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, 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 ---------- >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> =========================================================================== >> 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