Saturday, November 2, 2013

MAIL FRAUD: Is it okay when the DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY does it?

It's a valid question, plain & simple. So, please, check your emotions/feelings at the door...

Screenshot Image of my question as posted on Yahoo! Answers on Thursday, October 31st of 2013.

I posted this question on Yahoo! Answers two days ago. So far, only one (1) response (not an answer, which I decided not to flag as inappropriate simply because I wanted the world to see the nonsense some people spout-off to incite adverse reactions) has been posted by an obvious troll who, by my assessment, mainly posts answers to questions listed in the "Law & Ethics" category on the site. 

I bring my question here in hopes of getting your answersnot slander

It matters to me not that any does/doesn't care that this crime has been perpetrated against me by the DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE and/or CRAIG WATKINS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY. It does, however, matter that someone/something out there doesn't want you to know about it. So I'm putting it all on the line to present this to you. I feel that you should not have to perish from a lack of knowledge as the Holy Bible says that my people do. 

How many is too many? I mean how many of my brothers and sisters dying from said lack of knowledge is too many?

I believe the answer is one (1). That's all that it takes to get my attention. If whether or not you believe the same is your business though, not mine. My conscious is clean as I am doing my part in re the fight against tyranny and perversion of due process of law.

I have also posted this same question on Craigslist in hopes of reaching more interested men and/or women. The following is a screenshot of the question as is currently posted/presented at  http://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/vnn/4165839125.html. If you'd like to submit your answer to me directly, please use the reply email address listed in the top right corner of the post's page on Craigslist.

Screenshot Image of post in re as displayed on Craigslist @ http://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/vnn/4165839125.html

Just in case you're wondering, "What is mail fraud?" I present you with the following definition:
mail fraud. An act of fraud using the U.S. Postal Service, as in making false representations through the mail to obtain an economic advantage. 18 USCA §§ 1341-1347. [Cases: Postal Service -->35. C.J.S. Postal Service and Offenses Against Postal Laws § 23.] [See Black's Law Dictionary - 8th Edition.] 
To grasp a solid (unwavering) comprehension of the previous definition, one should also know the meaning of the term "fraud" which sets the precedent for the definition of "mail fraud." Well, I shall oblige with the following definition as also presented in Black's Law Dictionary (which, according to Wikipedia, "...is the most widely used law dictionary in the United States").
fraud, n. 1. A knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment. Fraud is usually a tort, but in some cases (especially when the conduct is willful) it may be a crime. ― Also termed intentional fraud. 2. A misrepresentation made recklessly without belief in its truth to induce another person to act. 3. A tort arising from a knowing misrepresentation, concealment of material fact, or reckless misrepresentation made to induce another to act to his or her detriment. 4. Unconscionable dealing; especially in contract law, the unfair use of the power arising out of the parties' relative positions and resulting in an unconscionable bargain.  [See Black's Law Dictionary - 8th Edition.] 
With the definitions provided herein, in conjunction with all other prima facie evidence presented on this blog (http://harveysearcy.blogspot.com/), one should be able to competently say that the DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY has indeed committed mail fraud.

If you read the letter that was sent to me by CRAIG WATKINS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CIVIL DIVISION , you should have noticed that the author and/or CRAIG WATKINS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CIVIL DIVISION, did indeed commit forgery in the drafting of said letter. The crime committed constitutes a felony on behalf of the current DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CRAIG WATKINS, which subsequently makes him ineligible to hold his current position in Public Office and liable for all damages to me including the violation of my rights and liberties along with all infringements upon my copyright.

By law, especially contract law, I have the right to hold the current DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CRAIG WATKINS, accountable for all violations/infringements committed against me in his name and shall do so.

As I have been composing this post for well over the past three hours, I shall now close with PEACE, LOVE AND RESPECT...ALWAYS & FOREVER.

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

UPDATE: Recording of Affidavit of Truth RE850255155US

Today, after picking up my daughter from school, I took a trip to the post office to check the post office box for any presentments that may come. There was one item addressed to Harvey Lee Lane Searcy, My common-law copyrighted property (used without my prior authorization via My express written consent), sent by an unauthorized intervening third-party called "CRAIG WATKINS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CIVIL DIVISION". The item is a manila envelope that contained the documents that I had mailed to John F. Warren, COUNTY CLERK, in re Recording of Affidavit of Truth RE850255155US (including Postal Money Orders) and a letter addressed to Harvey Lee Lane Searcy from "CRAIG WATKINS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CIVIL DIVISION".

The following is a copy of the letter aforementioned.

Letter addressed to Harvey Lee Lane Searcy from CRAIG WATKINS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CIVIL DIVISION - page 1 of 1

The above displayed letter is prima facie evidence of the FRAUD being perpetrated against me in accord with the CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD me, Harvey Lee Lane: Searcy, with malicious intent. Not only does the author and/or "CRAIG WATKINS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CIVIL DIVISION" therewith interfere in my commercial affairs the purport to commit fraud against me, but they do so in the name of the STATE OF TEXAS.

The author forges/counterfeits my common law copyrighted property (i.e. "HARVEY LEE LANE SEARCY" and any/all derivatives thereof) with two (2) separate occurences evidenced therein, and one (1) occurrence on the white envelope, with the COUNTY OF DALLAS - STATE OF TEXAS seal thereto affixed, taped to the manila envelope in which the letter displayed above was sent therewith using My common law copyrighted property without My prior express written consent constituting Unauthorized Use thereof and subjecting the author and CRAIG WATKINS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CIVIL DIVISION to liability, and responsibility to honor the debt as a result of said Unauthorized Use, in the form of Unauthorized Use Fees in the sum certain amount of One Million (1,000,000.00) United States Silver Dollars per each occurrence. That's a SUBTOTAL of Three Million (3,000,000.00) United States Silver Dollars that is due to me by the author and/or CRAIG WATKINS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CIVIL DIVISION

The author also, when sequestering my documents, either knowingly or unknowingly, but still willfully, subjected themselves to further liability, and responsibility to honor the debt as a result thereof, in the form of Unauthorized Use Fees in the sum certain amount of One Million (1,000,000.00) United States Silver Dollars per each occurrence. With (by my account) 35 occurrences of Unauthorized Use of my common law copyrighted property, the author makes themselves liable for a staggering amount of debt due to me and subject to foreclosure. For sequestering my documents there is another valid debt due to me in the SUBTOTAL amount of Thirty-five Million (35,000,000.00) United States Silver Dollars.

The author, via their own action(s) (i.e. Unauthorized Use(s) of my common law copyrighted property), then commits thirty-five (35) counts of MAIL FRAUD (i.e. an act of fraud using the U.S. Postal Service, as in making false representations through the mail to obtain economic advantage [See Black's Law Dictionary - 8th Edition]) therewith accumulating further liability for damages against me at a rate of One Million (1,000,000.00) United States Silver Dollars per each occurrence. This subjects the author and/or CRAIG WATKINS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CIVIL DIVISION to another valid debt due to me in the SUBTOTAL amount of Thirty-five Million (35,000,000.00) United States Silver Dollars.

I hereby consolidate the above stated separate debts-due for My private accounting purposes into a new accounts receivable account which shall hereinafter be referred to as/by account number AR102913HLLS to reflect/collect the total amount of liability, and debt-due due to me by the author and/or CRAIG WATKINS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CIVIL DIVISION,  for all damages incurred. The GRAND TOTAL of the amount due for the above referenced account, AR102913HLLS, is Seventy-Three Million (73,000,000.00) United States Silver Dollars. 


The invoice to provide a valid assessment of the debt shall be posted here after it is delivered to CRAIG WATKINS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CIVIL DIVISION.

The author of the aforementioned letter therein attempts to deceive one with the contention that my "Affidavit of Truth" is not an Affidavit (also an instrument in writing) "...that is permitted or required to be recorded by a county clerk." The author therein references §192.001 of Texas Local Government Code as their precedent for not only sequestering and delaying the recording of my document, but for FORGERY (pursuant to Article 924. [530] "Forgery" defined.  as detailed under TITLE 14. OF OFFENSES AGAINST TRADE, COMMERCE AND THE CURRENT COIN. of the Penal Code of the State of Texas, ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR SESSION OF THE THIRTY-SECOND LEGISLATURE in 1911) as well.

To further establish my standing in re the charge of CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD, I direct your attention to the author's statement in the letter which reads:

See  Texas Attorney General Opinions JC-0156 (1999); LO-98-016 (1998) (clerk may file and record a document only if authorized, or permitted to do so by a statute).

According to the Penal Code of the State of Texas, the author has committed forgery in the name of Craig Watkins, District Attorney with the signing of the fictitious name "DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, CIVIL DIVISION". As it is my firm belief that no living-breathing man and/or woman whose proper name is "DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, CIVIL DIVISION" exists, the author has indeed committed forgery with the intent to injure or defraud me, Harvey Lee Lane: Searcy.

The precedent for the previous paragraph is the following case law (common law), which reads:
The signing of a fictitious name to an instrument, with fraudulent intent, is forgery. Hocker v. State, 34 T. Cr. R., 359, 30 S. W. R., 783.

The author of the above displayed letter purports to deceive the person addressed in, and/or recipient of, the letter, containing the above mentioned quotation, believably to induce My withdrawal/retreat from the proverbial battle field and submission to their will (intent).

I wonder exactly why it is the author so chooses to not only violate my rights and liberties, but in doing so defy both logic and the law of the land (lex terrae).

Is it because my affidavit that has not been rebutted is prima facie evidence that is obviously dispositive of the matter at bar?

Or is it because they (i.e. those involved in the CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD me)  just don't want to have to pay me the money they owe?


I offer for proof and support of any/all torts and claims that may come as a result of these crimes against me, the other items that were enclosed in the manila envelope aforementioned:



REFUSED FOR RECORDING/RETURNED: Affidavit of Truth - Page 1 of 3
REFUSED FOR RECORDING/RETURNED: Affidavit of Truth - Page 2 of 3


REFUSED FOR RECORDING/RETURNED: Affidavit of Truth - Page 3 of 3

manila envelope that contained the above displayed letter

RETURNED: FORMAL NOTICE TO COUNTY CLERK - Page 1 of 3

RETURNED: FORMAL NOTICE TO COUNTY CLERK - Page 2 of 3

RETURNED: FORMAL NOTICE TO COUNTY CLERK with USPS PMOs- Page 3 of 3

REGISTERED MAIL # RE850255155US - Back of Envelope with Return Receipt still sttached

REGISTERED MAIL # RE850255155US - Front of Envelope with marking showing that it was scheduled for recording prior to sequestration by CRAIG WATKINS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CIVIL DIVISION.

Monday, October 28, 2013

Recording of Affidavit of Truth RE850255155US

This is my prima facie evidence of proof of recording of my Affidavit of Truth referenced by and marked with USPS Registered Mail # RE850255155US. The FORMAL NOTICE TO COUNTY CLERK that was mailed to John F. Warren, COUNTY CLERK of DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, is made available for review in support of my recording of my Affidavit of Truth.

Page 1 of 3 of FORMAL NOTICE TO COUNTY CLERK

Page 2 of 3 of FORMAL NOTICE TO COUNTY CLERK
Page 3 of 3 of FORMAL NOTICE TO COUNTY CLERK

Page 1 of 3 of Affidavit of Truth RE850255155US
Page 2 of 3 of Affidavit of Truth RE850255155US


Page 3 of 3 of Affidavit of Truth RE850255155US


The above displayed documents, along with USPS Postal Money Orders made available to cover all associated fees/costs, were delivered to John F. Warren, COUNTY CLERK, on October 22 of 2013 at 2:39 pm as reflected in and proven by both the screenshot image of the USPS Tracking results from USPS.com and scanned copy image of the "Track and Confirm Intranet" printout provided to me by a USPS Mail Clerk at the United States Postal Service Post Office in Red Oak, Texas, are made available for review below.

screenshot image of the USPS Tracking results from USPS.com
Page 1 of 2 of scanned copy image of the "Track and Confirm Intranet" printout provided to me by a USPS Mail Clerk at the United States Postal Service Post Office in Red Oak, Texas

Page 2 of 2 of scanned copy image of the "Track and Confirm Intranet" printout provided to me by a USPS Mail Clerk at the United States Postal Service Post Office in Red Oak, Texas

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

RE: Copyright Notice (PUBLISHER'S AFFIDAVITS for Weeks 1-4)

With each publishing of my Copyright Notice, therein is spelled out the minute details of the terms of doing business with me and demonstrated the sincerity and "full disclosure" on my part. The purpose of publishing said Copyright Notice is to make it known to every person, man, and/or woman my intent to protect and maintain what is rightfully mine exactly as is stated in said Copyright Notice and that I shall act accordingly in any/all event(s) someone/something does indeed infringe upon my copyright.

Prima Facie Evidence:

The following images are scanned copies of the PUBLISHER'S AFFIDAVITS verifying/proving that my Copyright Notice was indeed published in the Coleman Chronicle & Democratic Voice, "...which is a newspaper of general circulation published in the County of Coleman published for more than one year", for four (4) consecutive weeks between August 21st and September 17th of 2013.  

COPYRIGHT NOTICE - Publisher's Affidavit 1 of 4 - Affidavit
COPYRIGHT NOTICE - Publisher's Affidavit 1 of 4 - Envelope


COPYRIGHT NOTICE - Publisher's Affidavit 1 of 4 - NOTARY

COPYRIGHT NOTICE - Publisher's Affidavit 2 of 4 - Affidavit
COPYRIGHT NOTICE - Publisher's Affidavit 2 of 4 - Envelope


COPYRIGHT NOTICE - Publisher's Affidavit 2 of 4 - NOTARY

COPYRIGHT NOTICE - Publisher's Affidavit 3 of 4 - Affidavit
COPYRIGHT NOTICE - Publisher's Affidavit 3 of 4 - Envelope


COPYRIGHT NOTICE - Publisher's Affidavit 3 of 4 - NOTARY


COPYRIGHT NOTICE - Publisher's Affidavit 4 of 4 - Affidavit
COPYRIGHT NOTICE - Publisher's Affidavit 4 of 4 - Envelope


COPYRIGHT NOTICE - Publisher's Affidavit 4 of 4 - NOTARY

COPYRIGHT NOTICE - Publisher's Affidavit 4 of 4 - Affidavit (4 WEEKS)