Business Problems with a Sovereign Topping

[Demosthenes]

UNCLASSIFIED // FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY / LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE

Name Reg. No. Facl COJ STG Affiliations
BRODERICK, M Elizabeth 07018-112 CRW CAC Dom Terr A
Comm Cat 3
Montana Freemen

During the period of August 5 - 13, 2009, inmate Broderick made repeated telephone calls to the U.S. Freedom Foundation, Steve Greenup (615-332-8748), and Marshall Home, (520-339-4870), a private individual she has never met whom she currently refers to as her husband. During these calls, inmate Broderick claimed she had filed a Private Administrative Remedy, to include Notice of Default and Proof of Claim to various government officials in the United States Attorney’s Office and Bureau of Prisons. In typical redemption fashion, inmate Broderick purported her Proof of Claim and Notice of Default were jurisdictional challenge to which the U.S. government did not have a contract with her, and that her filings would change everything, resulting in her immediate release.

Inmate Broderick continued by claiming that since the government can’t prove their claim, her
case would be overturned and the United States Treasury would be required to pay her $1.5
billion in damages. Inmate Broderick claimed she was able to file her documents with the
assistance of Marshall Home and former BOP inmate, Mary Schipke, Reg. No. 01690-184, who
was released from custody in January 2009. Claiming the BOP was interfering with her mail,
inmate Broderick stated to Marshall Home she would mail legal documents to Steve Greenup at
the U.S. Freedom Foundation in order that they may be forwarded to him uninspected and
unhindered by BOP staff.

However, on August 17, 2009, inmate Broderick placed a telephone call to Steve Greenup in
order to check the status of her case and determine if Greenup had reviewed the documents she provided. Greenup instructed inmate Broderick to pursue the Administrative Remedy Process at the institution level regarding possible early release under the Second Chance Act. Irritated, inmate Broderick argued with Greenup, contending her Proof of Claim verified the government had no jurisdiction in her case. Greenup indicated he had researched her claims and found them legally unsupported, but at her insistance, indicated he would file her documents with the court, though he was certain they would be rejected as frivolous.

Records indicate Steve Greenup is not in fact a licensed attorney, however, the U.S. Freedom
Foundation does have other certified attorneys on their staff.

[grixit]

UNCLASSIFIED // FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY / LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE

(snippage)

Inmate Broderick claimed she was able to file her documents with the
assistance of Marshall Home and former BOP inmate, Mary Schipke, Reg. No. 01690-184, who
was released from custody in January 2009.

I alluded to Mary Schipke earlier.

She was on several forms of public assisstance and claimed to be disabled by a variety of problems mostly relating to allergies and chemical sensitivities. She was also afraid that someone out there was deliberately working to make her sick. For instance, at one point she complained that in spite of her giving plenty of notice about her condition, the people working on her neighbor's roof failed to warn her and so she was exposed to the nasty solvents they used, unstead of being able to go away for a few hours. Yeah, i'd hate that too, but i wouldn't count it as deliberate persecution.

When i first met her, she had had one child, which had been taken from her. Naturally, this was an act of injustice, not a response to any bad parenting on her part. Over the time i knew her, her beliefs evolved. Eventually she claimed that Child Protective Services was just a procurement agency for child molesters and that their the members of that agency were all getting rich from the business.

She got pregnant again. She never said anything about the father or about any relationship for that matter, and i never asked. After the baby was born she claimed she had had to sneak it out of the hospital.

So one day i was listening to the radio and there was a news bulletin about a standoff in a rural district. A woman was holed up in her home with her baby and a gun after some kind of incident with a social worker. Iirc, the social worker had just come to help clean the house. I immediately guessed it was Mary. I was right.

The cops were called, and Mary was sitting in her house holding the baby and pointing the gun at both it and herself. Oh, and she called her militia buddies. Personally i don't think they were really militia, but they did drive out with their pickups and hunting rifles. They set up at least one checkpoint and talked big about their intentions to rescue her. It looked as if they planned to throw a perimeter around the police perimeter, but fortumately their enthusiasm seemed to peter out once they had gotten some media attention.

Finally, a cop that had gone to talk to Mary took a chance when she momentarily lowered the gun, and tackled her. I think that cop probably saved her life.

She got 30 days under observation. The next time i saw her, she looked filled out and healthy, not gaunt and on the verge of rickets as she had been before. She complained about the jail food, of course.

And of course, she did not get her baby back. The incident got a couple of paragraphs under the militia activity heading.

After that, i helped her a couple of times with her website. That was just a litany of complaints and some truly awful poetry.

I left Tucson in 2000. I was not aware that she had been in prison, though. Time to googlestalk!

[wserra]

HD o' Demo:

He multiple times won against the IRS.

Such as perhaps 98-cv-9242 (CACD), in which Richard and Mary both sued the IRS and a cast of thousands and were unceremoniously thrown out on their ears? Or 98-cv-6816 (CACD), in which they were unceremoniously thrown out on their asses? Or 95-cv-2648 (CACD), in which Bank of America kicked their butts (too early for opinion on PACER)? Or 93-cv-7144 (CACD), in which their suit against the State of California was summarily dismissed (too early for PACER)?

And then there are Mary's own suits, such as 06-cv-7521, a habeas. Dismissed, motion to appoint counsel denied. And 08-cv-296 (TXND), assigned to our old friend (see "Simkanin, Richard") Judge McBryde, who in a two-sentence sua sponte order dismissed "whatever causes of action M. Elizabeth Broderick purports to assert". Or 08-cv-1720 (TXND), another writ, dismissed, motion to appoint counsel denied. Or 09-cv-186 (TXND), a 1983. Dismissed.

In all, the Brodericks, despite having filed case after case, not only have never won, but have never gotten past a motion to dismiss. A couple more sovruns with a non-standard definition of "win".

[Judge Roy Bean]

An interesting example of how legends persist among those who have a need to reinforce their own beliefs in mythology.

[The Observer]

Such as perhaps 98-cv-9242 (CACD), in which Richard and Mary both sued the IRS and a cast of thousands and were unceremoniously thrown out on their ears? Or 98-cv-6816 (CACD), in which they were unceremoniously thrown out on their asses?

Ok, but can you cite a case where they were unceremoniously thrown out on both their asses and their ears at the same time? Remember, sovruns grab victories however they can define them.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Such as perhaps 98-cv-9242 (CACD), in which Richard and Mary both sued the IRS and a cast of thousands and were unceremoniously thrown out on their ears? Or 98-cv-6816 (CACD), in which they were unceremoniously thrown out on their asses?

Ok, but can you cite a case where they were unceremoniously thrown out on both their asses and their ears at the same time? Remember, sovruns grab victories however they can define them.

Wasn't there an instance where the door didn't hit them on the way out?

[grixit]

Ok, i checked on Mary Shipke. It looks as if she was a victim of the post 9-11 "New Normal".

http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/forc ... id=1230792