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, 10, 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