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