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: <3.0.3.16.19970728214317.327f9634@pop.primenet.com>
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:
http://www.supremelaw.com
If you haven't seen this evidence before,
it is rather breath-taking, to say the
least!
Be well.
Sincerely,
/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,
>
>Karen
>
>---------------------------------------
>
>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
>>http://www.supremelaw.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>
========================================================================
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