Time: Tue Nov 26 22:52:53 1996
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 22:33:28 -0800
To: joseph.d.robertson@nhmccd.cc.tx.us
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: NWLibs> Supreme Court Ruling

Dale,

This masterpiece of yours should be formatted
into a brief in support of an Application
for Intervention of Right for the remand
back to the U.S. District Court (USDC). 
 
Why don't you do it, so it can become
a permanent part of American Jurisprudence,
under the Full Faith and Credit Clause?

Did you get the actual decision yet?
If not, I can route forward it to you,
with my short abstracted version.

I am standing by.

/s/ Paul Mitchell

P.S.  I have prototypical intervention
pleadings, if you need them.



At 09:41 PM 11/26/96 -0600, you wrote:
>Tuesday, 26Nov96 @ 19:17 Hours CST
>
>TO:       COUNSELORS ALL
>           PAUL MITCHELL
>           LARRY
>
>FROM:     DALE ROBERTSON
>SUBJECT:  1040 AND THE FIFTH
>
>What we have here is a really profound subject. That is the law
>respecting 1040's and the fifth amendment! Wow what a topic! This
>question goes to the heart of a free country predicated upon the
>preservation of individual rights.
>
>At the top of the treasury building in that pathetically pollutted would
>be panacia on the Patomic is the enscription (I parapharase): Taxes are
>the price we pay for civilization.
>
>Now, at is raw essence, what we have here is a collision between on the
>one hand the right of the individual to remain silent and on the other
>hand the right of the government to inquire. The right to remain silent
>is generally regarded as guaranteed by that portion of the fifth
>amendment which proscribes that no person "... nor shall be compelled in
>a criminal proceeding to bear witness against himself...". And the right
>of the government to inquire, in small part, arises from the sixth
>amendment via the statement: the accused shall have compulsory process
>for witnesses in his behalf and shall have the right to face his
>accusor. So the power of the state is thus imvoked by the bill of rights
>to compell process resulting in witnesses including you. Additionally,
>other law provides for similar process for you to give your testimony to
>the government.
>
>The right to remain silent is indellibly enschrined in history and in
>particular the common law. It was Jesus Christ himself who said to his
>inquisitors in the San Heedren in answer to the question: You say that
>you are the son of God? to which Jesus is recorded to have said: "So say
>ye!" Thus we have the first recorded instance in which an accuses on
>trial was to have invoked the right to remain silent in answer to a
>question - in this case giving an unresponsive verbal traverse to the
>incriminating quesion by asking a question.
>
>I remind each of you of my previous post as to the effect and deveopment
>of Roman and Justinian civil and criminal law as it is sharply
>contrasted against the pure Anglo Saxon English Common Law prior to
>William's norman military incursion into the British Isles in 1066. Of
>course after that time the pure common law was "polluted" with the
>European civil law via the conquering Norman intruders. Should anyone
>wish me to repost this monograph - just ask!
>
>Now the right of an englishman to remain silent is ensconsed permanently
>in the maxim: "Nemo tenature se ipsum accusarae" and it's companion
>maxim which reads: "Nemo tenature se ipsum proderea". In good English
>this reads: No man shall accuse himself and No man shall produce against
>himself, respectively. In good ol Texan it's just: "I ain't talking".
>These principles were firmly in place in the Common law well prior to
>the events at Runnymead that misty June morn when King John was invited
>at the point of a sword by the Barons present to enscribed the Magna
>Charta. Get the point! It was not a voluntary contractual transaction.
>It was won through force! But for those of you who would observe that
>the force and intimidation at the point of a sword invalidates the
>document - let me rejoinder that the principles - and each one of them -
>set forth in Magna Charta were firmly in place in common law, custom and
>practice in English Anglo Saxon judicial proceedings for many decades
>and in some cases for hundreds of years prior to King John's birth.
>
>Now back to the 5th. There was this guy named John Lillburne. He was
>born in 1623 near London. His father sent him to London at age 14 to
>apprentice as a Taylor. He fell into puritian circles and began studying
>the King James Bible and Cokes Institutes and Commentaries as well as
>other such "seditious" and "inflamatory" material. He studied well. He
>learned it's truth. He was even seized with the belief that one should
>practice of what truth he studied. He later serreptiously went to
>Holland to print leaflets, phamplets and books whose publication were
>banned by the crown despite King Charles having signed the Petititon of
>Right in 1628 permitting just that. Even as late as 1640's just prior to
>the Puritian Revolution a license from the crown was necessary to
>"publish" anything. The good King Charles later literally lost his head
>over such Tyranny in 1649.
>
>Now what has all this got to do with the right to remain silent?
>Weeeelll.... Lil ol John Lilburne at the ripe old age of 18 was arrested
>for distribution of seditious (spell that unlicensed) phamphlets in 1638
>in London and was brought before one of the Kings Counsel's prerogative
>courts called the Star Chamber - named thusly due to the stars which
>graced its ceiling. Lillburn was destined to become its "star" defendant
>for he soon was invoking the gospel of Lork Coke and his Commentaries as
>well as the Magna Charta for the right of an Englishman to not have to
>accuse himself. With uncommon articulation for a young man not yet 18,
>Lillburne - Freeborn John as he was to later be throughout England known
>- confronted the hign commission and the judges of the Star Chamber and
>refused to answer the charges or even to be sworn in as a witness
>relying instead, inter alia, upon the scriptural precedent of Jesus
>Christ himself when he was questioned by his judges. For his temerity he
>was stipped to the waist, tied to an ox cart and whipped with a knotted
>three cord whip every other step from the Star Chamber Court at
>Westminster down fleet street to the public stocks where he was secured
>- hands and neck - in the public stocks. From this vantage he observed a
>large but sympathetic crowd assembling. Being an enterprising sort and
>with more guts than sense (he was not yet 18 years old) he began to
>exercise what he called an Englishmans right of free and unfettered
>speech and began reciting (indeed inciting) one of the very phamplets
>for which he had been arrested in the first place. And to the
>astonishment of the now large and unruly crowd he actually managed to in
>contortionist style to amazingly produce three copies of the same
>phamplet from his attire which he somehow threw to the crowd. The Star
>Chamber judges on hearing of this "insolence" directed the public
>hangman to gag John Lillburn so as to prevent any further sedition and
>lible. A company of calvery were dispatched to quell the ensuing riot.
>And then the gagging proceeded with such violence that blood spurted
>from his gagged mouth. He was further sentenced for his incorregable
>behavior while in the public stocks to three years in the Fortress Tower
>of London and was further fined an enormous amount in pounds sterling.
>He served his time, and despite his youth and strength, nearly expiring
>under the close confinement ordered by the court and kept true by his
>warders only to in the process write a steady stream of several more
>phamplets and to become famous throught England for his articulate gift
>of the both language and the courage to use it at great personal cost in
>the name of individual English freedom.
>
>Now the relevance of all this detail is this. John Lillburne was the
>first recorded individual to defy the Star Chamber with 1) a absolute
>refusal to be sworn; and 2) refusal to testify against himself. He
>quoted and invoked Magna Charta, Cokes Institutes and Commentaries, the
>Bible and the "good ol ancient Anglo Saxon law of England".
>
>I note this history with both relish and detail for two purposes: John
>Lillburne stood up for the rights of individuals when it was both
>unpopular and unconventional to do so - for which he paid a terrible
>price for a young man of 18. Secondly, the Star Chamber, having a tenure
>of several hundred years, was in 1641 denied of all right to exist as a
>court and was entirely disenfranchised by Parliment only to be
>dismantelled in fact - entirely - board by board - in 1642. I firmly
>believe, without complete historical corrobation, that the demise of the
>Star Chamber at that time was in large part due to the individual
>challenge of Lillburne, the terribly harsh punsihment to visit him, and
>the resulting attentions of Parliment all of which was engendered by
>outrageously judicially ordered  suffering of John Lillburne. All
>freedom loving individuals owe a debt to the memory and person of
>Freeborn John Lillburne. In Dr. Leonard W. Levy's profound and Pulitzer
>Prize winning book: "Origins of the Fifth Amendment" Lilllburne - or
>Freeborn John - is given major billing in the developmental history of
>the "fifth" as it has come to be known in American parlance.
>
>Lillburne is a historically tragic figure - but one who looms large in
>the history of freedom and the principles upon which it is lawfully
>guaranteed and enforced.
>
>James Madison's individual insistence on December 15th, 1791 that there
>be passed by the two year old congress of the then newly formed United
>States of America a Bill of Rights including the right not to
>incriminate oneself is a landmark act on a landmark day history of human
>freedom. The inclusion in the Constitution and the elevation to
>Constitutional imperative respecting the right to remain silent is a
>pivotal cornerstone of individual freedom. But - - I must also state
>that its inclusion is merely a Constitutinal reflection of the reality
>of the prevailing common law of the day born of hundreds of years of
>English Common Law rule in judicial proceedings. Early in American
>jurisprudence, even Arron Burr invoked the Fifth in his trial which
>caused a stir as is succintly reported at Ex parte Burr, 25 Fed Case at
>page 38.
>
>And the United States Supreme Court, in the last half of this century,
>in a unaminous decision, has stated in McCarthy vs. Ardnstein  that the
>right applies to civil and criminal proceedings alike whenever anyone
>perceives and thus "fears" that his testimonay might incriminate. 
>
>Now what do you do when the mere citizen is confronted with all the
>power of the state to inquire into his business, including tax matters,
>including the 1040,  and that individual acting under the rule of
>reason, the rule of right and the rule of constitutionally guaranteed
>law to invoke his right to remain silent. The likes of Freeborn John
>Lillburne come to mind. Having seen this confrontation several times
>over the last 20 years or so - I can say from personal observation and
>authority that the right to remain silent has prevailed in each such
>confrontation. Yes there is great bluff. Yes there is profound
>intimidation. but - - the right prevailed each time!!!  Now  - from
>whose malevolent mind will such treacherous come? Well for one thing I
>can accurately say that that mind is the mind of a  traitor to the
>constitution and the common law principles upon which it  derives its
>compelling authority.
>
>But let me further say without equivication, that there is no case in
>the history of this cournty, to which I have ever been made aware, which
>stands for the proposition that the right of the government to inquire
>into your person or business prevails over your individual right to
>remain silent in the face of such inquiry. While, I will properly defend
>the state's right to inquire - - I will further place on a higher and
>prior plane the right of the individual to remain silent. It is the
>right of the individual to remain silent in the face of the government's
>right to inquire which shall, should and will prevail.
>
>So when Larry inquires as to whether filing a 1040 will violate an
>individuals right to remain silent - my response is that each person
>must decide for himself as to whether such "testimony" of filing and
>whether such production by filing constitutes a violation of one's right
>to remain silent. The constitutionally protected rule against self
>incrimination is predicated upon the "fear" of injurious testimony or
>the "fear" of injurious production. The United States Supreme Court in
>the Hoffman case states that "...it must be perfectfully clear..." that
>there is no possibility that the witness may incriminate himself before
>he can be judicially compelled (ie: contempt) to bear witness against
>himself. "Fear" alone, as distinquished from the fact, of incrimination,
>is sufficient to invoke the right to remain silent to any governmental
>instance for inquiry. 
>
>Finally, and pragmatically, I will describe what I refer to as the
>"Classic Confrontation". This setting is in a Court Room. There is a
>judge on the bench. You, the witness, are being interrogated by a
>prostitutor (sic???  - yeah, sure!).  And you, the witness, have in FEAR
>of self incrimination invoked the "fifth" or your right to remain
>silent. The prostitutor, whinning and wailing, request that the court
>direct the witness to responsively answer the question. The court
>directs the witness: "You must respond to the question!" You, the
>witness,  persist in your reliance upon your rights arising under the
>fifth amendment - that is the right not to bear witness against
>yourself. And the court repeats his directive with further and
>intimidating admonishment as to the threat and potential of contempt.
>With a jail cell yawning for your body and with the marshall at the
>ready, - to custom fit you with the nice bracelets connected with a
>short chain - , you have an opportunity to carefully contemplate the
>gravity of the situation. Now this is where the rubber meets the road.
>  
>One the one hand, the parlour patriot reconsiders his position and
>craters and sings like a bird in perfect harmony and syncapated rythem
>with the prostitutor who smiles approvingly after every question and
>incriminating response. After which the parlour patriot's own testimony
>is used to incriminate and then convict him and he goes to jail having
>admitted from his own mouth his "crime". The jury has no alternative in
>this setting but to convict. In that case the "crime" is admitted! End
>of case!
>
>On the other hand, the freeborn individual, like Freeborn John
>Lillburne, is learned, prepared  and armed to the teeth with rightious
>indignation and knowledge of his rights. The freeborn individual is thus
>able to easily recognize the trespass on his dignity by the very
>incriminating question which is so insolently condoned by the court. The
>mere placement of which incriminating question does violance to the
>common law and constitutional principles to which the prostitutor has
>solemnly sworn to uphold. In the face of an insistent witness who
>powerfully persist in exercise of his constitutional right to not
>incriminate himself, the court is duty bound to hold an in camera review
>of the "objection" to the incriminating question  with only the court
>reporter and the witness present. Picture please a question reaching for
>its rightful answer - but behold - you interpose between the proper and
>just right to inquire and its responsive answer an objection predicated
>upon the 5th amendment right not to incriminate. this objection is what
>the court must now rule on in the in camera review.  At this in camera
>review the Judge is duty bound to apply the so called Hoffman "perfectly
>clear" rule that it must be "perfectly clear" that the witness is
>mistaken and that there is no possiblity that incrimination will occur
>should your responsive answer to the question be  compelled over your
>timely placed objection - that is to say "enforced" by contempt, by fine
>jail or other punishment. In such event even the witness may not be
>compelled to reveal to the court why he is in "fear" that his anwer
>might criminate. For to do so will compell the witness to reveal the
>very thing that he has invoked the right to begin with and thus
>incriminate himesel in the in camera review what he sought protection
>from in the courtroom proceedings. Rather the court must be skeptically
>aware that in the deviousness of crime and its detection that
>incrimination may be achieved by obscure and unlikely lines of inquiry. 
>See: Untied States v. Isaacs, 256 F2d  654. Therefore the court must in
>the final analysis take your word for the fact that you "fear" that your
>responsive answer might tend to incriminate you. Under these
>circumstances the court has no alternative but to sustain your
>invocation of the fifth - you right not to incriminate yourself. And in
>this "Classic Confrontation" the right to remain silent will have thus
>prevailed over the full weight of the Untied States (or any state or
>political or other subdivision thereof) right to inquire. And you will
>thus remain in possession of your liberty.
>
>CAVIAT: Some jurist cannot resist the opportunity to become tyranical -
>even if they claim its only a mistake. In such a situation - some of you
>may have heard of this thing called the Writ of Habeas Corpus - but
>that's another story. There will be another day and besides, I'm tired
>of typing for now. 
>
>
>Constitutionally, 
>
>Dale Robertson
>=======================================================================
>> LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT,
>USA
>> Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry
>Rushing
>>
>=======================================================================
>> Larry,
>> 
>> No, I heard this first from you.
>> Call the Clerk first thing in
>> the morning.  If you don't have
>> the number, call Directory Assistance
>> for the Capitol Switchboard, then
>> ask for the Clerk of the U.S.
>> Supreme Court, Mr. Suter.  
>> 
>> Good luck!  And let me know asap!!
>> 
>> I am standing by.
>> 
>> /s/ Paul Mitchell
>> 
>> 
>> At 04:04 PM 11/25/96 +0000, you wrote:
>> >Mr. Mitchell,
>> >
>> >I have been hearing rumors the Supreme court just handed down a
>ruling 
>> >that filing a 1040 form would be a violation of an individual's fifth
>
>> >ammendment rights and it is now not "required". Wondering if you have
>
>> >any confirmation of this? Sounds too good to be true, but as we all 
>> >know, it is the truth.
>> >
>> >Sincerely,
>> >
>> >LC
>> >lcouncil@maui.net
>> >
>> >
>> 
>> ===========================================================
>> Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.:  pmitch@primenet.com               
> 
>> ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state
>> ===========================================================
>> 
>=======================================================================
>LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA
>Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
>=======================================================================
>Larry,
>
>No, I heard this first from you.
>Call the Clerk first thing in
>the morning.  If you don't have
>the number, call Directory Assistance
>for the Capitol Switchboard, then
>ask for the Clerk of the U.S.
>Supreme Court, Mr. Suter.  
>
>Good luck!  And let me know asap!!
>
>I am standing by.
>
>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>
>At 04:04 PM 11/25/96 +0000, you wrote:
>>Mr. Mitchell,
>>
>>I have been hearing rumors the Supreme court just handed down a ruling 
>>that filing a 1040 form would be a violation of an individual's fifth 
>>ammendment rights and it is now not "required". Wondering if you have 
>>any confirmation of this? Sounds too good to be true, but as we all 
>>know, it is the truth.
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>LC
>>lcouncil@maui.net
>>
>>
>
>===========================================================
>Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.:  pmitch@primenet.com                  
>ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state
>===========================================================
>

====================================================================
[Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @]
[65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.]
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com      
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win]
We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding.
Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan
====================================================================

      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail