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