Time: Sun Dec 14 02:53:25 1997
To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Bcc: sls

Like: "aliens here, citizens abroad" [sic],
Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 48 S. 788,
160 Ala. 155 (1909) notwithstanding, right?

Compare 26 CFR 1.1-1 with the 14th amendment [sic].

/s/ Paul Mitchell,
Candidate for Congress

At 10:19 PM 12/13/97 -0500, you wrote:
>http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/jpfo.html <- Looks like a noble effort
>[jpfo@prn-bbs.org] JFPO Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership
>"ART/PROPAGANDA WORK" of Immensely Rich Socialists http://home.onestop.net/irs
>Denver International Airport Exposed http://www.geocities.com/Baja/5692
>CURE for CONSTITUTIONAL IGNORANCE: http://home.onestop.net/irs/lexrex.html 
>BOGUS ARGUEMENTS DIE HARD, or should we call them defeated arguments and
>theories.  Keep in mind that in an environment of JUDICIAL TYRANNY, even
>good and sound arguments are defeated, so do not get defensive about any of
>these defeated arguments, just realize that this is the DE FACTO situation,
>it is not personal, JUST TYRANNICAL, and that de jure and defacto are
>unfortunately today are so far apart.  Some of these appear to have merit,
>some may even be de jure correct, the bottom line is that DE FACTO they are
>all defeated.  Some are even completely outrageous and inane and obviously
>grasping for straws.  Some even were completely correct but due to not being
>argued well and poorly litigated were defeated and the precedent was set in
>stone on the respective issues due to the difficulty in overturning
>precedent in our judicially tyranical system.  You be the ref, you make the
>call, but this is what took place...  There are many other theories not
>listed here. Ralph@TeamInfinity.com
>I. The Money Issue:
>In the seventies and early eighties, advocates of the specie provisions in
>Article. 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution made a concerted
>effort to educate people about this constitutional provision, consequently
>people (mostly those who were deperate and ill-prepared) began litigating
>the issue. The courts have rendered the following adverse decisions on this
>Adverse Federal Decisions:
>1. Koll v. Wayzata State Bank, 397 F.2d 124 (8th Cir. 1968)
>2. United States v. Daly, 481 F.2d 28 (8th Cir. 1973)
>3. Milam v. United States, 524 F.2d 629 (9th Cir. 1974)
>4. United States v. Scott, 521 F.2d 1188 (9th Cir. 1975)
>5. United States v. Gardiner, 531 F.2d 953 (9th Cir. 1976)
>6. United States v. Wangrud, 533 F.2d 495 (9th Cir. 1976)
>7. United States v. Kelley, 539 F.2d 1199 (9th Cir. 1976)
>8. United States v. Schmitz, 542 F.2d 782 (9th Cir. 1976)
>9. United States v. Whitesel, 543 F.2d 1176 (6th Cir. 1976)
>10. United States v. Hurd, 549 F.2d 118 (9th Cir. 1977)
>11. Mathes v. Commissioner, 576 F.2d 70 (5th Cir. 1978)
>12. United States v. Rifen, 577 F.2d 1111 (8th Cir. 1978)
>13. United States v. Anderson, 584 F.2d 369 (10th Cir. 1978)
>14. United States v. Benson, 592 F.2d 257 (5th Cir. 1979)
>15. Nyhus v. Commissioner, 594 F.2d 1213 (8th Cir. 1979)
>16. United States v. Hori, 470 F.Supp. 1209 (C.D.Cal. 1979)
>17. United States v. Tissi, 601 F.2d 372 (8th Cir. 1979)
>18. United States v. Ware, 608 F.2d 400 (10th Cir. 1979)
>19. United States v. Moon, 616 F.2d 1043 (8th Cir. 1980)
>20. United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182 (10th Cir. 1980)
>21. Birkenstock v. Commissioner, 646 F.2d 1185 (7th Cir. 1981)
>22. Lary v. Commissioner, 842 F.2d 296 (11th Cir. 1988)
>Adverse State Decisions:
>1. Chermack v. Bjornson, 302 Minn. 213, 223 N.W.2d 659 (1974)
>2. Leitch v. Oregon Dept. of Revenue, 519 P.2d 1045 (Or.App. 1974)
>3. Radue v. Zanaty, 293 Ala. 585, 308 So.2d 242 (1975)
>4. Rush v. Casco Bank & Trust Co., 348 A.2d 237 (Me. 1975)
>5. Allen v. Craig, 1 Kan.App.2d 301, 564 P.2d 552 (1977)
>6. State v. Pina, 90 N.M. 181, 561 P.2d 43 (N.M. 1977)
>7. Dorgan v. Kouba, 274 N.W.2d 167 (N.D. 1978)
>8. Trohimovich v. Dir., Dept. of Labor & Industry, 21
>     Wash.App. 243, 584 P.2d 467 (1978)
>9.  Middlebrook v. Miss. State Tax Comm., 387 So.2d 726 (Miss. 1980)
>10. Daniels v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 601 S.W.2d 845 (Ark. 1980)
>11. State v. Gasser, 306 N.W.2d 205 (N.D. 1981)
>12. City of Colton v. Corbly, 323 N.W.2d 138 (S.D. 1982)
>13. Epperly v. Alaska, 648 P.2d 609 (Ak.App. 1982)
>14. Solyom v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning
>      Comm., 452 A.2d 1283 (Md.App. 1982)
>15. People v. Lawrence, 124 Mich.App. 230, 333 N.W.2d 525 (Mich.App. 1983)
>16. Union State Bank v. Miller, 335 N.W.2d 807 (N.D. 1983)
>17. Richardson v. Richardson, 332 N.W.2d 524 (Mich.App. 1983)
>18. Cohn v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., 138 Ariz. 136, 673 P.2d 334 (1983)
>19. First Nat. Bank of Black Hills v. Treadway, 339 N.W.2d 119 (S.D.
>20. Herald v. State, 107 Idaho 640, 691 P.2d 1255 (1984)
>21. Allnutt v. State, 59 Md.App. 694, 478 A.2d 321 (1984)
>22. Spurgeon v. F.T.B., 160 Cal.App.3d 524, 206 Cal.Rptr. 636 (1984)
>23. Rothaker v. Rockwall County Central Appraisal Dist.,
>      703 S.W.2d 235 (Tex.App. 1985)
>24. De Jong v. County of Chester, 98 Pa. Cmwlth. 85, 510 A.2d 902 (1986)
>25. Baird v. County Assessors of Salt Lake & Utah
>Counties, 779 P.2d 676 (Utah 1989)
>26. State v. Sanders, 923 S.W.2d 540 (Tenn. 1996).
>II. Wages Are Not 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 and unprepared people championed
>this issue and lost in the following cases thereby setting more precedent:
>1. United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014 (9th Cir. 1981)
>2. Lonsdale v. CIR, 661 F.2d 71 (5th Cir. 1981)(rejecting "even
>exchange" argument)
>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. Ficalora v. CIR, 751 F.2d 85, 87-88 (2d Cir. 1984)
>     (holding that income includes compensation for services)
>9.  Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517, 519 (7th Cir. 1984)
>10. United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747 (7th Cir. 1985)
>11. Hyslep v. United States, 765 F.2d 1083 (11th Cir. 1985)
>12. Coleman v. CIR, 791 F.2d 68, 70 (7th Cir. 1986)
>13. Stubbs v. Commissioner of IRS, 797 F.2d 936, 938 (11th Cir. 1986),
>      (rejecting argument that wages are not taxable income as "patently
>14. Wilcox v. CIR, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 (9th Cir. 1988)
>15. 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.
>16. United States v. Gerards, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 1993).
>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
>III. The IRS is a Delaware corporation:
>Back in 1982 or 1983, somebody started circulating the
>argument that the IRS was a private corporation which had
>been created in Delaware in 1933. If it was created only
>in 1933, then why do we have the following appropriations
>for this agency found in acts of Congress a decade before
>42 Stat. 375 (2-17-22); 42 Stat. 454 (3-20-22); 42 Stat.
>1096 (1-3-23); 43 Stat. 71 (4-4-24); 43 Stat. 693
>(12-5-24); 43 Stat. 757 (1-20-25); 43 Stat. 770 (1-22-25);
>44 Stat. 142 (3-2-26); 44 Stat. 868 (7-3-26); 44 Stat.
>1033 (1-26-27); 45 Stat. 168, 1034 (1928); 68 Stat. 86,
>145, 807 (1954).
>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). The real issue is whether the IRS
>has been created by law.
> IV. The IMF Argument:
>Some contend that the Secretary of the Treasury is in
>reality a foreign agent under the control of the IMF; the
>argument has been rejected by the courts.
>1. United States v. Rosnow, 977 F.2d 399, 413 (8th Cir. 1992)
>2. United States v. Jagim, 978 F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir. 1992)
>3. United States v. Higgins, 987 F.2d 543, 545 (8th Cir. 1993).
>V. Non-resident Aliens:
>Some contend we are for tax purposes non-resident aliens;
>again, this improper argument has been correctly rejected
>by the courts.
>1. United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991)
>2. United States v. Jagim, 978 F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir. 1992)
>3. United States v. Hilgeford, 7 F.3d 1340, 1342 (7th Cir. 1993).
>But the rejection by the courts of this issue has not deterred Lynn
>Meredith, who has continued to promote this argument through her book,
>Vultures in Eagles Clothing, via a multi-level sales scheme. Lawyers know
>that fraud is a knowing misrepresentation of facts (or in this case, law) to
>another upon which that other party relies to his detriment. Concerned
>Americans try the program promoted by Meredith in her book, but when they
>get into trouble, they get absolutely no help from Meredith as she refuses
>to even answer their calls. She spends her spare time on cruise ships. Paul
>Mitchell also puts forth the "non-resident" theory as do many others.
>[ralph's comments: One has to ask themselves if they are NOT a Citizen, but
>only a non-resident alien as these people argue, then how do they expect the
>protection of the Constitution that clearly only protects the Citizen ?
>Although what little is left of the Constitution makes this less and less of
>a point of contention one could argue. Also if we are not Citizens then WHO
>IS ? So it appears to at once fall through your hands like so much sand ]
>VI. The Form 1040 is Really a Codicil to a Will:
>This argument was rejected in Richey v. Ind. Dept. of
>State Revenue, 634 N.E. 2d 1375 (Ind. 1994), along with
>other popular arguments of that date.
>VII. Filing 1099s against IRS Agents:
>At one time, some asserted that when an agent of the
>government inflicted damage upon somebody, the proper
>response should be filing a Form 1099 against the agent
>because the agent was "enriched" by the damaged so
>inflicted. Parties doing this went to jail.
>1. United States v. Yagow, 953 F.2d 423 (8th Cir. 1992)
>2. United States v. Kuball, 976 F.2d 529 (9th Cir. 1992)
>3. United States v. Dykstra, 991 F.2d 450 (8th Cir. 1993).
>Of course, today we have essentially the same thing in the
>format of filing of common law liens. More than enough
>people have gone to jail with such lunacy.
>VIII. Land Patents:
>Back in 1983 and 1984, Carol Landi popularized an argument
>that the land patent was the highest and best form of
>title and that by updating the patent in your own name,
>you could defeat any mortgages. This contention violated
>many principles of real property and when Carol started
>trying to get patents for most of the land in California
>brought up into her own name, she went to jail. Others who
>have raised this crazy argument lost the issue.
>1. Nixon v. Individual Head of St. Joseph Mtg. Co., 612 F.Supp. 253
>(N.D. Ind. 1985)
>2. Nixon v. Phillipoff, 615 F.Supp. 890 (N.D. Ind. 1985).
>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.
>1. 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)
>2. United States v. Karlin, 785 F.2d 90, 91 (3d Cir. 1986)
>3. 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);
>4. United States v. Price, 798 F.2d 111, 113 (5th Cir. 1986)
>5. Itz v. United States Tax Court, 1987 WL 15893, at *5, 87-2 USTC P
>      (W.D.Tex. May 6, 1987) (claim of plaintiff that he is a 
>      "de jure" citizen as opposed to a "de facto" citizen is without
>6. 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);
>7. United States v. Silevan, 985 F.2d 962, 970 (8th Cir. 1993)
>8. United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 1993)
>     (these parties raised but had rejected the arguments
>     that the US has no "inland jurisdiction," that wages are
>     not income, and that the federal income tax is voluntary.
>    "And finally, we reject appellant's contention that they
>     are not citizens of the United States, but rather 'Free
>     Citizens of the Republic of Minnesota,' and consequently
>     not subject to taxation").
>X. Notice of Levy:
>A popular argument currently circulating is that a mere
>notice of levy is not equal to a levy and thus may not be
>used for tax collection purposes. The courts have not
>accepted this idea.
>1. United States v. Eiland, 223 F.2d 118, 121 (4th Cir. 1955)
>2. Rosenblum v. United States, 300 F.2d 843, 844-45 (1st Cir. 1962)
>3. United States v. Pittman, 449 F.2d 623, 627 (7th Cir. 1971)
>4. In re Chicagoland Ideel Cleaners, Inc., 495 F.2d 1283, 1285 (7th Cir.
>5. Wolfe v. United States, 798 F.2d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 1986).
>XI. The UCC Argument:
>Some assert that some unknown treaty back in the 1930s
>placed us under the control of the "international
>bankers," thus every action filed in this country, both
>civil and criminal alike, is for the benefit of the
>bankers. Under these facts, when the government attacks a
>patriot, he should assert the UCC argument; this silly
>contention has been rejected.
>1. United States v. Stoecklin, 848 F.Supp. 1521 (M.D. Fla. 1994)
>2. United States v. Greenstreet, 912 F.Supp. 224 (N.D.Tex. 1996)
>     (also raised flag and common law court issues)
>3. United States v. Klimek, 952 F.Supp. 1100 (E.D.Pa. 1997)
>      (also raised nom de guerre and flag issues).
>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.
>1. United States v. Cochrane, 985 F.2d 1027, 1031 (9th Cir. 1993)
>2. Russell v. United States, 95 CCH Tax Cases =A6 50029 (W.D. Mich. 1994)
>3. Reese v. CIR, 69 TCM 2814, TC Memo 1995-244 (1995)
>    (this and several other arguments described as "legalistic
>4. Morgan v. CIR, 78 AFTR2d 96-6633 (M.D.Fla. 1996)
>5. Stafford v. CIR, TCM 1997-50.
>XIII. The Flag Issue:
>A current popular argument is that the gold fringed flag
>indicates the admiralty jurisdiction of the court.
>Naturally, pro ses have made this argument and lost.
>1. Vella v. McCammon, 671 F.Supp. 1128, 1129 (S.D. Tex.
>1987)(the argument has "no arguable basis in law or fact")
>2. Comm. v. Appel, 652 A.2d 341, 343 (Pa.Super. 1994)
>   (the contention is a "preposterous claim")
>3. United States v. Schiefen, 926 F.Supp. 877, 884 (D.S.D. 1995): 
>    in this case, the CFR cross reference index
>    argument, and those regarding the UCC, common law courts
>    and the flag issue were rejected.
>Of course, there are other decisions which have not been
>published. But against all odds, Dave Miller still travels
>the country promoting this lost cause.
>XIV. Common Law Court:
>These courts have been declared non-existent.
>1. Kimmel v. Burnet County Appraisal Dist., 835 S.W.2d 108, 109
>(Tex.App. 1992)
>XV. "Nom de Guerre":
>According to a book written by Berkheimer, a "nom de
>guerre" is a war name symbolized by a given name being
>written in capital letters. The argument contends that
>because of events in 1933, we have been made "enemies" and
>government indicates our status as enemies by the nom de
>guerre. If this is true, then why have the styles of the
>decisions of the United States Supreme Court since its
>establishment been in caps? This argument has gotten lots
>of people in trouble. For example, Mike Kemp of the
>Gadsden Militia defended himself on state marijuana
>charges with this argument and he was thrown into jail. I
>have not even seen a decent brief on this issue which was
>predicated upon cases you can find in an ordinary law
>library. In any event, at least one case has rejected this
>argument; see United States v. Klimek, 952 F.Supp. 1100 (E.D.Pa. 1997).
>XV. Title 26 is not positive law:
>Ryan v. Bilby, 764 F.2d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1985)
>(stating that "Congress's failure to enact a title into positive
>law has only evidentiary significance and does not render
>the underlying enactment invalid or unenforceable");
>United States v. Zuger, 602 F. Supp. 889, 891-92 (D. Conn.
>1984) (holding that "the failure of Congress to enact a
>title as such and in such form into positive law . . . in
>no way impugns the validity, effect, enforceability or
>constitutionality of the laws as contained and set forth
>in the title"), aff'd without op., 755 F.2d 915 (2d Cir.),
>cert. denied, 474 U.S. 805 (1985); Young v. IRS, 596 F.
>Supp. 141, 149 (N.D. Ind. 1984) (asserting that "even if
>Title 26 was not itself enacted into positive law, that
>does not mean that the laws under that title are null and
>void"); Berkshire Hathaway Inc. v. United States, 8 Cl.
>Ct. 780, 784 (1985) (averring that the I.R.C. "is truly
>'positive law'"), aff'd, 802 F.2d 429 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
>XVI. Wangrudites:
>1. McKinney v. Regan, 599 F.Supp. 126, 129 (M.D.La.
>1984)("Petitioner's shield of the 'Common Law' as an
>'Unenfranchised Sovereign Individual of the United States
>of America, a Republic,' provides him with precisely the
>same degree of protection from federal income taxation as
>did the Ghost Dance of the Sioux warrior from the
>repeating rifles of the federal Calvary [sic] -- ZERO")
>2. 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).
>3. United States v. Kruger, 923 F.2d 587, 587-88 (8th Cir.
>1991)("The Krugers' principle argument below and on appeal
>is that the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth
>Amendments to the United States Constitution unlawfully
>purported to bestow citizenship upon non-white races and
>other 'artificial statutory persons.' This argument is
>Perhaps the most famous "Wangrudite" was John Cheek, whose
>criminal conviction went to the U.S. Supreme Court; see
>Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 111 S.Ct. 604
>(1991). John sent to me copies of his motions and briefs
>that he filed in his case, one of which was just a single
>page motion which in essence stated that he could not be
>prosecuted because he was not a 14th amendment citizen.
>Naturally, such a non-substantive motion was denied.
>Cheek's appeal would have involved this argument if he had
>reached the conclusion that it had merit. However, the
>only issue which was decided in the appeal to the Supreme
>Court regarded the validity of the "willfulness" jury
>instruction given at trial.
>XVII. Implementing regulations:
>United States v. Hartman, 915 F.Supp. 1227 (M.D.Fla.
>1996): argument regarding implementing regs and the cross
>references in CFR index held frivolous.
>Stafford v. CIR, TCM 1997-50.
>XVIII. Taxes are contractual:
>    In McLaughlin v. CIR, 832 F.2d 986, 987 (7th Cir. 1987), 
>    this argument was held to be without merit.
>Bill Blannon
>If you would like a cassette copy of a discussion of bogus arguments,
>send email to ralph@TeamInfinity.com
>  http://TeamInfinity.com/~ralph/FinCEN.html
>				/dl.html
>				/BIOCHIP.html
>				/dldt2.html
>				/biochip.details.html
>				/lucent.html			
>To find out how to get the suppressed hush hush 384 page BLOCKBUSTER book:
>"FINAL JUDGEMENT" by Michael Collins Piper, that argues that ISRAEL's MOSSAD
>murdered President John F. Kennedy, or Myron Fagan's tapes, contact
>peter.navy@rocketmail.com and ask for a FREE copy of The SPOTLIGHT.
>                     ---------------------------
>TO RECEIVE email from ralph:  send email to ralph@TeamInfinity.com and in
>the Subject make sure your email address and the word GO-RALPH (no spaces)
>is in the subject.
>TO STOP RECEIVING email from ralph:  send email to ralph@TeamInfinity.com
>and in the Subject make sure your email address and the word WHOA-RALPH
>(no spaces) is in the subject.
>Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with
>"unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject)
>Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman <whig@pobox.com>

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail