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