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