(Last update: Jan 3, 2016)
Gal. 4:16: "Am I therefor
enemy because I tell you
The history of the race, and each individual's
experience, are thick with
evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a
lie told well is immortal.-- Mark Twain
purpose of this file is simply educational. I've noticed too
many innocents who today believe certain legal arguments
popular years ago, but which were litigated by ill prepared,
desperate people and lost. To continue going down such dead
end roads and to follow these dead arguments will only result
Furthermore, there are lots of self
proclaimed "legal gurus" writing books and conducting seminars
all around the country. These gurus espouse their views and
personal opinions which they pretend are "the law." Everyone has
a right to express their personal opinions, but most of these
"opinions" are being marketed as "the law." There are
publications on the Net suggesting the United States is still a
part of Great Britain, a "missing 13th amendment" still exists,
and our society is legally based upon contract; there are
arguments that a birth certificate means something more sinister
than birth certificate, etc. While these works and arguments may
be interesting, most are pure fiction composed of personal
opinions parading as "the law." Too many people get into trouble
following these fairy tales. These arguments have the same
quality as this
one. There are also stupid ideas floating around the Net
like this one.
But do not think that by posting this
information I believe that all is lost and there are no
important legal issues left. To the contrary, I have a very long
list of solid legal issues which need to be litigated and these
are issues which will further our "freedom" cause. For example,
even though I post below the losses regarding my favorite issue,
the money issue, there are some good issues left, but they will
be raised only in the best of circumstances and the best of
cases. Some of these other issues are explained on my web site.
But I am protecting these remaining issues from destruction by
the desperate who grab an issue and throw it in court; these
folks have no plans nor skills to engage in the legal battle,
and they slaughter our good issues on the altar of stupidity.
Some may criticize me
for naming specific parties here. Please do not think based
upon what you read or see here that I am an "attacker". Back
in the mid 80s and early 90s, this movement had a more
congenial attitude and people involved with it were nicer. I
have always been able to have cordial relations with most in
this movement; men from the South were raised to be southern
gentlemen. But, in the early 90s things changed and some felt
it to be in their interest to attack me and lawyers in
general. For example, in the past I was friendly with some of
the principals in Right Way Law; however a few years ago, they
started spreading lies and selling garbage. Similarly, every
party who is specifically named in these files, like Dave
DeRiemer, "drew first blood". Once challenged, I respond and
let the cards fall where they may. My purpose is to expose the
lies of these various "gurus" who clearly appear to want a
Here is an example of false
information promoted by gurus. A man named Victor
Varjabedian wrote several years ago a book entitled
“Cracking the Code.” Therein, he asserted that the case
of “Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators, 3 U.S. 54; 1 L.
Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54" stated as follows:
“Inasmuch as every
government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a
creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with
other artificial persons. The imaginary – having neither
actuality nor substance – is foreclosed from creating and
attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of
this that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect,
court, etc. therefor can concern itself with anything other than
corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.”
have posted this case here.
Please download this case, run “search” and learn that the
above “quote” appears nowhere in the case.
Marlett makes some excellent comments here.
To shorten the length of this file, the below
arguments are separately posted:
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 desperate and ill prepared) acting pro se 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)
Adverse State Decisions:
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).
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.
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.
12. City of Colton v. Corbly, 323 N.W.2d
138 (S.D. 1982)
13. Epperly v. Alaska, 648 P.2d 609
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
I wish to
ultimately win this issue, but to do so will require experienced
legal scholars who know what they are doing. The only person in
America who should be in charge of money issue litigation is Dr.
Edwin Vieira; see one of his articles posted
main page. One of our goals should be to raise sufficient
funds to turn Dr. Vieira loose to litigate this issue and win.
Some groups within the last couple of years
have made arguments based upon negotiable instruments. However,
I have concluded that lots of these people are trying to break
into jail. Here is an affidavit
search warrant as well as an indictment
of some people engaged in the use of these "negotiable
II. The IRS is a Delaware
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.
III. The IMF Argument:
Some contend that the Secretary of the
Treasury is in reality a foreign agent under the control of the
IMF; this 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).
Some contend we are for tax purposes
non-resident aliens; again, this argument has been rejected by
1. United States v. Sloan, 939
F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991)
Here is an indictment
of a group that advocated filing Forms 1040 NR.
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)
4. United States v. Mundt, 29 F.3d 233
(6th Cir. 1994) ("federal zone" case)
5. Larue v. United States, 959 F.Supp.
957 (C.D.Ill. 1997).
V. 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. However, David
Gould still thinks it is a marvelous legal argument.
VI. Filing 1099s against IRS
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 damage so inflicted. Parties
doing this went to jail.
1. United States v. Yagow, 953
F.2d 423 (8th Cir. 1992)
Of course, today we have essentially the same
thing in the format of filing common law liens. More than enough
people have gone to jail with such lunacy. Recently Roger
Elvick, who went to jail for doing this, has again incorporated
into his "redemption process" this same scheme.
2. United States v. Kuball, 976 F.2d 529
(9th Cir. 1992)
3. United States v. Dykstra, 991 F.2d
450 (8th Cir. 1993).
VII. 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 law 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.
v. Phelps, 740 F.2d 710 (9th Cir. 1984)
v. Landi, 209 Cal.Rptr. 449 (Cal.App. 1 Dist.
3. Hilgeford v. People's Bank, 607
F.Supp. 536 (N.D.Ind. 1985), affirmed, 776
F.2d 176 (7th Cir.1985).
4. Nixon v. Individual Head of St. Joseph
Mtg. Co., 612 F.Supp. 253 (N.D. Ind. 1985)
5. Nixon v. Phillipoff, 615 F.Supp. 890
(N.D. Ind. 1985)
v. Glick, 782 F.2d 670 (7th Cir. 1986)
v. Federal Land Bank Ass'n. of St. Louis, 505
N.E.2d 387 (Ill. App. 1987)
8. Charles F. Curry Co. v. Goodman, 737
P.2d 963 (Okl.App. 1987)
Land Bank of Spokane v. Redwine, 755 P.2d 822
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)
Perhaps there are some remaining methods to
prevail on this argument, but serious damage has already been
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)
6. Sims v. United States, 359 U.S. 108,
79 S.Ct. 641 (1959).
IX. The CFR Cross
The Code of Federal Regulations contains a
separate volume which lists various statutes and the regulations
which implement those statutes. This particular publication 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)
X. The Flag
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
4. Morgan v. CIR, 78 AFTR2d 96-6633
5. Stafford v. CIR, TCM 1997-50.
An argument first popularized by "David
Wynn: Miller" 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")
I thought this crazy idea had
ceased acceptance, but today there are others who are again
promoting it. "Deja moo" all over again.
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, those regarding the UCC, common law
courts and the flag issue were rejected)
v. Greenway, 952 F.Supp. 647 (W.D.Mo. 1997)
v. Payne, 974 F.Supp. 1411 (D.Utah 1997)
v. Schlaefer, 975 F.Supp. 1160 (E.D.Wis. 1997).
XI. 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).
XII. Title 26
is not positive law:
One of the files on my web page contains a
good memo explaining the titles of
the Code and why they were adopted. But against this
explanation, people still run around asserting a contrary and
groundless position; see 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).
XIII. District Court's are
The "Zip Code" contention was first
started by the now deceased Bob Wangrud and he later promoted
that crazy "bill or particulars" argument which had no
substance. Later, he promoted another crazy idea that the
federal district courts are not courts at all. In a recent
e-mail before his death, Wangrud alleged:
"I have never seen Becraft challenge
the non-judicial Federal Courts are not authorized by the
Constitution for the United States." [sic: the whole
sentence is "sic" as well as "sick"]
Mr. Wangrud castigated those who didn't follow his
legal views and brilliant legal theories.
Was Mr. Wangrud correct when he
proclaimed that the US district courts are non-judicial? Your
attention is directed to Smith
v. Kitchen, 156 F.3d 1025 (10th Cir. 1997),
involving a fellow who believed in the UCC "Refusal for Fraud"
argument. He also raised Wangrud's issue which was addressed as
"Smith's final contention of
error involves his complaint that the district court should
have responded to his argument that by captioning its
documents ‘UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,' the court below was
functioning as a ‘territorial' court rather than as an Article
III court. Smith has raised this argument at every stage of
this litigation, but he has yet to clarify his point. As best
we can determine, Smith has cobbled together stray quotations
from various sources to claim that a federal district court
can function either as a ‘territorial' court under Article I
or as a ‘constitutional' court under Article III. Without
giving any credence to Smith's bizarre argument, and despite
our inability to see how Smith's distinction would matter in
this case, we hold that the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado was fully empowered under Article III
to consider Smith's constitutional claims.
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.
XV. Taxes are contractual:
In McLaughlin v. CIR, 832 F.2d 986,
987 (7th Cir. 1987), this argument was held to be without merit:
"The notion that the federal income
tax is contractual or otherwise consensual in nature is not
only utterly without foundation but... has been repeatedly
rejected by the courts."
See also United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d
978, 981 (8th Cir. 1983). Others strenuously argue that social
security is a contract. The problem with this contention,
however, is that it is constitutionally impossible for social
security to be a contract. Please see another file posted on
this web site by clicking
here. Contentions that driver licenses are contracts will
get you nowhere; see Hershey v. Commonwealth Dep't. of
Transportation, 669 A.2d 517, 520 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1996); and State
v. Gibson, 697 P.2d 1216 (Idaho 1985).
Some today contend that use of the US Postal
Service is contractual and that such use subjects one to federal
jurisdiction. Bob Wangrud advocated the "Zip Code" argument for
many years and eventually people recognized the stupidity of
this argument. Making it again today causes me to wonder what
these advocate are smoking.
XVI. The US is
"foreign" to the states:
A popular belief promoted in the
freedom movement is the concept or idea that the United States
is a foreign sovereign as regards the states. How this idea got
started is beyond me because the U.S. Supreme Court and other
courts have concluded otherwise; see Claflin
v. Houseman, 93 U.S. 130, 136 (1876)("The United
States is not a foreign sovereignty as regards the several
States"); Severson v. Home Owners Loan Corp., 88 P.2d
344, 347 (Ok. 1939)(quoting Claflin); Bowles v.
Heckman, 64 N.E.2d 660, 662 (Ind. 1946)(quoting Claflin);
Kersting v. Hardgrove, 48 A.2d 309, 310 (N.J.
946)(summarizes Claflin); Harrison v. Herzig Bldg.
& Supply Co., 290 Ky. 445, 161 S.W.2d 908, 910
(1942)(quoting Claflin); Robinson v. Norato, 71
R.I. 256, 43 A.2d 467, 471 (1945)(quoting Claflin and
further stating "the several States of the Union are neither
foreign to the United States nor are they foreign to each
other"). See also this PDF image from a legal encyclopedia, Corpus
There are lots of theories which float
through the freedom movement and people are very prone to accept
any contention or position without question or investigation.
But if they fail to check out the sources upon which they rely,
they run the risk of believing something which has no foundation
and will not work in court.
v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135 (1892), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated as follows:
"Mr. Justice Story, in his
Commentaries on the Constitution, says: 'Every citizen of a
state is ipso facto a citizen of the United States.' Section
1693. And this is the view expressed by Mr. Rawle in his work
on the Constitution. Chapter 9, pp. 85, 86. Mr. Justice
Curtis, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 576,
expressed the opinion that under the constitution of the
United States 'every free person, born on the soil of a state,
who is a citizen of that state by force of its constitution or
laws, is also a citizen of the United States.' And Mr. Justice
Swayne, in The Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36,
126, declared that 'a citizen of a state is ipso facto a
citizen of the United States.' "
See also Minor
v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875).
Moreover, there are a wide number of federal
acts and executive proclamations which have used the term,
citizen of the United States. Here are some statutes, the
earliest of which is 1789:
Stat. 25 1
Stat. 26 1
Stat. 55 1
Stat. 520 2
The above links from 9 Stat., as well as the
below, are various executive proclamations:
Stat. 780 3
Stat. 660 4
Stat. 115 9
Stat. 1001 9
Stat. 753 (Proclamation of April 22, 1793, by George
The federal government has
tremendous power over aliens; see Chae
v. United States, 130 US 581 (1889); Fong
v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 13 S.Ct. 1016
v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 210, 73 S.Ct. 625 (1953);
v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 586, 587, 72 S.Ct.
512, 517 (1952). Why would an American desire to execute some
IRS forms to declare himself an alien?
Stat. 760 (Proclamation of July 2, 1807, by Thomas
Stat. 765 (Proclamation of Sept. 1, 1815, by James
Stat. 769 (Proclamation of June 7, 1827, by John
Stat. 783 (Proclamation of Sept. 1, 1836, by
Stat. 785 (Proclamation of Jan. 5, 1838, by Martin
XVIII. The "three judge courts"
Long ago in the case of Marbury
v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), the Supreme Court
considered the question of whether the federal judiciary could
decide that a law was unconstitutional, and of course the Court
concluded that it and the lower courts had such power. Ever
since, both state and federal courts, either at the original
trial court level or on appeal, have exercised this judicial
power to find state and federal laws unconstitutional.
However, Congress possesses the power
to establish not only the number of federal courts, but also
their jurisdiction. Back at the turn of this century, Congress
perceived a problem regarding federal courts which were being
confronted with certain important issues; thus it concluded that
it should establish a statutory mechanism whereby a 3 judge
court could be convened to decide certain important questions
like the constitutionality of a state law (see act at 36 Stat.
1150, 1162). The law which was enacted declared that for certain
specific types of cases, a party could request a 3 judge panel
of district judges to hear and decide the case. Once a decision
was made by such a 3 judge court, any appeal went directly to
the U.S. Supreme Court. However, this law did not disturb in any
way the power of a single federal district judge to decide the
constitutionality of any federal or state law.
This law was in effect until August,
1976 when it was drastically modified by P.L. 94-381; see Senate
Report 94-204. The new law just simply further limited the type
of cases where a 3 judge court could be requested; those cases
are those which are specified in certain other federal laws.
Thus while today 3 judge courts can be convened, it can be used
less frequently. But this modification to the 3 judge court did
not affect the power of a single judge to declare a law
unconstitutional. For example, we all know that Sheriff Richard
Mack of Arizona was one of the first parties to challenge the
Brady law after its adoption. His case was assigned to U.S.
District Judge Roll, and this single judge held in Mack
v. United States, 856 F.Supp. 1372 (D.Ariz. 1994), that
the challenged parts of the Brady law were unconstitutional:
"Pending before the Court is plaintiff
Graham County Sheriff Richard Mack's complaint for injunctive
and declaratory relief against the enforcement of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(s), commonly referred to as the Brady Act. For the
reasons set forth below, the Court finds that subsection
922(s)(2) violates the Fifth and Tenth Amendments of the
United States Constitution and will enter partial judgment in
favor of the plaintiff on that basis."
Another recent example
of a case where a single federal judge held a law
unconstitutional is Condon v. Reno, 972 F.Supp. 977
(D.S.C. 1997), where District Judge Shedd of South Carolina
declared the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act
"In this case of first
impression the State of South Carolina and its Attorney
General (‘the State') challenge the constitutionality of the
‘Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994' (‘the DPPA'), 18
U.S.C. §§ 2721-25, which regulates the dissemination
and use of certain information contained in State motor
vehicle records, on the grounds that it violates the Tenth and
Eleventh Amendments to the United States Constitution.
(FN1) The State seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting
enforcement of the DPPA. The United States of America
and its Attorney General (‘the United States') have filed a
motion to dismiss based on their contention that (1) the Court
lacks jurisdiction over these claims because of the
justiciability concepts of ripeness and standing and,
alternatively, (2) these claims fail on their merits because
the DPPA was lawfully enacted pursuant to Congress' powers
under both the Commerce Clause and § 5 of the Fourteenth
Amendment. In turn, the State has moved for summary
judgment in its favor. (FN2) After carefully reviewing this
matter, the Court concludes that the DPPA is unconstitutional.
Accordingly, the Court will deny the United States' motion to
dismiss, grant the State's motion for summary judgment, and
permanently enjoin the enforcement of the DPPA in the State of
South Carolina. (FN3)."
These two cases are not the
only ones which prove that single federal district judges have
authority to declare laws unconstitutional and they can enjoin
enforcement of those laws. Further, there are other similar
cases. Clearly, the 3 judge court position is groundless and
without merit. In short, it is ridiculous.
XIX. Due process principles
and tax collection:
Via the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th
Amendments, both the state and federal governments must provide
certain fundamental procedures before life, liberty or property
are taken. For those interested in this subject, reading the
cases of Sniadach
Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 89 S.Ct. 1820 (1969), Fuentes
v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 92 S.Ct. 1983 (1972), and North
Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc., 419 U.S. 601, 95 S.Ct. 719
(1975), are important in understanding the views of the Supreme
Court regarding the due process procedures to which the states
are bound. However, one cannot ignore the fact that there are
two different due process standards; one standards is applicable
to us and the states, and quite another exists for Uncle Sam.
There is a popular position of late that Goldberg
v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011 (1970), is the
"key" due process case regarding the collection of taxes. This
is a very erroneous. If you wish to understand principles of due
process in reference to tax matters, the cases of Phillips
v. CIR, 283 U.S. 589, 51 S.Ct. 608 (1931), and CIR
v. Shapiro, 424 U.S. 614, 96 S.Ct. 1062 (1976), are
the ones to be read.
XX. The Federal Government is the 1871 act
to establish a government for Washington D.C.:
For several years now, certain groups and
websites like Worldnewsstand
have advocated an argument that the "federal" government was
created as a municipal corporation via an act of February 21,
1871. The truth is otherwise.
There is a history
regarding the formation of Washington, D.C. The
Constitution specifically provides for the formation of a
district, 10 miles square, to be the seat of the federal
government; see Art. 1, § 8, cl. 17. When the
Constitution was ratified, the defacto seat of that government
was in Philadelphia. The Residence Act of 1790 (1
Stat. 130, July 16, 1790), started the process of
establishing the District of Columbia; in the interim, the
government continued to meet in Philadelphia. On December 19,
1791, Maryland adopted "An Act concerning the territory of
Columbia, and the City of Washington," which ceded lands and
jurisdiction for the Maryland part of the District. President
Washington played a critical role in the selection of the actual
site of the District, as well as laying out the plans for the
city. Finally, on February 27, 1801, 2
Stat. 103, Congress adopted an act concerning the
District, and created two counties, Washington County on the
Maryland side, and Alexandria County on the Virginia side. See
Stat. 115, and 2
Stat. 193. On May 1, 1802, the then existing Board of
Commissioners for the District was abolished, replaced with a
superintendent under the control of the President; see 2
Stat. 175. On May 3, 1802, Congress adopted an act to
incorporate the city of Washington, in the District; see 2
Stat. 195, and amendments at 2
Stat. 254 and 422.
of the other acts regarding the District, see 3
Stat. 691, 4
Stat. 294, and 4
This was the form of government for the
District until February 21, 1871. On this date, Congress adopted
a new act for the government of the District; see 16
Stat. 419-429. As seen by a simple review of this
act, it did not create a government for anything but the
District of Columbia, and it certainly did not purport to be a
government for "federal" citizens living in the States. Also
posted here are the first couple of pages from the 1873
Revised Statutes for the District of Columbia.
Scandal was the reason that this form of
government for the District lasted only a mere 7 years. After
the act of February 21, 1871, public officials of the District
incurred tremendous debts for the District, eventually requiring
Congress to in essence step in and take over that government.
3) 116, ch. 337, for repeal of 1871 act. An act of June
11, 1878, 20 Stat. 102, provided "a permanent form of government
for the District of Columbia." Much later, the District of
Columbia Home Rule Act, Public Law 93-198, 87 Stat. 777,
approved December 24, 1973, created the government for the
District which exists today.
What have the Supremes stated about the "Act of 1871"? In District
of Columbia v. Camden Iron Works, 181 U.S. 453 (1901), the
"June 20, 1874, an act was passed
entitled 'An Act for the government of the District of
Columbia, and for Other Purposes.' 18 Stat. 116, c. 337. By
this act, the government established by the act of 1871 was
abolished and the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, was authorized to appoint a Commission,
consisting of three persons, to exercise the power and
authority vested in the governor and the board of public
works, except as afterwards limited by the act.
Those who assert some wild theory about
Washington, D.C. are utterly wrong. They have invented a
"different version" of history without bothering to check out
XXI. The 'bankruptcy of the United
States" as alleged by "congressman" Traficant:
I have heard people discuss statements by
"congressman" Traficant allegedly made back in 1993 where he
stated in the Congressional
Record that the US was bankrupt and this bankruptcy
happened back in 1933. This statement has been used to support
UCC arguments about the bankruptcy of the United States.
Frank F. checked the accuracy of this alleged
Traficant statement and found it to be utterly false. Here is
what he said in a recent e-mail:
This is 99% bogus.
The actual page from the
Congressional Record is here.
Please excuse the copy quality of this PDF file as it was
obtained from microfiche. This page proves that those who allege
that Traficant made this statement are not telling the truth.
You'll notice that it claims to be from the
Congressional Record of March 17, 1993, page H-1303, and a
speech from Rep. James Traficant (D-Oh). It starts with a
double quote mark and it ends much later with another double
Except for the first paragraph (the first 66 words), it
is a fake.
Traficant's own words run from "Mr. Speaker ...." to "
... our demise" and that's the only portion from him or from
the Congressional Record.
Trafficant was arguing against deficit spending, and
everything else in the article (starting from the words "It is
an established fact ...") is fake. Traficant never said them.
In fact, if Traficant thought that the Banking Emergency
Act of 1933 was Public Law 89-719, we'd all have reason to
doubt his soundness of mind, because the Public Law number is
clearly decades after 1933 -- in fact it is the number of the
Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966. Ditto for the pretended
title and description of HJR 192 (of 1933). All of that,
including the references to canon law and maritime insurance,
is fakery, falsely attributed to Traficant.
Please also notice that the fake Traficant
statement makes certain allegations:
1. "The United States Federal
Government has been dissolved by the Emergency banking Act,
March 9, 1933";
These congressional acts have
been posted on my site. The
Emergency Banking Act and HJR 192
are posted, as is the 1913
Federal Reserve Act. Please read these acts to deteremine
whether these allegations are true. Reading them discloses that
the allegations are false. The password for the Emergency
Banking Act and Federal Reserve Act is "Becraft" (with a capital
2. That HJR 192 was a part of the bankruptcy;
3. That the 1913 Federal Reserve Act was
effective back to 1870, many years before that act was
XXII. The "Insurrectionary" US
It appears that a new argument is floating
around based upon a misconstruction of 50
212. It is claimed that this law dealing with
insurrections is the basis for our current government and its
Please notice that this law depends upon
Presidential proclamations like the one appearing at 57
Stat. 742. Will the promoters of this argument produce the
Presidential proclamations which form the basis of it?
XXIII. No Jurisdiction:
Lyon (executed on May
2002) and George Sibley (executed on August
4, 2005) were charged with murder of a police
officer in Alabama and made claims
during their case that Alabama lacked jurisdiction over them
because it wasn't properly re-admitted into the Union after the
War Between the States as well as arguments about the 13th and
14th Amendments. If you wish to make jurisdictional
arguments like these, you had better have your legal theory
I am reminded of the above cases when I look at Michael Avery's
Outlaw Legal Services,
where arguments are made about names in CAPS, UCC and "fringed flag",
Contracts, etc. Advocating such trashy legal arguments
resulted in a raid on
Many contend that the above quote, a part of the
Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act, means "the United States
is a corporation." I must state that this is an erroneous
construction of this particular law.
(15) "United States" means
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board,
or other entity
of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.
The Federal Debt Collection Procedures
Stat. 4933, applies to the entirety of the United States
government. Virtually everyone knows that the federal government
has lots of agencies. It also has lots of departments,
commissions, boards and instrumentalities, including federal
corporations. In the last 100 years, Congress has created lots
of corporations and some that still exist today are:
The FDCPA simply regulates the
collection activities of all federal agencies, departments,
commissions, boards and instrumentalities, including the above
federal corporations. Rather than repeatedly state in this 30+
page act that all "federal agencies, departments, commissions,
boards and instrumentalities, including federal corporations"
shall do certain things, all these entities are, for purposes of
this particular act, encompassed within the words, "United
States." Wherever the words "United States" appears in this law
regulating these federal collection activities, it means all
these various entities, including "Federal corporations".
Why do so many people