Time:    Wed Jul 09 12:39:29 1997
Date:    Wed, 9 Jul 1997 11:30:09 -0400
From:    Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
To:      pmitch@primenet.com
Subject: SLF: Open Letter to Schweitzer, Broderick, et al.

Dear America,

I am addressing this letter to all of Us,
but particularly to LeRoy Schweitzer,
Elizabeth Broderick, and Cliff Turner,
who have been fond of recommending frequent
commercial liens against government agents.

After studying the matter carefully for
more than a year, I now conclude that your
methods suffer from a fundamental flaw:
they deprive your opponents of due process
of law, which causes them to be imperfect
at best, and invalid at worst.

These commercial liens which you are encouraging
people to file, on the basis of some criminal
allegation(s) against government employees, seem to
suffer from the following fatal flaw:  EVERYONE
has the Right to remain silent in the face of 
criminal allegations.  That Right is unalienable,
under the Fifth Amendment.  See Miranda v. Arizona.

For you to imply that you are "perfecting" a
commercial lien against anyone, government 
employee or not, is to create the fiction that
you have converted their silence into an 
admission of guilt, and then converted that
"admission" into a lien, when their silence is 
un-lien-able.  Waivers of fundamental Rights
can never be presumed, ever!

For this, I believe you are asking for, and
will deserve, endless trouble, and I must 
honestly advise future clients that such an 
approach to "perfecting" commercial liens is

In fact, the evidence now coming forth is that
bogus commercial liens are the leading edge of
a widespread property conversion racket being
orchestrated inside the Department of Justice.

Once people fall for tendering documentary 
drafts/warrants to "assign" this "credit,"
DOJ has them right where DOJ wants them:
bank fraud and mail fraud.  The PROMIS successor
inside DOJ has tentacles into most, if not all,
banking computers.  This software is extremely
powerful.  It leads them straight to assets which
DOJ then attacks, and forfeits, using this method.

After evaluating the case of U.S.A. v. Knudson
in Nebraska, it was again made painfully obvious
to me that these allegations will require jury
verdicts, if they are ever going to be perfected,
or collectible.  Hence, my thrust in that case
was to bring it back around to a jury trial
on the merits. 

I suggest that you all give more serious consideration
to this matter, because I believe it will place your
clients on legal grounds which are much more solid 
than what they have now.  

See the Seventh Amendment.

If you don't want to hear this, then go your own way;
after looking carefully at Knudson's paperwork, 
I cannot endorse what you have been recommending to
clients in the past.  Broderick's alleged commercial
lien against the County of Orange, California state,
was rubber-stamped with "U S CRIMINAL COURT" [sic].
Her "associates" in Arizona even gave me a phone number 
for this court.  When I called it, the individual who
answered said, "Corporation Counsel, Department of
Justice.  May I help you?"

Need I say any more?

/s/ Paul Mitchell
Counselor at Law and federal witness

Paul Andrew Mitchell                 : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA;  M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine

tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com   : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this

As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail