I. The Money Issue:

In the seventies and early eighties,advocates of the specie provisions under Art. 1, 10, cl. 1 ofthe U.S. Constitution made a concerted effort to educate peopleabout this constitutional provision, consequently people beganlitigating the issue. The courts have rendered the followingadverse decisions on this issue:


1. Koll v. Wayzata State Bank, 397F.2d 124 (8th Cir. 1968).

2. United States v. Daly, 481 F.2d28 (8th Cir. 1973).

3. Milam v. United States, 524F.2d 629 (9th Cir. 1974).

4. United States v. Scott, 521F.2d 1188 (9th Cir. 1975).

5. United States v. Gardiner, 531F.2d 953 (9th Cir. 1976).

6. United States v. Wangrud, 533F.2d 495 (9th Cir. 1976).

7. United States v. Kelley, 539F.2d 1199 (9th Cir. 1976).

8. United States v. Schmitz, 542F.2d 782 (9th Cir. 1976).

9. United States v. Whitesel, 543F.2d 1176 (6th Cir. 1976).

10. United States v. Hurd, 549F.2d 118 (9th Cir. 1977).

11. Mathes v. Commissioner, 576F.2d 70 (5th Cir. 1978).

12. United States v. Rifen, 577F.2d 1111 (8th Cir. 1978).

13. United States v. Anderson, 584F.2d 369 (10th Cir. 1978).

14. United States v. Benson, 592F.2d 257 (5th Cir. 1979).

15. Nyhus v. Commissioner, 594F.2d 1213 (8th Cir. 1979).

16. United States v. Hori, 470F.Supp. 1209 (C.D.Cal. 1979).

17. United States v. Tissi, 601F.2d 372 (8th Cir. 1979).

18. United States v. Ware, 608F.2d 400 (10th Cir. 1979).

19. United States v. Moon, 616F.2d 1043 (8th Cir. 1980).

20. United States v. Rickman, 638F.2d 182 (10th Cir. 1980).

21. Birkenstock v. Commissioner,646 F.2d 1185 (7th Cir. 1981).

22. Lary v. Commissioner, 842 F.2d296 (11th Cir. 1988).


1. Chermack v. Bjornson, 302 Minn.213, 223 N.W.2d 659 (1974).

2. Leitch v. Oregon Dept. of Revenue,519 P.2d 1045 (Or.App. 1974).

3. Radue v. Zanaty, 293 Ala. 585,308 So.2d 242 (1975).

4. Rush v. Casco Bank & Trust Co.,348 A.2d 237 (Me. 1975).

5. Allen v. Craig, 1 Kan.App.2d301, 564 P.2d 552 (1977).

6. State v. Pina, 90 N.M. 181, 561P.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 TaxComm., 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.2d205 (N.D. 1981).

12. City of Colton v. Corbly, 323N.W.2d 138 (S.D. 1982).

13. Epperly v. Alaska, 648 P.2d609 (Ak.App. 1982).

14. Solyom v. Maryland-NationalCapital Park & Planning Comm., 452 A.2d 1283 (Md.App.1982).

15. People v. Lawrence, 124Mich.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, 332N.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 Idaho640, 691 P.2d 1255 (1984).

21. Allnutt v. State, 59 Md.App.694, 478 A.2d 321 (1984).

22. Spurgeon v. F.T.B., 160Cal.App.3d 524, 206 Cal.Rptr. 636 (1984).

23. Rothaker v. Rockwall CountyCentral 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 SaltLake & Utah Counties, 779 P.2d 676 (Utah 1989).

26. State v. Sanders, 923 S.W.2d540 (Tenn. 1996).

II. Wages Are Income:

Back in about 1979 or 1980, Bob Goldenand Pete Soehnlen published a work entitled Are You Required,which persuasively advocated the argument that wages are notincome. However, desperate people championed this issue and lostin the following cases:

1. United States v. Romero, 640F.2d 1014 (9th Cir. 1981).

2. Lonsdale v. CIR, 661 F.2d 71(5th Cir. 1981).

3. United States v. Lawson, 670F.2d 923 (10th Cir. 1982).

4. Granzow v. CIR, 739 F.2d 265(7th Cir. 1984).

5. Hansen v. United States, 744F.2d 658 (8th Cir. 1984).

6. Perkins v. CIR, 746 F.2d 1187(6th Cir. 1984).

7. Schiff v. CIR, 751 F.2d 116(2nd Cir. 1984).

8. United States v. Latham, 754F.2d 747 (7th Cir. 1985).

9. Hyslep v. United States, 765F.2d 1083 (11th Cir. 1985).

10. Coleman v. CIR, 791 F.2d 68,70 (7th Cir. 1986).

11. Wilcox v. CIR, 848 F.2d1007, 1008 (9th Cir. 1988).

12. United States v. Gerards,999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 1993).

Jeff Dickstein, lawyer"extraordinare" from California, later Alaska, Montana,Tennessee and now Oklahoma, has written a book entitled JudicialTyranny, which discusses this issue in great detail,including all the adverse decisions on this issue through 1989.When Jeff and I were about to start the conspiracy trial of VernHolland and Dave Mauldin in Tulsa in August, 1990, Jeff announcedthat his book was hot off the press. When we got the first copyand looked at his book just days before we were to start thattrial in federal court in Tulsa, we noticed that the front covercontained the seal of the local federal court as well as alikeness of one of the local federal judges. At times, Jeff canbe harrowing. However, we got a hung jury in that case andafterwards, 6 of the jurors, including the forelady, came andjoined Vern's patriot organization.

III. The IRS is a Delawarecorporation:

Back in 1982 or 1983, somebody startedcirculation of the argument that the IRS was a privatecorporation which had been created in Delaware in 1933. This isindeed a frivolous argument and has properly been rejected by thecourts; see Young v. IRS, 596 F.Supp. 141, 147 (N.D.Ind. 1984).

IV. The IMF Argument:

Some contend that the Secretary of theTreasury is in reality a foreign agent under the control of theIMF; the argument has been rejected by the courts.

1. United States v. Rosnow, 977F.2d 399, 413 (8th Cir. 1992).

2. United States v. Jagim, 978F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir. 1992).

3. United States v. Higgins, 987F.2d 543, 545 (8th Cir. 1993).

V. Non-resident Aliens:

Some contend we are for tax purposesnon-resident aliens; again, this improper argument has beencorrectly rejected by the courts.

1. United States v. Sloan, 939F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991).

2. United States v. Jagim, 978F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir. 1992).

3. United States v. Hilgeford, 7F.3d 1340, 1342 (7th Cir. 1993).

VI. The Form 1040 is Really a Codicilto a Will:

This argument was rejected in Richeyv. Ind. Dept. of State Revenue, 634 N.E. 2d 1375 (Ind.1994), along with other popular arguments of that date.

VII. Filing 1099s against IRS Agents:

At one time, some asserted that when anagent of the government inflicted damaged upon somebody, theproper response should be filing a Form 1099 against the agentbecause the agent was "enriched" by the damaged soinflicted. Parties doing this went to jail.

1. United States v. Yagow, 953F.2d 423 (8th Cir. 1992).

2. United States v. Kuball, 976F.2d 529 (9th Cir. 1992).

3. United States v. Dykstra, 991F.2d 450 (8th Cir. 1993).

VIII. Land Patents:

Back in 1983 and 1984, Carol Landipopularized an argument that the land patent was the highest andbest form of title and that by updating the patent in your ownname, you could defeat any mortgages. This contention violatedmany principles of real property and when Carol started trying toget patents for most of the land in California brought up intoher own name, she went to jail. Others who have raised this crazyargument lost the issue.

1. Nixon v. Individual Head of St.Joseph Mtg. Co., 612 F.Supp. 253 (N.D. Ind. 1985).

2. Nixon v. Phillipoff, 615F.Supp. 890 (N.D. Ind. 1985).

IX. Not a "Person" Under theTax Code:

Some have contended that they were not"persons" under the Internal Revenue Code, an argumentwhich has been lost.

1. United States v. Karlin, 785F.2d 90, 91 (3d Cir. 1986).

2. United States v. Price, 798F.2d 111, 113 (5th Cir. 1986).

3. United States v. Silevan, 985F.2d 962, 970 (8th Cir. 1993).

X. Notice of Levy:

A popular argument currently circulatingis that a mere notice of levy is not equal to a levy and thus maynot be used for tax collection purposes. The courts have notaccepted this idea.

1. United States v. Eiland, 223F.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, 449F.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, 798F.2d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 1986).

XI. The UCC Argument:

Some assert that some unknown treaty backin the 1930s placed us under the control of the"international bankers," thus every action filed inthis country, both civil and criminal alike, is for the benefitof the bankers. Under these facts, when the government attacks apatriot, he should assert the UCC argument; this silly contentionhas been rejected.

1. United States v. Stoecklin,848 F.Supp. 1521 (M.D. Fla. 1994).

2. United States v. Greenstreet,912 F.Supp. 224 (N.D.Tex. 1996)(also raised flag and common lawcourt issues).

3. United States v. Klimek, 952F.Supp. 1100 (E.D.Pa. 1997)(also raised nom de guerre and flagissues).

XII. The CFR Cross Reference Index:

The Code of Federal Regulations containsa separate volume which list various statutes and the regulationswhich implement those statutes. This is not an exclusive list noris it an admission made by the government that there are noregulations for Title 26, U.S.C. Parties making this argumenthave suffered defeat.

1. United States v. Cochrane,985 F.2d 1027, 1031 (9th Cir. 1993).

2. Russell v. United States, 95CCH Tax Cases 50029 (W.D. Mich. 1994).

3. Reese v. CIR, 69 TCM 2814, TCMemo 1995-244 (1995)(this and several other arguments describedas "legalistic gibberish").

4. Morgan v. CIR, 78 AFTR2d96-6633 (M.D.Fla. 1996).

5. Stafford v. CIR, TCM 1997-50.

XIII. The Flag Issue:

A current popular argument is that thegold fringed flag indicates the admiralty jurisdiction of thecourt. Naturally, pro ses have made this argument and lost.

1. Vella v. McCammon, 671F.Supp. 1128, 1129 (S.D. Tex. 1987)(the argument has "noarguable basis in law or fact").

2. Comm. v. Appel, 652 A.2d 341,343 (Pa.Super. 1994)(the contention is a "preposterousclaim").

XIV. Common Law Court:

These courts have been declarednon-existent.

1. Kimmel v. Burnet County AppraisalDist., 835 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex.App. 1992).

XV. "Nom de Guerre":

According to a book written byBerkheimer, a "nom de guerre" is a war name symbolizedby a given name being written in capital letters. The argumentcontends that because of events in 1933, we have been made"enemies" and government indicates our status asenemies by the nom de guerre. If this is true, then why have thestyles of the decisions of the United States Supreme Court sinceits establishment been in caps? This argument has gotten lots ofpeople in trouble. For example, Mike Kemp of the Gadsden Militiadefended himself on state marijuana charges with this argumentand he was thrown into jail. I have not even seen a decent briefon this issue which was predicated upon cases you can find in acommon law library. In any event, at least one case has rejectedthis argument; see United States v. Klimek, 952 F.Supp.1100 (E.D.Pa. 1997).