Time: Fri Mar 07 12:22:57 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA05010
for [address in tool bar]; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 16:14:30 -0700 (MST)
Delivered-To: liberty-and-justice-outgoing@majordomo.pobox.com
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 15:50:27 -0800
To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: L&J: Yes, more Burnett v. Commissioner (fwd)
>Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 15:46:30 -0800
>To: "Virginia Cropsey" <Ginny@springfield.fe.com>
>From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>Subject: Burnett v. Commissioner
>
>Refused and returned to sender.
>DO NOT SEND ME ANY MORE OF THESE LIES.
>
>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>
>
>At 04:33 PM 3/6/97 EST5EDT, you wrote:
>>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. But when he gets the "goods" - ha, ha - it will cost you
>>folks. I still think he's an AP. Feel free to repost on L&J - I'm on
>>other lists and can only keep up with so much of this.
>>
>>Virginia
>>
>>> 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
>>> ========================================================================
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
========================================================================
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