UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
Plaintiff, ) No. 1:08-Cxxx
v. )
EDWARD FREEMAN and ) MOTION IN LIMINE
SHARON FREEMAN, )
Defendants )
GOVERNMENT'S MOTION IN LIMINE
Now comes the United States of America, by and through Charles R. Gross, United States Attorney for the Western District of Michigan and Donald A. Davis, Assistant United States Attorney, and hereby moves, in limine, pursuant to Rule 103(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, that this Court hold the possible defense evidence, described below, to be inadmissible in the trial of the instant case. The United States further moves this Court to instruct the attorneys for the Defendants and Defendants and all witnesses called by Defendants, that use of such evidence, whether through pleadings or other documentary evidence, testimony, remarks, questions or arguments, either directly or indirectly, is prohibited. The possible evidence subject to this motion is as follows:
1. Any evidence which seeks to establish that the income tax laws of the United States are unconstitutional or unlawful, or that the Defendants believed, even in good faith, that those laws are unconstitutional or unlawful. Specifically included within this request is any evidence challenging the process for ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; evidence alleging the unconstitutionality or lawfulness of Title 26, Sections 7201 and 7203; and any challenge to the validity of the regulations, promulgated by the Internal Revenue Service, applicable to the above-cited statutory provisions.
2. Any evidence challenging the validity of the United States monetary system or the Federal Reserve Notes as legal tender or a unit measure of value.
3. Any evidence that wages, profits, interest or other gain do not constitute income, subject to taxation, within the meaning of revenue laws of the United States including the Internal Revenue Code.
4. Any testimonial evidence, (except through Defendants), or physical evidence regarding any of Defendants' claimed good faith belief the Defendants' gains were not income or subject to taxation or that Defendants were not required to file federal income tax returns or that Defendants were not subject to the income tax laws.
5. Any evidence which attempts to suggest that the Fifth Amendment prohibition against compelled self-incrimination is a defense to the failure to file a tax return.
6. Any documentary evidence including, but not limited to, statutes, codes, judicial decisions, legal opinions, writing, tapes or " tax protestor" materials, upon which Defendants purportedly relied in determining that gains were not subject to the income tax laws.
7. Any evidence regarding the civil procedures available to the Internal Revenue Service to collect taxes due and owing the United States from Defendants.
8. Any evidence that seeks to establish or suggest that Defendants were not " person[s] subject to the taxes imposed by ... Title 26, U.S.C." in that Defendants were (or were not) residents of the District of Columbia, non-resident aliens, a foreign corporation, agents of a foreign corporation having income from sources within the United States, or citizens of a particular state, country, territory or resident aliens having income from abroad or from a United States possession, or employees of a state or federal government, or engaged in any particular occupation, or a vessel in admiralty, a " franchise," a subject of a British Commonwealth, the British Isles, the United Kingdom or the Holy See, a " 14th Amendment Citizen," or any particular type of person, " natural" or otherwise.
9. Any evidence that seeks to establish or suggest that this Court is without jurisdiction.
10. Any evidence provided by " tax experts" regarding opinions concerning the status, impact, effect and significance of tax law and related subjects.
11. Any evidence challenging this investigation and prosecution based on the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1990.Any evidence that seeks to establish that the process by which the Defendants are before the Court is historically flawed or otherwise flawed or not to Defendants' liking, standards, demands, or imagination, inter alia:
a. That agents of the IRS lacked authority to perform their official duties, and that their conduct was fraudulent and illegal;
b. That the Defendants were not involved in any " taxable activity";
c. That the IRS is " a collection agency working for foreign banks and operating out of Puerto Rico . . ." and is " a money laundry, extortion racket, and conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering…," having no " lawful jurisdiction within any of the 50 States of the Union";
d. That the 16th Amendment was not ratified and, if ratified, was not enforceable except in " the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, The Virgin Islands, and the territories and insular possessions" ;
e. That the IRS has no jurisdiction over them and that they were not " persons" or " individuals";
f. That all Federal Judges are " disqualified from presiding on all federal income tax cases," and that " Federal grand juries cannot issue valid indictments against illegal tax protestors";
g. " That unless one' s work involves the performance of the functions of a public office one has no ' net earnings from self employment' and need file no return regarding the proceeds of self employment" (italics and interior quotes in original) and that IRS " forms are not applicable to me as a private sector person not employed by the federal government";
h. That a " natural person" (as opposed to a " person") is not included in federal tax laws;
i. That the United States is a " fictitious plaintiff";
j. That the persons engaged in the investigation and prosecution of this matter have engaged in misconduct including extortion, oppression, fraud, or lack authority to be so engaged;
k. That the federal tax laws violated Defendants' perceived right of contract;
l. That the tax laws of the United States are not " positive law" ;
m. That there is any relevant significant between " direct taxes" and indirect taxes" ;
n. That attack the authority, activities and/or composition of the federal grand jury.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth more fully in the accompanying memorandum of Law in Support, the United States respectfully requests this Court to enter an order granting the instant Motion in Limine.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________________
CHARLES R. GROSS United States Attorney
 Dated: April 15, 2008
/s/ Donald A. Davis
DONALD A. DAVIS
Assistant United States Attorney
P.O. Box 208
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49501-0208 (616) 456-2404