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