Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 11:58:21 PST
From: am-her@juno.com

I wish to thank Larry Becraft for his efforts to attempt to prevent 
others from buying into what I call "Patriot Mythology" as enumerated 
below, which the courts have patently and consistently dismissed 
as frivolous arguments.  It's time to rethink our approach and change 
our arguments to only those which are truly valid and substantive.  

There has been entirely too many people roaming the country 
advocating such ridiculous things as "wrapping yourself in the 
American Flag of Peace" and "trimming the gold fringe off the flag", 
etc., etc., for far too long.  

While these things may have  a small degree of validity, the courts are 
NOT going to go along with them.  Sometimes it may seem that no 
matter what we do, the courts will reject any argument that could 
substantially damage the "system" if they were to rule in our favor.  
That's why we must be arguing issues of defects in their process 
and procedures.  In other words, we must give the courts an "out".  

We must keep the pressure on if we are going to be successful in 
changing the "PUBLIC POLICY"  which the courts are ruling upon.  

Rusty

--------- Begin forwarded message ----------
From: Dawn Miller dawwn@ix.netcom.com

To: rightwaylaw-l@teleport.com
From: Bill Blannon potentia@ionet.net

From: Larry Becraft becraft@hiwaay.net
To: Bill Blannon potentia@ionet.net
CC: "Stern, Pete" pstern@dnet.net
Subject: Dave Miller seminar

Dear Bill,

    Dick Ross sent me a letter about Miller coming the speak to your
group. The flag issue has been around for a long time and pro ses have
litigated that issue and lost. I cite those cases and others on my
webpage which may be reached through:

http://www.networkusa.org/index.shtml

The flag issue is dead and will go nowhere. Why do people want to follow
an argument that will go nowhere?

    Also, David Miller has been going to Florida a lot and Carolyn Fankhannel
has told me what he is "teaching" which is that you must file a Title 42
lawsuit which contains no prepositions. Has Miller told you that
everybody who is doing this is having their lawsuits dismissed? Yet,
Miller claims this a victory!

    Below are the cases which I list on my webpage regarding the flag
issue and others. There are 5 decisions against the flag issue and
several regarding the "non de guerre."

                Larry Becraft

DESTROYED ARGUMENTS

I. The Money Issue:

In the seventies and early eighties, advocates of the
specie provisions in Art. 1, §10, cl. 1 of the U.S.
Constitution made a concerted effort to educate people
about this constitutional provision, consequently people
(mostly those who were deperate and ill-prepared) began
litigating the issue. The courts have rendered the
following adverse decisions on this issue:

Adverse Federal Decisions:

1. Koll v. Wayzata State Bank, 397 F.2d 124 (8th Cir. 1968)
2. United States v. Daly, 481 F.2d 28 (8th Cir. 1973)
3. Milam v. United States, 524 F.2d 629 (9th Cir. 1974)
4. United States v. Scott, 521 F.2d 1188 (9th Cir. 1975)
5. United States v. Gardiner, 531 F.2d 953 (9th Cir. 1976)
6. United States v. Wangrud, 533 F.2d 495 (9th Cir. 1976)
7. United States v. Kelley, 539 F.2d 1199 (9th Cir. 1976)
8. United States v. Schmitz, 542 F.2d 782 (9th Cir. 1976)
9. United States v. Whitesel, 543 F.2d 1176 (6th Cir. 1976)
10. United States v. Hurd, 549 F.2d 118 (9th Cir. 1977)
11. Mathes v. Commissioner, 576 F.2d 70 (5th Cir. 1978)
12. United States v. Rifen, 577 F.2d 1111 (8th Cir. 1978)
13. United States v. Anderson, 584 F.2d 369 (10th Cir. 1978)
14. United States v. Benson, 592 F.2d 257 (5th Cir. 1979)
15. Nyhus v. Commissioner, 594 F.2d 1213 (8th Cir. 1979)
16. United States v. Hori, 470 F.Supp. 1209 (C.D.Cal. 1979)
17. United States v. Tissi, 601 F.2d 372 (8th Cir. 1979)
18. United States v. Ware, 608 F.2d 400 (10th Cir. 1979)
19. United States v. Moon, 616 F.2d 1043 (8th Cir. 1980)
20. United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182 (10th Cir. 1980)
21. Birkenstock v. Commissioner, 646 F.2d 1185 (7th Cir. 1981)
22. Lary v. Commissioner, 842 F.2d 296 (11th Cir. 1988)

Adverse State Decisions:

1. Chermack v. Bjornson, 302 Minn. 213, 223 N.W.2d 659 (1974)
2. Leitch v. Oregon Dept. of Revenue, 519 P.2d 1045 (Or.App. 1974)
3. Radue v. Zanaty, 293 Ala. 585, 308 So.2d 242 (1975)
4. Rush v. Casco Bank & Trust Co., 348 A.2d 237 (Me. 1975)
5. Allen v. Craig, 1 Kan.App.2d 301, 564 P.2d 552 (1977)
6. State v. Pina, 90 N.M. 181, 561 P.2d 43 (N.M. 1977)
7. Dorgan v. Kouba, 274 N.W.2d 167 (N.D. 1978)
8. Trohimovich v. Dir., Dept. of Labor & Industry, 21
     Wash.App. 243, 584 P.2d 467 (1978)
9.  Middlebrook v. Miss. State Tax Comm., 387 So.2d 726 (Miss. 1980)
10. Daniels v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 601 S.W.2d 845 (Ark. 1980)
11. State v. Gasser, 306 N.W.2d 205 (N.D. 1981)
12. City of Colton v. Corbly, 323 N.W.2d 138 (S.D. 1982)
13. Epperly v. Alaska, 648 P.2d 609 (Ak.App. 1982)
14. Solyom v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning
      Comm., 452 A.2d 1283 (Md.App. 1982)
15. People v. Lawrence, 124 Mich.App. 230, 333 N.W.2d 525 (Mich.App. 1983)
16. Union State Bank v. Miller, 335 N.W.2d 807 (N.D. 1983)
17. Richardson v. Richardson, 332 N.W.2d 524 (Mich.App. 1983)
18. Cohn v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., 138 Ariz. 136, 673 P.2d 334 (1983)
19. First Nat. Bank of Black Hills v. Treadway, 339 N.W.2d 119 (S.D.
1983)
20. Herald v. State, 107 Idaho 640, 691 P.2d 1255 (1984)
21. Allnutt v. State, 59 Md.App. 694, 478 A.2d 321 (1984)
22. Spurgeon v. F.T.B., 160 Cal.App.3d 524, 206 Cal.Rptr. 636 (1984)
23. Rothaker v. Rockwall County Central Appraisal Dist.,
      703 S.W.2d 235 (Tex.App. 1985)
24. De Jong v. County of Chester, 98 Pa. Cmwlth. 85, 510 A.2d 902 (1986)
25. Baird v. County Assessors of Salt Lake & Utah
Counties, 779 P.2d 676 (Utah 1989)
26. State v. Sanders, 923 S.W.2d 540 (Tenn. 1996).

II. Wages Are Not Income:

Back in about 1979 or 1980, Bob Golden and Pete Soehnlen
published a work entitled Are You Required, which
persuasively advocated the argument that wages are not
income. However, desperate people championed this issue
and lost in the following cases:

1. United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014 (9th Cir. 1981)
2. Lonsdale v. CIR, 661 F.2d 71 (5th Cir. 1981)(rejecting "even
exchange" argument)
3. United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923 (10th Cir. 1982)
4. Granzow v. CIR, 739 F.2d 265 (7th Cir. 1984)
5. Hansen v. United States, 744 F.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. Ficalora v. CIR, 751 F.2d 85, 87-88 (2d Cir. 1984)
     (holding that income includes compensation for services)
9.  Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517, 519 (7th Cir. 1984)
10. United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747 (7th Cir. 1985)
11. Hyslep v. United States, 765 F.2d 1083 (11th Cir. 1985)
12. Coleman v. CIR, 791 F.2d 68, 70 (7th Cir. 1986)
13. Stubbs v. Commissioner of IRS, 797 F.2d 936, 938 (11th Cir. 1986),
      (rejecting argument that wages are not taxable income as "patently
frivolous")
14. Wilcox v. CIR, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 (9th Cir. 1988)
15. Maisano v. United States, 908 F.2d 408, 409 (9th Cir. 1990), 
      and Maisano v. United States, 940 F.2d 499, 501-02 (9th Cir.
1991).
16. 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 Judicial Tyranny, 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 Vern Holland and
Dave Mauldin in Tulsa in August, 1990, Jeff announced that
his book was hot off the press. When we got the first copy
and looked at his book just days before we were to start
that trial in federal court in Tulsa, we noticed that the
front cover contained the seal of the local federal court
as well as a likeness of one of the local federal judges.
At times, Jeff can be harrowing. However, we got a hung
jury in that case and afterwards, 6 of the jurors,
including the forelady, came and joined Vern's patriot
organization.

III. The IRS is a Delaware corporation:

Back in 1982 or 1983, somebody started circulating the
argument that the IRS was a private corporation which had
been created in Delaware in 1933. If it was created only
in 1933, then why do we have the following appropriations
for this agency found in acts of Congress a decade before
1933:

42 Stat. 375 (2-17-22); 42 Stat. 454 (3-20-22); 42 Stat.
1096 (1-3-23); 43 Stat. 71 (4-4-24); 43 Stat. 693
(12-5-24); 43 Stat. 757 (1-20-25); 43 Stat. 770 (1-22-25);
44 Stat. 142 (3-2-26); 44 Stat. 868 (7-3-26); 44 Stat.
1033 (1-26-27); 45 Stat. 168, 1034 (1928); 68 Stat. 86,
145, 807 (1954).

This is indeed a frivolous argument and has properly been
rejected by the courts; see Young v. IRS, 596 F.Supp. 141,
147 (N.D. Ind. 1984). The real issue is whether the IRS
has been created by law.

ALSO SEE, RE Nevada Corp.

IV. The IMF Argument:

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

1. United States v. Rosnow, 977 F.2d 399, 413 (8th Cir. 1992)
2. United States v. Jagim, 978 F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir. 1992)
3. United States v. Higgins, 987 F.2d 543, 545 (8th Cir. 1993).

V. Non-resident Aliens:

Some contend we are for tax purposes non-resident aliens;
again, this improper argument has been correctly rejected
by the courts.

1. United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991)
2. United States v. Jagim, 978 F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir. 1992)
3. United States v. Hilgeford, 7 F.3d 1340, 1342 (7th Cir. 1993).

But the rejection by the courts of this issue has not
deterred Lynn Meredith, who has continued to promote this
argument through her book, Vultures in Eagles Clothing,
via a multi-level sales scheme. Lawyers know that fraud is
a knowing misrepresentation of facts (or in this case,
law) to another upon which that other party relies to his
detriment. Concerned Americans try the program promoted by
Meredith in her book, but when they get into trouble, they
get absolutely no help from Meredith as she refuses to
even answer their calls. She spends her spare time on
cruise ships.

VI. The Form 1040 is Really a Codicil to a Will:

This argument was rejected in Richey v. 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 an agent of the
government inflicted damaged upon somebody, the proper
response should be filing a Form 1099 against the agent
because the agent was "enriched" by the damaged so
inflicted. Parties doing this went to jail.

1. United States v. Yagow, 953 F.2d 423 (8th Cir. 1992)
2. United States v. Kuball, 976 F.2d 529 (9th Cir. 1992)
3. United States v. Dykstra, 991 F.2d 450 (8th Cir. 1993).

Of course, today we have essentially the same thing in the
format of filing of common law liens. More than enough
people have gone to jail with such lunacy.

VIII. Land Patents:

Back in 1983 and 1984, Carol Landi popularized an argument
that the land patent was the highest and best form of
title and that by updating the patent in your own name,
you could defeat any mortgages. This contention violated
many principles of real property and when Carol started
trying to get patents for most of the land in California
brought up into her own name, she went to jail. Others who
have raised this crazy argument lost the issue.

1. Landi v. Phelps, 740 F.2d 710 (9th Cir. 1984)
2. Sui v. Landi, 209 Cal.Rptr. 449 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. 1985)
3. Hilgeford v. People's Bank, 607 F.Supp. 536 (N.D.Ind. 1985)
4. Nixon v. Individual Head of St. Joseph Mtg. Co., 612 F.Supp. 253 (N.D.Ind. 1985)
5. Nixon v. Phillipoff, 615 F.Supp. 890 (N.D. Ind. 1985)
6. Wisconsin v. Glick, 782 F.2d 670 (7th Cir. 1986)
7. Britt v. Federal Land Bank Ass'n. of St. Louis, 505 N.E.2d 387 (Ill. App.1987)
8. Charles F. Curry Co. v. Goodman, 737 P.2d 963 (Okl.App. 1987)
9. Federal Land Bank of Spokane v. Redwine, 755 P.2d 822 (Wash.App. 1988).


IX. Not a "Person" Under the Tax Code:

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

1. Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517, 519 (7th Cir. 1984) 
      (all individuals, natural or unnatural, are  subject to 
       federal income tax on their wages)
2. United States v. Karlin, 785 F.2d 90, 91 (3d Cir. 1986)
3. United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 (9th Cir. 1986),
     (defendant who contended she was not a "taxpayer"
      because she was an "absolute, freeborn and natural
      individual" raised frivolous argument);
4. United States v. Price, 798 F.2d 111, 113 (5th Cir. 1986)
5. Itz v. United States Tax Court, 1987 WL 15893, at *5, 87-2 USTC P
9497 
      (W.D.Tex. May 6, 1987) (claim of plaintiff that he is a 
      "de jure" citizen as opposed to a "de facto" citizen is without
merit)
6. Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1447-48 (10th Cir. 1990)
     (plaintiff is a person subject to federal income tax, invalidating 
      numerous other frivolous tax protester arguments);
7. United States v. Silevan, 985 F.2d 962, 970 (8th Cir. 1993)
8. United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 1993)
     (these parties raised but had rejected the arguments
     that the US has no "inland jurisdiction," that wages are
     not income, and that the federal income tax is voluntary.
    "And finally, we reject appellant's contention that they
     are not citizens of the United States, but rather 'Free
     Citizens of the Republic of Minnesota,' and consequently
     not subject to taxation").

X. Notice of Levy:

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

1. United States v. Eiland, 223 F.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, 449 F.2d 623, 627 (7th Cir. 1971)
4. In re Chicagoland Ideel Cleaners, Inc., 495 F.2d 1283, 1285 (7th Cir.
1974)
5. Wolfe v. United States, 798 F.2d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 1986).

XI. The UCC Argument:

Some assert that some unknown treaty back in the 1930s
placed us under the control of the "international
bankers," thus every action filed in this country, both
civil and criminal alike, is for the benefit of the
bankers. Under these facts, when the government attacks a
patriot, he should assert the UCC argument; this silly
contention has 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 law court issues)
3. United States v. Klimek, 952 F.Supp. 1100 (E.D.Pa. 1997)
      (also raised nom de guerre and flag issues).

XII. The CFR Cross Reference Index:

The Code of Federal Regulations contains a separate volume
which list various statutes and the regulations which
implement those statutes. This is not an exclusive list
nor is it an admission made by the government that there
are no regulations for Title 26, U.S.C. Parties making
this argument have suffered defeat.

1. United States v. Cochrane, 985 F.2d 1027, 1031 (9th Cir. 1993)
2. Russell v. United States, 95 CCH Tax Cases ¶ 50029 (W.D. Mich. 1994)
3. Reese v. CIR, 69 TCM 2814, TC Memo 1995-244 (1995)
    (this and several other arguments described as "legalistic
gibberish")
4. Morgan v. CIR, 78 AFTR2d 96-6633 (M.D.Fla. 1996)
5. Stafford v. CIR, TCM 1997-50.

XIII. The Flag Issue:

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

1. Vella v. McCammon, 671 F.Supp. 1128, 1129 (S.D. Tex.
1987)(the argument has "no arguable basis in law or fact")
2. Comm. v. Appel, 652 A.2d 341, 343 (Pa.Super. 1994)
   (the contention is a "preposterous claim")
3. United States v. Schiefen, 926 F.Supp. 877, 884 (D.S.D. 1995): 
    in this case, the CFR cross reference index
    argument, and those regarding the UCC, common law courts
    and the flag issue were rejected.

Of course, there are other decisions which have not been
published. But against all odds, Dave Miller still travels
the country promoting this lost cause.

XIV. Common Law Court:

These courts have been declared non-existent.

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

XV. "Nom de Guerre":

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

ALSO SEE:  "Nom de Guerre": Names in CAPS (updated Jan. 31, 2005)

XVI. Title 26 is not positive law:

Ryan v. Bilby, 764 F.2d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1985)
(stating that "Congress's failure to enact a title into positive
law has only evidentiary significance and does not render
the underlying enactment invalid or unenforceable");
United States v. Zuger, 602 F. Supp. 889, 891-92 (D. Conn.
1984) (holding that "the failure of Congress to enact a
title as such and in such form into positive law . . . in
no way impugns the validity, effect, enforceability or
constitutionality of the laws as contained and set forth
in the title"), aff'd without op., 755 F.2d 915 (2d Cir.),
cert. denied, 474 U.S. 805 (1985); Young v. IRS, 596 F.
Supp. 141, 149 (N.D. Ind. 1984) (asserting that "even if
Title 26 was not itself enacted into positive law, that
does not mean that the laws under that title are null and
void"); Berkshire Hathaway Inc. v. United States, 8 Cl.
Ct. 780, 784 (1985) (averring that the I.R.C. "is truly
'positive law'"), aff'd, 802 F.2d 429 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

XVII. Wangrudites:

1. McKinney v. Regan, 599 F.Supp. 126, 129 (M.D.La.
1984)("Petitioner's shield of the 'Common Law' as an
'Unenfranchised Sovereign Individual of the United States
of America, a Republic,' provides him with 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 Calvary [sic] -- ZERO")

2. Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th
Cir. 1990)(the following arguments are completely lacking
in legal merit and patently frivolous: (1) individuals
("free born, white, preamble, sovereign, natural,
individual common law 'de jure' citizens of a state,
etc.") are not "persons" subject to taxation under the
Internal Revenue Code; (2) the authority of the United
States is confined to the District of Columbia; (3) the
income tax is a direct tax which is invalid absent
apportionment; (4) the Sixteenth Amendment to the
Constitution is either invalid or applies only to
corporations; (5) wages are not income; (6) the income tax
is voluntary); United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937
(9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Buras, 633 F.2d 1356
(9th Cir. 1980); United States v. Neff, 615 F.2d 1235 (9th
Cir. 1980).

3. United States v. Kruger, 923 F.2d 587, 587-88 (8th Cir.
1991)("The Krugers' principle argument below and on appeal
is that the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution unlawfully
purported to bestow citizenship upon non-white races and
other 'artificial statutory persons.' This argument is
absurd").

Perhaps the most famous "Wangrudite" was John Cheek, whose
criminal conviction went to the U.S. Supreme Court; see
Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 111 S.Ct. 604
(1991). John sent to me copies of his motions and briefs
that he filed in his case, one of which was just a single
page motion which in essence stated that he could not be
prosecuted because he was not a 14th amendment citizen.
Naturally, such a non-substantive motion was denied.
Cheek's appeal would have involved this argument if he had
reached the conclusion that it had merit. However, the
only issue which was decided in the appeal to the Supreme
Court regarded the validity of the "willfulness" jury
instruction given at trial.

XVIII. Implementing regulations:

United States v. Hartman, 915 F.Supp. 1227 (M.D.Fla.
1996): argument regarding implementing regs and the cross
references in CFR index held frivolous.
Stafford v. CIR, TCM 1997-50.

US v Aaron 310 F.2d 341 (2nd Cir. 1962).
"Since, as we hold, failure to file or publish as required by the FRA is 
without consequence as against a person having actual knowledge, the same 
is true with respect to failure to publish as required by § 3(a)(3) of the 
APA."

XIX. Taxes are contractual:

    In McLaughlin v. CIR, 832 F.2d 986, 987 (7th Cir. 1987), 
    this argument was held to be without merit.

Bill Blannon

--------- End forwarded message ----------



From: "tgp" 
Subject: Re: [ZIF] Getting Jane & Joe Taxpayer's
Attention! 6209 Says W-2's and 1099's are ONLY Estate
and Gift Tax?  
         
W-2, W-4 and 1099 Forms
Are  NOT
Gift Tax Forms

By
Geri Powers

Today, as I was talking with a friend of mine, the
conversation turned to favorite Patricult Myths, and
up popped one I had not thought about in some while,
i.e., that the W-4, W-2 and 1099 allegedly are Gift
tax forms.

NOT SO !!!!!!!!!

The forms W-2, W-4 and 1099 are indeed Tax Class 5,
but they are certainly not Gift Tax Forms.  The
Patriot Community refuses to look at the full and
complete definition for Tax Class 5 found in the
Document 6209 Manual (6209)
Chapter/Section 4, at page 4-2 where it reads as
follows:

Tax Class Description "5 Information Return Processing
(IRP), Estate and Gift Tax"

Hum.  That Information Return Processing verbiage is
in the definition and is a mighty important factor,
Folks.  You figure everyone else just missed it?  Or
perhaps figured that Gift Tax sounded better, more
exotic?  Maybe it makes a better conspiracy theory.  I
don't know and can't answer why they would make such a
claim; but what I can do is point out the myth(s) and
rely on you, as a prospective user of the information,
to recognize the truth.
You know you can always go to the 6209 on the Internet
and validate the truth, for yourselves.

I trust all will grasp the seriousness of this blatant
misstatement of fact and cease the use of it. 
Hopefully this brief commentary will dissuade its
continued propagation and spread.  I sincerely hope
so, for every time some innocent American walks into
the IRS and starts telling them these forms are Gift
or Estate Tax, they encounter blank stares and
righteous indignation.
The agents figure they have another 'fish' on the line
and pounce.  It isn't a comfortable position to be in.
This type of stuff sets us all back, destroys the
ability of anyone with valid issues to take them in
and expect favorable results.

I have 6209's going back to 1986 and yes, the
Information Return Processing is in that one also. 
Hasn't changed in 16 years, People.

So, where did this favored fallacy come from?  As I
recall back in the days when I first started, it was
frequently argued that the "True Tax Classes"
came from the Non Master File (NMF) segment of the
6209.  Well in the 
6209 the NMF segment is in Chapter 8 and designates
the true tax class 5 as Estate and Gift.  However none
of the Forms under discussion are identified in the
Estate and Gift (true tax class 5) segment under the
NMF and you cannot correlate the NMF with any other
Master File coding.  The codes for the NMF are unique
to the NMF.  Like trying to mix oil and water.  You
just cannot do that.

Where then are the Information Returns posted?  Well,
they are found in the Information Returns Master File
(IRMF).  What a novel concept, right?  These Forms are
indeed Returns filed to report Information about third
parties, Folks.  Most of the filing public attaches a
W-2 and/or 1099 to the Form
1040 series form they annually file.  One thing,
though, the Information Return is NEVER posted to the
IMF.  True the IRS uses the form in the verification
of the filed 1040 but it isn't posted to the IMF.

After the filing period (April 15) of each year ends,
and when the entry of the filed forms is completed,
the agency begins their computer processing.
The computer is set to run a "match" program between
the IMF and the IRMF.
This generates a list of the Information Returns filed
with no corresponding
1040.  The IMF is also matched against the Social
Security Admin tape.  Once the names are separated
that had no filed Form 1040, the agency begins its
research.  Generally in or near the 26th month the
agency will begin the Substitute For Return Process
(SFR) or Automated SFR process, if no return is filed
by then.

Now I've said all this to assist you, dear reader,
with an understanding that the Information Returns
Processing is indeed the category into which the W-2,
W-4 and 1099 fall.  I trust this will dispense with
any further "Gift Tax" nonsense.

For those interested in the various Master Files, you
can find them identified in the 6209 and this list may
not be all-inclusive:


Acronym Master File
IMF Individual Master File
BMF Business Master File
IRMF Information Return Master File
EPMF Employee Payer Master File
IRAF Individual Retirement Account File
NMF Non Master File
DMF Debtor Master File

Be Well, Be Blessed, and Be Well Blessed.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ice Bucket" 
To: ; 
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 3:01 PM
Subject: Fwd: [ZIF] Getting Jane & Joe Taxpayer's
Attention! 6209 Says 
W-2's
and 1099's are ONLY Estate and Gift Tax?


> Note: forwarded message attached.
> Pat and Geri,
>
> You guys are the experts with this IMF stuff. In the
> attached post from Bob's list, a fellow is
suggesting
> that people should show people that the 6209 Manual
> shows a Tax Class 5 for W-2's and 1099's and assert
> that this proves the IRS is treating their withheld
> moneys as a Gift or Estate Tax.
>
> I reviewed the 6209 pages he cited and here is my
view
> on it.  Tax Class 5 says, "Information Return
> Processing (IRP), Estate and Gift Tax".  Now I just
> don't see that as a big deal.  If one looks at the
> other definitions on the same page, one notes that
> commas are used to separate the different
definitions
> of each Tax Class.  So, Tax Class 5 is first an
> "Information Return" and can also be used for an
> Estate or Gift Tax apparently.  W-2's and 1099's are
> actually nothing more than information returns
> submitted by payors.  They are not "income tax
> returns" (Tax Class 2) in the same sense as 1040's,
> 941's etc.  So, suggesting to someone that the 6209
> shows conclusively that W-2's and 1099's are
strictly
> for Estate and Gift Tax would constitute a mistaken
> reading of the 6209.
>
> Am I looking at this correctly?  If so, would one of
> you consider posting something to Bob's list and the
> ZIF list straightening the folks out.  It would not
be
> good for people to press this argument if it is so
> easily shown to be a misreading of the document, as
I
> suspect.
>
> If you'd prefer, I could post something, but would
> certainly appreciate the weight of your expert
> opinions behind what I post.  I'll be gone until
Sept.
> 1, and will check back then; but don't hesitate to
> post something, as it is probably better to nip this
> little item in the bud, so to speak.
>
> Thanks for your time and help.
>
> ICE
> ice@iresist.com


Subject: Re: The lawyer's "secret oath" nonsense 




Larry Becraft wrote:


> Hey lawyers,
>
>  I have been fighting the fools and con-artists on the Net who promote
> flaky legal arguments such as the name in CAPS contention, the
> redemption process, etc. One of these crazy arguments is that regarding
> the UCC. According to this theory, this nation was taken over by the
> "international bankers" via a super secret treaty back in 1930 and the
> decision of the Supremes in the 1938 Erie RR case "banished the common
> law" making the UCC the only form of law available. Of course, I have
> posted to my web site refutations of this madness.
>
>  But this silliness continues and it is getting worse. Take a look at
> this Net page:
>
>   http://www.apfn.org/apfn/secretoath.htm
>
> It is contended here that all lawyers know about this "takeover" by the
> international bankers and have taken a secret oath to conceal this fact.
> I, as a lawyer, have publicly called this crazy and stupid, and I have
> informed people that it is utterly wrong.
>
>  I would like to send out an e-mail from various lawyers who will
> likewise follow my lead and condemn this nonsense. If you will do so,
> please look at the above site and learn for yourself what is alleged.
> Please send me an e-mail stating that you are a lawyer and that this
> contention is nothing but a lie. I would like to collect these
> statements from lawyers and make a mass e-mail with your and my
> statement informing people that this argument is madness. If it is not
> done now, people will begin to believe this insanity.
>
> Everyone who is receiving this note is listed in the header hereto;
> there are no blind copies.
>
>    Larry Becraft


 Dear Larry:


      I have been a general practitioner in the Boston area since December
14, 1981.


      I am strong critic of the bar  and judiciary and am  an advocate of
pro se litigation. I describe myself as a constitutionalist.


      I have handled dozens of consumer bankruptcy cases and have made
appearances in federal courts in several states and the District of Columbia
in addition to being currently  involved in a serious  insolvency matter
involving the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation here in Boston. If there
was such an oath I think I would have been let in on the secret.

     In any case, I have no knowledge of  the "Secret Oath "described in the
APFN web page. It has every attribute of a hoax, and of course the" source"
cited is anonymous. Frequently when I coach pro se litigants I find that I
have to spend valuable time explaining to them that a lot of the
'information" they picked up from "patriot " sources is not only erroneous,
it is the source of more problems.  I have seen all too many tragedies from
following bad advice and adopting some  weird and fraudulent theories in the
line of a misapplication of the UCC and a bizarre obsession with 'yellow
fringe flags". and "Admiralty Courts.".

    It is a syptom of a crisis that has kept the patriot movement
ineffectual, and one wonders what the real agenda is of people who plant
what I can only describe as "disinformation."


       Attorney David Grossack
       781-925-5253

Go to the Self Help Legal Clinic
Liberty's Educational Advocacy Forum