From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Subject: Re: "Winning" Tax Case!
Article-I.D.: oregon.5APR199316063313
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Oregon
Lines: 37
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <765445d3219144t87@infoserv.com>,
 jamesdon@infoserv.com (James A. Donald) writes...
>The tax protesters are legally correct, but they are put in jail anyway.

Hello?  What the Sloan decision means is that the tax protestors 
were wrong.

>The weakness of the governments legal position is shown by the fact that when
>someone protesting tax or gun laws on legal grounds gets a federal jury trial
>(very rare) the feds blatantly stack the jury, with the same old faces turning
>up time after time.

Demonstrate, please!  The rules of procedure make this very 
unlikely.

>However Teel should have mentioned that though his advice is legally sound, if
>you follow it you will probably wind up in jail.

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

Which makes it legally unsound.  If I were representing Mr. Teel, 
I'd try a procedural approach if I could find one, or recommend 
he plea-bargain.  He's setting himself up to be in hot water.

						Daniel Reitman

HOW NOT TO WRITE A DEED

One case involved the construction of a conveyance to grantees "jointly, as 
tenants in common, with equal rights and interest in said land, and to the 
survivor thereof, in fee simple. . . . To Have and to Hold the same unto the 
said parties hereto, equally, jointly, as tenants in common, with equal rights 
and interest for the period or term of their lives, and to the survivor thereof 
at the death of the other."

The court held that the survivorship provision indicated an intent to create a 
joint tenancy.  Germain v. Delaine, 294 Ala. 443, 318 So.2d 681 (1975).
