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