- ... From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 6:50 PM Subject: Re: Opening Brief -- USA v. Gilbertson (8th Circuit 1997) ...Message 1 of 1 , Aug 27, 2013View Source----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S."
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: Opening Brief -- USA v. Gilbertson (8th Circuit 1997)
Here are authorities re: legal consequences of missing credentials:Here's Anastasoff, which held that UNPUBLISHED Circuit Court opinions(latter is PAST DUE and IN DEFAULT)(see all "NAD" links)> why did the court rule that this brief was essentially meritless
You've made a mistake that many Americans make:they just ASSUME that some document was issued
by personnel with authority to do so, merely because
it displays the words "United States Court of Appeals".(But, don't feel bad: we're having enormous difficultieseven persuading alternative journalists to confront the
hard evidence I am about to summarize for you ....)
Many of these atrocious documents are actually
written by anonymous personnel claiming to be"law clerks" and/or "deputy clerks," but they don't
have proper credentials and, in many cases,
the "robes" don't have proper credentials either!You'll also note that the document in question
bears no clerk's authorized signature and
no Court official seal, as required by 28 U.S.C. 1691:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1691(first enacted on 6/25/1948 and never amended!)
Here's the evidence against Loken:
That Circuit Court was and still is infiltrated:
are unconstitutional -- reportedly issued by the SAME EIGHTH CIRCUIT!!!
http://supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions.htm(all acts as such are VOID; can't even get paid)
The following is a good essay clarifying the2 classes of citizens in America:
(+ all links at the end)On the merits, the IRC is demonstrably vagueand intentionally so:http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/
http://supremelaw.org/fedzone11/fedzone.in.evidence.htme.g. see each special definition of "State" here:
Hope this helps.Thank you for contacting the Supreme Law Firm.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)
All Rights Reserved without PrejudiceOn Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Allan Rietow <arietow@...> wrote:Greetings,I found this on your website and read the opening brief on the link below. It seemed explain in the best terms I have ever read that there are two types of citizens a state of the union and federal citizen -Mitchell's work blazed a courageous new trail, on first impression, in Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, Missouri. This masterpiece, in 50 pages, has now withstood the test of time and remains unchallenged, and without any known errors.If this opening brief remains unchallenged then why did the court rule that this brief was essentially meritless in the Gilbertson case (see below)?Thank you. Allan………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..131 F.3d 14480 A.F.T.R.2d 97-8281UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
Everett C. GILBERTSON, Appellant.No. 97-2099.United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.Submitted: Nov. 28, 1997.
Decided: Dec. 10, 1997.NOTICE: Eighth Circuit Rule 28A(k) governs citation of unpublished opinions and provides that they are not precedent and generally should not be cited unless relevant to establishing the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, the law of the case, or if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue and no published opinion would serve as well.Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.PER CURIAM.1After a jury trial, Everett C. Gilbertson was convicted of filing false tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). The district court1 sentenced him to 18 months in prison. Gilbertson appeals, and we affirm.2We reject as completely meritless Gilbertson's argument that the United States District Court lacked jurisdiction over his prosecution for tax crimes. See United States v. Watson, 1 F.3d 733, 734 (8th Cir.1993) (per curiam) (in prosecution for fraudulent tax returns, district court had jurisdiction, because 18 U.S.C. § 3231 "provides district courts with original jurisdiction of all violations of federal law"; rejecting claim that "free citizen" of Oklahoma was not United States citizen); United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir.1993) (per curiam) (federal income tax is not voluntary; rejecting appellants' argument that "Free Citizens of the Republic of Minnesota" were not United States citizens subject to taxes), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1193 (1994). Similarly meritless is Gilbertson's claim that the federal jury statute discriminates against Minnesota citizens like him who are not "federal citizens."3As Gilbertson's under-reporting of income for the years 1991 and 1992 was clearly prohibited by the statute under which he was convicted, we find no merit to his generalized argument regarding the vagueness of the Internal Revenue Code. See 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1); United States v. Kaylor, 877 F.2d 658, 661 (8th Cir.) (due process requirements), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 871 (1989). We further hold that Gilbertson has failed to show any extra-judicial source of bias to warrant the trial judge's recusal, and that the district court properly denied his motion for release pending appeal.4Because Gilbertson's arguments regarding freedom of information and civil removal statutes are unrelated to his criminal convictions, we do not address those issues in this criminal appeal.5Gilbertson's "Motion to Correct Transcript of Sentencing Hearing" is denied, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota