NORMAN L. VROMAN
Lawyer
c/o General Delivery
Hopland, California
IN PROPRIA PERSONA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
)
)
)
)
PLAINTIFF,
)
)
v.
)
)
NORMAN LEON VROMAN
)
)
DEFENDANT.
)
________________________________)
No. CR 91 0213 EFL
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF
MOTION IN LIMINE
RESPONSE
The government
has "anticipated"
present
has filed
that the
evidence
this motion
defense
concerning
unconstitutionality
of
may
the
"certain
in limine because it
attempt
alleged
provisions
to
argue
invalidity
of
the
or
or
Internal
Revenue Code."
It is precisely because these certain provisions have yet to
be revealed
to the
defendant that
intelligent response to the motion.
Internal Revenue
Code and
require guessing
on the
exactly which
he
is
unable
to
form
an
Due to the complexity of the
the accompanying Regulations it would
part of the defendant to determine just
provisions the
government was
alluding to.
This
defendant was
under the
impression that
he was not required to
guess at what he was charged with in a criminal case.
Response to Motion In Limine:
Page 1 of 4
"Willfulness,
as
construed
by
our
prior
decisions
in
criminal tax cases, requires the Government to prove that the law
imposed a
duty on the defendant, that the defendant knew of this
duty, and
that he
duty.
voluntarily and
intentionally violated
that
We deal first with the case where the issue is whether the
defendant knew of the duty purporting imposed by the provision of
the statute
v United
or regulation he is accused of violating,..."
Cheek
States, 498 U.S. ___, 112 L Ed 2nd 617, 111 S. Ct. 604,
at 629-30, 112 L.Ed.2d.
Thus we
deal directly with the problem facing the defendant
in the case at bar, the complete lack of knowledge of the statute
or regulation
that he
beyond question
is accused
that the
of violating!!
government must
prove
While
that
the
it is
law
imposed a duty on the defendant, what law that might be is yet to
be revealed.
Until
"certain provisions
he would
want to
the defendant
of the
is informed as to what those
Internal Revenue Code" might be that
allege as being invalid or unconstitutional he
can not respond to the government's Motion In Limine.
The government
alleges that
is not relevant to the case at bar.
be operating
as an
what document
the United States Constitution
If that is so the court must
equity court but the defendant is unaware of
he signed conferring jurisdiction and removing his
constitutional safeguards.
Until such
time as
the government
sees fit
to inform the
defendant of
it statute
what law required him to make and file a return, be
or regulation, he is unable to adequately prepare any
defense.
Response to Motion In Limine:
Page 2 of 4
Dated:
July 23, 1991
/s/ Norman Vroman
______________________________
NORMAN L. VROMAN
In Propria Persona
Response to Motion In Limine:
Page 3 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
It is
hereby certified
foregoing was
that a
hand delivered
true and
to the
correct
/s/ Norman Vroman
_______________________________
NORMAN L. VROMAN
Response to Motion In Limine:
Page 4 of 4
#
#
of
the
United States Attorney, at
his respective office on this 23rd day of July 1991.
#
copy