Time: Wed Nov 06 20:54:57 1996 To: Bernie Oliver <patriot@rtd.com> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: Re: Broderick Cc: Bcc: At 07:57 PM 11/6/96 -0700, you wrote: >At 03:41 PM 11/6/96 -0800, you wrote: >>Bernie, >> >>Please don't shoot the messenger. >> >>Broderick used a bogus rubber stamp >>on her Orange County lien: > > Sounds like Broderick has been a very bad girl. Either way I acted >upon what I beleved to be accurate information. In other words-- It seems >that I was duped. Being duped doesn't = conspiracy on my part. That means >that I was a victim and there was certainly no criminal intent on my part. >Thanks for the "heads-up", Paul >> >> "U S CRIMINAL COURT" >> >>When I discovered this and started >>to ask questions about it, they >>pulled the rug out from under me >>(e.g. loaning me a car with tampered >>front brakes, and other things like this). >> >>I don't have time to tell you the >>whole sad story, but it's not a >>pretty one. >> >>Ask me about my "Broderick Hypothesis." >>Do you know what an hypothesis is? > > An unproven idea, I've been given to understand. Is this one of those >"assume" alternative definitions? >> >>/s/ Paul Mitchell Bernie, The story is a long one, and one which I do not have the time to repeat here. The rubber stamp was bad enough. But there is more, much more. We were setting up a litigation office over there, in Colton; after I returned from a 2-day trip to Tucson for a hearing, I returned to an empty office; everything was gone: computers, printers, modems, files, filing cabinets -- everything. One of the common law court staff -- the "marshall" -- attempted to extort $7,500 from us by holding all the office equipment and furniture hostage. I filed FOIA requests on every federal employee who even remotely touched the 2 civil and 1 criminal case. The U.S. freaked. I found out why: FOIA vaulted you into the District Court of the United States (DCUS), not the United States District Court (USDC); they are different, very different. The really unbelievable finding, which we have substantiated now, is that the USDC has no criminal jurisdiction whatsoever. 18 USC 3231 grants original jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions to the DCUS; USDC is not even mentioned. Moreover, there are no regs for 3231, thus limiting the statute's application to federal officers, employees, and contract agents. This kind of research was going to be very damaging to the United States, particularly if they were running a big sting racket, with Broderick at the head of the sting. I would say there is a lot of evidence of entrapment; lots of it. Look at all the real properties the U.S. was able to hit, once those checks started to clear thru the FRB. Most of her seminar attendees could barely speak English: lots of Hispanics and Vietnamese, all in need of an easy fix to credit pressures. With me in there probing and asking troubling questions, they could not afford to have their orchestration disturbed in any way. So, I had to go. It's very simple, really, when you take that view of all the facts and experiences I had to examine. The only other hypothesis was that she was terribly stupid, to think that no one would notice her rubber stamped recordation. On the contrary, the U.S. usually leaves some trail, so they can say, "It was right out there in plain view; don't blame us for not noticing." Now, if entrapment was their method, just how many of them are guilty of racketeering and a host of other felonies, including conspiracy (of course)? Every last judge, magistrate, U.S. attorney, and public defender. Cute, really, but it's not over. My FOIA requests for credentials have exhausted their administrative remedies, so we are not ready to litigate those FOIA requests in -- the District Court of the United States. How do you like them apples? /s/ Paul Mitchell
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail