Time: Mon Sep 29 11:07:57 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA25387;
	Mon, 29 Sep 1997 10:21:56 -0700 (MST)
	by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA16440;
	Mon, 29 Sep 1997 10:04:19 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 10:03:51 -0700
To: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Becraft speaks on failed arguments (fwd)


Ask yourself these pertinent questions:

If the "United States of America" have never
been granted legal standing to sue, or be sued,
by Act of Congress, how many of the cites below
are null and void for exhibiting Plaintiffs which
never had standing?

If the actions in question were criminal proceedings
within the United States District Court, which has
no criminal jurisdiction whatsoever, how many more
of the cites below are null and void for proceeding
without subject matter jurisdiction?

If the actions in question were "prosecuted" by
U.S. Attorneys, alleging to having Power of Attorney
to represent the Internal Revenue Service, how many
more of the cites below are null and void for
proceeding on behalf of party(s) without valid
legal representation?

If the judge(s) who presided upon these cases were
paying taxes on their judicial compensation, in 
violation of Article III, Section 1, how many more
of the cites below are null and void for having
proceeded with judges who had an adverse conflict
of interest, in violation of 28 U.S.C. 455, because
the presiding judge(s) was in a contract with one
of the litigants?

This should be enough to throw out most, if not all,
of the cites below.  We have more screens like these,
which tend to trap even smaller particles of dust
and dirt (not in any particular order :)

/s/ Paul Mitchell

copy:  Supreme Law School, Friends

At 08:11 AM 9/29/97 PST, you wrote:
>Some possible historo-legal refs of intrerest.....
>On Sep 29, <pwatson@utdallas.edu> wrote:
>[-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------]
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 11:42:15 -0500
>From: Brooks Martin <haze11spamela@prodigy.net>
>Subject: Becraft speaks on failed arguments
>Newsgroups: misc.taxes
>Date:          Wed, 24 Sep 1997 19:24:34 -0500
>From:          Larry Becraft <becraft@hiwaay.net>
>Subject:       Net Chat [Failed Arguments]
> II. Wages Are Income:
>Back in about 1979 or 1980, Bob Golden and Pete Soehnlen
>published a work entitled "Are You Required," which persuasively
>advocated the argument that wages are not income. However,
>desperate people championed this issue and lost in the following cases:
>1. United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014 (9th Cir. 1981).
>2. Lonsdale v. CIR, 661 F.2d 71 (5th Cir. 1981).
>3. United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923 (10th Cir. 1982).
>4. Granzow v. CIR, 739 F.2d 265 (7th Cir. 1984).
>5. Hansen v. United States, 744 F.2d 658 (8th Cir. 1984).
>6. Perkins v. CIR, 746 F.2d 1187 (6th Cir. 1984).
>7. Schiff v. CIR, 751 F.2d 116 (2nd Cir. 1984).
>8. United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747 (7th Cir. 1985).
>9. Hyslep v. United States, 765 F.2d 1083 (11th Cir. 1985).
>10. Coleman v. CIR, 791 F.2d 68, 70 (7th Cir. 1986).
>11. Wilcox v. CIR, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 (9th Cir. 1988).
>12.  United States v. Gerards, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 1993).
>13.  Maisano v. United States, 908 F.2d 408, 409 (9th Cir. 1990),
>and Maisano v. United States, 940 F.2d 499, 501-02 (9th Cir. 1991).
>Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517, 519 (7th Cir. 1984). Courts
>have also consistently rejected claims that wages do not constitute
>taxable income under the I.R.C. See, e.g., Stubbs v. Commissioner of
>IRS, 797 F.2d 936, 938 (11th Cir. 1986) (rejecting argument that
>wages are not taxable income as "patently frivolous"); Ficalora v.
>Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 751 F.2d 85, 87-88 (2d Cir.
>1984) (holding that income includes compensation for services), cert.
>denied, 471 U.S. 1005 (1985); Lonsdale, 661 F.2d at 72 (rejecting
>"even exchange" argument).
>Jeff Dickstein, lawyer "extraordinare" from California, later Alaska,
>Montana, Tennessee and now Oklahoma, has written a book entitled
>Judicial Tyranny, which discusses this issue in great detail, including
>all the adverse decisions on this issue through 1989. When Jeff and I
>were about to start the conspiracy trial of Vern Holland and Dave
>Mauldin in Tulsa in August, 1990, Jeff announced that his book was
>hot off the press. When we got the first copy and looked at his book
>just days before we were to start that trial in federal court in 
>Tulsa, we noticed that the front cover contained the seal of the 
>local federal court as well as a likeness of one of the local federal 
>judges. At times, Jeff can be harrowing. However, we got a hung jury 
>in that case and afterwards, 6 of the jurors, including the forelady, 
>came and joined Vern's patriot organization.
>III. The IRS is a Delaware corporation:
>Back in 1982 or 1983, somebody started circulation of the argument
>that the IRS was a private corporation which had been created in
>Delaware in 1933. This is indeed a frivolous argument and has properly
>been rejected by the courts; see Young v. IRS, 596 F.Supp. 141, 147
>(N.D. Ind. 1984).
>IX. Not a "Person" Under the Tax Code:
>Some have contended that they were not "persons" under the Internal
>Revenue Code, an argument which has been lost.
>United States v. Karlin, 785 F.2d 90, 91 (3d Cir. 1986).
>United States v. Price, 798 F.2d 111, 113 (5th Cir. 1986).
>United States v. Silevan, 985 F.2d 962, 970 (8th Cir. 1993).
>United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 (9th Cir. 1986)
>(defendant who contended she was not a "taxpayer" because she was
>an "absolute, freeborn and natural individual" raised frivolous 
>argument); Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1447-48 
>(10th Cir. 1990)(plaintiff is a person subject to federal income 
>tax, invalidating numerous other frivolous tax protester  
>arguments); Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517, 519 (7th Cir. 
>1984) (all individuals, natural or unnatural, are subject to 
>federal income tax on their wages); Itz v. United States Tax
>Court, 1987 WL 15893, at *5, 87-2 USTC P      9497 (W.D.Tex.
>May 6, 1987) (claim of plaintiff that he is a "de jure" citizen 
>as opposed to a "de facto" citizen of the  United States is 
>"patently meritless").
>XII. The CFR Cross Reference Index:
>The Code of Federal Regulations contains a separate volume which list
>various statutes and the regulations which implement those statutes.
>This is not an exclusive list nor is it an admission made by the
>government that there are no regulations for Title 26, U.S.C. Parties
>making this argument have suffered defeat.
>United States v. Cochrane, 985 F.2d 1027, 1031 (9th Cir. 1993).
>Russell v. United States, 95 CCH Tax Cases  50029 (W.D. Mich. 1994).
>Reese v. CIR, 69 TCM 2814, TC Memo 1995-244 (1995)(this and several
>other arguments described as "legalistic gibberish").
>Morgan v. CIR, 78 AFTR2d 96-6633 (M.D.Fla. 1996); Stafford v. CIR, 
>T.C. Memo 1997-50; 1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 46; 73 T.C.M. (CCH) 1848
>("For the same reasons, neither the Code of Federal Regulations 
>nor the parallel table of authorities cited by petitioner supports 
>his BATF transfer argument. n10 We see no reason to belabor that 
>point. n10 The parallel table of authorities is merely an ancillary 
>finding device included in the Code of Federal Regulations"; this 
>case also raised the implementing regs argument).
>XVI. Wangrudites:
>Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990)(the
>following arguments are completely lacking in legal merit and 
>patently frivolous: (1) individuals ("free born, white, preamble, 
>sovereign, natural, individual common law 'de jure' citizens of a 
>state, etc.") are not "persons" subject to taxation under the 
>Internal Revenue Code; (2) the authority of the United States is 
>confined to the District of Columbia; (3) the income tax is a 
>direct tax which is invalid absent apportionment; (4) the 
>Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution is either invalid or 
>applies only to corporations; (5) wages are not income; (6)
>the income tax is voluntary); United States v. Studley, 783 
>F.2d 934, 937 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Buras, 633 
>F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1980); United States v. Neff, 615 F.2d 
>1235 (9th Cir. 1980).
>Brooks Martin
>to reply, remove "spamela" from address
>[------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------]
>         *****       Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel!        *****
>An _EFFECTIVE_  | Insured  | If Guns are     | Let he who hath no  | Keep
>weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only  | weapon sell his     | Your
>hand = Freedom  |   DIAL   | RIGHT WINGERS   | garment and buy a   | Powder
>on every side!  | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry.

Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris      : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA;  M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://supremelaw.com       : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this

As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail