Free Web Hosting Provider - Web Hosting - E-commerce - High Speed Internet - Free Web Page

6371 Jul 13, 2004

Famous Attorney Larry Becraft says that wages ARE income.

This page is www.lawyerdude.s5.com/6371.html

Wages are not income:

Medley of tax pages proving inter alia that wages aint income:

www.taxhistory.com

Wages aint income: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5847.html

Cited correctly by Irwin Schiff: Merchants v Smietanka (1921) : This case has 3 lines that succinctly explain why wages aint income - from 100 years ago. I explain it better in my other links, but Smeitanka proves the truth of what I say at my link. Here is Merchants v Smietanka :

http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/Merchants.html

Here is my page saying that wages aint income: http://lawyerdude.8k.com/5830.html

Here is Jeff's page saying that wages aint income: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5760.html

Here is my main tax page and list of the top 100 tax cases: If you want to understand tax law, then read all of these 100 cases. This is what you would study in law school: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5273.html

Amish don't have to pay social security tax. See this link. http://www.amishnews.com/amisharticles/amishss.htm Amish don't have to send their kids to high school. God Bless the Amish! See Wisconsin v Yoder at this following link: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/amish.html

General navigational links:

Telephone Lawyerdude: 805 652 0334

Please join my newest Yahoo group for discussion or legal self help litigation. Here is the link to the link: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/6346.html

Email lawyerdude: dlawyerdude@hotmail.com

Instant message me: I am lawyerdude1989 on Yahoo instant messenger. I am dlawyedude on msn messenger.

My most useful web pages and my most popular web pages are these following pages:

Self help Litigation forms, instructions, cases, and samples.

1. Links to all 70 sample motions for all my protege litigators ! http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/traffic.html

2. List of my 200 most popular web pages according to Google. http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5733.html

3. Samples of 8 actual Section 1983 federal complaints: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6008.html

4. List of the 30 most important criminal court motions. They are listed in Lawyerdude’s Bill of Rights for Criminal Defendants in jail. This is my New Standard by which to measure effectiveness of counsel. Make your appointed lawyer toe the line: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5635.html

5. Motions 101. How to write and file and serve a motion: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6025.html

6. Courtroom assertiveness 101: How to be assertive in court. Scripts for the Pro Se litigant:

http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5537.html

7. Your litigation rights page. Learn your litigation rights! www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5687.html

8. Were you strip searched? Sue em! http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5728.html Do they do a strip search anus check every time you go to the law library? Did your jail not have a law library?

9. List of the most quotable cases and the most useful web pages for the pro se Litigator: www.lawyerdude.8k.com/medley.html

10. Your case summary and trial notebook form: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/summary.html

11. New! Links to the 143 cases that define criminal procedure: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/weinreb.html

12. My Demurrer page: perfect record so far: http://lawyerdude.8k.com/5736.html

13.

All about Lawyerdude

14. My ongoing battle with the mistaken, oppressive, and political state bar: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com

15. Lawyerdudes’s biographical page: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/mystory.html

16. My LSD story and brief: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5431.html

17. How to work well with Lawyerdude: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/contract.html

18. My most important page. My top 10 lists: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5459.html

19. My ideas. My 10 proposed amendments to the bill of rights: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5123.html

20. My home page: www.lawyerdude.8m.com Or my mirror site: www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com

My biggest fattest briefs:

21. My “state bar acts are unconstitutional!” brief: www.lawyerdude.8k.com/3789.html

22. My 100 page LSD brief: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/1170.html Use this for your drug case!

23. My collection of “right to drive” briefs: www.lawyerdude.8k.com/right2drive.html

24. Lawyerdude's briefs: www.circuitlawyer.8m.com

25.

More Lawyerdude links and Recommended Reading list

26. Lawyerdude’s traffic page: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5259.html

27. Lawyerdude's library. A prioritized reading list. A list of books that farm folk and an enlightened populace should read. Some of these books justify weekly or monthly review - like your Bible - for your own defense. www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/library.html

28. List of links to the Latest uploads from Lawyerdude: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5673.html

29. Lawyerdude's Contemporary Constitutional Issues: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5693.html

30. Lawyerdude's links page: www.lawyerdude.8m.com/links.html

31. Lawyer’s Manifesto: www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5753.html

People who link to me:

32. I thank Bill Munro www.landrights.com I remember Dan Meador http://www.lawresearch-registry.org/ , http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Rotunda/4027/ ; http://www.wakeupaustralia.net ; http://home.houston.rr.com/jtyner/links ;

becraft <becraft@hiwaay.net>

Sent : Tuesday, July 13, 2004 10:55 AM

To : LibertyTree@yahoogroups.com

Subject : Re: [LibertyTree] Juries are Stupid and/or are Pro Ses at Fault?

| | | Inbox

Ralph,

I. I understand that you only rely on US Supreme Court cases, to the exclusion of other lower court decisions. I disagree and think one must even look at lower court decisions, especially in your circuit, if you want to know the prospects of success for any given issue. For example, it appears that you want to raise the issue that “wages are not income,” which has been litigated by many pro ses for the last 20 years. Here is a partial list of some of the published decisions regarding this issue:

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).

May I suggest that you read the above cases and tell us how, with all this adverse authority created by the pro ses, they may be reversed.

II. You seem to also want to raise some distinction regarding the words, “State” and “United States.” Before you arrived in this movement, the “non-resident alien” crowd was litigating this issue pro se. Below are just a few of the adverse cases:

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)

4. United States v. Mundt, 29 F.3d 233 (6th Cir. 1994) ("federal zone" case)

5. Larue v. United States, 959 F.Supp. 957 (C.D.Ill. 1997).

Can you please inform all of us of your precise plan to raise this issue and prevail, thus overcoming all the bad decisions created by pro ses?

III. Similarly, the pro ses have litigated and ruined the “person” issue:

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 ¶ 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 were 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").

Gene Lonsdale really torpedoed lots of issues with his rantings and ravings. Can you provide to us your argument which demolishes the above cases?

IV. You assert arguments based on the CFR cross reference list, but this too has already (and years ago) been litigated by pro ses:

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.

6. 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.

What is your plan to get reversal of these decisions?

V. The 14th Amendment crowd has been busy destroying issues as well:

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").

Ralph, we need your analysis of the above cases and a brief regarding how they can be overcome.

Larry