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