Time: Mon Jul 28 22:45:00 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA22464; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 22:01:42 -0700 (MST) by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA29111; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 21:59:53 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 21:59:11 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLF: DOJ does not read pleadings, U.S.A. v. Gilbertson Dear Clients, Friends, and Media: Whether or not Everett C. Gilbertson can afford to pay for the legal work that would be required to rebut DOJ'S REPLY BRIEF in his appeal to the 8th Circuit, there are numerous fatal errors which this REPLY BRIEF has made. I hereby volunteer to do as much as I can to demonstrate these errors, in addition to other serious errors which have been made in this extremely weak, legally incorrect, and embarrassingly short REPLY BRIEF. Here goes: We now have definitive proof that U.S. Attorneys are not reading pleadings which defendants are filing in criminal tax cases. The following documents the written proof, for the record: In DOJ's REPLY BRIEF in U.S.A. v. Gilbertson, Messrs. David L. Lillehaug and Henry J. Shea of the U.S. Attorneys office in Minneapolis, Minnesota, claim that Gilbertson has raised "void for vagueness" for the first time on appeal. They were "assisted" by Ms. Amy Larson, Law Clerk. Quoting now: "Defendant's final argument contends that the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) is unconstitutionally vague. 4/" [REPLY BRIEF, page 9] Footnote 4 reads: "Although defendant earlier challenged the authority of the United States government to collect income taxes from him, he appears to have raised this particular issue for the first time on appeal. Issues raised for the first time on appeal are generally waived." Gilbertson and his Counsel know full well that issues raised for the first time on appeal are generally waived. However ... ... this is very sad, but very conclusive evidence, that these U.S. Attorneys DID NOT READ Gilbertson's pleadings. On three (3) separate occasions during the pre- and post-trial proceedings, Gilbertson moved the USDC for an indefinite stay of proceedings, pending final resolution of his challenge to the constitutionality of the Jury Selection and Service Act. In the sworn statement which MUST accompany such a STAY MOTION, pursuant to the JSSA itself, Gilbertson submitted the following: "The case of U.S. v. Cruikshank is famous, not only for confirming this distinction between State Citizens and U.S. citizens, but also for establishing a key precedent in the area of due process. This precedent underlies the 'void for vagueness' doctrine which can and should be applied to nullify the IRC." Again, this particular paragraph was repeated on three (3) different occasions to the United States District Court ("USDC"), and to all interested parties, including of course the office of the United States Attorneys in Minneapolis, Minesota state, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General in Washington, D.C. You would think that three times would be enough. We now wonder if DOJ in D.C. even bothered to read the pleadings either. Evidently, these U.S. Attorneys were not aware that this sworn statement was, quite simply, a verified excerpt from Chapter 11 of the book entitled "The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue." It is fair to say that the author of this book nearly spent as much time on this chapter, as ALL the other chapters combined; it is grammatically, legally, and historically as precise, and nearly perfect, as anything ever written on the subject of sovereignty, as that term is pertinent to decoding the Internal Revenue Code. See definition of "United States" in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, for more proof. Given this, it is nothing less than a crass and gross insult to the American People that these U.S. Attorneys [sic] would not even read it. Perhaps, they are just too busy lining their pockets with kick-backs from the IRS, facilitating more bribes to line the pockets of federal judges, and forcing Citizens to line up for mug shots and bread lines at federal prison camps around the nation. I am truly appalled. Messrs. Lillihaug and Shea, you have now made these fatal mistakes with the wrong man. /s/ Paul Mitchell http://www.supremelaw.com
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail