Time: Thu Jun 12 04:58:08 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id EAA23413;
	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 04:51:08 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 04:50:12 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLF: OPENING BRIEF, U.S.A. v. Gilbertson, 8th Cir.

Excerpt from Appellant's OPENING BRIEF, due June 18, 1997,
U.S.A. v. Gilbertson, Gilbertson v. U.S. et al.
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 
Case Number #97-2099-MNST

[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]

     Appellant submits  that the  vagueness and ambiguities which

were introduced  deliberately into  the federal income tax system

have resulted  in a  set of  laws, statutes,  regulations, rules,

forms, practices,  policies, procedures, and customs which are so

terribly complex  and intentionally  deceptive, that  the average

federal citizen  is very  far from ever being able to understand,

or decipher,  the real  meaning and intent of it all.  These were

the very  same persons who were asked to render a verdict against

Appellant in the instant case.  Lex non cogit impossibilia.

     The combined  result of this massive fraud is a travesty and

a tragedy  of the  worst kind, because Appellant has succeeded in

proving herein  that there  are, in  fact, more  than two hundred

million Americans  who find  themselves situated  in exactly  the

same position  as Appellant.   And  that position is one in which

the American  People must  now struggle  daily, hourly, sometimes

minute-by-minute,  in  the  face  of  an  ugly  and  premeditated

extortion racket which now pervades the entire Land (both zones),

in blatant violation of the fundamental principles which were set

down more than two centuries ago in the supreme Law of this Land.

     Those principles have withstood every single challenge which

has been  mounted against  their supremacy  since they were first

consecrated into  Law on  June 21, 1788, the first day of summer,

the longest  day of the year, Counselor's birthday, and the first

day on  which freedom  had, at  long  last,  become  The  Primary

Principle upon  which  Our  unique  government  was  founded  and

dedicated, the day on which God's generous light from His intense

burning Sun would shine the longest, and remain that way forever.

     Freedom.  Oh, Freedom!  Quo vadis, Freedom?  Quo vadis?

     As against  these immensely moving principles, which federal

government employees now shirk at their own great loss, Appellant

returns to the incredibly accurate prediction in Justice Harlan's

courageous protest to the dangerous perils of the Downes Doctrine

in Downes v. Bidwell infra.  Long live protest!  Quoting now:

     The idea prevails with some  --  indeed, it found expression
     in arguments  at the  bar   --  that we have in this country
     substantially or practically two national governments;  one,
     to be  maintained  under  the  Constitution,  with  all  its
     restrictions;   the  other  to  be  maintained  by  Congress
     outside and  independently of that instrument, by exercising
     such powers  as other nations of the earth are accustomed to
                  [Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 at 380 (1901)]
                              [Harlan dissenting, emphasis added]

To appreciate  how alarmed  Justice Harlan had become as a result

of this new "theory", consider the following from His dissent:

     I take  leave to  say that  if the principles thus announced
     should ever  receive the  sanction of  a  majority  of  this
     court, a  radical and  mischievous change  in our  system of
     government will be the result.  We will, in that event, pass
     from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected
     by  a  written  constitution  into  an  era  of  legislative
     absolutism. ...

     It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of
     a government  outside of  the supreme  law of the land finds
     lodgment in  our constitutional  jurisprudence.   No  higher
     duty rests  upon this court than to exert its full authority
     to  prevent   all  violation   of  the   principles  of  the

                     [Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 at 379-382]
                      [(1901), Harlan dissenting, emphasis added]

     The United  States will  now take  careful note that We, the

People of the United States of America, will not sit idly by, and

witness the  systematic destruction and premeditated violation of

everything which  We hold  most dear.   The  principles We uphold

herein, have  been upheld  by many  courts of  this great Nation;

they were reiterated in People v. Boxer supra as follows:

     A practice  condemned by the Constitution cannot be saved by
     historical acceptance and present convenience.

           [U.S. v. Woodley, 726 F.2d 1328, 1338 (9th Cir. 1984)]
                                                 [emphasis added]

     It is  obviously correct  that no  one acquires  a vested or
     protected right  in violation  of the  Constitution by  long
     use, even  when that span of time covers our entire national
     existence and indeed predates it.

                       [Walz v. Tax Commission of New York City,]
                     [397 U.S. 664 at 678 (1970), emphasis added]

                             #  #  #

Paul Andrew Mitchell                 : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA;  M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine

tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.2 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com   : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this

As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail