Time: Mon Nov 25 06:55:15 1996
To: "Andrew G. Lehr" <agl@locke.ccil.org>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Leroy Schweitzer Warrants (so called fake checks)
Cc:
Bcc: Liberty Law, Nancy Lord,amm@azstarnet.com
At 06:18 AM 11/25/96 -0500, you wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Nov 1996, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote:
>
>> At 12:27 PM 11/24/96 -0500, you wrote:
>> >
>> >On Sun, 24 Nov 1996, Ray Earnest wrote:
>> >
>> >> Mark A. Smith wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Does anyone have an answer to the questions below?
>> >> > > =======================
>> >
>> >
>> >Sure, the warrants are phony. If the Fed is committing fraud, prove it,
>> >don't commit fraud youself.
>> >--Andrew Lehr
>>
>> Andrew,
>>
>> WHY are they phony?
>> Would you please enlighten us?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> /s/ Paul Mitchell
>>
>I don't think I could possibly go into a legal debate on it here, but
>using common sense, what do you have?
Common sense tells me that when a government
agent, or bank official, violates 18 USC 242,
and an affidavit is verified by the victim,
and then the guilty party falls silent upon
presentment of that affidavit, that all the
court cases I have read tell me that their
silence is not only consent, but estoppel.
The last crucial detail is that the UCC permits
signature by accommodation; that is what
Schweitzer was using to endorse his UCC forms
(true bill, etc.) The case law also says that
such commercial liens are non-judicial. IRS
is attempting to do the same thing with their
"liens" (read "Notice of Federal Tax Lien")
but IRS agents fail to verify their claims
under penalty of perjury. Furthermore, Congress
repealed IRC 6065, so there is no chance at
present that IRS agents will ever sign under
penalty of perjury, if the statute requiring
such verification no longer exists. This is
what my common sense tells me. It sounds to
me as if you have left the playing field.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
A bunch of people get together,
>serve a bunch of paper on other people, and then say because that paper
>was not answered within a certain period, the second group owes the first
>group billions of dollars. Correct me if I'm wrong. That just doesn't
>work, and never will. It will just end with a bunch of the first group
>being in jail.
>--Andrew Lehr
>
>>
>> >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Hi there
>> >> > > My name is Dave Wallen
>> >> > > There is a small group of us down here in southern Arizona Justus
>> Township
>> >> > > who attended Leroys seminar, and of course used the Comptroller Warrants.
>> >> > > Well like Leroy said when he gave them to us "if you can't stand the heat
>> >> > > don't
>> >> > > use the warrants". Anyway the heat is pouring on. I myself am fighting
>> >> > > a
>> >> > > battle in court
>> >> > > and I do believe that if we can prove that the Special account backing
>> >> > > these warrants does exist that judgment will go in our favor. I have no
>> >> > > doubt in my mind that the warrants are valid.
>> >> > > What I am getting at is, do you know of any way to find proof of or do
>> >> > > you
>> >> > > know of anyone that might know how to prove that the account with the
>> >> > > united states Treasury exists.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Please pass this note on to anyone that might be able to help, if we
>> >> > > prove
>> >> > > the account is there to back the warrants then they will have to drop the
>> >> > > charges against Leroy for Bogus checks.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Please respond e-mail amm@azstarnet.com phone 520-578-9497 fax
>> >> > > 520-578-9497
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Thank you very much Dave
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >>
>> >> I have attempted to contact Dave but my messages have been returned
>> >> as undeliverable. If Dave hasn't received the information
>> >> he desires please contact me and I will give you what I have
>> >> on the warrants.
>> >>
>> >> Ray Earnest
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ===========================================================
>> Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com
>> ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state
>> ===========================================================
>>
>>
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail