Last Updated, August 29, 1999

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

Part Eight

By Bernard J. Sussman, JD, MLS, CP

Tax Resister cults and gurus: (Roger Elvick "redemption") US v. Dykstra (8th Cir 1992) 991 F2d 450 cert.den 510 US 880; US v.  Rosnow (8th Cir 1992) 977 F2d 399 cert.den (as Dewey) 507 US 990  (Elvick pleaded the Fifth Amendment rather than testify on behalf of his followers); US v.  Lorenzo [& Elvick] (9th Cir 1993) 995 F2d 1448 cert.den 510 US 881; US v.  Wiley (5th Cir 1992) 979 F2d 365; US v.  Hildebrandt (8th Cir 1992) 961 F2d 116 cert.den 506 US 878; (Elvick was previously associated with Aryan Nations;  NY Times, 12/7/87 p.22);    (Pilot Connection Society) Spirito v. US (Bankr., MD Fla 1996) 198 Bankr.Rptr 624; US v. Marsh a.k.a. Pilot (D Nev unpub 2/14/96) 77 AFTR2d 1069; US v.  Marsh (9th Cir 1998) 144 F3d 1229; Robinson v.  CIR (3/13/95) TC Memo 1995-102; US v. Clark (5th Cir 1998) 139 F3d 485 cert.den _US_, 119 S.Ct 227; (Belanco Religious Order, adherents deliberately lie to IRS and evade taxes) In re Harrison (Bankr. ND Ind unpub 1/30/91) 71A AFTR2d 4101, 91 USTC para  50078; (Irwin Schiff) Roth v. CIR (9/23/92) TC Memo 1992-563; (awareness by perp that Schiff had been convicted of tax evasion serves to negate good faith defense) US v. Crosson (ED Penn unpub 12/20/95); ("posse comitatus") Ware v. CIR (6/5/84) TC Memo 1984-295; US v. Hart (D ND 1982) 545 F.Supp 470 aff’d (8th Cir 1983) 701 F2d 749; (American Jural Society) US v. J.F. Heard (ND WV 1996) 952 F.Supp 329; "Although convicted of tax felonies and out of step with legal reality, as seen by federal judges, Schiff presents a most entertaining view of tax law." Save-a-Patriot Fellowship v. US (D Md 1996) 962 F.Supp 695;  "Save-a-Patriot" (John B. Kotmair) In re Angstadt (Bankr. ED Penn unpub 8/17/94) ("we have come to understand that ‘patriot’ may be a buzz-word for ‘tax protester’."); Kotmair v. CIR (6/19/86) 86 TC 1253; (awareness by perp that founder Kotmair had been convicted of tax evasion serves to negate good faith defense) US v. Crosson (ED Penn unpub 12/20/95); ("Save-a-Patriot" organization cited for contempt of court for its interference with a bankruptcy court proceeding) In re Weatherley (ED Penn unpub 7/15/93); (organization forbidden to accept money for its amateur advice to a litigant in bankruptcy court) In re Weatherley (Bankr. ED Penn 1994) 169 Bankr.Rptr 555, 25 Bankr.Ct.Dec 1427; (in perhaps its only court victory, the organization described itself as a church, and claimed to possess a vial of holy oil from the Temple in Jerusalem, to perform weddings, (allegedly) subsidize incarcerated members who have "resisted and delayed the tyrants at every step through the criminal investigation and all other agency and court proceedings", sell tax-dodge publications as holy scriptures, and (generously) support Kotmair as their cleric, etc. Save-a-Patriot Fellowship v. US (D Md 1996) 962 F.Supp 695; Kotmair refused give testimony voluntarily for one of his followers who was prosecuted for multiple tax evasion. US v. D.D. Murphy (7th Cir unpub 6/10/99);  "Patriots for Liberty" US v. Sloan (7th Cir 1991) 939 F2d 499 cert.den 502 US 1060 ("The real tragedy of this case is the unconscionable waste of Mr. Sloan’s time, resources, and emotion in continuing to pursue these wholly defective and unsuccessful arguments...  We are not unmindful of the sincerity of his beliefs.  On the other hand, we are less sure of the sincerity of the professional tax protesters who promote their views in literature and meetings to persons like Mr. Sloan, yet are unlikely ever to face the type of penalties incurred by him."); Jeffrey A. Dickstein, esq. US v. R.W. Collins (10th Cir 1990) 920 F2d 619 cert.den 500 US 920 (listing instances of disqualification); US v. Dickstein (10th Cir 1992) 971 F2d 446; (and disqualified again for being less than candid with a court about his disciplinary history) US v. Howell (D Kan 1996) 936 F.Supp 767 & 774; (court revoked his special ad hoc admission because of his "unprofessional and obstructive" behavior) US v. Holland (10th Cir unpub 9/11/95) 66 F3d 339(t); (former client complains that Dickstein gave him an inadequate defense because Dickstein had serious conflicts of interests which should have caused him to withdraw, including Dickstein's own problems with the IRS and possible disbarment proceedings in California) US v. Hoffman (WD Tenn 1996) 926 F.Supp 659 aff'd 124 F3d 200 cert.den 522 US 1063 (there is no published report of him being suspended or disbarred);  US v. Summit (9th Cir 1988) 862 F2d 784 (Dickstein formally censured for contempt of court); (but held that Dickstein had not been "ineffective assistance" where he had complied with his client's emphatic wishes and where he did not raise a completely futile claim) US v. Masat (5th Cir 1990) 896 F2d 88; "Life Science Church" (Wm. E. Drexler, esq.) (evidently the principle dogma of this phony church was that Americans were overtaxed; Drexler would sell ordinations and franchises, for substantial prices, to people who were told that by pretending their household was a congregation all their property and income became tax exempt) T.M. Kerr v. CIR (11/30/94) TC Memo 1994-582 aff'd (9th Cir 1995) 96 USTC para 50109, 77 AFTR2d 363; US v. Michaud (1st Cir 1988) 860 F2d 495; (Drexler sold these franchises by calling himself "the greatest tax attorney in this country", attracting customers to supposed tax seminars under the name Freedom Foundation, and promoting a pyramid scheme with rewards for customers who brought in more customers) People v. Life Science Church a/k/a Freedom Foundation (1982) 113 Misc.2d 952, 450 NYS2d 664, 82 USTC para 9414 app.dism. 93 App.Div.2d 774, 461 NYS2d 803 app.denied 61 NY2d 604, 473 NYS2d 1025, 462 NE2d 155 cert.denied 469 US 822; (part of the church scheme was that the perps sign a paper purporting to be a "vow of poverty", while all their assets were supposedly owned by their franchise church which they controlled completely, but this was insufficient to obtain a tax exemption) Mone v. CIR (2d Cir 1985) 774 F2d 570; ditto Life Science Church v. IRS (ND Cal 1981) 525 F.Supp 399; ("The type of poverty ... achieved by signing the 'vow of poverty' is likely to cause wonderment among certain recognized religious orders.") US v. Dube (7th Cir 1987) 820 F2d 886; ("The vow of poverty was one in form only, and had no substantive effect on defendant's lifestyle.")  US v. Peister (10th Cir 1980) 631 F2d 658 cert.den 449 US 1126; ("While the defendants were reporting to the IRS that they were ministers living under 'vows of poverty', they were enjoying their tax-free affluence.  They used 'church' funds to pay their daily expenses and to pay for Cadillacs, oceanfront homes, and boats, and also to establish bank accounts in other countries.") US v. Ebner (2d Cir 1986) 782 F2d 1120;  (Drexler persisted in presenting himself as a lawyer, even promising to represent his customers in court) Lemmon v. IRS (WD Mo unpub 3/6/78) 78 USTC para 9310, 41 AFTR2d 1186; US v. Barney (8th Cir 1982) 674 F2d 729 cert.den 457 US 1139; Kinkade v. CIR (6/1/99) TC Memo 1999-180;  (but Drexler was disbarred for numerous dishonest acts) In re Discipline of William E. Drexler (1971) 290 Minn 542, 188 NW2d 436;cf. Peterson v. Peterson (1967) 278 Minn 275, 153 NW2d 825; Knajdek v. Knajdek (1967) 278 Minn 282, 153 NW2d 846;  (and subsequently prosecuted for tax evasion) US v. Drexler (D Minn unpub 11/30/73) 74 USTC para 9716, 34 AFTR2d 6123; US v. Ebner (2d Cir 1986) 782 F2d 1120; (even after his disbarment he attempted to run for a judgeship) In re Candidacy of Jerome Daly et al. (1972) 294 Minn 351, 200 NW2d 913; and generally, B.J. Casino,  I Know It When I See It: Mail-Order Ministry Tax Fraud, 25 Amer. Criminal Law Rev. 113 (1987); many years after his disbarment, Drexler was churning out tax dodge "legal documents" which he signed as "William Drexler, Esq., Juris Doctor". Kinkade v. CIR (6/1/99) TC Memo 1999-180.     Your Heritage Protection Assn.  Blaty v. CIR (10/1/84) TC Memo 1984-518; US v. Condo (9th Cir 1984) 741 F2d 238 cert.den 469 US 1164; Pebley v. CIR (12/10/81) TC Memo 1981-701;  Nilson v. CIR (10/21/85) TC Memo 1985-535; US v. Somerstedt (9th Cir 1984) 752 F2d 1494 cert.den 474 US 851;   Lowell H. (Larry) Becraft, esq.  In re Allnutt (D Md unpub 4/10/95) 75 AFTR2d 2624 (fined, and his entry into a pending case taken as indicia that the pleadings were frivolous); In re Becraft (9th Cir 1989) 885 F2d 547 (recounting "Becraft’s record of advancing wholly meritless claims"); {Note: Despite his association with tax protesters,  Becraft himself has posted on the Internet (it appears in several places) a long list of "Destroyed Arguments" listing court decisions that debunked some flaky tax resister/militia sophistry, which overlaps this list to a considerable degree); "Posse Comitatus" (James Wickstrom)  State v. Ryan (1989) 233 Neb 74, 444 NW2d 610 (described as "both a religious cult and a band of criminals"); Williams v. State (1973) 253 Ark 973, 490 SW2d 117;(Wickstrom convicted of impersonating a public official by issuing licenses and subpoenas as the clerk and judge of a non-existent township) State v.  