Time: Thu Jun 12 16:09:24 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA24381;
	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 13:16:41 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 16:07:22 -0700
To: Common Right Group at San Diego county <sj346280@4dcomm.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLF: OPENING BRIEF, U.S.A. v. Gilbertson, 8th Cir.
References: <3.0.2.16.19970612045336.33c7d06a@mailhost.primenet.com>

The OPENING BRIEF covers 7 major issues, 
one of which is an exhaustive analysis
of the federal removal statutes.  The
Appellant petitioned a 3-judge DCUS panel,
to enforce FOIA and to adjudicate his
challenges to the apportionment of 
congressional districts and Minnesota
state voter registration practices.

For example, the sentencing judge had 
previously been sued for his failure
to produce his Oath of Office, and the
GOVERNMENT went out of their way to
bring this to his attention at the
sentencing hearing.  He said he "would
deal with that later."  Well, he was
right!!  :)

See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B) for the grant
of original jurisdiction to the DCUS to
enforce FOIA.

Thanks for the great insights (many of
which I have already considered).

The OPENING BRIEF is path-breaking, because
of its emphasis on the Guarantee Clause
and two classes of citizenship -- a topic
which Otto Skinner loathes.  I know this
from personal experience with him, while
assisting a tax defendant in the USDC in
San Francisco.

"The Federal Zone" is key Appendix, for
example.

More later, okay?  I am trying to catch
up on 7 days' worth of email.

/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com

p.s.  Here is a list of the docket entries
which were written by the Supreme Law Firm:


    U.S.A. v. Gilbertson, Gilbertson v. United States et al.
                  Eighth Circuit #97-2099-MNST

DOS Filename  Bytes    Date           Docket Entry
------------ ------- -------- -----------------------------------
JUDNOT01 DOC 165,376 02-11-97 NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY
                              JUDICIAL NOTICE (67pgs)

JUDNOT02 DOC  49,152 02-18-97 NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY
                              JUDICIAL NOTICE (21pgs)

JUDNOT03 DOC  19,968 03-07-97 NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY
                              JUDICIAL NOTICE (8pgs)

GJREJECT DOC  18,432 03-20-97 MOTION to dismiss due to illegal
                              grand jury proceedings (9pgs)

NADSTATS DOC  11,776 03-20-97 NOTICE AND DEMAND for Exhibition of
                              Criminal Statutes (5pgs)

FINALNAD DOC   9,728 03-20-97 NOTICE AND DEMAND for Proof of
                              Power, Standing, and Jurisdiction
                              in the Particulars (4pgs)

JUDNOT04 DOC  10,752 03-20-97 NOTICE AND DEMAND for Mandatory
                              Judicial Notice (5pgs)

NADISMIS DOC  46,592 03-20-97 NOTICE AND DEMAND to Dismiss for
                              Lack of any Criminal Jurisdiction
                              Whatsoever (18pgs)

JUDICARY DOC 135,168 03-20-97 MEMORANDUM in support of Challenge
                              to Criminal Jurisdiction of USDC
                              (30pgs)

SCOTT    DOC   7,168 04-01-97 WITHDRAWAL OF THE POSITION OF THE
                              PARTIES (1pg)

JUDNOT05 DOC  12,288 04-02-97 NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY
                              JUDICIAL NOTICE (5pgs)

STAYUSDC DOC  27,648 04-02-97 MOTION for reconsideration (11pgs)

SWORNAFF DOC 109,568 04-02-97 VERIFIED STATEMENT in Support of
                              Challenge to Grand Jury Selection
                              Policy and its Federal Statute
                              (35pgs)

DEFAULT  DOC  12,288 04-09-97 AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT AND OF
                              PROBABLE CAUSE (6pgs)

REMOVAL  DOC  16,384 04-14-97 NOTICE OF PETITION AND VERIFIED
                              PETITION FOR WARRANT OF REMOVAL BY
                              THREE-JUDGE PANEL (41pgs)

FOIASUIT DOC  10,240 04-17-97 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
                              INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (5pgs)

EXTRADIT DOC  11,776 04-17-97 AFFIDAVIT OF NON-WAIVER OF
                              EXTRADITION (6pgs)

MEMORAN2 DOC  24,576 04-17-97 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
                              AUTHORITIES Proving the Voluntary
                              Nature of Federal Income Taxes
                              (14pgs)

VOLSTEAD DOC   5,632 04-17-97 (exhibit under MEMORAN2)

JUDNOT07 DOC  12,800 04-17-97 NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY
                              JUDICIAL NOTICE (5pgs)

JUDNOT08 DOC   6,656 04-17-97 NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY
                              JUDICIAL NOTICE (79 pgs)

PVBBOXER EXE 270,035 12-01-92 (exhibit under JUDNOT08)
                              (self-extracting archive file)

JUDNOT06 DOC  61,952 04-17-97 NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY
                              JUDICIAL NOTICE (22pgs)

JUDNOT09 DOC  17,920 04-17-97 NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY
                              JUDICIAL NOTICE (8pgs)

STAYDCUS DOC  27,136 04-17-97 MOTION to stay proceedings for
                              failing to comply with jury
                              selection policy (11pgs)

LIABLE   DOC  16,896 04-17-97 AFFIDAVIT OF APPLICABLE LAW AND
                              DENIAL OF SPECIFIC LIABILITY (8pgs)

COUNPA   DOC  66,048 04-17-97 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
                              AUTHORITIES in support of Notice
                              and Demand for Effective Assistance
                              of Counsel of Choice (32pgs)

JUDNOT10 DOC   7,168 04-21-97 NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY
                              JUDICIAL NOTICE (28 pgs)

RECON2   DOC  30,720 04-14-97 (exhibit under JUDNOT10)

SUPRECON DOC  18,944 04-14-97 (exhibit under JUDNOT10)

SUPPFOIA DOC  14,848 04-21-97 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
                              COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY &
                              INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (6pgs)

ALLOCUTN DOC  19,456 04-21-97 Deft reads allocution statement
                              into record.

PMRS     DOC   5,120 04-21-97 Deft filed document regarding Anti-
                              Kickback Act of 1986 (see exhibit
                              #101)

RELEASE  DOC  13,312 04-22-97 MOTION for release pending appeal
                              (1pg)

COVERBLU DOC   3,584 06-09-97 blue cover for OPENING BRIEF

PREFACE  DOC   3,584 06-09-97 preface page for OPENING BRIEF

OPENING  DOC 125,440 06-09-97 OPENING BRIEF (first impression)


                             #  #  #



At 12:04 PM 6/12/97 -0700, you wrote:
>In response to the below, Bill at Common Right Group responds,
>
> We like what you say Paul, we see the truth in it and subscribe. 
>However, the question that pops to mind is what will any court think? 
>Have you considered the different venues of the U.S. District Court and 
>the District Court of the United States? It seems that, per Paul Young of 
>Salt Lake City and David Wynn Miller, that the former is under the law of 
>the Master sitting upon the bench, while the latter is under the 
>constitutional Law of the United States of America. Until we see a 
>Judicial Determination to the contrary, this is how we proceed, even to 
>the point of correcting the header on court issued summons documents.
>
> Although this next is probably a non-sequitor to your opening brief, it 
>may be relevant to comment on it in a general sense. We have just 
>finished a first reading of Otto Skinner's latest book titled THE 
>GREATEST TAX LOOPHOLE OF ALL. Have you read Skinner's works, BEST KEPT 
>SECRET and/or IF YOU ARE THE DEFENDANT and/or this latest book (350 pp.)?
>His theme and premise is on the difference between a "Tax Liability" and 
>being "Liable For (Subject to) a tax." The former is entirely dependent 
>on the latter. Willful failure to file and similar charges are based on 
>Penalty Statutes, which one cannot violate as one must violate a 
>statute making a requirement to file. ie. imposing a liability for a tax 
>or making one a Taxpayer as defined in the Code. Otto also covers, in 
>addition to other things, eighteen of the twenty or so most popular "Tax 
>Protestor" and "Patriot" arguments. We've used most of them ourselves and 
>have come to the conclusion that there was error either in the 
>presentationn or in our interpretation of the facts. Obviously, if one 
>continues to repeat the same actions, one should not expect different 
>results. For example, the cite on the Eisner v. Macomber case using the 
>definition of income is treated as frivolous, becuse the definition of 
>income doesn't matter if on has income from a Revenue Taxable Activity. 
>It might be wiser to look at the part that says the rule [of taxation] 
>must be contrued in light of the existing provisions of the constitution. 
>To Wit: "Is the tax a tax on persons (capitation - must be apportioned), 
>on property (must be apprtioned), or on activities (events, excises, 
>happenings - must be uniform throughout)?" The first two are direct 
>taxes, and the last one is an indirect tax. "Is income the subject of the 
>tax, or is it the activity, whereby the income is only the measure 
>determining the tax liablity?" There is solid case law that points out 
>that the name of a tax (ie. Income Tax) may have nothing to do with the 
>subject matter of the tax - the nature of the tax. We could call it a 
>"Turkey Tax" or an "IRS whim Tax" and not change one iota the nature of 
>the beast. I could call me dog a cat and he would still bark, scratch and 
>love like a "dog" because that's what he is. "A rose by any other 
>name......" Perhaps, and this is where our thinking is at this time, we 
>all need to give Otto's thought patterns a fair shake. We know we've 
>tried every other cockeyed idea, so what's to lose? Another Buddha-Damned 
>IRS NOTICE FO LEVY showed up at my wife's work. We're starting to get a 
>little fed up with this crap! We really have to know what we're doing in 
>San Diego because (sic) Judge Judith Keep is, for all practical purposes, 
>an IRS agent. At least sympathizer. Unfortunately, Skinner doesn't 
>address the particular subject matter of IRS [NOTICES OF] Liens and 
>Levies, but we think we can apply his principles. We believe that 
>Skinner's work is serious, practical, and generated on planet earth where 
>the rubber meets the road, instead of all the lofty idealism that we are 
>all given to. Nothing wrong with the idealism, don't get me wrong. We 
>just need to deal with what these hairballs will hear and respond to. 
>Like Otto, we've questioned a number of so-called "tax experts" such as 
>tax attorneys and accountants (about 9 to date) respecting their opinion 
>as to whether the "Income Tax" is a direct or indirect tax. The answers 
>are apalling! six of these thought it was a direct tax authorized by the 
>16th amendment, two were completely unsure, but "knew" it was authorized 
>by the 16th amendment, and one simply didn't know and didn't seem to 
>care, as his whole thing was just to maintain books and records, advise 
>clients according to the revenue laws, and try to maximize deductions for 
>clients. He did tend to suspect, however, that the tax might be an 
>indirect tax, but he couldn't explain the operation of how that was true. 
>These people have reconfirmed my faith in human (sic) intelligence.
>  One last comment. Keep the challenges in the form of questions so the 
>burden of proof reamins on the other party. Making statements, whether to 
>show off our smarts or for any other reason, shifts the burden of proof 
>to us. We don't want it!
>  Keep those cards and letters coming - folks.
>
>Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote:
>> 
>> Excerpt from Appellant's OPENING BRIEF, due June 18, 1997,
>> U.S.A. v. Gilbertson, Gilbertson v. U.S. et al.
>> United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit,
>> Case Number #97-2099-MNST
>> 
>> [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
>> 
>>      Appellant submits  that the  vagueness and ambiguities which
>> 
>> were introduced  deliberately into  the federal income tax system
>> 
>> have resulted  in a  set of  laws, statutes,  regulations, rules,
>> 
>> forms, practices,  policies, procedures, and customs which are so
>> 
>> terribly complex  and intentionally  deceptive, that  the average
>> 
>> federal citizen  is very  far from ever being able to understand,
>> 
>> or decipher,  the real  meaning and intent of it all.  These were
>> 
>> the very  same persons who were asked to render a verdict against
>> 
>> Appellant in the instant case.  Lex non cogit impossibilia.
>> 
>>      The combined  result of this massive fraud is a travesty and
>> 
>> a tragedy  of the  worst kind, because Appellant has succeeded in
>> 
>> proving herein  that there  are, in  fact, more  than two hundred
>> 
>> million Americans  who find  themselves situated  in exactly  the
>> 
>> same position  as Appellant.   And  that position is one in which
>> 
>> the American  People must  now struggle  daily, hourly, sometimes
>> 
>> minute-by-minute,  in  the  face  of  an  ugly  and  premeditated
>> 
>> extortion racket which now pervades the entire Land (both zones),
>> 
>> in blatant violation of the fundamental principles which were set
>> 
>> down more than two centuries ago in the supreme Law of this Land.
>> 
>>      Those principles have withstood every single challenge which
>> 
>> has been  mounted against  their supremacy  since they were first
>> 
>> consecrated into  Law on  June 21, 1788, the first day of summer,
>> 
>> the longest  day of the year, Counselor's birthday, and the first
>> 
>> day on  which freedom  had, at  long  last,  become  The  Primary
>> 
>> Principle upon  which  Our  unique  government  was  founded  and
>> 
>> dedicated, the day on which God's generous light from His intense
>> 
>> burning Sun would shine the longest, and remain that way forever.
>> 
>>      Freedom.  Oh, Freedom!  Quo vadis, Freedom?  Quo vadis?
>> 
>>      As against  these immensely moving principles, which federal
>> 
>> government employees now shirk at their own great loss, Appellant
>> 
>> returns to the incredibly accurate prediction in Justice Harlan's
>> 
>> courageous protest to the dangerous perils of the Downes Doctrine
>> 
>> in Downes v. Bidwell infra.  Long live protest!  Quoting now:
>> 
>>      The idea prevails with some  --  indeed, it found expression
>>      in arguments  at the  bar   --  that we have in this country
>>      substantially or practically two national governments;  one,
>>      to be  maintained  under  the  Constitution,  with  all  its
>>      restrictions;   the  other  to  be  maintained  by  Congress
>>      outside and  independently of that instrument, by exercising
>>      such powers  as other nations of the earth are accustomed to
>>      exercise.
>>                   [Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 at 380 (1901)]
>>                               [Harlan dissenting, emphasis added]
>> 
>> To appreciate  how alarmed  Justice Harlan had become as a result
>> 
>> of this new "theory", consider the following from His dissent:
>> 
>>      I take  leave to  say that  if the principles thus announced
>>      should ever  receive the  sanction of  a  majority  of  this
>>      court, a  radical and  mischievous change  in our  system of
>>      government will be the result.  We will, in that event, pass
>>      from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected
>>      by  a  written  constitution  into  an  era  of  legislative
>>      absolutism. ...
>> 
>>      It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of
>>      a government  outside of  the supreme  law of the land finds
>>      lodgment in  our constitutional  jurisprudence.   No  higher
>>      duty rests  upon this court than to exert its full authority
>>      to  prevent   all  violation   of  the   principles  of  the
>>      Constitution.
>> 
>>                      [Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 at 379-382]
>>                       [(1901), Harlan dissenting, emphasis added]
>> 
>>      The United  States will  now take  careful note that We, the
>> 
>> People of the United States of America, will not sit idly by, and
>> 
>> witness the  systematic destruction and premeditated violation of
>> 
>> everything which  We hold  most dear.   The  principles We uphold
>> 
>> herein, have  been upheld  by many  courts of  this great Nation;
>> 
>> they were reiterated in People v. Boxer supra as follows:
>> 
>>      A practice  condemned by the Constitution cannot be saved by
>>      historical acceptance and present convenience.
>> 
>>            [U.S. v. Woodley, 726 F.2d 1328, 1338 (9th Cir. 1984)]
>>                                                  [emphasis added]
>> 
>>      It is  obviously correct  that no  one acquires  a vested or
>>      protected right  in violation  of the  Constitution by  long
>>      use, even  when that span of time covers our entire national
>>      existence and indeed predates it.
>> 
>>                        [Walz v. Tax Commission of New York City,]
>>                      [397 U.S. 664 at 678 (1970), emphasis added]
>> 
>>                              #  #  #
>> 
>>
========================================================================>
Paul Andrew Mitchell                 : Counselor at Law, federal witness
>> B.A., Political Science, UCLA;  M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
>> 
>> tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
>> email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.2 on 586 CPU
>> website: http://www.supremelaw.com   : visit the Supreme Law Library now
>> 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
>> 
>> As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall
>> not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
>>
========================================================================>
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
>
>

========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.    : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email:       [address in tool bar]   : Eudora Pro 3.0.2 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
========================================================================


      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail