Time: Wed Oct 01 14:46:15 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA06092; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 14:45:40 -0700 (MST) by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA12952; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 14:39:52 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 14:39:23 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLF: Offer to Prove Racketeering (fwd) [corrected] [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] Permission to forward is freely granted, provided that no changes are made to the following text, down to and inclusive of the sig- nature, which ends with the message within square brackets above. [begin excerpt] OFFER TO PROVE RACKETEERING by Paul Andrew Mitchell (all rights reserved) Applicant has also been an eyewitness, during the past 18 months, to a property conversion racket now being perpetrated by means of bogus "commercial warrants" and "documentary drafts" [sic] urged upon naive followers by the likes of M. Elizabeth Broderick ("Broderick"), of Palmdale, California state, and LeRoy Michael Schweitzer ("Schweitzer"), of Billings, Montana state. Broderick was recently convicted in Los Angeles federal court of twenty-six (26) counts of fraud and bank fraud; Schweitzer is under indictment in Billings for similar charges. Applicant was retained by both Broderick and Schweitzer to provide services as a Counselor at Law in their respective cases but, after Applicant submitted separate invoices to each client in excess of $10,000, both Broderick and Schweitzer refused payment for same (approx. $20,000 total). Applicant can ill afford such economic retaliation. Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion: Page 10 of 20 Plaintiffs have promoted the questionable legal theories of Broderick and Schweitzer, even going so far as to tender one of Schweitzer's commercial warrants to the Internal Revenue Service, to discharge Plaintiffs' outstanding federal tax liability. Evidence of this bogus warrant has been filed in Mitchell v. Nordbrock. Said warrant by Plaintiffs is a matter of material evidence, of which this Court should take formal judicial Notice. Applicant is now actively pursuing more evidence which traces these bogus commercial warrants to a property conversion racket being orchestrated out of the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") in downtown Los Angeles, California state. The "bounced" warrants are delivered there by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), after electronic dossiers are assembled which lead FBI and DOJ employees directly to large asset groups. These asset groups are then targeted for foreclosure and/or forfeiture, under federal banking and postal laws. Selective prosecution is then begun against certain individuals, in part to make examples out of them, to forfeit their real and personal properties, and to discourage Americans from utilizing commercial processes (e.g. true bills) to perfect claims against government employees for systematic and premeditated violations of federal and state law. This is entrapment, and it needs to stop. Plaintiffs have, evidently, been actively involved in the creation, utilization, and promotion of these bogus commercial warrants and documentary drafts [sic]. Applicant is aware that Mr. Neil T. Nordbrock, acting as New Life's only accountant, urged New Life management to tender one or more of such bogus paper instruments to discharge New Life's federal income tax Applicant's Opposition to Strike Motion: Page 11 of 20 liabilities. A business associate of M. Elizabeth Broderick -- Adolf Hoch -- even confided to Applicant, in the Spring of 1996, that New Life had used several of Broderick's documentary drafts, "flushing New Life with much additional cash," as Mr. Hoch put it (or words to that effect). Hoch was convicted with Broderick. Last but not least, Applicant offers to prove that M. Elizabeth Broderick is actually a DOJ "front" woman, operating under deep cover for the benefit of principals within the U.S. Department of Justice in Los Angeles, and in other major cities. Those principals are actively exploiting the capabilities of the PROMIS software, which Applicant alleges was stolen from the Inslaw Corporation, then significantly enhanced to operate over the Internet, in order to assemble the electronic dossiers which are required to target asset groups slated for forfeiture and/or foreclosure. In summary, this appears to be a nationwide property conversion racket, operating in violation of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") at 18 U.S.C. 1961. Compare also 18 U.S.C. 1964(a) and 1964(c), in pari materia, as discussed in the essay entitled "Karma and the Federal Courts," now published in the Supreme Law Library at URL: http://supremelaw.com on the Internet. [end excerpt] /s/ Paul Mitchell, Sui Juris Counselor at Law, federal witness, and Citizen of Arizona state (expressly not a citizen of the United States) All Rights Reserved without Prejudice ======================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : 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://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