Wickstrom (1984) 118 Wis.2d 339, 348 NW2d 183, habeas corpus denied Wickstrom v.  Schardt (7th Cir 1986) 798 F2d 268; (threatening to call the Posse Comitatus held as criminal intimidation of IRS agents) US v.  Streich (7th Cir 1985) 759 F2d 579 cert.den 474 US 860;    "Society for Educated Citizens" (Dennis Kaun) US v. Kaun (ED Wis 1986) 633 F.Supp 406 aff'd 827 F2d 1144 (court could enjoin individual or organization from promoting or selling tax evasion instructions); "Agricultural Related Damages Program" (Darrell Frech, Roy Schwasinger, Russell Landers)(claiming a secret court decision had invalidated the entire US banking and currency system and that enormous cash damages would be paid to everyone who had used US paper money but only if they paid $300 fees to the mountebanks) US v. Frech (10th Cir unpub 6/16/98) 149 F3d 1192(t); US v. Hildebrand (ND Iowa 1996) 928 F.Supp 841 aff'd US v. Hildebrand (8th Cir 1998) 152 F3d 756 (noting that this "secret court decision" had been identified as a failed suit in Colorado district court against the Federal Land Bank which, besides being unsuccessful and concluded with finality in 1993, said nothing of the sort regarding paper money, the appeal noted that more than 6832 people had been bilked of at least $1.3 Million in "fees" altho nothing had been done for them in any court); (apparently that failed Colorado case is being used by people who have never seen it) Schilling v.  Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp (WD Mich unpub 12/15/93); similarly followers of Schwasinger, who followed his instructions on filing bogus liens against IRS employees, not only prosecuted for obstruction but also for conspiracy and their connection to Schwasinger was admissible in evidence even though possibly inflammatory) US v. Boos [& Gunwall] (10th Cir unpub 1/14/99) 166 F3d 1222(t), 83 AFTR2d 584 cert.den _US_, 119 S.Ct 1795;   Family Farm Preservation (Leonard Peth, "L.A. Pethahiah"): US v. Stockheimer [& Peth] (7th Cir 1998) 157 F3d 1082 (Peth sentenced to 8 years for fraud, decision includes photocopies of his funny money); Ferguson Pontiac-GMAC Inc v. Henson (Okl.App 1994) 892 P2d 657;    National Commodity & Barter Assn (NCBA): US v.  Stelten (8th Cir 1989) 867 F2d 446 cert.den 493 US 828; National Commodity Exchange (NCE): This was the secretive "warehouse bank" used by some NCBA members.  Someone wishing to conceal his assets or financial transactions would send real money to the NCE, an organization which was unincorporated and unregistered, which assigned him a numbered account and encouraged the use of pseudonyms, the NCE would use the money to buy gold or silver coins or bullion which were credited to that account (with substantial service charges), and thereafter the account holder would send instructions to liquidate some of the precious metal for money to be sent either to him or directly to a creditor, and the NCE pledged that it would destroy all its records and papers after 90 days and would resist any official inquiries.  As a demonstration that you can always find free cheese in a mousetrap, the scheme began to crash when the manager of this "bank" died in 1983, in the midst of an IRS inquiry, and the probate of his estate found that he had put up about half the assets of NCE as collateral to a local (real) bank for a personal loan and the other half was stored with a coin dealer.  At first it appeared that all this gold and silver was going to be regarded as his personal property, with a very hefty tax bite owed to the IRS and what little might remain going to his family.  Then the unincorporated NCE attempted to claim the loot, but was stymied by its own practice of destroying and concealing records.  All this activity generated a lot of IRS curiosity which staged "jeopardy assessment" raids on several offices of NCE activists, and leading to an IRS estimate of $20 Million in overdue taxes and penalties (esp.  the penalty for running a fraudulent tax shelter).  Apparently most account holders were reluctant to come forward to claim any share of the assets, which was understandable because those few who were identified became the object of some unwelcome IRS attention.  The leaders of NCE, as promised, refused to comply with any sort of inquiries, including court orders, and were convicted of contempt (and possibly of other things that were not appealed in reported decisions), after very very prolonged litigation, which was undoubtedly paid with whatever assets NCE had left.  In the end it would appear that the account holders lost everything.  More than 20 court decisions arose from this scam, including National Commodity & Barter Assn/National Commodity Exch. v.  US (D Colo 1993) 843 F.Supp 655 aff'd 42 F3d 1406 cert.den 516 US 807; US v.  Voss (10th Cir 1996) 82 F3d 1521 cert.den 519 US 889; US v.  Hawley (8th Cir 1988) 855 F2d 595 cert.den 489 US 1020;  Freeman Education Assn.  (another "warehouse bank" also known as the National Currency Exchange) US v.  Meek (10th Cir 1993) 998 F2d 776;  (one of the founders of the FEA) US v.  V.O. Holland (10th Cir 1992) 956 F2d 990 cert.den 506 US 861;   the use of a "warehouse bank" to conceal assets from creditors or the IRS, or to launder money or to circumvent the reporting requirements for large transactions, prosecuted (mostly as some type of fraud): US v.  Meek (10th Cir 1996) 82 F3d 1521; US v.  Caldwell (9th Cir 1993) 989 F2d 1056 ("When you mess with the IRS, the IRS messes back.") remanded as US v.  Cote (9th Cir 1995) 51 F3d 178; US v.  Dack (7th Cir 1992) 987 F2d 1282; US v.  Becker (7th Cir 1992) 965 F2d 383 cert.den 507 US 971; US v.  V.O. Holland (10th Cir 1992) 956 F2d 990 cert.den 506 US 861; US v.  Hawley (8th Cir 1988) 855 F2d 595 cert.den 489 US 1020; US v.  S.J. Holland (7th Cir 1998) 160 F3d 377;  Dan Meador (of Oklahoma):   D.L. Young v. Boeing Co. (D.Kan unpub 4/12/95) 75 AFTR2d 2408; (Meador writes lengthy, convoluted, and seriously defective legalistic essays, some of which appear on the internet, with absurd arguments, and supposing that if no refutation is sent back that somehow his musings become judicially noticed evidence, etc., and also selling his individual advice for similar arguments.  Back in June 1997 he was sentenced to  sixteen months of prison, 3 years probation and a $2G fine for obstruction of justice and attempting to influence grand jurors.  It appears neither prison nor probation has discouraged his ranting).  Lyle Hartford Van Dyke (an aggressive advocate of filing bogus liens, he has published instruction books on filing nuisance liens against judges and govt employees who frustrate him, heads a one-man organization, the National Assn for Commercial Accountability, which sells his booklets and advice; he also claims to have invented the dialysis machine), his bogus liens - which called themselves  "Common Law Lien on the Property and Hand Signature of the Following Persons", and which the judge called "meaningless ... of no legal force or effect" -- were nullified and permanently enjoined in US v. Van Dyke (D Ore 1983) 568 F.Supp 820, he showed up as "a self-described lawyer without a license" and attempted to testify as an expert on nuisance liens in the Montana Freemen trial but was ordered out of the courthouse by the judge (Assoc.Press 11/11/98), he had already filed an enormous lien against the judge presiding in the Montana Freemen trial (Seattle Times, 2/22/97), and announced that he had issued more than $3 Billion in his own funny money based on his bogus liens (National Public Radio, "All Things Considered", 11/19/98);back in 1985 he was indicted for fraud arising from his filing numerous bogus liens and writs of garnishment - but there is nothing published that indicates he was convicted (UPI, 8/31/85);  very recently he was charged with child molesting, to which he apparently confessed, and he did not retain a lawyer for his case atho some of his nonlawyer admirers showed up and tried to disrupt the proceedings  (Portland Oregonian, 2/1/99).    "Citizens Rule Book"  (so-called "jury handbook", it contains an essay advocating jury nullification and the text of the Constitution with notes suggesting that after the 12th Amendment in 1804 no other amendments were validly adopted) (merely reading it was sufficient to disqualify and replace a juror)  Lane v.  State (1994) 110 Nev 1156, 881 P2d 1358 cert.dism 514 US 1058; (sent, possibly by defendant, to jurors and alternates during tax evasion trial; judge dismissed the alternates and a juror who had read the book, kept on only jurors who had not read it) US v.  Brodie (9th Cir 1988) 858 F2d 492; it was reported that former KKK leader Byron De La Beckwith paid to have copies of the booklet sent to jurors in his 1993 trial for the murder of Medgar Evers,  Baton Rouge Advocate, 22 July 1993.  Verne Jay Merrell, a self-proclaimed Phineas Priest in the Christian Identity church in Idaho, claimed to be the author of the booklet, who was convicted and sentenced to two consecutive  life terms without parole for his part in a Phineas gang's bombing and bank robbery spree.  Spokesman Review (Spokane, WA), 24 July & 31 Oct 1997.  However, an article in the St. Petersburg (FL) Times, 30 April 1995, said the book was first printed and primarily worked up by Charles Olsen, a Phoenix, AZ printer who apparently first printed it in 1976 and who died in 1990, and that Howard Elseth, of Minn, contributed to the booklet.  The use by a juror of another book with similar arguments was sufficient to justify a mistrial. State v. Fischer (Wis.App unpub 3/12/91) 161 Wis.2d 936(t), 469 NW2d 249(t).    A follower of a tax-evasion organization who ended up being convicted of various kinds of fraud because he followed their advice, unsuccessfully sued to compel that organization to pay for a defense lawyer for him.  US v. Condo (9th Cir 1984) 741 F2d 238 cert.den 469 US 1164; in another case the court noted that the perp had filed a form pleading provided by one of the organizations which was so defective and inadequate that the perp had apparently lost on issues that properly written pleadings might have won.  Pebley v. CIR (12/10/81) TC Memo 1981-701; the organization provided canned pleadings that were so inappropriate to the situation that the perp was filing papers that, literally, asked that the court decide against him. Langseth v. CIR (9/19/83) TC Memo 1983-576; membership in a tax evasion organization was sufficient evidence to negate perp's excuse that he brandished gun at IRS agents only out of fear of physical danger to himself and his family. US v.  Streich (7th Cir 1985) 759 F2d 579 cert.den 474 US 860.   Generally, the fact that the defendant in a tax evasion or tax fraud case had attended the meetings of a tax protester group, and had used worthless funny money to try to pay some bills, was used as evidence of willfulness and fraudulent intent. US v. Grosshans (6th Cir 1987) 821 F2d 1247 cert.den 484 US 987  

Self-awarded "allodial" or "allodium" deeds do not immunize from zoning, mortgage, or tax law: Charles F. Curry Co. v. Goodman (Okl.App 1987) 737 P2d 963; Kull v. City of Stearns (Minn.App unpub 4/5/94)("we reject any argument that landowner’s property is not taxable because it is allodial land"); (some State constitutions expressly declare all  land to be allodial but this does not immunize against property taxes or foreclosure) Kull v. County of Stearns (Minn.App unpub 4/5/94); ditto (the allodial title mentioned in the state constitution is equivalent to fee simple title) County of Dane v. Every (Wisc.App unpub 4/17/86) 131 Wis.2d 592(t), 393 NW2d 799(t); ditto Emery v. Orleans Levee Board (La.App 1943) 15 So.2d 783 aff'd 207 La. 386, 21 So.2d 418 cert.den 325 US 879; Dunn County v.  Svee (Wis.Supm  unpub 2/16/88) 143 Wis.2d 909(t), 420 NW2d 58(t) cert.den 487 US 1222; (especially when self-awarding allodium title to land that he never owned at all, recording the document, and then attempting to sell it for money) Industrial Devel. Bd of Tullahoma v. Hancock (Tenn.App 1995) 901 SW2d 382 ("His allodium title is no more than a naked claim to property which he have never had an interest in and has never possessed."); (self-awarded allodium deeds, declarations of homestead rights, so-called common law liens, and notices of posting have no legal force or effect and the county registrar must refuse to file them) Opinion of Nebraska Atty-Gen, nr.  233 (11/2/84); similarly a self-awarded deed from and to the same person as an attempt to frustrate a foreclosure.  DeRiemer v.  Apex Financial Corp (Del.Supm  unpub 1/24/91) 586 A2d 1201(t)  

Self-awarded "land patent" does not immunize from zoning, mortgage, or tax laws and does  not oust state courts of jurisdiction: Cragin v. Comerica Mortgage Co. (6th Cir unpub 10/24/95) 69 F3d 537(t); Nixon v. Phillipoff (ND IL 1985) 615 F.Supp 890 aff'd 787 F2d 596(t); Hilgeford v. Peoples Bank (ND Ind 1985) 607 F.Supp 536 aff'd (7th Cir 1985) 776 F2d 176 cert.den 475 US 1123 (claim based on self-drafted land patent is so frivolous that a fine is justified); ditto  Federal Land Bank of Spokane v. Redwine (1988) 51 Wash.App 766, 755 P2d 822; ditto Nixon v. Individual Head of St Joseph Mortgage Co. (ND Ind 1985) 612 F.Supp 253 aff'd 787 F2d 595(t) ("will draw immediate and severe sanctions" ... "The identical language of the land patent in this case and in the Hilgeford case suggest to this court that some party is responsible for the broad dissemination of the obviously false and frivolous legal concepts which have led to this suit"); (self-awarded land patent can be grounds for lawsuit or prosecution for slander of title brought by legitimate owner against persons who fabricated the land patent) State of Wisconsin v. Glick (7th Cir 1986) 782 F2d 670 ("The usual way to obtain clean title is to pay one’s debts.  Some have decided that it is cheaper to write a land patent .. and to file that in the recording system.  If self-drafted land patents are frivolous gestures, then the removal [to federal court] of the state’s prosecutions is frivolity on stilts. ...  No federal statute authorizes the filing of bogus land patents that confound recording systems."); see also Annotation: Recording of instrument purporting to affect title as slander of title, 39 ALR2d 840 (1953 and suppl.); (self-awarded land patents can be prosecuted as criminal slander of title) State v. Leist (1987) 141 Wis.2d 34, 414 NW2d 45 review den.142 Wis.2d 950, 417 NW2d 896; ditto State v. Glick (7th Cir 1986) 782 F2d 670; (self-awarded land patents or similarly self-awarded title documents "ingenious but of no legal meaning or effect") Leibfried Construction Inc. v. Peters (Minn.App 1985) 373 NW2d 651;  (self-awarded land patents unavailing even when accompanied by a genuine 19th century federal land patent to the first owner) Leach v. Building & Safety Eng’g Div., City of Pontiac (ED Mich 1998) 993 F.Supp 606 ("It is, quite simply, an attempt to improve title by saying it is better.  The court cannot conceive of a potentially more disruptive force in the world of property law than the ability of a person to get ‘superior’ title to land by merely filling out a document granting himself a ‘land patent’ and then filing it with the recorder of deeds. Such self-serving, gratuitous activity does not, cannot, and will not be sufficient by itself to create good title."); ditto State of Wisconsin v. Glick (7th Cir 1986) 782 F2d 670;  Blair v. Emmert (Ind.App 1986) 495 NE2d 769 ("The mere filing of a document in a county recorder’s office does not create property rights in those persons named in the document...  Thus, Blair’s contention that his personal fiat of filing a document entitled ‘land patent’ gave him superior title is wholly without merit."); Charles F. Curry Co. v. Goodman (Okl.App 1987) 737 P2d 963; Pathway Financial v. Beach (1987) 162 IL.App.3d 1036, 516 NE2d 409 (specifically land patent does not immunize from mortgage foreclosure); (even a bona fide federal land patent does not make the property immune to foreclosure, a land patent works as a deed and after that the owner may mortgage his property - and lose it by foreclosure - as with any other real estate) Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v. Gefroh (No.Dak 1986) 390 NW2d 46; ditto Britt v.  Federal Land Bank of St.Louis (1987) 153 IL App.3d 605, 505 NE2d 287 app.den 116 IL.2d 548, 515 NE2d 102; (land patent does not oust state court of jurisdiction) Stafford v. Goff (D. Colo 1985) 609 F.Supp 820; State of Wisconsin v. Glick (7th Cir 1986) 782 F2d 670; (self-awarded land patents not to be filed by registrars) Wash.Atty-Gen 1996 Opinion nr. 12 (7/31/96); similarly self-awarded homestead declaration does not overcome a judgment of foreclosure for failure to pay mortgage.  Federal Land Bank of Spokane v. Parsons (1990) 118 Ida 324, 796 P2d 533; ditto Britt v.  Federal Land Bank of St.Louis (1987) 153 IL App.3d 605, 505 NE2d 387 app.den 116 IL.2d 548, 515 NE2d 102  

Moorish Science mythical "Thirteenth Amendment" and "ethical will of Lincoln" that makes black people exempt from income tax: Wiggins-El v. CIR (9/10/81) TC Memo 1981-495 ("It cannot be seriously contended that members of the Black race are exempt from taxation under the US Constitution."); basing non-payment on an alleged Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution which exempts black people from taxation totally rejected (this proposed amendment was rejected by Congress the same day proposed, 8 April 1864) Habersham-Bey v. CIR (3/2/82) 78 TC 304; ditto Ezekunu-Bey v. CIR (2/28/84) TC Memo 1984-96; ditto Momient-El v. State of Illinois (ND IL unpub 9/3/92) (convicted of attempted murder, also tried to take advantage of the pardon and amnesty issued by Lincoln in 1865 to former Confederates, "Taking judicial notice of the face that Momient-El did not participate in the American Civil War on either side, ... he does not fall within the scope of any of the presidential proclamations of pardon and amnesty"); Scott v.  CIR (9/7/93) TC Memo 1993-406; Hawk-Bey v.  US (ED Penn unpub 1/25/89); or reciting pre-Civil War law to argue that a Black person is still not a full person under the law and thereby not to be taxed. Bratton-Bey v. CIR (1/12/82) TC Memo 1982-19 aff'd (4th Cir 1982) 688 F2d 830(t); similarly arguing that, even without a statute, a black person is entitled to either tax exemption or enormous reparations for the enslavement and oppression of his/her presumed ancestors: Scott v.  CIR (9/7/93) TC Memo 1993-406; The People, Ali Kaeem Bey v.  IRS (SDNY unpub 10/12/93); Cato v.  US (9th Cir unpub 10/16/95); ("We have rejected this argument numerous times in cases involving members of the same Moorish Science Temple") Cherry-El v. CIR (7/19/82) TC Memo 1982-404; similarly Curry-Bey v. US (Fed Claims Ct unpub 6/22/95) 76 AFTR2d 5148, 95 USTC para 50604; evidently this myth about a Black Tax Credit also said that black men could claim a larger tax exemption than black women. US v. G. Bridges (ED Va 1999) 46  F.Supp.2d 462; another person sued the UN, the federal govt, and the British monarch on the grounds that the history of slavery entitled her to more than a century's worth of "the riches of her native land (Africa), including diamonds, rubies, gold, whale blubber, shrimp and various terrestrial wild animals".  Princess Topeaka v. United Nations Kings (ND IL unpub 5/14/99)  

Talking about a "War Powers Act":  Nasir v. Anderson (D NJ unpub 8/25/97); Daigle v. US (6th Cir unpub 1/29/96) 76 F2d 378(t); McCann v. Greenway (WD Mo 1997) 952 F.Supp 647;  this myth is especially popular with a veterinarian, Gene Schroder, (sometimes spelled Schroeder, but I follow the spelling used in 800 P2d 1360), who evidently characterizes as the "War Powers Act" the National Banking Emergency Act of March 9, 1933, the first act signed by FDR, 48 Stat 1, which was mostly codified under title 12 (banking) and deals entirely with regulating banks and restricting the hoarding and exporting of currency and precious metals, contrary to various myths it has nothing to do with the flag, the military, the courts, or ordinary life; the statute apparently did not, by itself, commence a National Emergency and, if it did, that period was long over.  A court decision, US v. Bishop (10th Cir 1977) 555 F2d 771, held that a Vietnam War perp’s destruction of a power line in 1969 could not be especially punished under the Sabotage Act as having been committed during a time "of national emergency" as the only national emergency that could be argued was still in effect in 1969 was Truman’s 1950 Proclamation arising from the Korean War.  Almost immediately after the Bishop decision, Congress authorized a study into emergency powers legislation preparatory to new legislation to restrict the applications of states of emergency; the resulting study, the Report of the Senate Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency, Emergency Powers Statutes: Provision of federal law now in effect delegating to the executive extraordinary authority in time of national emergency, Sen.Rept. 93-549, 11/19/73, 607 pages; mostly a listing of statutory provisions that allowed the govt to skip certain procedural steps if during a declared state of national emergency.  This report determined that, in 1973, there were still existent four declared states of emergency: Section 1 of the 1933 Act, which is (still in effect) now 12 USC sec. 95b (which only authorizes the  issuance of new regs designed to facilitate 12 USC sec. 95a which restricts the exporting, hoarding, or melting of gold and other precious metals), Truman’s 1950 proclamation about the Korean War, Nixon’s 1970 proclamation about the postal service strike, and Nixon’s 1971 proclamation about an economic emergency arising from the balance of trade deficit which including imposing an additional tariff on imports.  As a result of this study, Congress enacted a few years later the National Emergencies Act, PL 94-412, 9/14/1976, 90 Stat 1255, codified at 50 USC sec.  1601, 1621, etc., which imposed a two year duration on any existing national emergencies  and required that any future declaration of a national emergency must be reviewed by Congress at six month intervals.  Subsequently, Congress amended the 1933 Act by enacting the War or National Emergency Act, PL 95-223, 12/28/77, 91 Stat 1625, which amended 12 USC sec. 95a to limit explicitly the President’s capacity to impose the restrictions of the Trading with the Enemy Act and to issue regulations about international transactions involving money, credit or precious metals to "time of war" and not during  a mere "period of national emergency" (striking that expression wherever it had appeared in the 1933 Act); in the accompanying committee report (Sen.Rpt.  95-466) it was explained that this 1977 law was in furtherance of the 1976 law on limiting national emergencies, and was deliberately intended to limit and terminate what it considered excessive Presidential use of the four old declared emergencies to manipulate the laws on international financial transactions.  Altho militia mythology stresses that we are always in a declared state of emergency, it turns out that the emergency situations which still persist - and they do persist, according to occasional Presidential Executive Orders - relate directly to foreign events, such as Mideast terrorism, and are limited to such things as embargoes and the freezing of certain bank assets associated with a foreign adversary.  

IDIOT DEMANDS:  redrafting of the Declaration of Independence. Demos v. Kincheloe (ED Wash 1982) 563 F.Supp 30; abolishing "the stealth fraudulent ex post facto United States government" and declare the admission into the union of all states following 1803 illegal.  Wm.F. Bowman v.  Govt of the US (ED Penn unpub 11/1/95) dism (E.D. Penn 1995) 920 F.Supp 623; refuse to come to the front of the courtroom (and not allowed to plead his case if he refuses to come to the front). State v. Whalen (Ariz.App 1997) 192 Ariz 103, 961 P2d 1051 app.denied (Ariz Supm unpub 9/10/98);  State v. Martz (Ohio App unpub 6/9/97); (refusal to submit to the courthouse security magnetometer and fluoroscope punished as disrupting the performance of official duties) US v.  Lamson (4th Cir unpub 5/20/93) 993 F2d 1540(t) cert.den 510 US 1013; (such courthouse searches by metal detectors and x-ray equipment is not violative of constitutional rights and may be required even from lawyers appearing in court) Gibson v.  State (Tex.App 1996) 921 SW2d 747; refuse to plead and then complained when judge entered a Not guilty plea on his behalf.  Wyatt v. Kelly, Chief Bankruptcy Judge (WD Texas unpub 3/23/98) 44 USPQ2d 1578, 81 AFTR2d 1463, 98 USTC para 50326; ditto State v. T.W. Bailey (Ohio App unpub 4/3/95); when perp refused to enter courtroom or participate properly in his trial, judge is authorized to appoint a defense counsel to represent the absent defendant and the perp can complain of ineffective assistance only if that lawyer's performance is demonstrably substandard.  State v. Whalen (Ariz.App 1997) 192 Ariz 103, 961 P2d 1051 app.denied (Ariz Supm unpub 9/10/98); defendant cannot appeal for ineffective counsel when his own court-appointed lawyer was giving him good advice but he persisted in listening to a co-defendant's nutty suggestions.  US v. Switzer et al (9th Cir unpub 10/5/98); where crank refuses offer of court-appointed lawyer and appears to be educated and articulate, but refuses to answer judge's questions about his background and his understanding of the legal situation, the judge properly had discretion to conclude that crank's refusal of counsel was competently made, and similarly for rejection of jury trial.  US v. J.R. Canon (10th Cir unpub 8/16/91) 940 F2d 1539(t);  crank tried to argue that federal court could only handle cases in admiralty but not tax cases because the Constitution says that federal jurisdiction of maritime and admiralty cases is "exclusive" -- this really means that state courts cannot handle maritime cases.  US v. Saunders (9th Cir 1991) 951 F2d 1065; similarly  US v. J.R. Canon (10th Cir unpub 8/16/91) 940 F2d 1539(t) ("his notion of jurisdiction was fatally skewed"); US v. Genger (9th Cir unpub 3/21/88) 842 F2d 1295(t) ("frivolous");