Time: Fri Nov 14 06:29:49 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA14372;
Fri, 14 Nov 1997 05:57:23 -0700 (MST)
by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id FAA23803;
Fri, 14 Nov 1997 05:55:38 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 05:56:04 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Tax Protestor Doctrine (fwd)
<snip>
>
> The Tax Protestor Doctrine
>
> by Don Kostyu
>
>
>An official IRS memorandum disclosed by the National Coalition of IRS
>Whistleblowers proved that as far back as 1973 the IRS has been waging a
>campaign to "educate" federal judges on the importance of prison sentences
>for tax protestors. Known as the "Croasman Memorandum" the report emanated
>from Homer D. Croasman, Regional IRS Commissioner, Western Region, to the
>participants in the Conference on the Tax Rebellion Movement.
>
>The unethical and unlawful plan to influence federal judges completely
>undermines the Constitutional mandate of an impartial, independent
>judiciary.
>
>The reason federal judges are appointed for life under Article III of the
>Constitution is to guarantee their independence from other branches of
>government -- even the IRS!
>
>In most cases that may still hold true. But when a "Tax Protester" is
>hauled into the courts things change radically. Injustice becomes the order
>of the day as prosecutors, clerks, magistrates and judges team up in pursuit
>of a speedy conviction.
>
>Unfortunately, as recent cases indicate, the "Tax Protestor Doctrine" is
>becoming firmly rooted in the federal judiciary as an acceptable practice to
>be exercised at the whim of the court.
>
>Some examples of the "Tax Protestor Doctrine" at work are:
>
>U.S. v. Frieda Grosshans, U.S. District Court, Eastern District (1986).
>During the course of the trial, Asst. U.S. Atty. Steven Hiyama repeatedly
>referred to Freida Grosshans as a "tax protestor". At sentencing, U.S.
>District Judge George Woods ordered defendant Grosshans, a 52 year-old
>grandmother, imprisoned in Wayne County Jail until space was available in a
>federal minimum security facility. Freida Grosshans spent over a month
>imprisoned under the worst conditions with hardened criminals. The same
>judge suspended the sentence of John Rye who was guilty of tax evasion on
>$1.3 million in income. Rye had to serve 5 months in a halfway house. Rye
>was not a "tax protestor", you see, he was merely a crook! Rye was a
>purposeful tax evader, a cheat, a thief. But Freida Grosshans did the
>unthinkable. She made a Constitutional challenge. She believed in the
>Constitution and her rights, and she questioned the IRS. But she couldn't
>tell the jury about that because of a gag order which the courts routinely
>apply as part of the Tax Protestor Doctrine", known as a motion in limne.
>
>Judge Woods sentenced Freida Grosshans to 5 years and she is currently
>incarcerated in a federal prison camp in Texas.
>
>Another recent case, U.S. v. Arthur W. Morris, U.S. District Court,
>Eastern District of Michigan (1987), saw another flagrant use of the "Tax
>Protestor Doctrine" when, at sentencing, U.S. District Judge Avern Cohn
>compared defendant Morris with those who sell information to the Soviet
>Union. Equating Morris with treason and espionage, Cohn invoked the "Tax
>Protestor Doctrine" to toss out sentencing guidelines and gave the maximum
>sentence of 3 years and $30,000 to Morris, a first time misdemeanor
>offender. Morris was denied bond pending appeal and is incarcerated in a
>federal prison in Indiana.
>
>The case of U.S. v. Kevin Krzyske, No. 95-1760/1799, U.S. District
>Court, Ann Arbor, is an example of the extreme injustice which can be
>accomplished under the "Tax Protestor Doctrine".
>
>During pre-trial hearing, Asst. U.S. Atty. Karen Reynolds repeatedly
>branded Kevin Krzyske as a "tax protestor", notifying the court that the
>"Tax Protestor Doctrine" could be applied throughout the proceedings. And
>was it ever.
>
>Krzyske's pre-trial motions were routinely denied by Magistrate Steven Pepe,
>at trial. Judge Joinder denied Krzyske the assistance of counsel and
>withheld vital information which was requested by the jury.
>
>Charged with 10 counts of various tax charges, Krzyske successfully defended
>against 5 counts and was convicted of 5 counts. Krzyske appealed the
>convictions.
>
>Once again the "Tax Protestor Doctrine" came into play as Judge Charles
>Joiner forced Krzyske's needless and unjust imprisonment by setting
>inappropriate conditions on his remaining free on bond. As a result of the
>untenable conditions set by Joiner, Krzyske needlessly served over a year in
>a federal prison camp in Minnesota.
>
>We can confidently say Joiner forced Krzyske's wrongful imprisonment because
>the U.S. Court of Appeals recently overruled Joiner's conditions and
>ordered Krzyske's release.
>
>The Tax Protestor Doctrine was invoked to cover up an unlawful arrest in the
>case of U.S. V. Franklin, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
>Michigan (1987). The defendant was arrested on a defective warrant which
>was not supported by a sworn oath of probable cause. This detail was
>brushed aside at the arraignment when Magistrate Lynn V. Hooe incredibly,
>inquired from the bench if this was a "tax protestor case". Hooe silenced
>the Defendant and refused to hear any objections to the unlawful arrest
>warrant. Franklin was not allowed to make a record, a plea of not guilty
>was entered over his objection, and he was bound over for trial.
>
>By invocation of the Tax Protestor Doctrine a federal Magistrate ignored an
>obvious unlawful arrest, suspended the Court Rules, and abrogated the Fourth
>Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Also, this hearing marked a new and
>particularly repugnant trend, being it was raised by the Court without the
>prompting of government prosecutors. Lynn V. Hooe, a supposedly "neutral
>and detached" Magistrate, took it upon himself to brand the defendant a "tax
>protestor" and arraigned Franklin on the unlawful arrest warrant.
>
>Hooe's oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution apparently doesn't apply to
>defendants he brands as "tax protestors". (It can be argued that Franklin's
>[not?] guilty plea necessarily included a plea of guilty to being a "tax
>protestor". But even so Hooe's abrogation of the Constitution is
>inexcusable.)
>
>These are not isolated cases. Far from it. There are more, many more. The
>"Tax Protestor Doctrine" is becoming more widely used with each passing day.
>
>The "Tax Protestor Doctrine" is by no means unique to criminal tax cases,
>but is used to routinely deny due process in civil cases where "tax
>protestors" are involved. Where plaintiffs in civil actions are labeled as
>"tax protestors" by government attorneys, the "Doctrine" is regularly
>invoked to dismiss their cases without regard to the issues raised. After
>all, if "tax protestors" have no rights, how could their rights be violated?
>
>Case dismissed!
>
> [Reprinted from `CBA Bulletin', Aug. 1988]
>
<snip>
Attachment Converted: "I:\ATTACH\CROASMUN.zip"
===========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA; M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best 06
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone 07
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13From ???@??? Fri Nov 14 06:30:05 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA14610;
Fri, 14 Nov 1997 05:58:10 -0700 (MST)
by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id FAA23837;
Fri, 14 Nov 1997 05:56:56 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 05:57:22 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Nat'l Organization for Non-Enumeration (fwd)
<snip>
>
>Thanks to David Adamchik for forwarding this site!
>http://www.ime.net/none/main.html
>
>Above is a wonderfully educational and useful site which documents
>the fact that no one is required by law to join the Social Security
>Program or obtain a Social Security number. Best all around
>treatment of the topic I've seen on one site.
>
<snip>
===========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA; M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best 06
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone 07
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail