Time: Sun Dec 14 02:53:25 1997 To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: WILD ASS THEORIES DIE HARD Cc: Bcc: sls References: 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 http://supremelaw.com 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 > >TODAY's COMMUNIQUE >================== > >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 > > > >DESTROYED ARGUMENTS [by Larry Becraft] > >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 >issue: > >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. >1983) >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 >frivolous") >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. >1991). >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 >organization. > >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 >1933: > >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 >9497 > (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 >merit) >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. >1974) >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 >gibberish") >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 >absurd"). > >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