His brief filed with the 6th Circuit is mostly the same "district court had no jurisdiction" and "no law" crap, but he adds a new flavor of gibberish I haven't seen before, with a cameo appearance by Paul Andrew Mitchell:
The attached documents are pleadings filed by Paul Andrew Mitchell in the Tenth Circuit, and make no mention of Eddings in Florida or any subpoena issued in California (although there is a reference to a subpoena issued to the Secretary "in a civil case"). And McNeil doesn't seem to understand that PAM doesn't actually represent the United States.Jerry P. McNeil wrote:III - NO ACT OF CONGRESS IMPOSES A SPECIFIC LIABILITY
EITHER TO FILE A RETURN OR TO PAY THE FEDERAL
INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX
8. In September, 2002, Plaintiff, Dr. Tally H. Eddings, who had entered a Civil Case, No. 6:01-CV-1299-0RL-280AB, in the United States District Court (U.S.D.C.) for the Middle L. District of Florida, obtained a Civil SUBPOENA from the District Court of the United States (D.C.U.S.) an Article III federal court in Santa Ana, California. The Clerk of the D.C.U.S. commanded then Secretary Paul O'Neill to produce certified copies of all federal Statutes at Large which create a specific :iability for income taxes imposed by subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code. All Acts of Congress are first published in the Statutes at Large; some are later codified in the U.S. Code. The deadline for Secretary O'Neill's compliance with the SUBPOENA was midnight of Friday, November 1,2002 A.D.
9. Four and one-half years, and six courtesy reminders to Secretary O'Neill's successors later, on February 7, 2007, The United States intervened for Eddings and others, in the 10th Circuit of Appeals, in Denver. Colorado, in order to provide timely notice to all interested parties of challenges to the constitutionality of certain federal statutes, listed in the complaint, and to provide final notice IO the Secretary. On March 29, 2007, the United States entered in the permanent records in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, the INTERVENOR'S NOTICE OF DEFAULT BY AFFIDAVIT; AND SIXTH NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE - of the Secretary of Treasury's failure to appear and answer a SUPOENA issued by an Article III Court in the D.C.U.S. located in Santa Anna, California. The default, and its collateral estoppel which bars Secretary O'Neill and all others from collecting the Individual Income Tax was entered prior to Mr. Hendrickson's conviction below. Silence where is a duty to speak equates to fraud. Fraud activates estoppel. All are conclusively forever barred from attempting collections of the federal income tax after March 29,2007, pending a Judicial order vacating the default. No such vacating order can be shown to exist. The bar to collections extends even into this Judicial Circuit.
10. Copies of the relevant federal public court documents, namely; (I) NOTICE OF INTERVENTION, Ex Rei, dated February 7, 2007; and, (2) INTERVENOR'S NOTICE OF DEFAULT BY AFFIDAVIT, Ex Rei, dated March 29, 2007, each bearing the time and date stamp of the Clerk of Courts in the 10th Circuit, are attached hereto, and incorporated herein, along with all other documents referenced internally within those two documents, as if each incorporated document were in fact, fully reproduced in the body of the text of this INTERVENOR'S OPENING BRIEF. One of the documents referenced internally in the NOTICE OF INTERVENTION, appearing in the records of the 10th Circuit, was also previously entered on the trial records made here. See NOTICE OF INTERVENTION, page 7, line 17.
The argument that the US government might somehow be estopped from enforcing the tax laws was specifically rejected in McNeil's court of claims case, and yet that seems to be what he's arguing again here, and also claiming that the failure of the US to respond to a subpoena issued by PAM somehow estops the US from enforcing the tax laws against *anyone,* which is not what "collateral estoppel" means.
