(Last update: Jan 3, 2016)



DESTROYED ARGUMENTS



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.



Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators, 3 U.S. 54; 1 L. Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54" stated as follows: 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 “, 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:



















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 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).



"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.







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.



(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".





Why do so many people spread lies?



















