Time: Mon Jun 16 04:54:09 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA12732; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 04:38:37 -0700 (MST) by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id EAA03849; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 04:38:32 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 04:37:06 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLF: Gilberston Appeal References: <3.0.2.16.19970614071750.32871c5c@mailhost.primenet.com> At 12:42 AM 6/16/97 -0500, you wrote: >Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: >> >> The briefing schedule requires the OPENING BRIEF >> to be filed before June 18. Then, the U.S. has >> until July 18 to respond. Then, we still have >> a chance to rebut their response. So, there >> won't be any "results" until after the court >> has been briefed and, possibly, after oral >> arguments, which have been requested. > >What party has requested these "oral arguments"? Appellant requested leave for me to make them: 5 minutes for each of 7 issues = 35 minutes max. >Will Everett make the arguments, or will that be >the job of counsel (Supreme Law Firm)? > >What do *you* suspect will be the U.S. response, >exactly? (considering the locos at on the 8th!) Something stupid like their response in U.S.A. v. Looker, e.g. state Citizens are resident aliens. (??) > >> Gilbertson mailed all 10 copies to the Clerk of >> the 8th Circuit yesterday, so we are now GO for >> a full-blown examination of numerous constitutional >> questions that arose, including of course his major >> challenge to the Jury Selection and Service Act. > >Presumably, Gilberson has read the brief. What are >his thoughts? Is he positive? Or, perhaps he is >truly gung-ho?! Does he realize that his name could >go down in history? (as will Paul Andrew Mitchell's =) More concerned right now about getting the mail to be delivered. As of Saturday morning, the outgoing mail was stacked in the FPC staging area, with no indication that it will move at any time in the near future. Mrs. Gilbertson will expedite today, by calling Court Clerk in St. Louis to confirm their receipt of all the appendices and the courtesy copy which I sent directly to the Court, via Priority U.S. Mail last week. Also, the entire filing was also mailed via Express U.S. Mail on DOS diskettes, including "The Federal Zone." But, the courtesy copy does not have the Appellant's signature, and he is proceeding In Propria Persona (not a trivial matter). > >> Gilbertson was convicted of 2 counts of falsifying >> a federal income tax return, for reporting only >> the income he received from the federal zone. >> I was brought in after the conviction. > >How did the IRS take him down? Did he have the assistance >of counsel before the conviction? Yes, Public Pretender, who later filed a POSITION OF THE PARTIES in which the defendant allegedly admitted to the liability. We succeeded in striking this admission. Mr. Scott also failed to produce credentials, so he is one of the "et al.'s" in the DCUS FOIA suit. > >How did *you* learn of Gilbertson? Did he seek you out? His paralegal at that time met me at a workshop in Nebraska, and after that, he botched the MOTION TO STAY by altering the content of a crucial AFFIDAVIT. It was at that point that the defendant learned who had really done the work, so he contacted me directly. > >> Yes, I wrote the entire OPENING BRIEF, because >> the defendant is now in FPC Duluth, Minnesota. > >When can we see the entire brief? (patiently awaiting) I am negotiating right now with the spouse to see if we can sell it to raise funds. The OPENING BRIEF was expensive, because of all the printing, binding, and shipping. I can send you a hard copy for $25, and that would go to defray Gilbertson's legal costs (in other words, I would deduct it from the outstanding invoice). > >Keep up the wonderful work, Counselor Mitchell!!! Thank you. Yes, I do also feel that this case is at least as significant as Susan B. Anthony, and maybe also Dred Scott. Our treatment of the Guarantee Clause is first class, and first impression! /s/ Paul Mitchell http://www.supremelaw.com > >> Thanks for your interest. >> >> /s/ Paul Mitchell >> http://www.supremelaw.com >> >> At 09:01 PM 6/13/97 -0400, you wrote: >> >Paul, Need to know the results of the Appeal. Roger wants to know >> > what it's all about. Was this Opening Brief a product of >> > your expertise? Damn Good Job, Thanks, > <snip> ======================================================================== 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