(Last update: Jan 3, 2016)


Gal. 4:16: "Am I therefor made your
enemy because I tell you the truth?"

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    

    The 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 in disaster.

    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 fight.

    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.”

The above “quote” appears nowhere in the case.

    Robert Marlett makes some excellent comments here. 

    To shorten the length of this file, the below arguments are separately posted:

The New TDA Argument

Fake Judge Anna

1213 Concession of English King

California Divorce Case of
In re the Marriage of JOELLA and RUSSELL H. SARGENT
involving popular arguments

FreedomClubUSA: A Scam


Really? Invisible Contracts?

George Mercier

Who Is George Mercier

Bills of Exchange

Travels with Neptune & Poseidon:
A short explanation of admiralty jurisdiction

The UCC Argument

Names in Capital Letters

We Are Not Brits

The Redemption Process

Read this case about Redemption Process

The "New" Redemption Process

Accept for Value & "Copyright Your Name"


Comments from lawyers re the BAR
The Missing 13th Amendment

Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin

Executive Order No. 11110

Federal Law Is Not Copyrighted

US District Courts

Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd and his
"3. Uniform Commercial Code is supreme in today's courts"

Ralph's Appeal to Alaska Court of Appeals

Luis Ewing: Scammer and Pothead

   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)
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).
    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 to my 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 for a search warrant as well as an indictment of some people engaged in the use of these "negotiable instruments. "

   II. 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.

   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).
   IV. Non-resident Aliens:

    Some contend we are for tax purposes non-resident aliens; again, this argument has been 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)
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).
Here is an indictment of a group that advocated filing Forms 1040 NR.

Sovereign citizens:

      Bourdon v. State,  (Alaska Ct. App. 2016)(unpublished)
      People v. Montgomery, (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)

   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.

   VI. Filing 1099s against IRS Agents:

    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)
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 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.

   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.
1. Landi v. Phelps, 740 F.2d 710 (9th Cir. 1984)
2. Sui v. Landi, 209 Cal.Rptr. 449 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. 1985)
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)
6. Wisconsin v. Glick, 782 F.2d 670 (7th Cir. 1986)
7. Britt 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)
9. Federal Land Bank of Spokane v. Redwine, 755 P.2d 822 (Wash.App. 1988).
   VIII. 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)
6. Sims v. United States, 359 U.S. 108, 79 S.Ct. 641 (1959).
Perhaps there are some remaining methods to prevail on this argument, but serious damage has already been done.

    IX. The CFR Cross Reference Index:

    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)
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.
   X. The Flag Issue:

    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")
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)
4. McCann v. Greenway, 952 F.Supp. 647 (W.D.Mo. 1997)
5. Sadlier v. Payne, 974 F.Supp. 1411 (D.Utah 1997)
6. Schneider v. Schlaefer, 975 F.Supp. 1160 (E.D.Wis. 1997).
    I thought this crazy idea had ceased acceptance, but today there are others who are again promoting it. "Deja moo" all over again.

    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 "non-judicial":

     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 follows:
  "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.
    XIV. 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.

   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. 1946)(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 Juris Secundum. See also Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 732-33 (1878)(“Whilst [the courts of the United States] are not foreign tribunals in their relations to the State courts, they are tribunals of a different sovereignty, exercising a distinct and independent jurisdiction, and are bound to give to the judgments of the State courts only the same faith and credit which the courts of another State are bound to give to them.”).

    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.

   XVII. Citizenship:

In Boyd 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:
  1 Stat. 25   1 Stat. 26    1 Stat. 55    1 Stat. 520    2 Stat. 171
 2 Stat. 780  3 Stat. 660   4 Stat. 115   9 Stat. 1001   9 Stat. 1004
The above links from 9 Stat., as well as the below, are various executive proclamations:
11 Stat. 753 (Proclamation of April 22, 1793, by George Washington)
11 Stat. 760 (Proclamation of July 2, 1807, by Thomas Jefferson)
11 Stat. 765 (Proclamation of Sept. 1, 1815, by James Madison)
11 Stat. 769  (Proclamation of June 7, 1827, by John Q. Adams)
11 Stat. 783  (Proclamation of Sept. 1, 1836, by Andrew Jackson)
11 Stat. 785  (Proclamation of Jan. 5, 1838, by Martin Van Buren)
    The federal government has tremendous power over aliens. See Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 US 581 (1889); Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 13 S.Ct. 1016 (1893); Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 210, 73 S.Ct. 625 (1953); and Harisiades 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?

  XVIII. The "three judge courts" argument:

     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 unconstitutional:
  "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 v. Family 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 Georgia Finishing, 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 this one 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 amendments, 2 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.  For some of the other acts regarding the District, see 3 Stat. 691, 4 Stat. 294, and 4 Stat. 517.

    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. See 18 Stat. (Part 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 Supremes held:

"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 the facts

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.

 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 quote mark.

 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.
    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.

    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";
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 adopted.
    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 "B").

XXII. The "Insurrectionary" US Government: 

    It appears that a new argument is floating around based upon a misconstruction of 50 U.S.C. § 212. It is claimed that this law dealing with insurrections is the basis for our current government and its powers.

    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:

Lynda Lyon (executed on May 10, 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 correct.

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", Mercier's Invisible Contracts, etc. Advocating such trashy legal arguments resulted in a raid on Outlaw Legal.

XXIV. 28 U.S.C. § 3002 (15)(A):
(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.
  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.

The Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act, 104 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:
Tennessee Valley Authority

Commodity Credit Corporation

Export-Import Bank

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK)

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

United States African Development Foundation (USADF)
One that no longer exists is the Resolution Trust Corporation.

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 spread lies?