Time: Tue Dec 16 23:36:20 1997
To: Dennis Clark <denro@netcom.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Re: Becraft does not read his own Supreme Court's rugs
Cc: 
Bcc: 
References: <3.0.3.16.19971215124028.46e7f996@pop.primenet.com>

Yes:  in USA v. Gilbertson

/s/ Paul Mitchell,
Candidate for Congress
http://supremelaw.com



At 09:34 PM 12/16/97 -0800, you wrote:
>
>Thank you Paul, I'll do that. Can I get that at the Supreme Law Library 
>web site?
> 
>Dennis
>
>
>On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote:
>
>> Dennis,
>> 
>> All I ask is that you read, and study,
>> Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF, and then
>> you be the judge, instead of letting
>> some biased appellate judges, who have 
>> obvious and adverse conflicts of interest,
>> tell you what their opinions are.
>> 
>> Then, put yourself on the jury, instead
>> of being the judge, and render a verdict,
>> according to your conscience, after you
>> have heard ALL the facts and the ALL of
>> the pertinent law(s).  
>> 
>> Would you do that for Us, and for yourself?
>> 
>> I am standing by.
>> 
>> /s/ Paul Mitchell,
>> Candidate for Congress
>> http://supremelaw.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> At 10:59 AM 12/15/97 -0800, you wrote:
>> >
>> >Paul, have you seen this? If this is all true then we all had better just 
>> >turn ourselves in and stop trying to gain our freedoms from oppressive 
>> >taxation. This relly depresses me, I hope that all of this is not true, 
>> >other wise we are in deep do do. What do you think?
>> >
>> >Dennis
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >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 ----------
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> 
>> ===========================================================================
>> Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris      : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
>> B.A.: Political Science, UCLA;   M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
>> tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
>> email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
>> website: http://supremelaw.com       : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
>> ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best 06
>>              Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone 07
>>              Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this 08
>> _____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
>> As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall 10
>> not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
>> ======================================================================== 12
>> [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13
>> 
>
>
      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail