Time: Fri Feb 07 00:31:33 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA15427; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 17:16:23 -0700 (MST) Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 00:01:34 -0800 To: "John C. (Johnny) Neill" <nilco@caverns.com> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: suing banks for bogus levies John, We are involved in discovery with bank seizures in 4 different states at the present time. Here is what we do: 1. Send the bank president a Notice and Demand to restore the account, supported by a long memorandum of law and facts; we have a template which we share with clients of the Supreme Law School; please honor your non-disclosure agreement with this template, however. 2. After they default in the face of this Notice and Demand, we then submit another Notice and Demand for any evidence in their possession or control that the customer waived his (her) fundamental Right to due process of law (see Fifth Amendment). 3. Then, we also submit a Notice and Demand for exhibition of the court-ordered Warrant of Distraint, which is a requirement as established by U.S. v. O'Dell. 4. Every bank we have done this sequence with, has defaulted. So, we are now preparing Affidavits of Default, incorporating the documents from 1 thru 3 above into the Affidavit, as exhibits. 5. In addition to the Affidavit of Default, we prepare an Offer in Compromise, and a Petition for ORDER authorizing depositions; these are usually found in the local rules for state superior courts (the ones with general jurisdiction, because the amounts here are likely to get rather large, exceeding the standard jurisdictional limits for municipal courts). 6. We serve the affidavit, offer in compromise, and petition for ORDER authorizing depositions, on the bank. This is the carrot and stick. 7. After all this paper is perfected, we try to arrange a meeting with the bank president (or their staff attorneys). We explain to them that deprivations of fundamental Rights are felonies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 242, and "due process of law" is a fundamental Right. 8. They have plenty of motivation now to meet and settle, because they are looking at depositions, and probably lots of legal fees. 9. Furthermore, this specific sequence of paper activates estoppel, because they cannot now come into court with either a Warrant of Distraint, or a competent Waiver of due process of law (which never exist), because their window of opportunity closed. You can hint at your intention to compel testimony concerning their failure to produce either, upon receipt of the proper Notices and Demands. 10. If you have to go to trial, you move for summary judgment right out of the gate, because estoppel can be invoked. You might also want declaratory relief from a jury, to establish the "exemplary" damages against the bank (the jury will probably be "liberal" after they hear all the evidence). 11. Assuming you prevail with the jury verdict, then you have a solid judgment, which you can then take to "another" bank. At that point, you are faced with "mop up", namely, enforcing collection of the damages (real, compensatory, and exemplary). 12. At that point, you might "settle" for stock in the bank, or some other such non-monetary reward. At that point, it is up to you. Keeping the bank solvent is to your advantage; if you force them into bankruptcy, you may never see anything. Keep this in mind as you proceed; wouldn't you just love to have a truly valid "lien" on a bank, sanctioned by a court of law? This is like money in the bank; no, it is better than money in the bank! That's the sequence. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 04:50 PM 2/7/97 -0700, you wrote: >Question: > >Given this explanation the following scenario is submitted: > >Bank (and this has happened to me long ago) allowed funds in three accounts >to be seized. If I determined to place any bank with which I do business on >notice as to what the "requirement" is, then would they be liable for the >replacement of funds seized? Would they be valid targets for real and >punitive damages for allowing such to occur after have been placed on >notice? Has this ever been done? > >Thank you. > >---------- >: From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] >: To: Recipient list suppressed >: Subject: FYI: bank signature card (defined) >: Date: Thursday, February 06, 1997 5:09 PM >: >: PUBLIC NOTICE TO ALL BANKS >: >: The legal definition of "signature card" is >: as follows: >: >: "Signature card. A card which a bank or other >: financial institution requires of its customers >: and on which the customer puts his signature >: and other information. It becomes a permanent >: file and permits the bank to compare the >: signature on the card with the signature on >: checks, withdrawal slips and other documents." >: >: [Black's Law Dictionary with Pronunciations] >: [Sixth Edition] >: >: There is no mention here of waiving any fundamental >: Rights, like the Right to due process of law, >: which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. >: >: According to U.S. v. O'Dell, banks must demand >: a WARRANT OF DISTRAINT (court order) from the IRS, >: before the IRS can levy any bank account. >: >: The signature card is not a competent waiver >: of due process of law, which encompasses the >: WARRANT OF DISTRAINT (you cannot get to a court >: ORDER unless due process of law has run its >: normal course). >: >: /s/ Paul Mitchell >: >: ==================================================================== >: [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] >: [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] >: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com >: Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com > >: Ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] >: We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. >: Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan >: ==================================================================== >Attachment Converted: "C:\ATTACH\Rebanksi" > ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com Ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ====================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail