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