FILED ON 9 JUNE 2000:

Stephen Mitchell c/o 12400 Ventura Blvd. #137 Studio City, California 818-789-6403 Kathleen Carey c/o 5152 Sepulveda, Suite 205 Sherman Oaks, California 818-789-0954 Stephen Mitchell, Kathleen Carey In propria persona [NOT PRO SE] California Court of Appeal Second Appellate District Stephen Mitchell; Kathleen Carey Appellants/Plaintiffs, vs.

CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY, a corporation, dba L. Ron Hubbard Library;

Respondents/Defendants, Reply Brief Oral Argument Requested 2 Civil B131378 Appeal from superior court, Los Angeles county Case No. BC175367 Frances Rothschild, judge Real Party In Interest:

Church of Spiritual Technology BRIEF OF RESPONDENT FAILS TO OPPOSE OUR OPENING BRIEF The Brief of Respondent/defendant Church of Spiritual Technology, a 501(c)3 corporation, has failed to effectively oppose any of the issues raised in Our opening brief, for the following reasons:

1. With regard to Our Motion to Disqualify, Respondent/defendant has failed to present any evidence precluding Us from making a claim of error, or that the facts surrounding the Motion to Disqualify are other than as We have stated in Our Opening Brief.

2. Our Opening Brief raised the issue of venue and jurisdiction, which the Respondent/defendant ignores, having failed to present any evidence to controvert the claims made in Our Opening Brief.

3. Our Opening Brief raised the issue of perjury on the part of David Miscavige and counsel Monique Yingling which was ignored by the Trial Court, and Respondent/defendant fails to present any evidence to controvert those claims.

4. Our Opening Brief raised the issue of the Trial Court{s having practiced law from the bench by offering counsel to the Respondent/defendant CST with regard to their default and Respondent/defendant fails to present any evidence to controvert those claims.

5. Our Opening Brief raised the issue of misleading Minute Orders issued by the Trial Court which variously referenced the laws of the united states of America and the laws of the United States.

The Respondent{s Brief ignores this issue and therefore fails to make the claim that the united states of America and the United States are other than as characterized in Our Opening Brief which, as a result, invalidates the sustaining of CST{s demurrer and renders moot any claim of noncompliance with discovery on Our part.

6. Our Opening Brief addressed the issue of a discovery controversy, created and manipulated by the Trial Court, and the Respondent's Brief with regard to this matter is rendered moot by the following facts:

a. The Respondent/defendant failed to present the Trial Court, or the Appellate Court, with evidence challenging Our status as nationals per the Nationality Act of 1940 at 54 Stat. 1137 [Section]101(a), 8 U.S.C. [Section]1101(a)(21);

b. The Respondent/defendant failed to present the Trial Court, or the Appellate Court, with evidence that nationals are subject to the Internal Revenue Code;

c. The Respondent/defendant failed to controvert Our claim to the status of national by presenting the Trial Court, or the Appellate Court, with any evidence that We are nationals of the United States per the Nationality Act of 1940 at 54 stat 1137 [Section]101(b) and 8 U.S.C. [Section]1101(a)(22);

d. In an effort to cloud the issue, the Respondent/defendant continues to willfully misstate and misrepresent Our position to this Court as it did to the Trial Court by stating in the Respondent{s Brief (at page 19), ̉Indeed, the very premise upon which Mitchell and Carey based their libel claim--that Federal tax laws do not apply to resident United States citizens-- ...".

We have never taken such a ludicrous position. It is well-known and established that the resident, U.S. citizen/national of the United States/"person" -- as opposed to the national -- is the specific indentured dependent class that is subject to the Internal Revenue Code.

7. The Respondent's Brief provides no justification for the Trial Court's sustaining of CST's demurrer. Just as the Trial Court chose to remain silent with regard to the national, so does Respondent/defendant CST fail to acknowledge, in their Respondent's Brief, the existence of the national and fails to prove that the national is subject to the Internal Revenue Code by presenting any evidence thereto. They claim section I of the Internal Revenue Code (Respondent's Brief, page 19), imposes a tax on the income of "every individual," see e.g., 26 U.S.C.

1(c), "who is a citizen or resident of the United States." We agree, for this is descriptive of the National of the United States and clearly not descriptive of the national.

Our Opening Brief made the claim that to force everyone into the status of national of the United States renders that status non- voluntary and results in an indentureship that violates the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution which proscribes involuntary servitude. The Respondent's Brief has presented no evidence to controvert this claim. For the Trial Court to have sustained the Respondent/defendant CST's demurrer is to ignore all claims made by Us as to Our status and to violate Our inalienable rights by ignoring those claims and placing Us into a dependent class, thereby making the presumtion that everyone is now a national of the United States.

The Respondent's Brief further attempts to mislead this Court by claiming to be a church with parishioners, "Mitchell and Carey's only purported cause of action was premised entirely on their assertion that a church bulletin warning parishioners of the illegality of plaintiffs' tax evasion schemes was libelous ..."

(Respondent's Brief, pgs. 18 & 19). The Respondent/defendant CST is not a church with parishioners. The Respondent/defendant CST is a corporation with employees. They were identified as such in Our Complaint and have presented no evidence to the contrary.

8. In Our Opening Brief We raised the issue that the demurrer of Respondent/defendant CST functioned as an "answer" though mislabeled as a demurrer and therefore cannot be sustained.

Respondent/defendant has presented no evidence to controvert this claim.

CONCLUSION The Respondent's Brief provides the Appellate Court with rhetoric and misstatement of fact as foundation for their position. The Court must find for the Appellants and order that the matter be remanded to Department 1 of the Superior Court for reassignment to a superior court judge capable of handling the case in an impartial manner as required by law and judicial ethics. To do otherwise would be to open a new chapter of American history wherein the birthright of an American has been officially construed out of existence and the only possible existence in this country is that of a dependent national of the United States corporate government.

Respectfully submitted this ninth day of the sixth month, in the year A.D. two thousand.

_[L.S.]______________________________seal_ Stephen Mitchell _[L.S.]______________________________seal_ Kathleen Carey

Go Back