26JUN16 – David Schied: I wish to inform you that your spiral-bound Affidavit arrived in my mailbox without interference

On Jun 26, 2016, at 6:56 AM, David Schied <deschied@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear Ms. Reisinger,

I wish to inform you that your spiral-bound “wet-ink” copy of “You Know Something is Wrong When…” arrived to my mailbox without interference, and I retrieved it yesterday without incident. You sent it by Priority/Insured mailing with tracking information, so you clearly also have your own way of knowing that it arrived. The first think I did yesterday after picking it up was to telephone Elvia Saravia in New York to inform her that you sent it, since you made clear that you were sending it in her honor not mine. I have supported your honoring of Ms. Saravia, as she indicated her wish to me to let you know publicly (in line with our previous written discussions as shown in part below) that I received your valued package.

Being as you state below (which I have not shared with anyone until now) “self-evident” and “self-explanatory,” I wish to make some correction of your assertions to me in the last email, in which you again resort to dirty name-calling and lies when referring to me. I wish to predicate what follows by stating that, despite his receiving copies of our past written discussions, neither Rodger Dowdell nor any of his associates have ever written or called me to support your claims of what went on with your end with regard to “trying” to get something to me this past couple of months since I initially wrote to you with OTHER than an expression of any “need” as you misleadingly claim. The following is the TRUTH:

Ms. Reisinger: What is “self-evident” is that you apparently can look me in the computer monitor and lie right to my face. What is “self-explanatory” is the Evidence that you are either having trouble remembering things in your old age, or you really don’t care about the level of truth of what you claim. So allow me to provide corrections.

CORRECTION #1: You claim (as shown below this return email) that somehow it was communicate to you that I “need a wet-ink copy of [your] affidavit of probable cause to enter it in a court case that benefits you and an unknown number of other people.” You also wrote just less than a week ago on 6/20/16 (see below this entire email “reply” section) that “You contacted me and I agreed to send one such wet-ink copy subject to certain conditions.”

Your wrote the above AFTER I provided you fully with the entire email dialogue that went on between us, leading me to believe that you have a perverted tendency to twist the truth even when it is plainly in your face. Here again is my direct and exact expression of a DESIRE (not “need”) for “appropriate suggestions, permissions, [and] documents” to which I addressed to you, Paul, and Elvia. (NOTE: This conversation picks up after the “May 5th” email that I sent to you.)

_____________________________________

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 9:49 AM, David Schied <deschied@yahoo.com> wrote:

Anna, Paul, Elvia:

This is correct. I have already read a hard copy of Anna’s book, “You Know Something is Wrong when…” and am well into “Disclosure 101: What You Need to Know.” I am going to file something in the federal court of Michigan, likely next Monday or Tuesday at the outside that will include an Affidavit, memorandum, or something that draws heavily from these documents.

Anna should already be aware of the case. The common law “Court of Record” is on a server in Oregon and can be found online here:

http://cases.michigan.constitutionalgov.us/david-schied/2015_SchiedvJudgeKarenKhaliletalinUSDCEDM/

Just last month I added 14 more people in a “mass joinder” and have filed with another these “joinder” cases as Private Attorney Generals. I am now preparing responses to various “objections” and denials of my First Interrogatories against government, primarily searching for their bonds, blanket bonds, and other such items pertaining to insurance (despite already having their “errors and omissions” insurance companies already named in this “domestic terrorism” case).

I cannot afford another copy of the book via PDF file. Elvia Saravia in NY had an idea that my doing this might help others nationwide, as well as what I know serves to prop up and anchor Anna’s work with a plethora of more evidence of treason and terrorism. I will appreciate appropriate suggestions, permissions, documents….like right away! I am working on “development” right now and tomorrow I go into “production” on the writing of my documents. Thank you for your consideration.

Cordially yours,

David Schied

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

MS. REISINGER: YOUR RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE INITIAL EMAIL FROM ME:

_____________

On Thu, 5/5/16, Anna von Reitz <avannavon@gmail.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: book custodian for New York and Michigan

To: “David Schied” <deschied@yahoo.com>

Date: Thursday, May 5, 2016, 2:27 PM

We have spread the wet-ink copies as far as they will go. I can send you one and ask you to act as “Document Custodian” for the time being and allow you to certify a direct copy of the wet-ink version for the court record. You can offer to have the original on display for the court, but do not file the original into the case or they will keep it and put it out of play for other cases.

To do that requires a snail mail address—–

_____________________________________

MS. REISINGER: YOU NOW CLAIM THE FOLLOWING (as found below this email written on June 20):

“I agreed to send one such wet-ink copy subject to certain conditions. I attempted to send the copy about three days after your initial contact. It came back to me about ten days to two weeks later by my recollection as an “addressee unknown” returned to sender. By that time you were enroute to Florida.”

_____________________________________________________________

MS. REISINGER: YOUR CLAIM ABOUT “SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS” IS BLATANTLY MISLEADING AND AN ATTEMPT TO CONTRACT WITH ME ON VAGUE TERMS (NOT THAT YOU HAVE FINALLY FULFILLED YOUR INITIAL COMMITMENT FOR ONLY TO DISPARAGE ME AND TO SAVE YOUR OWN FACE). YOU ONLY MADE ONE (1) CONDITION FOR YOUR FILING AS FOLLOWS IN THE EVIDENCE OF YOUR PREVIOUS EMAIL:

________________________

On Thu, 5/5/16, Anna von Reitz <avannavon@gmail.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: book custodian for New York and Michigan

To: “David Schied” <deschied@yahoo.com>

Date: Thursday, May 5, 2016, 2:27 PM

We have spread the wet-ink copies as far as they will go. I can send you one and ask you to act as “Document Custodian” for the time being and allow you to certify a direct copy of the wet-ink version for the court record. You can offer to have the original on display for the court, but do not file the original into the case or they will keep it and put it out of play for other cases.

To do that requires a snail mail address—–

_____________________________________

MS. REISINGER: Your “conditions” from the above email are list ONLY as follows for “certain”:

1) I provide you with a “snail mail” address.

2) I offer to have the original on display for the cour

3) I NOT file the original into the case (implying that you WANT the original to be “in-play” for other “cases”)

MS. REISINGER: YOU THEN CONTINUE IN YOUR LETTER FROM AS WEEK AGO STATING NOW:

“I attempted to send the copy about three days after your initial contact. It came back to me about ten days to two weeks later by my recollection as an

“addressee unknown” returned to sender. By that time you were enroute to Florida.”

_______________________________________________________

MS. REISINGER: “MY TRIP TO FLORIDA” WAS ONLY TWO (2) WEEKS LONG, FROM SATURDAY MAY 21ST THROUGH SATURDAY JUNE 4TH. THEREFORE YOU ARE LYING WHEN CLAIMING TO HAVE RECEIVED BACK YOUR PACKAGE WHILE I WAS “EN ROUTE” TO FLORIDA. IN FACT, I BELIEVE THAT IF YOU SENT THE PACKAGE AT ALL (WHICH I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU DID) YOU HAD TO HAVE SENT THAT PACKAGE NEARLY TWO WEEKS AFTER THE ABOVE EMAIL DIALOGUE

_________________________

On Fri, 5/13/16, David Schied <deschied@yahoo.com> wrote:

Subject: FOLLOW-UP: book custodian for New York and Michigan – NO DELIVERY YET

To: “Anna von Reitz” <avannavon@gmail.com>

Cc: “Elvia Saravia” <elvia.saravia@yahoo.com>

Date: Friday, May 13, 2016, 10:23 PM

Hi Anna:

I just wanted to let you know that I checked my mail box that I sent to you (as shown below) just over a full week ago (May 5th) for you to send the “wet ink” original of your Affidavit for my custodial care and for my reference in filing in the federal courts (District Court, 6th Circuit, and soon in the U.S. Supreme Court).

FYI: I am booked for a trip down to Florida for two weeks beginning NEXT Saturday so that I can network with Roger Dowdell’s/Hagan Smith’s group and get their contributions (as well as yours) for a U.S. Supreme Court filing that I will write during that two-week period and submit as a Private Attorney General (as I have done already in the 6th Circuit Court and District Court with no responses from either of these courts…i.e., they are stonewalling because they know my evidence is wholly incriminating against all of them.)

I will be working on yet another RICO Busters video in the days before I leave to Florida, beginning late tomorrow and through next week, from here in Michigan. (I hope you saw my last video in which I emailed you the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5vhFQy8sLY )

Please note that in the event that you have not sent it yet, would you mind Express Mailing or Priority Mailing it to me right away? Please also call me to let me know what is happening. Thank you.

________________________________________________________________________

MS. REISINGER: I HOPE YOU WILL NOTE THAT I SUGGESTED ON 5/13/16 SENDING ME THE PACKAGE BY “PRIORITY” OR BY “EXPRESS” MAIL TO SAVE YOU ANY INCONVENIENCE BY MY PLANNED TRIP TO FLORIDA. IN RESPONSE, YOU WROTE BACK CARELESSLY WITH FEW WORDS TO MY STATED CONCERN ABOUT THE DELIVERY OF YOUR PACKAGE. THE ACTUAL DIALOGUE WENT AS FOLLOWS:

____________________________

On Fri, 5/13/16, Anna von Reitz <avannavon@gmail.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: FOLLOW-UP: book custodian for New York and Michigan – NO DELIVERY YET

To: “David Schied” <deschied@yahoo.com>

Date: Friday, May 13, 2016, 10:34 PM

That is weird—

__________

On Fri, 5/13/16, deschied@yahoo.com <deschied@yahoo.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: FOLLOW-UP: book custodian for New York and Michigan – NO DELIVERY YET

To: “avannavon@gmail.com” <avannavon@gmail.com>

Date: Friday, May 13, 2016, 10:50 PM

Which is wierd? The wet-ink book not making it to me yet at the address given, or your name vanishing from the addressee field of the first email notice?

__________________________________________________________________________________________

On Fri, 5/13/16, Anna von Reitz <avannavon@gmail.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: FOLLOW-UP: book custodian for New York and Michigan – NO DELIVERY YET

To: “David Schied” <deschied@yahoo.com>

Date: Friday, May 13, 2016, 11:04 PM

On Friday, May 13, 2016, Anna von Reitz <avannavon@gmail.com> wrote:

That is weird—We will make other arrangements to get it to you….

__________________________________________________________________________________________

MS. REISINGER: BASED UPON THE ABOVE “EVIDENCE,” WHICH I PROVIDED TO YOU BEFORE YOUR “POISON LETTER” ADDRESSED TO ME AS CITED BELOW, YOU HAD NO RIGHT TO CLAIM, “Now you are coming back and jumping all over me like a toddler having a tantrum and wasting more of my time and money taking care of YOUR problem which never had a thing to do with me in the first place.” IN FACT, WHAT IS DISPLAYED IS YOUR PROBLEM NOT MINE. IT IS OBVIOUSLY A PROBLEM IN BOTH RECOLLECTION AND COMMUNICATION. IT ACTUALLY BOILS DOWN TO A “CREDIBILITY PROBLEM” AND FOR A NON-FICTION BOOK AUTHOR THAT CAN BE FATAL, BOTH TO YOU AND TO ANYONE WISHING TO TRUST IN YOUR WRITTEN WORDS, LIKE I DID WHEN YOU ASSERTED THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH YOU INTENDED TO SEND ME THE “WET-INK” COPY, BEING YOUR NEED FOR MY “SNAIL MAIL” ADDRESS.

MS. REISINGER: YOU ALSO HAD NO RIGHT TO CALL ME NAMES AS YOU HAVE DONE BY WRITING, “I am going to put the name ‘David Schied’ on my List of Bad Apples, Ingrates, and Madmen and tell you, Sir, that you are a cad and that any name-calling began with your completely unwarranted and undeserved attacks this morning and in my opinion anyone who does such things when plainly on the receiving end of an undeserved  favor is not only an ungrateful cad, but a fool to boot.”

MS. REISINGER: YOU OWE ME A PERSONAL APOLOGY. ADDITIONALLY, BECAUSE YOU HAVE KNOWN THAT I HAVE BEEN MAKING THIS DIALOGUE “PUBLIC” (AT LEAST TO A HUNDRED OTHERS), YOU OWE ME A PUBLIC APOLOGY AS WELL. I BELONG ON NO “LIST” SUCH AS YOU HAVE DESCRIBED, NOR DO I BELONG ON ANY GOVERNMENT “TERRORIST” LIST. I AM NOT A “BAD APPLE;” I AM NOT AN “INGRATE;” AND I AM NOT A “MADMAN.” NEITHER AM I A “CAD.”

I MADE NO “ATTACK” AGAINST YOU, AND THOUGH MY OTHER ADVERSARIES EMPLOYED BY GOVERNMENT MAY CLAIM THAT I AM A “PAPER TERRORIST,” THAT IS FAR FROM THE TRUTH. SOMETIMES IT TAKES A LOT OF WRITING TO GET BEYOND THE “ONION” LAYERS OF OUTRIGHT FRAUD THAT GET DUMPED BY PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO LACK INTEGRITY, SCREW OTHERS, AND THEN BLAME THEIR VICTIMS. (THIS IS A PATTERN OF CERTAIN TYPES OF PEOPLE WHO WORK “FOR” THE GOVERNMENT LIKE SOME PEOPLE MAY THINK YOU MIGHT BE AS A FOILING AGENT.

AT ANY RATE, GIVEN THAT I HAVE SEEN YOU COMPEL ARNIE ROSNER (“SCANNEDRETINA.COM”) PRESENT YOU WITH A PUBLIC APOLOGY ON HIS WEBSITE, I AM HEREIN GIVING HIM PERMISSION TO PUBLISH THIS ENTIRE EMAIL DIALOGUE (OR ANY RELEVANT PART) ON HIS WEBSITE, AS MY DEMAND THAT YOU PROVIDE ME WITH A PUBLIC APOLOGY. SHOULD YOU FIND THE INTESTINAL FORTITUDE TO DO IT, YOU MAY GO THROUGH HIM FOR POSTING OF YOUR PUBLIC APOLOGY. IF YOU SEND ME A PRIVATE ONE, I WILL FORWARD IT TO HIM AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE “TRUTH” ABOUT YOU SINCE WE ALL KNOW YOUR AUTHORSHIP OF THIS BOOK SOLD IN THE PUBLIC MAKES YOU A PUBLIC PERSONNA SUBJECT TO CLOSER PRIVATE SCRUTINY (AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT VIOLATE YOUR “RIGHT” TO PRIVACY).

In conclusion, in any regard, I will follow through with my implied and/or stated intention to honor your wishes to keep the “wet-ink” copy in a safe place while “certify[ing] a direct copy of the wet-ink version for the court record” and “the original on display for the court” and for the public to have access to as long as I have the funding to do so. (Note that I have little funding anymore and “NEED” donations to sustain my nearly decade and a half long depletion of ALL of my resources to establish a network of like-minded “patriots” who care about the people as well as the future of this country…..not your bullshit blame and name-calling as the final result of all of my selfless and very painful efforts. My hope is that perhaps Arnie Rosner may help me by taking in donations on my behalf and use them to help keep me afloat to do further good works like I am doing, whether it is exposing the corruption in the courts, or the corruption of people like you who appear to be an infiltrator setting out to ruin the reputation of good people like me.)

As you so sarcastically ended your last email to me with the statement “My compliments” I sign off from you with the following addition statement:

I was intending to offer my services to you as “custodian” and advocate of your book; but no longer intend to do so, secondarily because you never explained those “conditions” for what such a “custodian” does besides keep the original in safekeeping and making the rest openly public to a court (and thus to the public at large). Given what is above and below, I intend to do no more and no less than originally agreed. I will work through Arnie Rosner to alert the public from now on as to what exactly I am doing. I wish to ask you to stick your “list of Bad Apples, Ingrates, and Madmen” where the sun don’t shine and consider your end of “business” with me as having now been completed. I will be working on my end of that contract, which I aim to complete in the very near future, God willing.

Cordially yours,

David Schied

Disclaimer: This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. The accompanying message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain proprietary and/or confidential information which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipients, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy the original message and any copies of the message as well as any attachments to the original message. Thank you for your cooperation.

NOTE: – I/WE ARE NOT PART OF THE SOVEREIGN CITIZENS MOVEMENT. I/We do not endorse or entertain the fiction such as bills of exchange, redeeming and/or discharging through trust accounts; nor do I/we involve ourselves with contracts, commercial liens. I/We do not offer legal advice nor “practice law.” I/We maintain that the power of the Grand Jury is to investigate, to subpoena, and to write true bills of indictment, true bills of presentments and true bills of information.

— On Mon, 6/20/16, Anna von Reitz <avannavon@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Anna von Reitz <avannavon@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: Follow up: Reply to Response from Ms. AnnavonReitz: UNFULFILLED PROMISES TO DELIVER a wet ink book for use in my upcoming SCOTUS filing

To: “David Schied” <deschied@yahoo.com>

Date: Monday, June 20, 2016, 8:20 PM

I think the situation IS

self-evident and self-explanatory but in case anyone reading

this doesn’t get the point— you need a wet-ink copy of

our affidavit of probable cause to enter it in a court case

that benefits you and an unknown number of other people. You

contacted me and I agreed to send one such wet-ink

copy subject to certain conditions.

I attempted to send the copy about

three days after your initial contact. It came back to me

about ten days to two weeks later by my recollection as an

“addressee unknown” returned to

sender.

By that time

you were enroute to Florida. I thought it better if Rodger

could simply loan you his copy instead of risking a second

mailing to Michigan.

One way or another, presumably

because Rodger was in Europe, that did not

happen.

Now you are

coming back and jumping all over me like a toddler having a

tantrum and wasting more of my time and money taking care of

YOUR problem which never had a thing to do with me in the

first place.

My son

just got back from the Post Office with the receipt showing

$16.95 plus $2.65 in insurance to Novi, Michigan, which is

pretty hard to mistake for any other place on earth. If I

had MORE time to waste on silly ungrateful rude stupid

people who obviously think I had something to gain

somehow—when I am the one paying the bill in ALL respects

BOTH times— I could search through the box and find the

mated receipt.

Instead, I am going to put the name

“David Schied” on my List of Bad Apples, Ingrates,

and Madmen and tell you, Sir, that you are a cad and that

any name-calling began with your completely unwarranted and

undeserved attacks this morning and in my opinion anyone who

does such things when plainly on the receiving end of an

undeserved  favor is not only an ungrateful cad, but a

fool to boot.

My

compliments.

On Monday,

June 20, 2016, David Schied <deschied@yahoo.com>

wrote:

Ms.

Reisinger:

I shall reserve any further comments until I see ANYTHING I

should gratuitous to you about. So far, I only repeat myself

on seeing nothing but name-calling and excuses for empty

words delivered to me, not as a “beggar” or a

piece of crap wishing to “attract flies,” but as

the potential comrade that others do perceive me to be.

Somebody that I will not mention thanked me for including

him/her on my past emails stating as follows in a return

email. Perhaps you can learn a little from your own words,

which if you’re not careful, may come back to bite you

even harder than my words when you fail to “walk the

talk”:

“I

was recently on a call where Reitz stated: ‘When dealing

with the corruption particularly with the courts

we must

admit that it’s not all the faults of the judges because

they can not know in what way we are standing –

– as an

actual human or a corporation. And so we must take

responsibility for our parts in this….”

(Emphasis

on the last sentence herein)

So you say that I deserve a “whipping” do you? For

believing your words? In trusting that you would do what you

said you would do? That you would do it without my coercion

and by your own free will gesture? With reasonable timing?

And do it with the courtesy of reasonable communication

about what you were doing?

And you blame me for for your sending me something at the

last minute in Michigan when I say I’m going to Florida?

And you blame me for your not getting a hold of Rodger

Dowdell, or for him not coordinating something on your

behalf? And without even informing me that I was to be the

beneficiary of such action by either you or Rodger Dowdell?

And you blame me for what you sent to Michigan being

returned back to you with the words “Unknown

Addressee” printed on the package in handwriting or

stamp that is none of my own?

Again, the Evidence speaks for itself! Why do you not send a

picture to me of the face of the returned package? Or send

me a screen shot of your telephone log to show you tried to

telephone ME….even once?

Clearly, you are hypocritical. If you were in the military

battlefield and saw one of your own outnumbered and fighting

with his last breath and his last dime (because he was

fighting as his own man and not part of a military

industrial complex froth with “salary” and

“benefits”) would you really turn your back on

that freedom fighter and call him a “beggar” after

having first communicated to him from afar, and of your own

free will, to inform him that you’ll be right there with

a little of your own ammunition? Would you then take no

responsibility if he trusted your words and shot off

additional rounds of his own ammunition while depending upon

you to at least PROVE yourself worthy of the claim that you

at least TRIED?

You are arrogant as well as callous. At least I can deal

with you without calling you names as you have done with

me.

Again, I will reserve my “gratitude” until I see

that you have at least honored Elvia Saravia’s faith

that I might have all along intended to use your

“ammunition” honorably, rather than to have it

come to me as “stinking” with your abhorrent

insults, cut-downs, and relegation of blame; while

insinuating that I should be “grateful” at all for

you pinning a claim upon me that I have been oppressively

treating you as some form of “servant.” Clearly,

you are in the fight for yourself. If by some quirk of

forgetfulness you have found a moment of consideration for

another, being Ms. Saravia in New York, and your graces

somehow find their way to me, either in Elvia’s name or

through her generosity to me, I will then give thanks as I

see it appropriate; and not until then.

Good day. I will look to my mailbox later this week in case

your son is sending a package to me; and I’ll keep my

phone open to Elvia in the event that you are sending the

package to her instead for forwarding or otherwise.

Cordially yours,

David Schied

Disclaimer: This e-mail is covered by the Electronic

Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510-2521 and

is legally privileged. The accompanying message and any

attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients

and may contain proprietary and/or confidential information

which may be privileged or otherwise protected from

disclosure. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or

distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended

recipients, please contact the sender by reply email and

destroy the original message and any copies of the message

as well as any attachments to the original message. Thank

you for your cooperation.

NOTE: – I/WE ARE NOT PART OF THE SOVEREIGN CITIZENS

MOVEMENT. I/We do not endorse or entertain the fiction such

as bills of exchange, redeeming and/or discharging through

trust accounts; nor do I/we involve ourselves with

contracts, commercial liens. I/We do not offer legal advice

nor “practice law.” I/We maintain that the power

of the Grand Jury is to investigate, to subpoena, and to

write true bills of indictment, true bills of presentments

and true bills of information.

About arnierosner

As an American I advocate a republic form of government, self-reliance, and adherence to the basic philosophy of the founding fathers and the founding documents, I ONLY respect those who respect and "HONOR" their honor. No exceptions!
This entry was posted in Civil Rights Violations. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s