Time: Sat Dec 13 16:13:10 1997 To: ice@coolmedia.net From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: Becraft dispells Patriot Mythology and Failed Arguments Cc: Bcc: References: Have you made contact with Bill Medina yet? /s/ Paul Mitchell, Candidate for Congress http://supremelaw.com At 02:23 PM 12/13/97 +0000, you wrote: >All, > >This is a bit long, but well worth at least scanning through and >filing away for reference. Remember: the point here is not whether >an issue is morally, ethically, theoretically, academically, lawfully >or even "legally" correct! The point is DOES IT WORK IN COURT and is >there already legal precedent which will blow you out of the water if >you use the argument. > >>DESTROYED ARGUMENTS [by Larry Becraft] >> >>I. The Money Issue: >> >>In the seventies and early eighties, advocates of the >>specie provisions in Art. 1, º10, cl. 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 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)(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. >> >>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 damaged 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 ¦ 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 > >--------- End forwarded message ---------- > > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail