arizona state Managing Director /s/ Paul Mitchell Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state Vice President of Legal Affairs all rights reserved without prejudice Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 28 of 38 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Linda H. Burns, 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, that I am not currently a Party to this action, and that I personally served the following document: NOTICE OF OFFER WITHDRAWAL; PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION, FOR RECONSIDERATION, FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, AND FOR ORDERS TO SHOW CAUSE; WITH POINTS AND AUTHORITIES by placing said document with exhibits in first class U.S. 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 Dated: May 14, 1996 /s/ Linda Burns ________________________________________ Linda H. Burns, Citizen of Arizona state all rights reserved without prejudice Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 29 of 38 EXHIBIT A: FORMAL REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION TO FEDERAL GRAND JURY [under separate cover] Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 30 of 38 EXHIBIT B: PS FORM 3811 SIGNED BY "KATY HIGGINS" "SECRTY TO JUDGE ROLL" [under separate cover] Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 31 of 38 EXHIBIT C: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST TO UNITED STATES POSTMASTER [under separate cover] Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 32 of 38 EXHIBIT D: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUESTS TO VARIOUS FEDERAL OFFICES [under separate cover] Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 33 of 38 EXHIBIT E: CORPUS JURIS ENTRIES ON WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO [under separate cover] Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 34 of 38 EXHIBIT F: LETTER FROM REP. BARBARA B. KENNELLY CONCERNING IRC Sec. 3121(e) [under separate cover] Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 35 of 38 EXHIBIT G: SUPPLEMENTAL RULES FOR CERTAIN ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME CLAIMS [under separate cover] Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 36 of 38 EXHIBIT H: "Pretext Seizures: The Constitutional Question"" by Kimberly A. Crawford, J.D., FBI Special Agent [under separate cover] Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 37 of 38 EXHIBIT I: "People v. Boxer" California Supreme Court Case No. S-030016 December 1992 [under separate cover] Petition to Clarify, Reconsider, Mandate and Order: Page 38 of 38 # # # Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Counselor at Law and federal witness c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson, Arizona state zip code exempt 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 ) _______________________________) ORDER TO ISSUE TO: Clerk of the Court United States District Court Judicial District of Arizona 55 E. Broadway Tucson, Arizona state IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus, in due form of law, be issued requiring JANET NAPOLITANO and ROBERT I. MISKELL to: 1. show cause why violations of Their fundamental Rights were not inflicted upon New Life Health Center Company, Dr. Eugene Burns, Managing Director, and Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Vice President of Legal Affairs, by this Court's decision on May 3, 1996, not to allow Mr. Mitchell to address this Court during the hearing on this matter; 2. deliver and certify delivery of the Company's PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION and its FORMAL REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION to the federal grand jury convened in this matter; Order to Issue: Page 1 of 2 3. show cause why ROBERT I. MISKELL should not be charged with mail fraud, jury tampering, and obstruction of justice; 4. submit a Memorandum of Points and Authorities explaining how Dr. Eugene Burns can be compelled to deliver the Company's books and records to the grand jury without also violating any of His or the Company's fundamental, unalienable Rights; 5. submit a Memorandum of Points and Authorities explaining how executive and judicial officers of the United States can intercept Registered and Certified United States Mail, when Return Receipt and Restricted Delivery services are requested, without also violating federal postal laws; IT IS ALSO ORDERED that a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus, in due form of law, be issued requiring JANET NAPOLITANO, ROBERT I. MISKELL, EVANGELINA CARDENAS, the CLERK of this Court, and the POSTMASTER, Downtown Station, to: 6. obey the Freedom of Information Act Requests ("FOIAs") which have already been mailed to Mr. Miskell, Ms. Napolitano, Mr. Weare, Ms. Cardenas, and the Postmaster. Dated this ________ day of ____________________, 1996 Anno Domini _______________________________________________ Judge, United States District Court Order to Issue: Page 2 of 2 # # # Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Counselor at Law and federal witness c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson, Arizona state zip code exempt 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 ) _______________________________) PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO: ROBERT I. MISKELL JANET NAPOLITANO Office of the United States Attorney 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 8310 Tucson, Arizona state Clerk United States District Court 55 E. Broadway Tucson, Arizona state Postmaster United States Postal Service Downtown Station Tucson, Arizona state Evangelina Cardenas "Internal Revenue Service" 300 West Congress Tucson, Arizona state IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that JANET NAPOLITANO and ROBERT I. MISKELL: Peremptory Writ of Mandamus: Page 1 of 4 1. show cause why violations of Their fundamental Rights were not inflicted upon New Life Health Center Company, Dr. Eugene Burns, Managing Director, and Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Vice President of Legal Affairs, by this Court's decision on May 3, 1996, not to allow Mr. Mitchell to address this Court during the hearing on this matter; 2. deliver and certify delivery of the Company's PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION and its FORMAL REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION to the federal grand jury convened in this matter; 3. show cause why ROBERT I. MISKELL should not be charged with mail fraud, jury tampering, and obstruction of justice; 4. submit a Memorandum of Points and Authorities explaining how Dr. Eugene Burns can be compelled to deliver the Company's books and records to the grand jury without also violating any of His or the Company's fundamental, unalienable Rights; 5. submit a Memorandum of Points and Authorities explaining how executive and judicial officers of the United States can intercept Registered and Certified United States Mail, when Return Receipt and Restricted Delivery services are requested, without also violating federal postal laws; IT IS ALSO ORDERED that JANET NAPOLITANO, ROBERT I. MISKELL, EVANGELINA CARDENAS, the CLERK of this Court, and the POSTMASTER, Downtown Station: 6. obey the Freedom of Information Act Requests ("FOIAs") which have already been mailed to Mr. Miskell, Ms. Napolitano, Mr. Weare, Ms. Cardenas, and the Postmaster. Peremptory Writ of Mandamus: Page 2 of 4 Dated this ________ day of ____________________, 1996 Anno Domini _______________________________________________ CLERK, United States District Court Peremptory Writ of Mandamus: Page 3 of 4 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 have personally served the following documents: Case No. GJ-95-1-6: FORMAL NOTICE, PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS, and ORDER TO ISSUE by placing said documents in first class U.S. 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 Dated: May 14, 1996 /s/ Paul Mitchell ________________________________________ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state all rights reserved without prejudice Peremptory Writ of Mandamus: Page 4 of 4 # # #
Return to the Table of Contents for
IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENA SERVED ON NEW LIFE HEALTH CENTER COMPANY