Time: Wed Oct 01 16:54:39 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA19787;
	Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:52:44 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 19:52:21 -0400
Originator: heritage-l@gate.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
To: pmitch@primenet.com
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]



                      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