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: <>

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
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

>> 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,

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