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
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.
Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause:
Page 3 of 10
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.
Affidavit of Default and of Probable Cause:
Page 4 of 10
Furthermore, Counsel is now convinced that there is probable
cause to believe that alleged officers of the United States
District Court -- Richard H. Weare -- and Mr. Weare's apparent
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
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
__________________________________
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 Kozinski Evangelina 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
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
__________________________________
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
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena