Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris c/o general delivery Battle Lake [zip code exempt] MINNESOTA STATE In Propria Persona Under Protest and by Special Visitation UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA FOURTH DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic], ) Case No. CR-4-96-65 ) Plaintiff [sic], ) NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR ) MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE: v. ) ) Rule 201(d), Federal Rules EVERETT C. GILBERTSON [sic], ) of Evidence ) Defendant [sic]. ) ________________________________) COMES NOW Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris, Citizen of Minnesota state and Defendant in the above entitled matter (hereinafter "Defendant"), to provide formal Notice to all interested parties, and to demand mandatory judicial notice by this honorable Court, pursuant to Rule 201(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, of His letter to Mr. Daniel M. Scott, dated March 27, 1997, which letter is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein. Mandatory judicial notice leaves no room for discretion on the part of this honorable Court, since the legislative intent of the word "shall" in Rule 201(d) has a compulsory meaning. Confer at "shall" in Black's Law Dictionary. Fifth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice: Page 1 of 5 VERIFICATION I, Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris, hereby verify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the "United States", that the attached document is a true and correct transcription of the original, with the sole exception of the original blue-ink signature, which signature I hereby apply to said document by proxy, so help Me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1). Dated: ______________________________ Respectfully submitted, /s/ Everett C. Gilbertson _____________________________________ Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris Citizen of Minnesota state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice Fifth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice: Page 2 of 5 c/o General Delivery Battle Lake [zip code exempt] MINNESOTA STATE March 27, 1997 Daniel M. Scott c/o 174 U.S. Courthouse 110 South Fourth Street Minneapolis 55401/tdc MINNESOTA STATE Subject: POSITION OF PARTIES, March 24, 1997 U.S.A. v. Gilbertson, USDC, #4-96-65 Dear Mr. Scott: I must emphatically object to the pleading which you have filed in the above case. In the first paragraph, you make a statement which falsely implies that I authorized you to prepare and file this pleading. This is just not true. I never authorized you to prepare such a pleading. I am forced to conclude either that a fundamental misunderstanding has developed between us or, worse, that you are deliberately siding with the opposing party(s), in blatant violation of My fundamental Right to effective assistance of Counsel. See Sixth Amendment. You will note from the pleadings which I have filed in recent weeks, that I am now proceeding In Propria Persona [sic]. Confer in Black's Law Dictionary for the precise legal definition of this mode of proceeding. I will not allow your negligence to create a presumption that I have admitted to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court in the instant case. I have not. You also contradict yourself in the pleading in question. In the first paragraph, you state that you are "standby counsel", but then below your signature, you state that you are "Attorney for Defendant." These two modes of assisting Me are totally and completely incompatible and irreconcilable. In the latter mode, I would not be proceeding In Propria Persona, and you would have general power of attorney over the entire case. I deny that you have such power over this case, or over Me or My property. You make an even more serious and egregious error by stating that "[T]he total tax due and owing for the two years in the indictment is approximately $13,650.00." I have never admitted that any such amount was "due and owing." Those are your words, not mine. Furthermore, this is an admission which I never authorized you to make to the Court, even if I had ever made such an admission to you privately. I regard such an admission by you to be a clear and present breach of your legal and moral obligations to honor client confidentiality in all cases. Fifth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice: Page 3 of 5 Moreover, a fundamental question remains unanswered in this case, and others like it, when licensed bar members like yourself proceed on the basis of the rebuttable assumption that there is an underlying liability statute for what you term as a "tax due and owing." The only extant liability statutes for the federal income tax are those enacted for withholding agents. See the sections cited in the IRC definition of "withholding agent" at IRC 7701(a)(16). Finally, you misrepresent our relationship by stating, incorrectly, that I am requesting "the lowest possible guideline range to be selected." I have never requested any such thing, and you are wrong to make such misrepresentative statement(s) before the United States District Court, without My approval. I must close by reminding you that you are claiming to be an officer of the court, who must have executed an oath of office. My FOIA request for same politely requested that you forward said request to the correct person, if you were not the correct person to provide the document(s) in question. Instead, you passed the matter back to Me. Your conduct in passing it back to Me suggests that you are trying to avoid the issue. If you knew enough to suggest the name(s) of persons to whom I should re- submit said requests, then why didn't you forward the requests yourself? Please answer this question in writing, because I intend to submit your answer into the official Court record of this case. Until such time as I receive proof of your credentials, I can and will proceed on the basis of the presumption that you do not have them. I herein express My intent to charge you with trespass and fraud, if you fail to produce your official credentials. Accordingly, I hereby demand that you withdraw your most recent pleading entitled POSITION OF PARTIES, and notice all interested party(s) of your decision to do so. If you do not withdraw it immediately (within 72 hours), this is formal Notice to you of My intent to strike said pleading permanently from the record. In the future, please submit all proposed pleadings to Me, for My prior written approval, before submitting anything to the Clerk and/or to any other interested party(s). If the request I am making in this paragraph is not clear, please say so, and I will elaborate the precise procedures I demand that you must follow until further notice from Me. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely yours, /s/ Everett C. Gilbertson Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris Citizen of Minnesota state copy: James M. Rosenbaum, presiding judge Francis Dosal, Clerk of Court Henry J. Shea, Assistant U.S. Attorney Minnesota State Bar Association Fifth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice: Page 4 of 5 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the "United States," that I am at least 18 years of age, a Citizen of one of the United States of America, and that I personally served the following document(s): NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE: Rule 201(d), Federal Rules of Evidence by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United States Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed to the following: Henry Shea United States Attorneys 110 South Fourth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota state Attorney General Department of Justice 10th & Constitution, N.W. Washington, D.C. Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th & Constitution, N.W. Washington, D.C. Dated: __________________________________ /s/ Everett C. Gilbertson __________________________________________ Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris Citizen of Minnesota state All Rights Reserved without Prejudice Fifth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice: Page 5 of 5 # # #
Return to Table of Contents for
U.S.A. v. Gilbertson, District Court