Time: Mon Nov 04 17:43:42 1996 To: bizen@edge.net From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: Affidavit of Default, grand jury case Cc: Bcc: Dean, Richard McDonald, Neil Nordbrock, Nancy Lord [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness and Vice President for Legal Affairs c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson, Arizona state, USA zip code exempt (formerly DMM 122.32) Under Protest and by Special Visitation with explicit reservation of all rights UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENA ) Case No. GJ-95-1-6 (JMR) SERVED ON ) NEW LIFE HEALTH CENTER COMPANY ) AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT ) AND OF PROBABLE CAUSE: ) 28 U.S.C. 955, 1746(1), ) 1874, 42 U.S.C. 1986, ) Federal Rules of Evidence: ) Rule 201(d) _______________________________) 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 "Trust") to present this verified AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT AND OF PROBABLE CAUSE concerning the several Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") requests and appeals which I have previously submitted to alleged agents of the United State in the instant case. VERIFICATION The undersigned Counsel hereby certifies, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the "United States," that the following AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT AND OF PROBABLE CAUSE is true and correct, to the best of My current information, knowledge, and belief, so help Me God and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1). Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause: Page 1 of 10 AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT AND OF PROBABLE CAUSE In a pleading which I previously prepared and submitted to this honorable Court, entitled PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION, STATUS REPORT ON FOIA REQUESTS NOW PENDING, AND NOTICE OF CHALLENGE TO CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTE: 5 U.S.C. 551(A), (B): FOIA exemption for Judiciary (hereinafter "STATUS REPORT"), I summarized the status of several FOIA requests and appeals which I have submitted to alleged agents of the United States in the instant case. The following is a true and correct update of the STATUS REPORT contained in said pleading: FOIA Document(s) Appeal Appeal FOIA Recipient Date Requested Date Status Robert L. Miskell 5/12/96 credentials 5/24/96 defaulted Robert L. Miskell 5/12/96 application 5/24/96 defaulted Janet Napolitano 5/12/96 credentials 5/24/96 defaulted Janet Napolitano 5/12/96 Supp. Rules 5/24/96 defaulted Richard H. Weare 5/12/96 credentials 5/24/96 defaulted Eva Cardenas 5/12/96 credentials 5/24/96 received John M. Roll 5/12/96 credentials 5/24/96 defaulted Postmaster 5/12/96 Form 3801 5/24/96 received Specifically, with the two exceptions noted ("received"), all other FOIA requests and appeals remain unanswered as of July 3, 1996. Said pleading also contained the following paragraph, clearly to specify the exact deadline for exhaustion of administrative remedies for these FOIA requests and appeals: In all cases, the appeal deadlines run at the end of twenty (20) working days after the original appeal dates, not including weekends and national holidays. Thus, all deadlines for exhaustion of the administrative appeals will fall on June 24, 1996 (allowing an extra day for Memorial Day, a national holiday which intervened). Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause: Page 2 of 10 Counsel hereby certifies that the requisite oath of office for one John M. Roll has not been produced, by him or by anyone else, and that there is now probable cause for Me to believe that his silence has now perpetrated a major fraud upon the Trust, its Officers, Co-Workers, and Trustee(s) (hereinafter "Victims"), and upon this honorable Court, because pertinent court decisions have ruled that silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal or a moral duty to speak (i.e. via a solemn Oath of office), or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. Counsel believes, based upon seven (7) years of research into applicable federal laws, that a federal judge's oath of office is an absolute prerequisite to serving in that office, and to exercising any of the powers of that office. 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. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977) emphasis added] [quoting U.S. v. 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 v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906)] [emphasis added] Counsel therefore believes that, without the requisite oath, timely produced in response to Lawful notice and demand made by a Litigants who have come before him (her), the man (or woman) who sits upon the bench of a district court of the United States is acting without any authority whatsoever, and cannot invoke any Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause: Page 3 of 10 immunity (absolute or qualified) for any of the damages which s/he has already inflicted, or plans to inflict, upon said Litigants (e.g. jail, bench warrants, seizures of private chattel papers, orders to appear and show cause why they should not be held in contempt, etc. ad nauseam). See 42 U.S.C. 1986. In this event, Counsel also believes that Litigants who have come before him (her) are obligated, under numerous provisions of state, federal, and biblical laws, lawfully to intervene to prevent any further violations of said laws by any person who impersonates a de jure federal judge, and/or who purports to exercise the powers and authorities of a de jure federal judge, without also producing certified evidence of his (her) requisite Oath of office, upon receipt of a Lawful notice and demand, and a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request and appeal, for same. See original Thirteenth Amendment and Article VI, Clause 3. Counsel is now convinced there is probable cause to believe that alleged officers of the United States Department of Justice -- Janet Napolitano and Robert L. Miskell -- have perpetrated an equally serious fraud upon all Victims, and upon this honorable Court, by impersonating de jure executive officers of the United States before a group of American People purporting to constitute a lawfully convened federal grand jury in the instant case, and that said persons have committed equally serious frauds upon the Victims, and upon this honorable Court, by prosecuting this case in the first instance without Lawful authority to do so. Furthermore, Counsel is now convinced that there is probable cause to believe that alleged officers of the United States District Court -- Robert H. Weare -- and Mr. Weare's apparent Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause: Page 4 of 10 accomplice -- William M. McCool -- likewise perpetrated equally serious frauds upon all Victims, and upon this honorable Court, by impersonating de jure officers of the United States Judiciary. Furthermore, Counsel is now convinced that there is probable cause to believe that an alleged officer of the United States District Court -- William M. McCool -- practiced law in violation of the applicable federal statute when he advised Counsel not to mail any pleadings to the federal grand jury Foreperson in the instant case, and to mail them directly to the United States Attorney instead, in blatant violation of 28 U.S.C. 955, to wit: 955. Practice of law restricted The clerk of each court and his deputies and assistants shall not practice law in any court of the United States. [28 U.S.C. 955] INCORPORATION OF PRIOR PLEADINGS Counsel hereby incorporates by reference all prior pleadings submitted on behalf of the Trust, and on behalf of its Officers, Co-Workers, and Trustee(s), as if they were set forth fully herein. To this end, the following is Counsel's reconstructed version of the "Docket" in the instant case, which should closely parallel the official court docket: Trust Docket: In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena Served on New Life Health Center Company U.S.D.C. Case No. GJ-95-1-6 04/10/96 Application for Order to Show Cause Napolitano Miskell 04/12/96 ORDERED that a representative of New Life appear and show cause why the Company shall not be found in contempt Roll 04/18/96 Supplement to Application for Order to Napolitano Show Cause Miskell 04/24/96 AFFIDAVIT OF CAUSES AND OBJECTIONS TO O.S.C. Mitchell Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause: Page 5 of 10 04/25/96 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE hearing: Mitchell appears for New Life, not allowed to speak because He is neither licensed bar attorney, nor an officer of New Life Roll 05/03/96 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE hearing: Burns and Mitchell present as officers of the New Life; Mitchell recognized as New Life officer in court record; ORDERED that Burns appear before GJ on 5/22/96 with copies of the requested document [sic] Roll 05/14/96 NOTICE OF OFFER WITHDRAWAL; PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION, FOR RECONSIDERATION, FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, AND FOR ORDERS TO SHOW CAUSE; WITH POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Burns/ [long list of authorities here] Mitchell 05/20/96 SUPPLEMENT TO PETITION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Mitchell 05/21/96 ORDERED that FOIA request to John M. Roll be filed in the pending case; and ORDERED that this is not the proper forum to bring a request under the FOIA Roll 05/23/96 MOTION TO STRIKE Affidavit of Causes and Objections to O.S.C.; Notice of Offer Withdrawal etc.; Supplement to Petition for Order to Show Cause; and that Clerk not file any further pleadings that are Napolitano not signed by a properly licensed attorney Miskell 05/23/96 SECOND APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE to Burns and New Life why they should not be held in contempt for failure to comply Napolitano with Court's ORDER of May 3, 1996 Miskell 05/24/96 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, issued upon Burns and New Life, to appear on 6/10/96 and show cause why Burns and New Life shall not be found in contempt for New Life's alleged failure to comply with the Court's Order of May 3, 1996 (not served on Burns or New Life) Roll 05/24/96 PETITION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: GRAND JURY TESTIMONY Mitchell 05/24/96 VERIFIED STATEMENT OF COUNSEL IN SUPPORT OF CHALLENGE TO GRAND JURY SELECTION POLICY AND ITS FEDERAL STATUTE: 28 U.S.C. 1746(1) Mitchell Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause: Page 6 of 10 05/24/96 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH GRAND JURY SELECTION POLICY, AND NOTICE OF CHALLENGE AND CHALLENGE TO CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTE: 28 U.S.C. 297, 517, 518, 1861, 1865, and 1867(d) Mitchell 05/30/96 COMPANY'S OPPOSITION TO SECOND APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; PETITION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; AND NOTICE OF CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION, WITH Burns/ VERIFICATION Mitchell 06/03/96 MOTION TO CONTINUE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Napolitano HEARING Miskell 06/03/96 NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR THE RIGHT TO ENJOY Burns/ THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL OF CHOICE Mitchell 06/03/96 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF COMPANY'S CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION FOR VIOLATING THE FUNDAMENTAL GUARANTEE TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF Burns/ COUNSEL: Sixth Amendment Mitchell 06/03/96 NOTICE OF CLERICAL UPDATE TO MISCELLANEOUS Burns/ EXHIBIT PREVIOUSLY FILED Mitchell 06/04/96 NOTICE OF SECOND CLERICAL UPDATE TO MISCELLANEOUS EXHIBIT PREVIOUSLY FILED Mitchell 06/04/96 VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DAN MEADOR, AUTHOR OF MISCELLANEOUS EXHIBIT PREVIOUSLY FILED, Mitchell/ AND NOTICE OF SAME: 28 U.S.C. 1746(1) Meador 06/04/96 NOTICE OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL RESPONSE BY USPS MANAGER, DOWNTOWN STATION, TUCSON Mitchell 06/05/96 NOTICE OF VOTING RIGHTS VIOLATION AND OF TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION, AND OF PETITION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Art. I, Sec. 2, Cl. 1 Mitchell 06/05/96 NOTICE OF CHALLENGE TO UNITED STATES ATTORNEY AND DEADLINE FOR RESPONSE Mitchell 06/06/96 PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION, STATUS REPORT ON FOIA REQUESTS NOW PENDING, AND NOTICE OF CHALLENGE TO CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTE: 5 U.S.C. 551(1)(A), (B): FOIA exemption for Judiciary Mitchell 06/07/96 JOINT AFFIDAVIT OF DR. AND MRS. EUGENE Burns/ BURNS AND DR. AND MRS. SHELDON DEAL Deal Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause: Page 7 of 10 06/08/96 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE faxed to New Life by Eva Cardenas from IRS-CID Cardenas 06/09/96 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND RECONSIDERATION, AND CHALLENGE TO HOLDINGS OF U.S. SUPREME COURT Mitchell 06/10/96 COMPANY'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL, AND CHALLENGE TO CONSTITUTIONALITY OF "ILLEGAL TAX PROTESTOR" CLASSIFICATIONS Mitchell 06/10/96 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE hearing: Mitchell addresses Court as officer of the corporation [this is a serious error]; Mitchell advises Court Burns was not served; ORDERED that hearing is continued to Monday, June 17, 1996 at 4:30 p.m., and that Burns appear and show cause why He should not be held in contempt for failing to produce documents [sic] subpoenaed by the Grand Jury Roll 06/12/96 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO CHALLENGE TO HOLDINGS OF U.S. SUPREME COURT Mitchell 06/12/96 MOTION TO CONTINUE O.S.C. HEARING Mitchell 06/13/96 NOTICE OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) APPEAL RESPONSE BY IRS DISCLOSURE OFFICER, NOTICE OF PROBABLE FRAUD, AND MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT: 28 U.S.C. 2201, Full Faith and Credit Clause Mitchell 06/14/96 NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY OF PEERS OF ALL FACTS AND LAWS AT ISSUE: FRCP Rules 38, 39, Seventh Amendment Mitchell 06/15/96 NOTICE OF OBJECTION AND FORMAL OBJECTION TO COURT'S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, DATED JUNE 10, 1996, FOR EXHIBITING A FALSE PRESUMPTION THAT COMPANY IS A CORPORATION, WITHOUT JUDICIAL DETERMINATION: 28 U.S.C. 372(c), 454 Mitchell 06/15/96 NOTICE OF EXHIBITS AND REQUEST FOR FORMAL JUDICIAL NOTICE OF EVIDENCE ATTACHED AND UNDER SEPARATE COVER Mitchell 06/17/96 Judge Roll's secretary calls New Life worker to explain that MOTION TO CONTINUE, dated 6/12/96, has been denied (no written confirmation served) Roll (?) 06/17/96 NOTICE OF APPEAL (10:34 a.m.) from the Order to Show Cause Mitchell Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause: Page 8 of 10 06/17/96 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE hearing (4:30 p.m.): Mitchell present for New Life; Burns not present because of Appeal Notice; bench warrant issued for Burns' arrest; Mitchell not recognized by the Court; Mitchell's pleadings are stricken; pleadings/documents will not be accepted unless filed by Burns, or by authorized attorney on behalf of Burns; further, grand jury transcript is sealed Roll 06/18/96 EMERGENCY MOTION UNDER CIRCUIT RULE 27-3 Burns proceeding In Propria Persona before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, S.F., with Nunc Pro Tunc clerical update 07/03/96 NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS IS NOTICE TO AGENTS. Mitchell 07/03/96 NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS. Mitchell Further Counsel Sayeth naught. Executed on July 3, 1996 __________________________________ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness and Vice President for Legal Affairs of New Life Health Center Company, an Unincorporated Business Trust Domiciled in the Arizona Republic # # # Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause: Page 9 of 10 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the "United States", that I am at least 18 years of age and a Citizen of one of the United States of America, and that I personally served the following document(s): AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT AND OF PROBABLE CAUSE: 28 U.S.C. 955, 1746(1), 1874, 42 U.S.C. 1986, Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 201(d) by placing said document(s) with exhibits in first class United States Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed to: ROBERT L. MISKELL [sic] John M. Roll [sic] Acapulco Building, Suite 8310 U.S. District Court 110 South Church Avenue 55 E. Broadway Tucson, Arizona Tucson, Arizona JANET NAPOLITANO [sic] 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 KozinskiEvangelina Cardenas [sic] Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals "Internal Revenue Service" 125 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 200 300 West Congress Pasadena, California Tucson, Arizona Attorney General Solicitor General Department of Justice Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. Special Agent William M. McCool [sic] Federal Bureau of Investigation U.S. District Court 1 South Church Avenue 44 E. Broadway, Room 202 Tucson, Arizona Tucson, Arizona _______________________________________ Executed on July 3, 1996 Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state and federal witness all rights reserved without prejudice Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause: Page 10 of 10
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail