Time: Wed Oct 08 17:19:00 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA14893; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:04:53 -0700 (MST) by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA01282; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:01:33 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 17:00:52 -0700 To: Swftl@aol.com From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLF: Offer to Prove Racketeering (fwd) [corrected] Susan, PROMIS and Inslaw are discussed in this excerpt from a pleading recently filed in Superior Court in Arizona. See excerpt below. When Danny Casolaro got too close to this RICO racket, he was found dead in a D.C. hotel. DOJ reported it as a "suicide." One of your colleagues in F.E.A.R. has been rather rude to me, and I honestly do not think I deserve such treatment. I do happen to be prolific, and for this I do not warrant rude or vicious treatment, from F.E.A.R. or anybody else. Such conduct usually tells me that the perpetrators have an ulterior motive, namely, to suppress the truth. If you want the rest of the story, I recommend that you contact Inslaw Corporation directly. I don't have the time, or the desire, to teach you Alta Vista. Sorry, but I am still burnt to a crisp by F.E.A.R. If you want to know who I am and what I do, help yourself to the Supreme Law Library. A good place to begin is Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF. It is free to everyone, even to government agents! But, please do NOT shoot the messenger. Such conduct, I find extremely boring and repetitive. /s/ Paul Mitchell http://supremelaw.com copy: Supreme Law School [excerpt now follows] [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
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail