Time: Sun Nov 03 10:17:47 1996
To: Neil Nordbrock, Richard McDonald, Nancy Lord
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: FOR YOUR EYES ONLY: bank suit foundation
Cc: Supreme Law Firm [address in tool bar]
Bcc:
>Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 10:14:13
>To: Jim McCall (Paul's Client)
>From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>Subject: AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT
>
>[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
>
>
>Certified U.S. Mail [mailing location]
>Serial Number #P xxx xxx xxx [city], [state]
>Return Receipt Requested (zip code exempt)
>Restricted Delivery [today's date]
>
>
> AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT AND
> OF ESTOPPEL BY ACQUIESCENCE
>
>
>[bank officer]
>[name of bank]
>[address]
>[city], [state]
>
>Dear [bank officer]:
>
> We, the Undersigned, hereby serve upon you Our AFFIDAVIT OF
>DEFAULT to establish presumed fact concerning your failure to
>produce competent evidence that We, as customers of your bank,
>ever waived Our fundamental Right to due process of law, as
>guaranteed by Amendment V to the Constitution for the United
>States of America, as lawfully amended (hereinafter "U.S.
>Constitution"). The U.S. Constitution is the supreme Law of this
>Land, pursuant to Article VI, Clause 2. The constitution of this
>state also recognizes that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme
>Law of this Land.
>
> On [mm/dd/yy1], We presented to you Our formal written
>NOTICE AND DEMAND for production of any and all material
>evidence, currently in your possession or control, of any
>knowing, intentional, and voluntary waiver(s) by Us of our
>fundamental Right to due process of law. As stated in Our
>previous written communications to you, waivers of fundamental
>Rights must be knowing, intentional, and voluntary acts, done
>with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and
>likely consequences. See U.S. v. Brady, 397 U.S. 742 at 748
>(1970); U.S. v. O'Dell, 160 F.2d 304 (6th Cir. 1947).
>
> Said NOTICE AND DEMAND gave you reasonable notice and grace
>to locate and produce the requisite evidence of any such waivers.
>The deadline for production of said evidence was [mm/dd/yy2].
>You have served absolutely nothing upon Us which could be
>considered as a good faith and diligent attempt by you to respond
>to Our lawful and reasonable NOTICE AND DEMAND within the stated
>deadline.
>
> Accordingly, We now invoke the doctrine of estoppel by
>acquiescence, because we can prove that your previous fiduciary
>contract with Us imposes upon you a legal and a moral duty to
>answer, and your silence can now be construed as a fraud.
>"Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or
>moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be
>intentionally misleading." See U. S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299
>(1977), emphasis added, quoting U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021,
>1032 (1970). See also Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906).
>
> VERIFICATION
>
> We, the Undersigned, hereby verify, under penalty of
>perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without
>the "United States", that the above statements of fact are true
>and correct, to the best of our current information, knowledge,
>and belief, so help Us God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
>
>FURTHER AFFIANTS SAYETH NAUGHT.
>
>
>Executed on [mm/dd/yy3]
>
>
>
>
>[signature of first Person]
>_____________________________________
>[typed name of first Person]
>
>
>
>
>[signature of second Person]
>_____________________________________
>[typed name of second Person]
>
>
>
>
>[signature of third Person]
>_____________________________________
>[typed name of third Person]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail