Time: Fri Dec 12 10:31:04 1997
To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Gilbertson/Mitchell (Mr. "Federal Zone") Appeal 
Cc: 
Bcc: 
References: 

And so, we go to the U.S. Supreme Court 
with these points, as I have predicted
all along.  That is, provided that 
Gilbertson chooses to do so.  After being
brainwashed in federal prison, he is
not likely to do so.

/s/ Paul Mitchell,
Candidate for Congress
http://supremelaw.com

p.s.  The dividing lines are becoming much
more clear, particularly when impostors
join these email lists, and pretend to be
concerned about freedom, when they are not.


At 09:22 AM 12/12/97 -0600, you wrote:
>You probably remember Dan Evans from his "Tax Protester FAQ".
>He has commented on Paul's brief.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dan Evans <evansdb@netaxs.com>
>Newsgroups: misc.taxes
>Date: Friday, December 12, 1997 9:11 AM
>Subject: Gilbertson/Mitchell (Mr. "Federal Zone") Appeal
>
>
>>The following recent unpublished decision is interesting only because 
>>Gilbertson's brief to the Eighth Circuit was prepared by Paul Mitchell,
>>author of "The Federal Zone."
>>
>>For the full text of Gilbertson's brief, in all its sovereign citizen splendor,
>>see http://supremelaw.com/library/usa_vs_gilbertson/opening.html
>>
>>As tax protestor arguments go, I would call Gilbertson's appeal 
>>"successful" in the sense that he was not sanctioned for filing a 
>>frivolous appeal, so at least he was no worse off than he started.
>>(Not all tax protestors can make that claim.)
>>
>>Dan Evans **********************
>>*This is not legal advice unless
>>*you agreed to pay for it.
>>*http://www.netaxs.com/~evansdb
>>
>>==========================================================
>>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
>>Appellee,
>>v.
>>EVERETT C. GILBERTSON,
>>Appellant. 
>>
>>UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
>>FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT 
>>
>>Submitted: November 28, 1997 
>>
>>Filed: December 10, 1997 
>>
>>APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
>>FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. 
>>
>>[UNPUBLISHED] 
>>
>>Before Wollman, Loken, and Hansen, Circuit Judges. 
>>
>>PER CURIAM. 
>>
>>[1] After a jury trial, Everett C. Gilbertson was convicted of filing false tax returns in violation
>>of 26 U.S.C. section 7206(1). The district court /1/ sentenced him to 18 months in prison.
>>Gilbertson appeals, and we affirm. 
>>
>>[2] We reject as completely meritless Gilbertson's argument that the United States District
>>Court lacked jurisdiction over his prosecution for tax crimes. See United States v. Watson, 1
>>F.3d 733, 734 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (in prosecution for fraudulent tax returns, district
>>court had jurisdiction, because 18 U.S.C. section 3231 "provides district courts with original
>>jurisdiction of all violations of federal law"; rejecting claim that "free citizen" of Oklahoma was
>>not United States citizen); United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 1993) (per
>>curiam) (federal income tax is not voluntary; rejecting appellants' argument that "Free Citizens
>>of the Republic of Minnesota" were not United States citizens subject to taxes), cert. denied,
>>510 U.S. 1193 (1994). Similarly meritless is Gilbertson's claim that the federal jury statute
>>discriminates against Minnesota citizens like him who are not "federal citizens." 
>>
>>[3] As Gilbertson's under-reporting of income for the years 1991 and 1992 was clearly
>>prohibited by the statute under which he was convicted, we find no merit to his generalized
>>argument regarding the vagueness of the Internal Revenue Code. See 26 U.S.C. section
>>7206(1); United States v. Kaylor, 877 F.2d 658, 661 (8th Cir.) (due process requirements),
>>cert. denied, 493 U.S. 871 (1989). We further hold that Gilbertson has failed to show any
>>extra-judicial source of bias to warrant the trial judge's recusal, and that the district court
>>properly denied his motion for release pending appeal. 
>>
>>[4] Because Gilbertson's arguments regarding freedom of information and civil removal
>>statutes are unrelated to his criminal convictions, we do not address those issues in this criminal
>>appeal. 
>>
>>[5] Gilbertson's "Motion to Correct Transcript of Sentencing Hearing" is denied, and the
>>judgement of the district court is affirmed. 
>>
>>A true copy. 
>>
>>Attest: 
>>
>>CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 
>>
>>FOOTNOTE 
>>
>>/1/ The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the District of
>>Minnesota. 
>>
>>END OF FOOTNOTE
>>
>>================================================================
>>
>>
>
>ÿ-ÿ-ÿ-ÿ-ÿ-ÿ-ÿ-ÿ-ÿ-ÿ-ÿ-ÿ-ÿ-ÿ-ÿ-ÿ
>Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with
>"unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject)
>Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman <whig@pobox.com>
>
>
      

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail