Anti-Defamation League Online Homepage    ADL Home |  Militia Watch Dog Archive Home |  Law Enforcement |  Search |  About |  Contribute

 

Militia Watchdog Graphic

Last Updated, August 29, 1999

Idiot Legal Arguments: A Casebook for Dealing with Extremist Legal Arguments

Part Two

By Bernard J. Sussman, JD, MLS, CP

rule
rule

      Refusing legal process because of some harebrain notion (usually using the sort of "refusal" formula set out in the UCC for banks rejecting doubtful checks): US v. Lindbloom (WD Wash unpub 4/16/97) 79 AFTR2d 2578, 97 USTC para  50650; US v. Warren (ND NY  unpub 1/22/98); Miller v. IRS (D Neb 9/22/97) 80 AFTR2d 8169; US v. Greenstreet (ND Tex 1996) 912 F.Supp 224; US v. Schiefen (8th Cir 1998) 139 F3d 638; R. Miller v. US (ND Ohio unpub 11/26/96) 78 AFTR2d 7547; R. Miller v. USA (ND Ohio unpub 2/6/98); In re Mary E. Severance (Bankr. D. Colo unpub 5/9/97); US v. Saunders (9th Cir 1991) 951 F2d 1065; Eismann v. Miller (1980) 101 Ida 692, 619 P2d 1145; ("citing various inapposite provisions of the UCC") Salman v. Dept of the Treasury-IRS (D Nev 1995) 899 F.Supp 473; ("refusal filed under the American Flag of Peace") Humphrey v. Decker (ED Wash 1997) 173 FRD 529;

 ("Jones responded to virtually every piece of correspondence in the case with a notice of refusal for fraud.  The plaintiff chose this forum yet he is unwilling to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or to participate in a meaningful way in the proceedings.  Time and again the plaintiff's pleadings reflect a belief he can apply his own rules ... in this court.") R. Jones v. Watson (ND Ohio unpub 2/4/97) and again (ND Ohio unpub 9/29/97); US v. Knudson (D Neb 1997) 959 F.Supp 1180; US v. Klimek (ED Penn 1997) 952 F.Supp 1100; Hughes v. Hickam (WD Mo unpub 5/23/97) 79 AFTR2d 3151;  similarly (refusing IRS notices combined with his own  claim that IRS's failure to respond to his harebrained argument within his deadline would constitute submission)  Hezel v.  US (WD Tenn unpub 6/17/97) 80 AFTR2d 5229, 97 USTC para 50588 aff'd (6th Cir unpub 9/21/98) 165 F3d 27(t), 82 AFTR2d 6405, 98 USTC para 50778; ditto (court held that since the UCC was inapplicable to IRS operations, the failure of the IRS to reply to the perp's UCC-type demand documents did not constitute any sort of concession or admission; eventually imposed a heavy fine)  Holling v. US (ED Mich unpub 11/27/95) 76 AFTR2d 6968, magistrate's recommendation (ED Mich unpub 2/6/96) 77 AFTR2d 1052, sanctions imposed (Ed Mich 5/17/96) 934 F.Supp 251; US v. J.F. Heard (ND WV 1996) 952 F.Supp 329 (refused grand jury subpoena); Smith v. Kitchen (10th Cir 1997) 156 F3d 1025, 97 USTC para 50107; US v. Morse (8th Cir unpub 4/12/94) 21 F3d 433(t);

 (citations to UCC are meaningless; "the complaint filed by the [govt] is not a negotiable instrument and the UCC is inapplicable.") US v. Andra (D Ida 1996) 923 F.Supp 157; similarly ("plaintiff's reliance on the UCC as a basis for her "refusal for cause" [response to all court papers] is misplaced.  A court order is simply not commercial paper subject to the [UCC] provision cited by plaintiff.") Ventura v.  Krugielki (WD Mich unpub 4/14/94) suit dismissed (WD Mich unpub 1/21/97);  US v. Kettler (10th Cir unpub 6/3/91) 934 F2d 326(t); R. Jones v. Watson (ND Ohio unpub 2/4/97); Greenstreet v. Heiskell (Tex.App 1997) 940 SW2d 831 reh.den 960 SW2d 713; Farm Credit Bank of Wichita v. Powers (Okla.App 1996) 919 P2d 31; Smith v. Bullard (SD WV unpub 7/1/96) 78 AFTR2d 5811;

 ("plaintiff has 'refused for fraud' all of the pleadings, motions, etc., filed by every other party and the Court in response to his own filings and has failed to otherwise respond to the motions to dismiss his complaint.  While it is unclear to this Court was 'refused for fraud' means, in light of plaintiff's failure to respond, we have no alternative but to treat the motion to dismiss as uncontested...") DiLouie v. Padova (ED Penn unpub 3/18/98); similarly US v. Shanahan (WD Wash unpub 8/27/97); (similarly, where the plaintiff "repeatedly refused to accept correspondence or otherwise meaningfully participate in the federal court proceedings", e.g., by sending back pleadings marked "Refused for Cause without Dishonor, UCC 3-501, not corporate person described", her behavior was characterized as "engaged in a course of unbridled lawlessness throughout the proceedings") Kiesling v.  Troughton (10th Cir unpub 3/13/97) 107 F3d 880(t); similarly (plaintiff who commenced suit thereafter "refused" all court papers and denied being subject to jurisdiction of court; case dismissed and punished for contempt) Onkka v. Herman (D Neb unpub 9/19/97 & 10/17/97) 80 AFTR2d 6860;  

 (where a criminal defendant rejected court papers using the UCC refusal formula and was convicted, he sued the judge and others on the grounds, inter alia, of violating UCC sec. 3-501.  "The Court finds that the UCC is inapplicable to the case at bar because none of the parties or factual allegations implicate issues of commercial law.") Gipson v. Callahan (WD Tex 1997) 18 F.Supp.2d 662 app.dism 157 F3d 903(t);   (where the plaintiffs suing a bank refused to accept an unfavorable court decision, stamped it "void" and mailed it back and then mailed out their own phony court order pretending to award themselves more than a million dollars, then tried to "void" the appearance of the opposition's lawyer on the pretext that he "hold a title of nobility, which is forbidden", the court said "Apparently the Hilgefords think they can make up the law as they go along... [Their case is made of] outlandish claims supported only by vague and irrelevant notions of law and twisted and self-manufactured facts."  A previous Rule 11 fine for $250 which they had refused to pay was now boosted to one thousand dollars, plus all the opposition's legal expenses (and another court decision forbad them from filing future litigation without judicial permission).  Hilgeford v.  Peoples Bank Inc.  (ND Ind 1986) 113  FRD 161;

 ("there is no doubt that the plaintiff received notice ... The "refusal of fraud" ... clearly refers to the Order.  The plaintiff chooses this forum, yet he is unwilling to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or to participate in any meaningful way in the proceedings.  Time and again, the plaintiff's pleadings reflect a belief he can apply his own rules of procedure...  Plaintiff's conduct warrants an award of sanctions in the amounts sought.") R. Jones v. T.G. Watson (ND Ohio unpub 9/29/97);  (tax protesters refused to accept mailed court papers then refused to answer questions in depositions, even after very explicit instructions from the judge who finally granted a default judgment against them) US v.  Wilfley (D Ore unpub 10/6/97) 97 USTC para 50875, 80 AFTR2d 7475; (could not pretend that tax authorities had not mailed notices to him when he had clearly sent back the notices with 'refused for fraud' written on the envelopes; further, sending back official mail with "refused for fraud" written on it is not a substitute for providing requested information nor for requesting postponements or other administrative amenities) Pinski v.  Dept of Revenue (Ore.  Tax Ct unpub 10/5/98); (sent back numerous parking tickets marked "refused for cause without dishonor" and was thereafter surprised when the Highway Patrol towed his truck away) Fenili v. Calif. Dept of Motor Vehicles (ND Cal unpub 6/16/98);

(county recorders instructed not to accept "affidavit of refusal to accept post" for filing) Texas Atty-Gen Letter Op. 98-16 (3/13/98);  (refused to accept mail using zip codes or two-letter state abbreviations) US v. Freeman (D NJ unpub 1993) 71 AFTR2d 1272, 93 USTC para 50296 aff'd 16 F3d 406 cert.den 511 US 1134; ditto Biermann v.  Cook (Fla.App 1993) 619 So.2d 1029; ditto (refused a summons personally served on him because its text included his Zip code, but court held that summons was effective even though refused) US [& Argir] v. R.P. Carr (ED Penn unpub 1/28/99); ditto (his lawsuit thrown out for lack of good faith prosecution because he refused all mail that showed his Zip code) L.L. Russell v. Clark (6th Cir unpub 2/9/99);  (said he would refuse to accept any correspondence using his ZIP code and was told by court that all court mail would be sent using his ZIP code and would be regarded as legally received by him even if he refused it) Ferguson v.  Alabama Criminal Justice Information Center (MD Alab 1997) 962 F.Supp 1446; [see, Levin & Mitchell, A Law Unto Themselves: The Ideology of the Common Law Court Movement, 44 So.Dak.L.Rev. 9 (1999), about Zip codes, personal sovereignty, and other militia myths]; similarly ("Contrary to plaintiff's subjective beliefs, Arizona is one of the fifty states which collectively comprise the United States of America.  The USPS has designated valid abbreviations for each of the 50 states, and Zip codes for all areas within the US. Plaintiff's refusal to accept mail sent to him by this court is unjustified and improper. ... A refusal to accept mail so sent will simply not constitute grounds for any subsequent argument that Plaintiff was unaware he was under Court Order to do something or refrain from doing something.  Any further attempt to frustrate the orderly progress of this case will result in Plaintiff's suit being dismissed. ... Plaintiff's refusal to accept mail containing the Orders of this Court is, in effect, a failure to comply with this Court's Orders.  Further, the fact that he refuses to accept those Orders duly sent to him by the Clerk of this Court does not constitute good cause for his failure to comply with the Orders of this Court.  Plaintiff repeatedly uses the phrase 'voluntary jurisdiction denied'.  Plaintiff fails to recognize that it is he, as the plaintiff, who voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of this Court by filing his Complaint." Francis v. Rennie (D Ariz unpub 7/19/94);  similarly State v.  Kemp (ND Alab 1997) 952 F.Supp 722 ("Kemp alleges he attempted to retain counsel ... but that the retainer he sent his counsel was delayed in arrival because Kemp refused to use a postal ZIP code in addressing the envelope.  Kemp takes the position that the use of a ZIP code is voluntary and Kemp refuses to use a ZIP code in any of his correspondence.  Kemp also asks this court to refrain from using ZIP codes ....  Although Kemp did not provide a ZIP code as part of his mailing address, the clerk is directed to ascertain Kemp's ZIP code and use that code in mailing a copy of this order to Kemp."); (refused to accept any court papers that didn't put a comma before her surname or which were addressed in a normal way - i.e. without a "c/o" before the house number and spelling out "Missouri state Non-Domestic") Swartzendruber v.  US (WD Mo unpub 4/17/97); (a juror's unauthorized use of a militia-type booklet containing an instruction not to use zip codes or the two-letter abbreviations was considered sufficient to declare a mistrial) State v. Fischer (Wis.App unpub 3/12/91) 161 Wis.2d 936(t), 469 NW2d 249(t); (tax protester's attempt to obtain a tax refund foiled by his own refusal to provide a proper mailing address) US v. E.M. Nash (6th Cir 1999) 175 F3d 429;   {Note: The ZIP code is, according to the US Postal Manual, not an absolute requirement to the address and therefore the govt using the wrong zip code in sending mail to the litigant's address is not fatal to the govt's notice, so long as the mail was eventually delivered to the litigant. Watkins v. CIR (1/6/92) TC Memo 1992-6; Zee v. CIR (2/11/87) TC Memo 1987-83; at least once this worked in favor of the litigant and against the govt which quibbled about his mailing of a crucial document which had been delivered despite a wrong zip code. Price v. CIR (1981) 76 Tax Ct 389;  the govt's use of the wrong zip code may be further excused if the litigant himself had provided that wrong zip code. Theede v. US Dept of Labor (10th Cir 1999) 172 F3d 1262.  Courts will take judicial notice of the correct zip code for an address, usually based on the USPS Zip Code Directory. AmQuip Corp v. Pearson (ED Penn 1984) 101 FRD 332; In re Sheppard (Bankr., ND Ga 1994) 173 Bankr.Rptr 799; State v. Scramuzza (La. 1982) 408 So.2d 1316; - (but refuse to take judicial notice that it was impossible to know or use a Zip Code before the Zone Improvement Progam's  official introduction in July 1963) Finlayson v. Finlayson (Utah App 1994) 874 P2d 843.  The law may require, as part of the application form for a license, the applicant to provide his zip code and an applicant who refused to provide his zip code would therefore be denied the license. Schmidt v. Powell (IL App 1972) 4 IL.App.3d 34, 280 NE2d 236.   In (at least) one instance, a crank, having adamantly refused to use a ZIP code in his correspondence, thereafter tried (unsuccessfully) to obtain an allowance for the tardiness of his presentations caused by his own refusal to use Zip codes; State v. Kemp (ND Alab 1997) 952 F.Supp 722.  However, the Post Office Manual makes it clear that "the lack of zip code is significant" because it can make doubtful addresses completely undeliverable, so the omission of a zip code indicates that the sender was less than diligent in seeking to notify the addressee and even that the sender was trying to sabotage the process of notification. NY Housing Authority v. Fountain (NYC City Court 1997) 172 Misc.2d 784, 660 NYS2d 247.  The Federal Rules (Civil, Criminal, and Appellate), and all or almost all State Rules, require the inclusion of zip codes on mailing addresses within the US.  The cranks' argument is that, somehow, using a zip code, or even accepting incoming mail addressed with a zip code, concedes some sort of federal jurisdiction that could be evaded if the zip code were not used; there is absolutely no legal authority for such a claim.  There is also a crank claim that, somehow, some private individuals are collecting royalties whenever a Zip code is used, and there is also not a scrap of evidence for that claim.  The trend in court decisions is to insist on adherence to the rules requiring the use of zip codes and regarding any such mail as properly received by the crank, even if he sent it back unopened.}

 (IRS summons and court subpoena are not "securities" or commercial documents within the terms of UCC) US v. Stoecklin (MD Fla 1994) 848 F.Supp 1521; (calling various official and court documents "counterfeit") Pabon v. CIR (9/29/94) TC Memo 1994-476; ditto US v. Stoecklin (MD Fla 1994) 848 F.Supp 1521; similarly (calling the IRS notice of deficiency a "counterfeit security") Olsen v. CIR (10/3/95) TC Memo 1995-471; ditto Baker v. CIR (10/16/95) TC Memo 1995-495 aff’d (5th Cir 1996) 98 F3d 1338; (signing papers with a notation about "UCC 1-207 without prejudice" or something similar) State v. Stuart (No.Dak 1996) 544 NW2d 158; ditto (writing that on Form W-4 and other tax forms) US v. Clark (5th Cir 1998) 139 F3d 485 cert.den _US_, 119 S.Ct 227; ditto Black v. CIR (11/27/95) TC Memo 1995-560; ditto Reese v. CIR (6/5/95) TC Memo 1995-244; similarly US v. McVeigh (D Colo 1996) 940 F.Supp 1541 (this ritual evidently practiced by people associated with the Oklahoma bombing conspirators);  similarly Betz v. US (2/3/98) 40 Fed.Claims 286, 81 AFTR2d 611, 98 USTC para  50199 app.dism (FC 1998) 155 F3d 568(t); (persistently returning court papers with "Refused for fraud" scrawled across them, and not responding to orders justified court order that henceforth perp is not allowed to file any lawsuits against any govt agency or employee without prior permission of the court) Citizen in party, Klimek v.  Sigmund (ED Penn unpub 12/3/97); similarly perp fined $5000  to be divided among the govt and some financial institutions he had included in his suit.  R. Miller v. USA (ND Ohio unpub 2/6/98);

 refusing court papers, not by citing the UCC but citing Fed Rule of Civil Proc.  9(b) (which actually is  for "pleading special matters" that "In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances ..  shall be stated with particularity." -- rejecting court papers on this pretext invariably held to be inappropriate or even frivolous): Pierce v.  Hawk (DDC unpub 12/17/98); US v.  Shanahan (WD Wash unpub 8/27/97) 80 AFTR2d 6597; Neal v.  Rennie (D Ariz unpub 7/31/97); Powell v.  US (DS.  Ariz unpub 5/13/97) 79 AFTR2d 2788; US v.  G.D. Bell (ED Calif unpub 4/30/98) 79 AFTR2d 2784 recons.den 27 F.Supp.2d 119; Bartrug v.  Rubin (ED Va 1997) 986 F.Supp 332; Leistikow v.  Mangerson (ED Wis 1997) 172 FRD 403; Swartzendruber v.  US (WD Mo unpub 4/17/97); McCann v.  Greenaway (WD Mo 1997) 952 F.Supp 647; returning or refusing to accept delivery of court papers or traffic tickets or the like, with "refused ..." written across them, has the opposite effect of what the crank intended, as it demonstrates the crucial fact  that he was actually served with those documents (despite any defects about spelling or street address). US {& Argir] v. R.P. Carr (ED Penn unpub 1/28/99); L.L. Russell v. Clark (6th Cir unpub 2/9/99); R. Jones v. T.G. Watson (ND Ohio unpub 9/29/97); Pinski v.  Dept of Revenue (Ore.  Tax Ct unpub 10/5/98); refusing or returning court papers for these flimsy reasons is not excusable, against a charge of contempt of court, as being in good faith, as good faith would require a reasonable attempt to comply with a court order rather than a rejection of it.  US v. J.F. Heard (ND WV 1996) 952 F.Supp 329;

("The appellant advised [the policewoman] that he could not be arrested because her God was not as big as his God. He referred to her as 'an agent of the socialistic govt'...") State v. Loudon (Tenn.Crim.App 1993) 857 SW2d 878  

rule
rule

   Some cranks involved in court cases have submitted pleadings or motions with this title (e.g. "Refusal for Fraud Without Dishonor" or something very similar), as this is not a proper name of a motion or pleading, the courts have frequently had to infer these were demurrers or motions for reconsideration or some other customary form of pleading, but the defective title almost invariably announces an unsuccessful pleading.  Busby v.  US (MD Fla unpub 7/9/98) 82 AFTR2d 5950; Napieralski v.  Cook (6th Cir unpub 6/18/98) 149 F3d 1184(t); Leverenz v.  Torluemu (ND IL unpub 8/29/96) ("bizarre documents");  People v.  Glaser (10th Cir unpub 1/19/96) 74 F3d 1250(t); Miller v.  Gallagher (ND Ohio unpub 12/17/96); Card v.  Richardson (SD Calif unpub 11/22/96) 79 AFTR2d 421; US v.  Ganaposki (MD Penn 1996) 930 F.Supp 1076; State of Alabama v. Kemp (ND Alab unpub 1/24/97); Onkka v.  Herman (D Neb unpub 9/19/97 & 10/17/97) 80 AFTR2d 6860 (both times "The court is unclear as to the purpose of the plaintiff's 'Notice of Refusal' ...  It does not appear to conform to any recognized pleading, motion or filing under the FRCP.  Accordingly the court will strike the document from the record."); Pierce v.  Hawk (DDC unpub 12/17/98); US v. Shanahan (WD Wash unpub 8/27/97); similarly some cranks havesubmitted pleadings titled "Presentments Without Dishonor", a phrase which does not occur in the UCC (despite a mention of the UCC) nor in any court rules. Nagy v. CIR (1/24/96) TC Memo 1996-24;  Cole v.  Higgins (D. Ida unpub 1/23/95) 75 AFTR2d 1102 rept adopted (D. Ida unpub 2/27/95) 75 AFTR2d 1479 aff'd (9th Cir 4/1/96) 82 F3d 422(t), 77 AFTR2d 1586; C.L. Fisher v. Niemiec (D Ariz unpub 4/30/95); "All of the plaintiff's responsive filings with the court are captioned 'Notice of Refusal' or 'Refusal for Fraud'.  These filings are without legal significance and will not be considered by the court in ruling on any matters before it." L.L. Morris v. Brown (ED Calif unpub 11/4/97) 80 AFTR2d 8170  

rule
rule

     Renouncing or denying US citizenship:   US v. Greenstreet (ND Tex 1996) 912 F.Supp 224; Barcroft v. CIR (1/2/97) TC Memo 1997-5 app.dismissed (5th Cir unpub 12/17/97) 134 F3d 369(t), 81 AFTR2d 453, 98 USTC para 50157; US v. Sloan (7th Cir 1991) 939 F2d 499 cert.den 502 US 1060; Greenstreet v. Heiskell (Tex.App 1997) 940 SW2d 831 reh.den 960 SW2d 713; Dunham v. CIR (2/9/98) TC Memo 1998-52 ("Petitioner reported that he was not a US citizen... that he was 'a domiciled inhabitant of an American State' and that his 'tax home was within an American Union State'." -- misuse of the IRS form 1040NR penalized as fraud); Onkka v. Herman (D Neb unpub 9/19/97 & 10/17/97) 80 AFTR2d 6860; Kish v. CIR (1/13/98) TC Memo 1998-16; LaRue v. US (7th Cir unpub 9/8/97) 124 F3d 20AA4(t), 97 USTC para 50703, 80 AFTR2d 6275 cert.den 523 US 1096; Shrock v. US (7th Cir unpub 7/22/96) 92 F3d 1187(t), 78 AFTR2d 5792; McKeague v. The Corporate United States Govt of Washington DC (D. Haw unpub 10/9/97) 97 USTC para 50866; US v.  Nichols (WD Okl 1995) 897 F.Supp 542 (Terry L. Nichols, an Oklahoma City bombing conspirator, "disclaimed US and Michigan citizenship and has declared himself in writing to be 'Foreign' and a 'Non-Resident Alien'." - He evidently had also done this in an attempt to evade his child support responsibilities, cf. M. France, Homegrown Scholars Treat Framers' Work as a Bible, National Law Jrnl, 26 June 1995; a 1992 letter and a 1994 affidavit by Nichols to this effect can be found on the internet); ("We have held before that this belief is simply wrong.")  US v. Ross (7th Cir unpub 4/13/95) 52 F3d 329(t); (using this ploy in a drug prosecution, evidently thinking that non-citizens can smuggle and sell narcotics with impunity) US v. Norris (4th Cir unpub 2/20/98) 135 F3d 771(t); denied being "a person" and therefore not subject to taxation.  M.J. Olson v. US (Fed Claims unpub 8/26/98)  82 AFTR2d 6174; K.L. Anderson v. CIR (7/8/98) TC Memo 1998-253; Dorris v.  CIR (9th Cir unpub 4/29/96) 89 F3d 845(t), 77 AFTR2d 2084, 96 USTC para 50306; (ditto, evidently by a forced misreading of "person" in 26 USC secs.  7203 & 7343) US v.  R.J. McDonald (9th Cir unpub 10/4/90) 919 F2d 146(t) cert.den 499 US 928; US v. Rhodes (MD Penn 1996) 921 F.Supp 261 aff'd (3d Cir 1996) 101 F3d 693(t) & (3d Cir 1997) 107 F3d 9(t);  ("being of Freeman Character", domiciled in "Kansas territory in Stafford County" which is, however, "foreign to County of Stafford" and trying to sue "foreign defendants" such as the Stafford County sheriff, county attorney, county judge, et al., asking the court in Kansas  to exercise admiralty jurisdiction) Snyder v.  District Court of Stafford County (D Kan unpub 4/8/96) aff'd 98 F3d 1350(t); ("a natural being, non-resident and alien to the corporate govt United States, State of Michigan, and any and all corporate political subdivisions", sued to block application of car registration laws) J.M. Anderson v. State of Michigan (WD Mich unpub 3/18/93); )c;ao,ed tp ne "not a citizen of the US" and thereby exempt from taxes, "As proof of his non-resident alien status, he attaches affidavits stating that he was born in Texas and maintains his domicile in Wyoming." M.H. Cotton v. US (10th Cir unpub 10/14/94) 39 F3d 1191(t), 74 AFTR2d 6778

 ("All citizens of the US are liable for income taxes and every person born in the US is a citizen of the US.") Cox v.  CIR (10th Cir unpub 10/28/96) 99 F3d 1149(t), 78 AFTR2d 7015, 96 USTC para 50598; ditto US v.  Lyman (10th Cir unpub 12/24/98) 166 F3d 349(t), 99 USTC para 50199, 83 AFTR2d 354; (claimed to be a citizen of "of the country of Nevada USA" and claimed "the benefits of a US income tax treaty with the foreign country of Nevada") Reese v. CIR (6/5/95) TC Memo 1995-244;  (claimed to be immune to taxation as "a Moorish-American Aborigine of Cherokee Indian Descent, a Free Regnatrix National Continental United States Citizen, Legitime Immunis Person") Curry-Bey v. US (Fed Claims Ct unpub 6/22/95) 76 AFTR2d 5148, 95 USTC para 50604;  (altho perps admitted that the IRS can tax non-citizens residing in the US, they denied being either US citizens nor resident aliens but "state citizens of Missouri (not State of Missouri)" and presented their homemade oaths of "Abjuration of Citizenship" and "pledge of allegiance to the Missouri Republic") Erwin v.  CIR (10/17/95) TC Memo 1995-498; (repudiating his US citizenship one reason that court would not allow Terry L.  Nichols, in the Oklahoma City Bombing trials, to get bail or pre-trial release)  US v.  Nichols (WD Okl 1995) 897 F.Supp 542; (failing to comply with court orders on the pretext "that he had not 'elected' to be treated as a US citizen and was not born 'subject to the Internal Revenue tax" punished with a contempt order) US v. Graber (8th Cir unpub 1/2/98) 98 USTC para 50134, 81 AFTR2d 429.

claim to be civilly dead: US v. Verlin (D Kan 1997) 979 F.Supp 1334; (crank presented a document purporting to be a Social Security notification of his own death in 1942, and now sues a multitude of hospitals, doctors, and public officials for his own wrongful death) D.N. Mohammed v.  Wilson (ND Cal unpub 9/27/96)

    {NOTE: Under a law first enacted in 1866, everyone born in the US and not subject to a foreign power "are declared to be citizens of the United States", RS sec. 1992, 8 USC sec. 1401.   Someone having been born in the US is presumed to continue to be a US citizen in the absence of proper legal evidence to the contrary; Perkins v.  Elg (1939) 307 US 325; Ex parte Lopez (S.D.  Tex 1934) 6 F.Supp 342.  Renunciation or revocation of US citizenship is regulated by 8 USC sec. 1481 et seq and is applicable only in a limited range of situations, such as expatriation and allegiance to another country and almost always combined with a voluntary and formal renunciation of US citizenship made to a US diplomatic office abroad, in fact 8 USC sec. 1483 makes clear that this is virtually impossible for someone who is still inside the US (among the very few exceptions, instances of having obtained US naturalization by fraud or subsequently committing treason or sabotage).  For example, it was not possible for someone born with US citizenship, namely a Puerto Rican, to renounce his US citizenship while remaining in Puerto Rico as a "Puerto Rican national", since that was not a bona fide foreign nation.  Lozado Colon v.  US Dept of State (DDC 1998) 2 F.Supp.2d 43.  When the proper formalities have been accomplished a Certificate of Loss of Nationality (CLN) is given to the ex-citizen; 8 USC sec. 1501.  Heuer v.  US Secretary of State (11th Cir 1994) 20 F3d 424 cert.den 513 US 1014.  A  person who is alleging that he has relinquished his US citizenship has, under 8 USC sec. 1481(b), the burden of proving that revocation of his citizenship, which would be unlikely without the CLN.  Even for an American who has validly renounced his citizenship, the effective date of the termination of his citizenship (e.g. for tax purposes) would not be earlier than his formal renunciation before a US diplomatic officer.  Dacey v.  CIR (3/30/92) TC Memo 1992-187.   Oddly enough, since the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act in 1986, it has been illegal for anyone "who, having been a citizen of the US, has renounced his citizenship" to purchase or possess a firearm; 18 USC sec. 922(g)(7) -- it is not clear if that renunciation must meet the formalities of 8 USC sec. 1481 for this law to apply; the Congressional reports accompanying this law do not mention any of the formalities of 8 USC sec. 1481 et seq nor give specific examples. }  

rule
rule

    Claiming to be a sovereign:    Goode v. Foster (D Kan unpub 10/21/96); similarly Valldejull v. Social Security Admin (ND Fla unpub 12/20/94) 75 AFTR2d 607, CCH Unempl.Ins.Rep. para 14368B ("that he is not a citizen of the Federal United States but a natural sovereign citizen of the United States not subject to the Social Security system"); similarly Farm Credit Bank of Wichita v. Devous (WD Okl 1996) 933 F.Supp 1028; similarly US v. Sloan (7th Cir 1991) 939 F2d 499 cert.den 502 US 1060; McDowell v.  US (9th Cir unpub 6/17/97);  McKeague v. The Corporate United States Govt of Washington DC (D. Haw unpub 10/9/97) 97 USTC para 50866; similarly  Farm Credit Bank of Wichita v. Powers (Okla.App 1996) 919 P2d 31; similarly Industrial Devel. Bd of Tullahoma v. Hancock (Tenn.App 1995) 901 SW2d 382; similarly Wilson v. US (WD No.Car unpub 5/23/96) 77 AFTR2d 2489;  US v.  R.L. Keys (6th Cir unpub 4/6/93) 991 F2d 797(t); similarly In re Gdowik (Bankr., SD Fla unpub 7/23/96) 78 AFTR2d 6243 aff'd (SD Fla unpub 11/6/97) 228 Bankr.Rptr 481, 80 AFTR2d 8254;  (county recorders instructed not to accept this document for filing) Texas Atty-Gen Letter Op. 98-16 (3/13/98);  Snyder v. District Court of Stafford County (D Kan unpub 4/8/96) aff’d (10th Cir unpub 9/27/96) 98 F3d 1350(t) (claiming to be "natural born free people" and "a state" and "of freemen character" and not a "federal emergency citizen");  Young v. IRS (ND Ind 1984) 596 F.Supp 141; similarly ("natural born free sovereign US citizen") Damron v. Yellow Freight System Inc. (ED Tenn 1998) 18 F.Supp.2d 812; similarly (claiming to be "one of the indigenous sovereign people" and of "a Freemen Character" and therefore not susceptible to any court except "only to common law jurisdiction and process" by his own "Peers") L.L. Russell v. Clark (6th Cir unpub 2/9/99); (claiming to be "a sovereign state" and thereby trying to remove his traffic cases to a federal court) People v.  Glaser (10th Cir unpub 1/19/96) 74 F3d 1250(t); US v. Studley (9th Cir 1986) 783 F2d 934 (claiming to be "an absolute, freeborn and natural individual"); similarly T.M. Thompson v.  IRS (ND Ind 5/22/98) 23 F.Supp. 2d 923;  T.J. Johnson v. State (Ark.App unpub 10/7/92); similarly US ex rel Brailey v.  Aldesman (ND IL unpub 2/23/89) aff'd (7th Cir 1990) 904 F2d 38 cert.den 498 US 897 (perp making this claim held to be too mentally ill to stand trial and was confined to psych.  hospital);  Fair v.  CIR (6/16/94) TC Memo 1994-276 aff'd (9th Cir unpub 6/30/95) 76 AFTR2d 5724, 95 USTC para 50418 cert.den 516 US 1098 (claiming to be a "free person" or "free citizen" and not a taxpayer); (claiming to be a "Sovereign Man On the Land") Marion v. Marion (Conn.Super. unpub  6/18/98); Peth v. Breitzman (ED Wis 1985) 611 F.Supp 50 (this plaintiff later convicted for printing fake money orders); (claiming to be a Sovereign and therefore "no longer under the jurisdiction of Title 26 USC or any other negative law....  Anyone who attempts jurisdiction over a Sovereign is subject to criminal penalties of ten thousand dollars and/or ten years in prison") Bombalski v. USA (WD Penn unpub 3/30/90); ("The Plaintiff is an American National and a State Sovereign and is not subject to the Federal jurisdiction of the United States.  The Plaintiff has never been, to his knowledge, a 14th Amendment citizen or a resident of any state, statutorily defined as United States. ... The Plaintiff was, at the time of filing the action, a Sovereign in and over the Union State Republic of Arizona and is currently a Sovereign in and over the Union State Republic of Arizona...." C.L. Fisher v. Niemiec (D Ariz unpub 4/30/95); ("Contrary to plaintiff's subjective beliefs, Arizona is one of the fifty state which collectively comprise the United States of America.") Francis v. Rennie (D Ariz unpub 7/19/94);  ("an individual freeman") Jones v. City of Newport (1989) 29 Ark.App 42, 780 SW2d 338; similarly Scotka v. State (Tex.App 1993) 846 SW2d 790; similarly US v. Masat (5th Cir 1991) 948 F2d 923 cert.den 506 US 835 ("Masat's brief states he is a 'non-citizen' and a 'non-resident'. More specifically, Masat claims the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over him because he is a 'freeman'.  In light of the fact that Masat was indicted for tax evasion, appeared before the district court, and has offered this court no support for his lack-of-personal-jurisdiction contention, we find his argument frivolous."); similarly US v.  Gardell (1st Cir unpub 5/6/94) 23 F3d 395(t), 73 AFTR2d 2075 cert.den 513 US 869; similarly Holker v. US (8th Cir 1984) 737 F2d 751; similarly US v. Schmitt (8th Cir 1986) 784 F2d 880; similarly Jensen v. US (D Mass unpub 3/1/84) 53 AFTR2d 1067, 84 USTC para 9283; similarly Goode v. Foster (D. Kan unpub 10/21/96); similarly Lebrun v. State (1986) 255 Ga 406, 339 SE2d 227; similarly Cauvel v. CIR (10/10/89) TC Memo 1989-547;  similarly Farm Credit Bank of Wichita v. Powers (Okla.App 1996) 919 P2d 31; (sued to get declaration that he is "a Sovereign Freeman" and not a "slave of the United States or an American citizen or a US taxpayer")  Busby v.  US (MD Fla unpub 7/9/98) 82 AFTR2d 5950;  ("as a Sovereign Individual now asserts absolute immunity from payment of federal income taxes to which ordinary mortals are subjected .... precisely the same degree of protection from federal income taxation as did the Ghost Dance of the Sioux warrior from the repeating rifles of the federal cavalry -- Zero!") McKinney v. Regan (MD La 1984) 599 F.Supp 126, 55 AFTR2d 1509, 85 USTC para 9479 ; similarly US v. J.O. Steiner (9th Cir unpub 5/14/92) 963 F2d 381(t) ("a sovereign citizen of the state of California"); similarly  US v. J.R. White (9th Cir unpub 12/20/90) 921 F2d 282(t) ("a sovereign citizen of the state of Nevada");  similarly Barcroft v. CIR (1/2/97) TC Memo 1997-5 app.dismissed (5th Cir unpub 12/17/97) 134 F3d 369(t), 81 AFTR2d 453, 98 USTC para 50157; (claiming that as a "free sovereign individual citizen" he could unilaterally revoke his own Social Security Number, and thereafter refuse to comply with drivers license laws) Hershey v. Commonwealth Dept of Transportation (Penn.Commonw.Ct 1995) 669 A2d 517 app.den 544 Penn 664, 676 A2d 1202; (claiming "she is an American Sovereign State Citizen not subject to federal income tax") In re Cambern (9th Cir unpub 9/29/95) 67 F3d 305(t), 76 AFTR2d 6816; (claiming total immunity from the state divorce court on the pretext that "Mississippi no longer possesses Sovereign state power, it is now  the people of the area known as Mississippi who retain their individual Sovereign power."  Appeals court said "We find that Mississippi still possesses sovereign state power and that the Chancery Court ... had jurisdiction ... [Appellant's] argument on this point is so totally and obviously without merit that no further discussion is necessary.") Carlock v. Carlock (Miss.App unpub 5/25/99);  (referring to himself as "Sovereign Goods" and "un-a-lien-able rights claimant" and a "Freeholder of Inheritance", and further objects to the participation by any of the opposing attys and the judge because they are all "enfranchised creatures of the law" and "without standing in this court or any other court of this land!") R.E. Goode v. Sumner County Commissioners (D.Kan unpub 2/17/95);

 (claiming that as a "citizen at common law" does not have to comply with motor vehicle laws nor can a county court hear a charge against him) City of South Euclid v. Carroll (Ohio App unpub 10/6/88) app.dism 42 Oh.St.3d 706, 537 NE2d 225; ditto T.J. Johnson v. State (Ark.App unpub 10/7/92); ditto State v. Cooper (Tenn.Crim.App unpub 9/21/88); ditto (claiming "that, as a 'judicial power citizen', he is governed only by 'God and the common law of the Constitution' ...  that he is exempt from the laws of this state") State v.  Booher (Tenn.Crim.App 1997) 978 SW2d 953; similarly (as a "citizen in party" and "a natural born free sovereign United States citizen" he does not have to comply with US laws) In re Shugrue (Bankr., ND Tex 1998) 221 Bankr.Rptr 394; ditto this was evidently a ploy used in April 1992 by Terry L. Nichols, later identified as an Oklahoma City bombing conspirator; a 1992 letter and a 1994 affidavit by Nichols to the same effect are found on the internet), US v.  Nichols (WD Okl 1995) 897 F.Supp 542; (claiming that as a "free citizen" he can ignore federal laws relating to logging in a National Forest) US v. Novotny (10th Cir unpub 6/5/92) 968 F2d 22(t) cert.den 507 US 909; (similarly, as a "freeman" can ignore driver license laws) State v. Folda (Mont 1994) 267 Mont 523, 885 P2d 426; ditto Jones v. City of Newport (1989) 29 Ark.App 42, 780 SW2d 338; (similarly, as a "first class judicial citizen" thought he didn’t need to comply with drivers license laws) Estes-El v. Town of Indian Lake (ND NY unpub 5/11/98); (petitioning  for a declaration that the perp "is no longer property of the US govt") Van Hall v.  IRS (D Ariz unpub 8/30/96) 78 AFTR2d 6410; (pretending to have a "personal" Quiet Title to immunize against all legal responsibilities) State v. Cella (Mo.App 7/7/98) 976 SW2d 543; ditto Skurdal v. US (D Mt unpub 10/20/94) 74 AFTR2d 6918; (such a suit not possible) Barcroft v. State (Tex.App 1995) 900 SW2d 370;  (because perp is an American Indian) US v. Willie (10th Cir 1991) 941 F2d 1384 cert.den 502 US 1106; "I have news for [the] petitioner: Even such ... an 'unenfranchised Sovereign Individual of the United States of America, a Republic", proceeding under the 'Common Law of the United States, a Republic,' ... is bound, along with the rest of us, to pay the income taxes levied by that republic."  McKinney v.  Regan (MD La 1984) 599 F.Supp 126, 55 AFTR2d 1509, 85 USTC para 9479.  But see, for instance, City of Salina v. Wisden (Utah 1987) 737 P2d 981 ("We will consider Mr. Wisden's contention that the ... [traffic] court lacked jurisdiction to try him because his status as a 'free man' exempts him from the motor vehicle code because he did not consent to be bound by it.  We address this issue only because it is frequently raised and should be finally settled. We reject his claim.... Consent to laws is not a prerequisite to their enforceability against individuals. ... In order for our scheme of ordered liberties to succeed, we must all obey valid laws, even those with which we do not agree; a man cannot exempt himself from the operation of a law simply by declaring that he does not consent to have it apply to him.")    {NOTE: One of the motives behind this and similar ploys is the childish  notion that the crank somehow has the power to deny a court's (or a government's) jurisdiction over him or over his offense, and that he cannot be held accountable even for flagrant violations if he does not personally consent to being arrested, summoned,  tried, etc.  This is patently absurd.  The long held principle is that the court (meaning the judge) is the one who decides on whether a case is within the court's  jurisdiction (an error can be reviewed on appeal) and even both litigants by agreement cannot deprive a court of its appropriate jurisdiction; Home Insur. Co. v. Morse (1874) 87 US (20 Wall) 445; nor can both litigants by agreement confer jurisdiction upon the wrong court; Kennedy v. Bank of Georgia (1850) 49 US (8 How) 586; California v. LaRue (1972) 409 US 109.}  

   Pretending to be a non-resident alien:   Spirito v. US (Bankr., MD Fla 1996) 198 Bankr.Rptr 624; Dunham v. CIR (2/9/98) TC Memo 1998-52 (calling himself "a domiciled inhabitant of an American State", his use of a form 1040NR was penalized as tax fraud); Nagy v. CIR (1/24/96) TC Memo 1996-24; Betz v. US (2/3/98) 40 Fed.Claims 286, 81 AFTR2d 611, 98 USTC para  50199 app.dism (FC 1998) 155 F3d 568(t) (person born in State of Washington to parents who were US citizens is himself a US citizen, court took judicial notice that Washington is one of the 50 states that comprise the United States and it joined the Union in 1889 as the fourty-second state); Wilson v. US (WD No.Car unpub 5/23/96) 77 AFTR2d 2489; Secora v. US (D Neb unpub 4/18/97) 79 AFTR2d 2686; Brown v. US (4/3/96) 35 Fed.Claims 258 aff’d (Fed Cir 1997) 105 F3d 621; US v. Moore (ND Okl unpub 9/7/93) 72 AFTR2d 6277, 93 USTC para 50653 aff’d (10th Cir 1994) 21 F3d 1122(t), 73 AFTR2d 1656; In re Angstadt (Bankr. ED Penn unpub 8/17/94); In re Weatherley (Bankr. E.D. Penn 1994) 169 Bankr.Rptr 555, 25 Bankr.Ct.Dec 1427 ("patently frivolous"); In re Wm.G. Walters (Bankr., ND Ind. 1993) 166 Bankr.Rptr 119, 71 AFTR2d 1047; (a "non-resident alien preamble citizen")  US v. Fitch (9th Cir unpub 10/30/92) 978 F2d 716(t); ("American Inhabitants who posses sovereign powers and immunities", altho born in California and living in Alaska) Epperly v. US (US Congress) (9th Cir unpub 11/24/92) 980 F2d 737(t) cert.den 510 US 867; (claimed to be "a nonresident alien because he lives in the Utah Republic, not the United States.)  Mancebo v. CIR (1/27/97) TC Memo 1997-46; (penalty imposed where protester used a form 1040NR on the pretext that "he was a citizen or national of the country of Nevada, USA, that petitioner was never a US citizen, that petitioners claims the benefits of a US income tax treaty with the foreign country of Nevada") C.D. Reese v. CIR (6/5/95) TC Memo 1995-244; (use of 1040NR and claims  to be a national of, in various years, the Texas Republic, the Washington Republic and the Colorado Republic, "are no more than stale tax protester contentions long dismissed summarily by this court and all other courts...  Section 1 [of 26 USC] imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or a resident of the US.") Stallard v. CIR (10/5/92) TC Memo 1992-593; (claiming to be a "non-resident and alien to their colorful governments") Beideman v. IRS (D Del unpub 9/7/93) 72 AFTR2d 6188;  (cannot claim to be non-resident alien if perp is clearly a resident of a state) LaRue v. US (CD IL 1997) 959 F.Supp 957 aff'd (7th Cir 1997) 124 F3d 204(t), 97 USTC para 50703, 80 AFTR2d 6275 cert.den 523 US 1096; (claimed to be a citizen of NY but for IRS purposes a non-resident alien with no income connected to an activity "within" the US) H.J. Thomas v. USA (IRS, International Office) (WDNY unpub 11/29/91); similarly US v. Kettler [& Van Skiver](10th Cir unpub 6/3/91) 934 F2d 326(t);  (American citizens but not US citizens) Boyce v. CIR (9/25/96) TC Memo 1996-439 aff’d (9th Cir 1997) 122 F3d 1069; ditto R.S. Powers v. CIR (12/12/90) TC Memo 1990-623; ditto T.J. Johnson v. State (Ark.App unpub 10/7/92); ditto In re Gdowik (Bankr., SD Fla unpub 7/23/96) 78 AFTR2d 6243 aff'd (SD Fla unpub 11/6/97) 228 Bankr.Rptr 481, 80 AFTR2d 8254; ditto Nieman v. CIR (11/17/93) TC Memo 1993-533; (or claiming to be "a citizen of the united states [lower case] of America ... and I have no business with the United States.") US v. Weatherley (ED Penn 1998) 12 F.Supp.2d 469; (The Oklahoma City bombing conspirator, Terry Nichols, also tried to evade his child support responsibilities in 1992 by claiming to be "a non-resident alien non-foreigner ... not a person", cf. M. France, Homegrown Scholars Treat Framers' Work as a Bible, National Law Jrnl, 26 June 1995; his 1992 letter and a 1994 affidavit to the same effect can be found on the internet);  (quibbling whether the United States is the same as the United States of America, etc.) US v. Dunkel (ND IL unpub 8/30/96) 78 AFTR2d 6529 rev. in part on other grnds (7th Cir unpub 7/1/97) 80 AFTR2d 5148, 97 USTC para 50565; ditto US v. Weatherley (ED Penn 1998) 12 F.Supp.2d 469; ditto US v. Wacker (10th Cir unpub 3/31/99) ("relatively unintelligible and ludicrous arguments"); ditto (plaintiff claimed to be "a natural born Citizen of the Union and of the Sovereign State of Arkansas" and denied being subject to the federal laws) Eckert v. Lane (WD Ark 1988) 678 F.Supp 773; ditto ("native born inhabitants and citizens of the american [sic] union republic Arizona as natural beings exercising their inalienable rights" and not citizens of the US nor susceptible to tax laws) Vaillancourt [& the People of the Republic Union State named Arizona] v. Bentsen (D.Ariz unpub 2/25/94) 73 AFTR2d 1423;  ditto (perp filed a form 1040NR claiming to be a citizen "of the country of Nevada USA" and exempt from taxes under "a US income tax treaty with the foreign country of Nevada" but simultaneously describing himself as "a natural born entity of Tennessee USA, I am a fully qualify citizen of the United State of America possessing all rights and immunities guaranteed by the Constitution for the United States." -- "Petitioners' position ... consists solely of tax protester rhetoric and legalistic gibberish... Petitioners' position is frivolous and groundless.") Reese v. CIR (6/5/95) TC Memo 1995-244; similarly (claimed to be a nonresident alien and a citizen of the Republic of Michigan; tried to obtain a tax refund but the form 1040NR could not be processed for a refund because his only reported address was "Michigan Republic, America", he had omitted his SSN or taxpayer identification number, and he had appended a "reservation of rights" clause to his signature) US v. E.M. Nash (6th Cir 1999) 175 F3d 429;  ditto (quibbling about this and pretending that Montana is a country and not a state, etc., taken as evidence of fraudulent intent in prosecution for passing funny money)  State v. McNeil (Mont.Supm  9/17/98); Theron Tucker v.  USA & IRS (EDNY unpub 7/6/98) 82 AFTR2d 5796, 98 USTC para 50576; 82 AFTR2d 5796; R.S. Powers v. CIR (12/12/90) TC Memo 1990-623;   

rule
rule

   Denies being a "14th Amendment citizen": Fox v. CIR (2/1/93) TC Memo 1993-37 summ.judg. granted (2/26/96) TC Memo 1996-79; ditto R.S. Powers v. CIR (12/12/90) TC Memo 1990-623; ditto Ball v. US (D. Ore unpub 8/24/93) 72 AFTR2d 5958, 93 USTC para 50665 sanctions added (D. Ore unpub 10/5/93) 72 AFTR2d 6442; ditto Wells v. US (ND Okla unpub 7/1/86) 59 AFTR2d 462, 87 USTC para 9189; ditto Huebner v. State (Tex.App unpub 5/8/97); ditto Meuli v. Farm Credit Service, et al (D Kan unpub 8/8/91) aff'd (10th Cir unpub 12/18/92) 982 F2d 529(t)); ditto State v. Folda (Mont 1994) 267 Mont 523, 51 Mont St.Rep 1149,  885 P2d 426 ("asserts that he is not required to abide by any state or federal laws"); ditto J.B. Smith v. US, IRS, et al. (D. Ida unpub 7/30/93);  ditto State v. Cooper (Tenn.Crim.App unpub 9/21/88); ditto (denies that he is a "federal citizen" and subject to federal criminal law) US v. Sileven (8th Cir 1992) 985 F2d 962 (this same perp a dozen years earlier insisted he could operate an unlicensed, uninspected, unsafe, and unstaffed elementary school simply because it was sponsored by his church) ; ditto US v. Updegrave (ED Penn unpub 5/28/97) 80 AFTR2d 5290, 97 USTC para  50465 ("The 14th Amendment controls the definition of citizenship.  The Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the US ... are citizens of the US ...'  According this court finds that Updegrave is not a resident of Pennsylvania but a citizen of the US by birth, and as such he is subject to federal income tax."); ditto US v. Greenstreet (ND Tex 1996) 912 F.Supp 224 (claiming to be "of the White Preamble Citizenship and not one of the 14th Amendment legislated enfranchised de facto colored races"); ditto Spoelman v. Hummel (WD Mich unpub 5/26/89); ditto US v. Kettler (10th Cir unpub 6/3/91) 934 F2d 326(t); ditto (claimed that "By my birth in California of parents not subject to the incapacity of race, I am in law and fact, politically free by birth, libertas.  Thus, with respect to 14th amendment citizenship, I am alien and with respect to 14th amendment residency [which does not appear in the 14th Amendment!], I am nonresident and with respect to both I am nonresident alien."  "Petitioner's arguments are no more than stale tax protester contentions long dismissed summarily by this court and all other courts which have heard such contentions.") Stallard v. CIR (10/5/92) TC Memo 1992-593; ditto (with several other losing arguments) US v. Dawes (10th Cir 1989) 874 F2d 746 cert.den 493 US 920 error coram nobis granted on other grounds (10th Cir 1990) 895 F2d 1581; ditto (argument that "freeborn, white, preamble, sovereign, natural, individual common law de jure citizens of a state" are not "persons" under IRC is "completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous") Lonsdale v.  US (10th Cir 1990) 919 F2d 1440; ditto (sued for declaration that he is a "de jure citizen" rather than a "de facto citizen" which he supposes brings him under "the internationalist maritime jurisdiction" and subject to income tax laws ... "Plaintiff's pleadings contain rambling, barely coherent discussions of the supposed basis for distinction... The claims are patently meritless.") Itz v. US Tax Court (WD Tex unpub 5/6/87) 87 USTC para 9497, 60 AFTR2d 5113; ditto ("All citizens of the US are liable for income taxes and every person born in the US is a citizen of the US.") Cox v.  CIR (10th Cir unpub 10/28/96) 99 F3d 1149(t), 78 AFTR2d 7015, 96 USTC para 50598; ditto US v.  Lyman (10th Cir unpub 12/24/98) 166 F3d 349(t), 99 USTC para 50199, 83 AFTR2d 354;  ditto (disbarred lawyer claimed that tax laws did not apply to him because he is not a 14th Amendment citizen but rather a citizen of the sovereign Republic of Idaho now claiming asylum in the Republic of Colorado) US v. Jagim (8th Cir 1992) 978 F2d 1032 cert.den (Ziebarth v. US) 508 US 952; (tried to deny that the 14th amendment was validly adopted, court held this was a political question which the courts could not consider and which the other branches of govt had settled decisively) US v.  R.J. McDonald (9th Cir unpub 10/4/90) 919 F2d 146(t) cert.den 499 US 928; {Note: the US Supreme Ct did mention a category of 14th Amendment citizens, consisting of everyone either born in the US or naturalized according to US laws, and non-14th Amendments citizens, consisting of a smaller number whose citizenship derives from some Act of Congress other than naturalization, and the non-14th Amendment citizenship could validly have special restrictions or requirements that were no applied to the 14th Amendment citizens, such as the requirement that someone born abroad with only one American parent must stay inside the US for several years before the age of 28 or else lose that US citizenship.  But the court clearly spoke of native-born Americans as 14th Amendment citizens. Rogers v. Bellei (1970) 401 US 815};  (claim to be "private citizen" to evade licensing law) Burnison v. Macias (D Kan unpub 6/11/97) aff’d (10th Cir unpub 12/8/97) 131 F3d 151(t); similarly State v. Skurdal (1988) 235 Mont 291, 767 P2d 304 ("No persons in Montana may exempt themselves from any law simply by declaring they do not consent to it applying to them."); ditto State v.  Booher (Tenn.Crim.App 1997) 978 SW2d 953; similarly State v. Von Schmidt (1985) 109 Ida 736, 710 P2d 646; ditto State v. D.R. Gibson (1985) 108 Ida. 202, 697 P2d 1216 (traffic laws); (evading criminal law by claim to be an "Absolute natural person") State v. Matzke (1985) 236 Kan 833, 696 P2d 396; ditto US v. Studley (9th Cir 1985) 783 F2d 934;  similarly Lovell v. US (7th Cir 1984) 755 F2d 517; similarly Humphreys v. State (Okla. Crim. App 1987) 738 P2d 188 (evading driver lic law); similarly Terpstra v. State (Ind.App 1988) 529 NE2d 839; (claiming to be a "private Christian" for same effect)   Bixler v. CIR (7/23/96) TC Memo 1996-329; similarly M.J. Olson v. US (Fed Claims unpub 8/26/98)  82 AFTR2d 6174; similarly In re Gdowik (Bankr., SD Fla unpub 7/23/96) 78 AFTR2d 6243 aff'd (SD Fla unpub 11/6/97) 228 Bankr.Rptr 481, 80 AFTR2d 8254; similarly Karlin v. Marten (10th Cir unpub 7/16/98) 82 AFTR2d 5318, 98 USTC para 50564; similarly In re Cobb (Bankr. MD Fla 1998) 216 Bankr.Rptr 676; (cannot bring a suit for declaratory judgment that he is a "private state citizen of Texas" and thereby nullify his birth certificate, school records, marriage license, Soc.Sec.  account, and drivers license) Barcroft v. State (Tex.App 1995) 900 SW2d 370;  (claiming that govt attys or court staff are "alien enemy agents") US v. S.L. Heard (4th Cir unpub 2/23/98) 135 F3d 771(t), 81 AFTR2d 873; similarly US v. Gamble (ND IL unpub 12/3/96); Bixler v. CIR (7/23/96) TC Memo 1996-329; US v. J.F. Heard (ND WV 1996) 952 F.Supp 329; similarly Greenstreet v. Heiskell (Tex.App 1997) 940 SW2d 831 reh.den 960 SW2d 713; (an unnamed "foreign sovereign state" -- the Montana Freemen) Landers v. US (1997) 39 Fed Claims 297; ("preamble citizen") Huebner v. State (Tex.App unpub 5/8/97); ditto US v. Andra (D Ida 1996) 923 F.Supp 157; ditto US v. Fitch (9th Cir unpub 10/30/92) 978 F2d 716(t);   We the People v. IRS (MD Fla unpub 5/29/96) 78 AFTR2d 5458 aff'd 132 F3d 1459; (claimed to have issued his very own declaration of independence) Walker alias Theonaleth v. CIR (3/12/96) TC Memo 1996-124; ditto US v. Frech (10th Cir unpub 6/16/98) 149 F3d 1192(t); ditto Isaacson v.  US (9th Cir unpub 9/9/94) 35 F3d 571(t), 74 AFTR2d 6354; (denied being "a person" and therefore not subject to taxation) M.J. Olson v. US (Fed Claims unpub 8/26/98)  82 AFTR2d 6174; similarly (denied being an "individual")  K.L. Anderson v. CIR (7/8/98) TC Memo 1998-253; Richey v. Indiana Dept of State Revenue (Ind. Tax Ct 1994) 634 NE2d 1375 ("Richey ... has lived in Indiana since birth.  His claim to exemption, though, rests ... on the stunning proposition that ... he is not a resident of the US and therefore not a resident of Indiana.") {Note: The myth is that the Fourteenth Amendment created a distinct category of citizen, distinct from native born whites, consisting of non-whites and immigrants--and later women--so that the American population is divided between "preamble citizens" who are citizens of individual states but not necessarily citizens of the US nor subject to federal law, and "14th Amendment citizens" who are covered by federal law and who may not have the inherent rights.  This myth is discussed in Koniak, When Law Risks Madness, 8 Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature 65 (1996), which also covers some other militia-type notions.  

rule

Militia Watchdog Militia Watchdog Graphic Table of Contents
Mark Pitcavage E-Mail