Time: Fri Mar 07 12:22:54 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA03620 for [address in tool bar]; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 16:10:21 -0700 (MST) Delivered-To: liberty-and-justice-outgoing@majordomo.pobox.com Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 15:34:32 -0800 To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: L&J: Yes, more Burnett v. Commissioner (fwd) Cc: Virginia Cropsey <Ginny@springfield.fe.com>, Scott Bergeson <Scott.Bergeson@m.cc.utah.edu>, Tony F Sgarlatti <tfs@adc.com>, pnet@proliberty.com Dear Friends and all others, I sincerely do apologize to everyone concerned for this misunderstanding. I do wish the individual who quoted the Plaintiff's petition as the court's order would also stand up, identify himself (herself), and apologize as well (Richard?). It has taken a lot of my valuable time to track down the correct story, and it has taken money to purchase a Postal Money Order, and talk with people on the telephone long-distance to explain what is actually in the full docket file, which cost $78.00. I have a right to recover some, if not all, of these costs. I regret that some people find it "offensive" that I am trying to do so. Would you prefer that I lie about the matter, so that I can sell more copies? I am telling people the truth, even though it is costing me money to do so. So, I do really think the tone and content of the message here is completely off base. Whatever you mean by "AP" (since you haven't defined it), I can tell my your tone that it is not being written in good faith. I do suggest that you cite the Kennelly materials, which go to the same point we thought was in Burnett; you could also subpoena the "experts" from the Legislative Counsel and the Congressional Research Service. With a little luck, they might tell the truth. With a little courage, you might prevail with your subpoena. As for me, I am done with Burnett. If you want to discuss it further, please don't do so around me, okay? I don't think this is a terribly imposing request. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 02:42 PM 3/6/97 -0700, you wrote: >Forwarded at Virginia Cropsey's request, but I'm getting tired of this. Yes, me too! /s/ Paul Mitchell > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 16:33:33 EST5EDT >From: Virginia Cropsey <Ginny@springfield.fe.com> >To: Scott Bergeson <Scott.Bergeson@m.cc.utah.edu>, > Tony F Sgarlatti <tfs@adc.com>, pnet@proliberty.com >Cc: pmitch@primenet.com, liberty-and-justice@pobox.com >Subject: Re: Burnett v. Commissioner > >So, Paul will post law suggesting you cite it on zero returns (no >charge), then not even clear up with people that the brief is not the >decision. Objection. I have done this every chance I get. /s/ Paul Mitchell But when he gets the "goods" - ha, ha - it will cost you >folks. Not unless you want to order a copy for yourself. You can either pay me $25, or you can pay the Clerk $78. The choice is up to you. /s/ Paul Mitchell > I still think he's an AP. You have just exposed yourself as a vicious liar here, or someone who is readily inclined to believe a vicious lie (one of the two). So now we are really getting down to the real point, aren't we? /s/ Paul Mitchell Feel free to repost on L&J - I'm on >other lists and can only keep up with so much of this. > >Virginia Virgina, please stop. Respectfully, /s/ Paul Mitchell > >> Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 13:42:51 -0800 >> To: "Virginia Cropsey" <Ginny@springfield.fe.com> >> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] >> Subject: Burnett v. Commissioner >> Cc: <liberty-and-justice@pobox.com> > >> Dear Ginny, >> >> The original message which I received >> concerning Burnett v. Commissioner was >> forwarded from a colleague, who received it >> originally from someone who made the >> serious mistake of quoting the Plaintiff's >> petition as the decision of the court. >> When this fact started to surface, I went >> to the trouble of purchasing a certified >> copy of the entire docket file from the >> Clerk of Court ($78.00). We are selling >> bound copies for $25 ($12 for copying and >> binding, $3 for priority mail, and $10 for >> our handling fees). >> >> I was at fault for taking the original message >> on faith, so I am to blame for broadcasting >> it without first checking it out. From now >> on, I will not do so without first confirming >> something so important. On this very same >> issue, we do have Rep. Barbara Kennelly's >> letter concerning the meaning of "State" >> in the Internal Revenue Code; she relied on >> expert legal advice from the Legislative Counsel, >> and also the Congressional Research Service, >> to write her letter. Unfortunately, her letter >> is not quite the same as a court holding. See >> "Congresswoman Suspected of Income Tax Evasion" >> in the Supreme Law Library at URL: >> >> http://www.supremelaw.com >> >> for more background details on the Kennelly >> letter. >> >> I do apologize to everyone here if I caused any >> convenience. That will surely be the last time >> I broadcast something of that importance, >> without first obtaining confirmation from >> the court. Given the huge volume of inbound >> email which I am now receiving, it is just >> impossible to track down everything. That >> is at once a strength, and a major weakness, >> of the Internet. C'est la vie! >> >> I still maintain that the Internal Revenue Code >> is dead, for many reasons like Kennelly's letter. >> Fortunately, we don't need to rely upon Burnett >> v. Commissioner to start the funeral, because >> there is so much proof now circulating, which >> CAN be confirmed. >> >> I hope this helps. Please feel free to forward >> this letter to anyone who may be interested in >> this critical issue. >> >> In closing, I want you to know that we have >> filed our Notice of Intent to Petition for >> Leave to Institute Quo Warranto Proceedings >> against the "IRS". This would be their last >> chance to prove their "authority," if any. >> >> We know the answer already. :) >> >> /s/ Paul Mitchell >> http://www.supremelaw.com >> >> >> >> At 12:05 PM 3/6/97 -0600, you wrote: >> >----- Begin Included Message ----- >> >Date: Thu Mar 6 11:27:27 1997 >> >From: "Virginia Cropsey" <Ginny@springfield.fe.com> >> >To: Scott Bergeson <Scott.Bergeson@m.cc.utah.edu> >> >Subject: Burnett Case >> >Cc: tfs@adc.com (Tony F Sgarlatti), pnet@proliberty.com >> > >> >Sorry to be so long getting back on this - my mail went up and down >> >so much during system work, I gave up on it for a while. Lost my L&J >> >connect - but LiberNet put me on after months of that not working, so >> >I guess I'll stay with that for awhile. Sure they miss me on L&J. >> > >> >Anyway, I'm still not sure of the status of Burnett. Paul Mitchell >> >sent a post on another list that made the brief appear to be a >> >stunning decision. An attorney friend checked WestLaw and found no >> >record of the case, even in the unpublished section. Some on the Net >> >say they called the Virgin Islands District Court and the court >> >dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction in Nov. I've heard some >> >contend there was favorable reasoning behind the dismissal. Mitchell >> >solicited funds to order the opinion - so why haven't we heard >> >anything out of him - he announced the case as the end of the income >> >tax in the fifty states? I'd check with him. >> > >> >I showed the brief and note Mitchell posted to Irwin Schiff. He was >> >afraid it was an attempt to pollute zero returns - making them >> >frivilous by citing a case that didn't apply or was decided >> >adversely - not that lawyers don't miscite cases all the time and >> >nothing so punitive happens. They even win as long as other >> >arguments they make are correct - like "no liability is imposed". >> >There is no need to cite this Burnett when filing a zero return. >> > >> >I have come up with an issue regarding Schiff's zero returns. While >> >courts have said a zero return is a return, if you file Schiff's >> >paperwork along with it, you make the statement that you're not >> >filing voluntarily. This may make the return frivilous according to >> >jaded IRS (although I haven't heard the Service say specifically, >> >but they have given many who filed zero returns frivilous penalties), >> >and it may be the reason you can't get your money back - your >> >statement isn't voluntary, so it can't be taken as valid. $500 may >> >be worth it depending on your tax burden. Making the statement can >> >also be used to deny the return is voluntary, so you can argue it >> >can't come in if they come after you criminally. >> > >> >I still believe not filing is best >> >if you're not trying to get money back. If you file, consider >> >filing an "Affidavit of Exemption from Federal Income Tax". You can >> >figure out what one of those would say from the title. Some states >> >base exemption on federal exemption. Some people have trouble >> >getting their employer to recognize their exempt status. Filing such >> >an affidavit may clarify your position for the years stated in the >> >affidavit. I'm not giving legal advice of course. >> > >> >Post this to L&J if you like - my e-mail went down just after I >> >posted concerning Burnett, and I wanted people to know to be wary. >> > >> >Ginny Cropsey >> > >> >----- End Included Message ----- >> > >> >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >> >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> >> > >> > >> >> ======================================================================== >> Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness >> email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU >> web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration >> 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 >> ======================================================================== > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >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> > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration 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 ======================================================================== =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 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