MEMO
TO: Dave Nelson
P.O. Box 233
Garland 84312
UTAH, USA
DATE: March 25, 2006 A.D.
SUBJECT: win rate of litigation against IRS
Dear Dave Nelson,
Thank you for the kindness and generosity which you displayed in the cover letter you sent with your SupremeLaw subscription.
The past week saw an unusually high peak in vicious defamation of our work on behalf of the People of America, so it was a refreshing change to read such complimentary comments from you.
We have a saying in our office: “Flak is always heaviest when you’re right over the target.” And as Christ Himself once said, “When they persecute you, remember that they persecuted Me first.”
You asked if we have a win rate for the litigation we have brought against the IRS. We are asked that question quite often, and to set the record straight, I am going to use this letter to answer your question in some detail.
Before doing so, however, I want to set the stage a bit, so that you will hopefully expand and enlarge your concept of “win” in this demonstrably hostile environment known as federal litigation.
After having 2 face-to-face confrontations with the late William H. Rehnquist, former Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, I tried to imagine a picture which would save me the proverbial thousand words that are normally required to convey a complex concept.
Imagine a chess board that is tilted up to a 45-degree angle. All white pieces are gone, except for the King, who is situated on the white King’s starting square.
Now, imagine that all 16 black pieces have moved forward 4 squares, and they are now situated on the squares just across the mid-line, in white’s half of the chess board.
Black moves first (because we are obviously not observing standard chess rules here).
This is the Rehnquist version of chess, and you’ll see, in what follows, exactly why this is not such an outrageous way of describing federal litigation, as I have experienced it to date.
The best way for you to acquire your own answers to the question you have posed is to review our now dated “Seminar Outline” here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/seminar.outline.htm
Of the cases mentioned in chronological order in that Outline, I consider the following to be significant accomplishments, if not outright “wins” as you might have intended that term:
(1) People v. Boxer
This is actually two cases, one of which began in the California Superior Court in Marin County, the other of which began in the California Supreme Court.
In the lower court case, Judge Gary Thomas ruled that his court did not enjoy jurisdiction to compel a Congresswoman to perform her duty. He ruled timely, which was required of him by the Law of Mandamus.
Instead of appealing that narrow, jurisdictional ruling, we huddled and discovered that we could file an original action in the California Supreme Court instead, thus preserving all the meritorious points that we had raised in the pleadings to the lower court.
The California Supreme Court accepted the case and transferred it one level below, to the California Court of Appeals, for an advisory opinion. That advisory opinion summarily denied our PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS.
At that point, I ran out of procedural knowledge and missed my deadline for appealing that decision upwards. The clerks held me to strict compliance with court rules, which I later discovered was inappropriate for someone appearing In Propria Persona.
Nevertheless, I want to stress that Respondent Barbara Boxer, now the U.S. Senator from California, never responded in any manner to either lawsuit.
As such, her silence not only activated estoppel; it also constituted fraud. See Carmine v. Bowen and U.S. v. Tweel.
In summary, then, I think it is fair to say that People v. Boxer turned out to be a Mexican Standoff: Boxer won in part because the Court of Appeals denied our Petition, and the People won in part because of Boxer’s total and complete silence.
The good news, of course, is that the certified documentary evidence which we filed in that case is now governed by the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution.
Therefore, the bottom line is that there is no 16th amendment in California –- not according to all the certified facts which were placed into evidence in the California Supreme Court.
I wish I could spend the time required to go into this much detail in every case which follows; but, for now please be satisfied with less detail, which can easily be supplemented by reviewing the pleadings which are readily available in the Supreme Law Library.
As a SupremeLaw Subscriber, I encourage you to ask questions in the same spirit that is evident in your letter: such a kind and respectful approach is much more likely to elicit a complete answer from me, and possibly from other subscribers too.
Please understand that a subscription does not obligate me to answer any posts to that list server, however. If you want to obligate me, then you must retain me for professional Counsel; then, both of us are in a contract for the performance of those services.
This is one of my favorite cases, because I was actually invited to litigate the case, and the federal judge assigned to enforce that SUBPOENA did authorize me to represent the trust that was served with that SUBPOENA.
Once I saw that extraordinary window of opportunity opening right in front of me, as predicted by a miraculous event I had experienced earlier on “The Road to Tucson”, I ordered the engine room to proceed all ahead full.
My “engine” was my new computer workstation, recently assembled by a small retail computer shop in California.
Even though the general manager of that trust privately confessed to me and to a few others that he was actually guilty, I did succeed in defeating a grand jury indictment of him.
So, in that limited sense, it was a win, a dramatic win.
I’m calling it “dramatic” because we did succeed in turning that case entirely around, and routed 1 IRS agent, 2 U.S. Attorneys, and 1 corrupt federal judge.
We also charged a judge on the Ninth Circuit for aiding and abetting the obstruction of justice which had occurred in the Federal district court in Tucson. That Ninth Circuit Judge later retaliated against me, for having charged him criminally.
A lot of people like to say that I “lost” this case because Leroy Schweitzer was sentenced to a long prison term.
However, that claim overly simplifies, and misrepresents, the several cases which I was expected to counsel pro bono, when I was flown up to Billings, Montana.
I began my involvement in that case when I received a report that federal ambulances were en route to Schweitzer’s farm: so, I petitioned the County Court there for a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (“TRO”) to restrain all federal employees from using any lethal force against the Montana Freemen (as they called themselves).
In this sense, we achieved our initial objective, because those federal agents never did start shooting, and the Freemen surrendered peacefully.
Thus, I think it is fair to say that my intervention may have helped to save their lives.
Also, what is not very well known, nor appreciated, is that I did initiate a separate lawsuit in People v. United States, which I earnestly invited Schweitzer et al. to join. They did not, however.
In this latter federal case, we sought to enforce my FOIA request for the credentials of all 600+ federal agents who were reportedly dispatched to apprehend Schweitzer.
After wrangling quite a bit with Judge Shanstrom in the Federal district court in Billings, he effectively threw up his hands and remanded the case back to the County Court, where it died.
This happened, despite the fact that our original FOIA request was still outstanding, and was never enforced by Shanstrom.
As you will often hear me say, the story is in the pleadings, which should speak for themselves.
So, you will do me and everyone else a favor by studying them first, and then asking questions which those pleadings do not answer of themselves.
If there was any single work which we might regard as our “masterpiece,” it would have to be Gilberson’s OPENING BRIEF to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, Missouri.
This case was moving along quite well, until Gilbertson was sentenced to 18 months in federal prison.
At that point, I believe he was the target of serious pressure, from agents unknown to me, and he threw me off the case, even though the OPENING BRIEF had been filed, and even though I had mailed to him a large REPLY to the government’s poor attempt to rebut that thorough OPENING BRIEF.
I responded to this situation by applying for formal intervention on behalf of the People of the USA.
This was rather dramatic, in retrospect, because that intervention permitted us to file proof that Congress had previously extended the U.S. Constitution into D.C. in 1871, and into all federal Territories, even future federal Territories, in 1873.
Nevertheless, the Eighth Circuit never even ruled on that application for intervention by the People ex rel.
Many months passed without any word from Gilbertson or from the Eighth Circuit.
Then, one day while I was browsing the Internet, I came upon a summary UNPUBLISHED decision in that case, which held that the Internal Revenue Code is not vague. This was obviously an incorrect decision, so I filed objections on behalf of the People.
Then, something totally unexpected happened. Three years later, a 3-judge panel on the same Eighth Circuit ruled that UNPUBLISHED decisions are unconstitutional.
Clearly, this had direct implications for their previously UNPUBLISHED opinion in USA v. Gilbertson.
So, it is very tempting to conclude that this was a “loss” and not a “win.” However, that very same Court has ruled that UNPUBLISHED decisions are unconstitutional.
Go figure!
In point of law, the OPENING BRIEF for Gilbertson remains without any known legal or factual errors.
(5) USA v. Wishart
I regard this case to one which demonstrates progress, if only because we succeeded in getting a formal admission from the Office of the U.S. Attorney in San Jose, California, that they have no powers of attorney to represent IRS employees in cases pending before the U.S. District Court there.
That admission came in response to a cross-complaint which I prepared for Donald E. Wishart, seeking declaratory relief concerning those missing powers of attorney.
In that case, we also prepared and filed our first attempt to obtain a PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION against the IRS, which would have forced them to deposit all tax collections daily into the Treasury of the United States.
Wishart went nuts, however, when he decided to retaliate against me by breaking and entering into my rented room in an adjacent city. This rendered me homeless, and threw me into a serious tailspin, from which it took many months for me to recover.
Wishart is now incarcerated in federal prison, and I was able to get back on my feet, thanks to a generous Christian brother who invited me to join his community in a small town near Yosemite National Park.
(6) Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.
This is a very complex and enormous case, which explored numerous facets of State and federal laws, with a primary focus to establish the important differences between constitutional courts and legislative tribunals.
Suffice it to say that all federal personnel assigned to that case lacked one or more of the required credentials, and they lacked jurisdiction in the first instance.
Also, at the Ninth Circuit, one of the “robes” assigned to that 3-judge panel also turned up without credentials.
Another one of those three was the judge whom I had earlier charged with aiding and abetting obstruction of our grand jury case in Tucson, Arizona. So, he obviously had an irreparable conflict of interest.
Finally, at the U.S. Supreme Court, 3 of the 9 “Justices” there also turned up without credentials.
You’ll need to decide for yourself if such outright criminal impersonation qualifies as a “win” or a “loss” for me.
I never did get an opportunity to try my case before a jury of my peers.
I believe it also important to give considerable attention, and weight, to the fact that all 129 named Defendants either fell silent, or formally waived their right to answer my 2 key pleadings in that case. You need to know that these 129 named Defendants included 20 major U.S. colleges and universities.
Thus, their silence, just like Barbara Boxer’s silence, activated estoppel and constituted fraud.
For your information, I saved COUNT SIX for a Civil RICO action in the Superior Court of California, and that Civil RICO case is presently under confidential administrative review by California State government officials.
The collective damages to date in those 2 cases now exceed $8 Billion (not million), not counting the standard 7% pre-judgment interest to which I am entitled by virtue of California State usury laws (7% simple interest is the maximum I can claim, no compounding).
There have been other, less well publicized cases in which we have defeated federal government attempts to persecute Citizens for resisting IRS oppression.
For example, the IRS petitioned the U.S. District Court in San Francisco on 2 different occasions, for an ORDER to show cause why I should not be compelled to obey an IRS administrative SUMMONS -- to produce books and records.
In the first such case, I filed a ton of pleadings and evidence into that court. Happily, without any further litigation, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker quietly dismissed that case.
So, that was another clear and unequivocal “win.” My book “The Federal Zone” was filed into evidence in that case, along with a ton of additional legal documentation.
In the second such case, I didn’t file anything, but ended up arguing for over 40 minutes with a federal judge “pro tem”. That extended argument is memorialized in the Preface to the Eighth Edition of “The Federal Zone.”
Briefly, I forced that second judge and the same U.S. Attorney into a corner, by verbally moving the court 4 different times for an ORDER to the AUSA -- to disclose the missing liability statute for IRC subtitle A.
That judge refused to do so, and the AUSA sat down in his chair and put his head in his hands.
Another one of those wins was Longner v. Desert Health Trust, in which we ended up charging more impostors with violations of 18 U.S.C. 912 and 1341 (impersonation and mail fraud, respectively).
For better or worse, I decided to take myself off that case after I volunteered to help the U.S. Coast Guard pro bono with 9/11 follow-up, because the client in the Longner case had children.
I have a policy which tries to keep children as far away from these extortion rackets as humanly possible, and I didn’t want my work for the Coast Guard to be the reason for any negative ramifications for that client.
In retrospect, I believe this was the correct thing to do, because our Coast Guard work inevitably led us to follow a chain of evidence indicating that the Mossad have been smuggling stolen plutonium into their reactor complex at Dimona, in the Negev Desert in southern Israel.
The Mossad are quite vicious and relentless about liquidating anyone who gets in their way.
For example, dig deep into the Valerie Plame/Joseph Wilson story, and I’m sure you’ll come to similar conclusions about these unscrupulous spies.
Happily, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has acted on the advice of people like myself, and convened several federal grand juries to investigate the Israeli spy ring that has infiltrated America.
I’m probably forgetting a few cases which you might regard as significant. The outstanding SUBPOENA to former Secretary of the Treasury Paul H. O’Neill definitely deserves an honorable mention.
Likewise, there is another outstanding SUBPOENA to The State Bar of California, but this does not concern taxes directly, only indirectly.
As Hillary Clinton is quoted to have said, all attorneys work for banks ultimately, and the income tax is really just collecting interest on the federal debt to foreign banks.
However, if one adopts that position that everything is connected to everything else, there is no end to the methodological complexity which this position requires.
Let’s do this: I’ll provide you with a DRAFT copy of this letter, and you can then provide feedback which may or may not suggest adding one or more of the cases which I have not summarized above.
I’ll be happy to make any additions that you think appropriate.
Thank you again for joining the SupremeLaw discussion list and message archive.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice