Time: Wed Oct 01 14:56:23 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA08712;
Wed, 1 Oct 1997 14:50:35 -0700 (MST)
with SMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 1.2); Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:50:55 -0400
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 14:39:23 -0700
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLF: Offer to Prove Racketeering (fwd) [corrected]
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
Host: http://ListServe.com, a service of Whole Systems Design, Inc.
[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