Time: Fri Jun 13 13:00:07 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA26546;
	Fri, 13 Jun 1997 12:30:09 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 12:29:04 -0700
To: heritage-l@gate.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLF: OPENING BRIEF, U.S.A. v. Gilbertson, 8th Cir.

At 12:14 PM 6/13/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Paul,
>
>Per your previous message, this does show how messages posted
>can be made easier to read. And all should try to improve their
>format of possible.

Thank you.  We have rejected all Windows-based
word processors, to settle back on WORD for DOS,
Version 5.0B, a truly fast, efficient, and 
reliable program, if ever there was one.

Using this version of WORD, we use the "bug 
screen" model:  look at any screen door, and
look at the pattern formed by the horizontal
and vertical wires in the screen.  This is a
character matrix, which we fill with equally
spaced Courier 12 characters -- same font as
you get in DOS EDIT.  

We like to think of this screen as a Window Screen
-- it screens out Windows.  :)

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

p.s.  Bill Gates forgot how to do memory management.


>
>But the subject of this suit is very interesting, is this a
>suit to modify or radically change our beloved blood suckers
>at the IRS?

Yes.  The Defendant was convicted of falsifying
a federal income tax return.  Among the many
briefs we prepared for him was a NOTICE AND DEMAND
FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE of the genealogy 
of the IRS, via Trust #62 in Puerto Rico. U.S. 
Attorneys fell silent, again!

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



>
>Mike Crane
>
>
>> 
>> 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                 : 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.]

      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail