Time: Mon Jul 28 22:56:04 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA17603;
	Mon, 28 Jul 1997 22:55:51 -0700 (MST)
	by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA03605;
	Mon, 28 Jul 1997 22:53:41 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 22:52:59 -0700
To: Bob & Karen Powell <bkpowell@map.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLF: DOJ does not read pleadings, U.S.A. v. Gilbertson
References: <>

Thanks for this encouragement, Karen.

We are putting everything we have into
this case.  This was a big error on DOJ's
part, because the IRC is demonstrably
vague.  For proof, read "Congresswoman
Suspected of Income Tax Evasion" in the
Supreme Law Library at URL:


If you haven't seen this evidence before,
it is rather breath-taking, to say the

Be well.

/s/ Paul Mitchell
Counselor at Law

At 01:41 AM 7/29/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Thanks for sending this. I am sure you have seen that
>we have been trying to help the Sweeneys of Massachusetts.
>I am not an attorney but I can certainly see how the legal
>system is being abused by some of these so called lawyers
>that are hiding the bank and government fraud. I hope you
>can crack this case. It will help us all.
>Good luck,
>At 09:43 PM 7/28/97 -0700, you wrote:
>>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

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 3.0.3 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