update: March 31, 2012)
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.”
I 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.
shorten the length of this file, the below arguments are
involving popular arguments
A short explanation of
I. The Money Issue:
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:
Koll v. Wayzata State Bank, 397 F.2d 124 (8th Cir.
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).
Chermack v. Bjornson, 302 Minn. 213, 223 N.W.2d 659
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.
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
26. State v. Sanders,
923 S.W.2d 540 (Tenn. 1996).
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.
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 corporation:
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:
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).
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
III. The IMF Argument:
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.
United States v. Rosnow, 977 F.2d 399, 413 (8th Cir.
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:
are for tax purposes non-resident aliens; again, this argument
has been rejected by the courts.
United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir.
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).
is an indictment
of a group that advocated filing Forms 1040 NR.
V. The Form 1040 is Really a Codicil to
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 Agents:
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.
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).
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:
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,
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
VIII. Notice of Levy:
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.
United States v. Eiland, 223 F.2d 118, 121 (4th Cir.
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).
there are some remaining methods to prevail on this argument,
but serious damage has already been done.
IX. The CFR Cross Reference Index:
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.
United States v. Cochrane, 985 F.2d 1027, 1031 (9th
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
X. The Flag Issue:
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.
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
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).
crazy idea had ceased acceptance, but today there are others
who are again promoting it. "Deja moo" all over again.
XI. Common Law Court:
been declared non-existent.
Kimmel v. Burnet County Appraisal Dist., 835 S.W.2d
108, 109 (Tex.App. 1992).
XII. Title 26 is not positive law:
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
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
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
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
XIV. Implementing regulations:
States v. Hartman, 915 F.Supp. 1227 (M.D.Fla. 1996):
argument regarding implementing regs and the cross references
in CFR index held frivolous.
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
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
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
XVI. The US is "foreign" to the
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;
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
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
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.' "
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:
above links from 9 Stat., as well as the below, are various
Stat. 753 (Proclamation of April 22, 1793, by George
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
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?
XVIII. The "three judge courts" argument:
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
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
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)."
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
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
Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 89 S.Ct. 1820 (1969),
v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 92 S.Ct. 1983 (1972), and
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.
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.:
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.
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,
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.
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
Statutes for the District of Columbia.
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
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 'bankruptcy of the United States" as alleged by
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.
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.
words run from "Mr. Speaker ...." to " ... our demise" and
that's the only portion from him or from the Congressional
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.
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
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
3. That the 1913 Federal
Reserve Act was effective back to 1870, many years before that
act was adopted.
have been posted on my site. The
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
a new argument is floating around based upon a misconstruction
212. It is claimed that this law dealing with
insurrections is the basis for our current government and its
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:
(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
(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:
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".
so many people spread lies?
crazy ideas arise in the Freedom Movement, I will address