Time: Tue Jul 29 06:25:40 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA10999
	for [address in tool bar]; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 02:07:05 -0700 (MST)
	by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA29467
	for <FUTUREWORK@csf.colorado.edu>; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 22:04:15 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 22:03:32 -0700
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
To: Designing for POST-INDUSTRIAL REALITIES <futurework@csf.colorado.edu>
Subject: SLF: DOJ does not read pleadings, U.S.A. v. Gilbertson

Dear Clients, Friends, and Media:

Whether or not Everett C. Gilbertson can afford
to pay for the legal work that would be required
to rebut DOJ'S REPLY BRIEF in his appeal to the
8th Circuit, there are numerous fatal errors
which this REPLY BRIEF has made.  

I hereby volunteer to do as much as I can 
to demonstrate these errors, in addition to 
other serious errors which have been made 
in this extremely weak, legally incorrect, 
and embarrassingly short REPLY BRIEF.

Here goes:

We now have definitive proof that U.S. Attorneys
are not reading pleadings which defendants are
filing in criminal tax cases.  The following 
documents the written proof, for the record:

In DOJ's REPLY BRIEF in U.S.A. v. Gilbertson,
Messrs. David L. Lillehaug and Henry J. Shea
of the U.S. Attorneys office in Minneapolis,
Minnesota, claim that Gilbertson has raised
"void for vagueness" for the first time on
appeal.   They were "assisted" by Ms. Amy Larson,
Law Clerk.  Quoting now:

"Defendant's final argument contends that the
Internal Revenue Code (IRC) is unconstitutionally
vague. 4/"  [REPLY BRIEF, page 9]

Footnote 4 reads:

"Although defendant earlier challenged the authority
of the United States government to collect income
taxes from him, he appears to have raised this
particular issue for the first time on appeal.
Issues raised for the first time on appeal are 
generally waived."

Gilbertson and his Counsel know full well that 
issues raised for the first time on appeal are 
generally waived.

However ...

... this is very sad, but very conclusive evidence,
that these U.S. Attorneys DID NOT READ Gilbertson's
pleadings.  On three (3) separate occasions during
the pre- and post-trial proceedings, Gilbertson
moved the USDC for an indefinite stay of proceedings, 
pending final resolution of his challenge to the 
constitutionality of the Jury Selection and Service Act. 
 
In the sworn statement which MUST accompany 
such a STAY MOTION, pursuant to the JSSA itself, 
Gilbertson submitted the following:

"The case of U.S. v. Cruikshank is famous, not
only for confirming this distinction between
State Citizens and U.S. citizens, but also for
establishing a key precedent in the area of due 
process.  This precedent underlies the 'void for
vagueness' doctrine which can and should be
applied to nullify the IRC."


Again, this particular paragraph was repeated 
on three (3) different occasions to the 
United States District Court ("USDC"), and to all 
interested parties, including of course the
office of the United States Attorneys in 
Minneapolis, Minesota state, the Attorney General
and the Solicitor General in Washington, D.C.

You would think that three times would be 
enough.  We now wonder if DOJ in D.C. even
bothered to read the pleadings either.

Evidently, these U.S. Attorneys were not aware
that this sworn statement was, quite simply, a
verified excerpt from Chapter 11 of the
book entitled "The Federal Zone: Cracking the
Code of Internal Revenue."  It is fair to
say that the author of this book nearly spent 
as much time on this chapter, as ALL the other
chapters combined;  it is grammatically,
legally, and historically as precise, and 
nearly perfect, as anything ever written on the
subject of sovereignty, as that term is 
pertinent to decoding the Internal Revenue
Code.  See definition of "United States" in
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, for
more proof.

Given this, it is nothing less than a crass and
gross insult to the American People that these U.S. 
Attorneys [sic] would not even read it.  

Perhaps, they are just too busy lining their 
pockets with kick-backs from the IRS, 
facilitating more bribes to line the pockets 
of federal judges, and forcing Citizens to line up 
for mug shots and bread lines at federal prison
camps around the nation.

I am truly appalled.

Messrs. Lillihaug and Shea, you have now 
made these fatal mistakes with the wrong man.


/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com



      

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail