Time: Mon Nov 04 12:40:51 1996 To: Jim McCall From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT Cc: Bcc: Dear Jim, This is my second transmission to you of the same information. Please check your server(s) for errors at that end. /s/ Paul Mitchell >Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 10:14:13 >To: Jim McCall >From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] >Subject: AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT > >[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] > > >Certified U.S. Mail [mailing location] >Serial Number #P xxx xxx xxx [city], [state] >Return Receipt Requested (zip code exempt) >Restricted Delivery [today's date] > > > AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT AND > OF ESTOPPEL BY ACQUIESCENCE > > >[bank officer] >[name of bank] >[address] >[city], [state] > >Dear [bank officer]: > > We, the Undersigned, hereby serve upon you Our AFFIDAVIT OF >DEFAULT to establish presumed fact concerning your failure to >produce competent evidence that We, as customers of your bank, >ever waived Our fundamental Right to due process of law, as >guaranteed by Amendment V to the Constitution for the United >States of America, as lawfully amended (hereinafter "U.S. >Constitution"). The U.S. Constitution is the supreme Law of this >Land, pursuant to Article VI, Clause 2. The constitution of this >state also recognizes that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme >Law of this Land. > > On [mm/dd/yy1], We presented to you Our formal written >NOTICE AND DEMAND for production of any and all material >evidence, currently in your possession or control, of any >knowing, intentional, and voluntary waiver(s) by Us of our >fundamental Right to due process of law. As stated in Our >previous written communications to you, waivers of fundamental >Rights must be knowing, intentional, and voluntary acts, done >with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and >likely consequences. See U.S. v. Brady, 397 U.S. 742 at 748 >(1970); U.S. v. O'Dell, 160 F.2d 304 (6th Cir. 1947). > > Said NOTICE AND DEMAND gave you reasonable notice and grace >to locate and produce the requisite evidence of any such waivers. >The deadline for production of said evidence was [mm/dd/yy2]. >You have served absolutely nothing upon Us which could be >considered as a good faith and diligent attempt by you to respond >to Our lawful and reasonable NOTICE AND DEMAND within the stated >deadline. > > Accordingly, We now invoke the doctrine of estoppel by >acquiescence, because we can prove that your previous fiduciary >contract with Us imposes upon you a legal and a moral duty to >answer, and your silence can now be construed as a fraud. >"Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or >moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be >intentionally misleading." See U. S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 >(1977), emphasis added, quoting U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, >1032 (1970). See also Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906). > > VERIFICATION > > We, the Undersigned, hereby verify, under penalty of >perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without >the "United States", that the above statements of fact are true >and correct, to the best of our current information, knowledge, >and belief, so help Us God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1). > >FURTHER AFFIANTS SAYETH NAUGHT. > > >Executed on [mm/dd/yy3] > > > > >[signature of first Person] >_____________________________________ >[typed name of first Person] > > > > >[signature of second Person] >_____________________________________ >[typed name of second Person] > > > > >[signature of third Person] >_____________________________________ >[typed name of third Person] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail