Time: Wed Oct 15 09:18:53 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA15280
for [address in tool bar]; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 09:19:12 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 09:19:33 -0700
To: pmitch@primenet.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in toolbar]
Subject: QT
[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 and Corrupt Organizations Act at 18 U.S.C. 1961.
Compare also 18 U.S.C. 1964(a) and 1964(c), in pari materia.
[end excerpt]
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com
===========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA; M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email: [address in toolbar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best 06
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone 07
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 10, non-proportional spacing.] 13
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail