John Barrick
Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 241 (7 th Cir. 1989)
Wed Jul 23 19:14:40 2003

Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 241 (7 th Cir. 1989) (per curiam)   

Relevant Case Law:

Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 241 (7 th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) - the court stated, "We find it hard to understand why the long and unbroken line of cases upholding the constitutionality of the sixteenth amendment generally, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company . . . and those specifically rejecting the argument advanced in The Law That Never Was, have not persuaded Miller and his compatriots to seek a more effective forum for airing their attack on the federal income tax structure." The court imposed sanctions on them for having advanced a "patently frivolous" position.

United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1441 (9 th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1036 (1987) - stating that "the Secretary of State's certification under authority of Congress that the sixteenth amendment has been ratified by the requisite number of states and has become part of the Constitution is conclusive upon the courts," the court upheld Stahl's conviction for failure to file returns and for making a false statement.

Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200, 201 (5 th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 830 (1986) - the court rejected the contention that the Sixteenth Amendment was not constitutionally adopted as "totally without merit" and imposed monetary sanctions against Knoblauch based on the frivolousness of his appeal. "Every court that has considered this argument has rejected it," the court observed.

United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7 th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883 (1986) - the court affirmed Foster's conviction for tax evasion, failing to file a return, and filing a false W-4 statement, rejecting his claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified.

See also

Devvy Kidd and Bill Conklin further exposed as scam artists at

Thurston Bell says Devvy Kidd is a Scam Artist

Notice of Academic Deficiency


There just seems to be an endless number of people out here on the internet, who, without credentials, positive accomplishments, or evidence of prior experience or knowledge of their work on the Internet, and who also believe that they have some argument "worthy" of hearing by the federal courts, will ask that YOU send them some money. There are in fact SO MANY of these people, that I could spend every day for the rest of my life arguing against and exposing them. This will do nothing but serve the wishes of the Treasury Department.

I have to learn to trust that individuals can be responsible for themselves, can show prudence, and judge that which is sent to them over the World Wide Web.

When it comes to IRS lawsuits, I can only share a few points of certainty regarding the issues of lawsuits.

A: The Federal Courts do NOT want to rule in YOUR favor because;

B: No Federal Judge wants to be the Federal Judge who collapses the House of Cards known as the Economic Stabilization Program.

C: The Government and the Judge will use Rule 12(b)(6) to throw your case out at the drop of a hat. That rule is: Failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

D: The Courts and the Government will look for the weakest point of your argument and they will rule on that one and ignore the rest of the issues.

So, if someone is sending an e-mail regarding wanting money from you to help support a case where there is no specifically damaged plaintiff and there are multiple arguments, I will not respond to such e-mails.

If you are seriously considering spreading news of or financially supporting the ideas of such people who have discovered the Internet as a means of conning people out of money, instead of sending me their e-mail please write back to them and ask them what their credentials are, what results have they had, what is their area of expertise and experience, and do they have references from anyone that you might hold in esteem.

This how the Establishments of Academia control discussions and discourse. (References are important.) And believe me folks, if someone out there was doing something that you needed to know about, I would have told you already. And if they don't have the guts to come to me directly and seek counsel with people like me who have results, they certainly are NOT worth your time and effort.

Thurston P. Bell


NITE has VERY strict standards about following the letter of the Law. The people and organizations listed below use arguments that the courts have already deemed frivolous, and make all sorts of claims with no results to show for themselves. While some have truth mixed in with lies, there is just enough truth to get people tangled into their web. Some of these people are academic plagiarists who have been using NITE's work product and claiming it as their own and / or intermingling our argument with frivolous res judicata patriot arguments. Many of these people / organizations are networked (i.e. working together). A few of them are SHAM trust salesmen / women. Therefore, we can truthfully say that from our experience and first hand knowledge, the following people are "Snake Oil" peddlers and / or CON-men/women who do not deserve your trust:

Al Adask;
Al Beyer;
Al Thompson;
American Rights Litigators;
American Tax Consultants;
Barry Konicov;
Big Al;
Bill Benson;
Bill "William" Conklin;
Bill Drexler;
Bob Schulz;
Brad Barnhill;
Bruce Hatcher;
Chad Prater;
Christopher H. Hansen;
Christopher M. Hansen;
Dale Livingston;
Dan Meador;
Dave Bosset;
Dave Champion;
Dennis MacPhaeddon ;
Devvy Kidd;
Dick Simkanin;
Don Proctor;
Ed Akehurst;
Eddie Kahn;
Ed "Eduardo" Rivera;
Edmund Fitzsimmons;
Erwin Rommel School of Law;
Financial Fortress;
Financial Prosperity;
Freedom Above Fortune;
Freedom Hall;
Freedom Law School;
Free Enterprise Society;
Gordon Phillips;
Howard Freeman;
Inform America;
Institute of Global Prosperity;
IRS Decoder;
Irwin Schiff;
Jeff Dickstein;
Jack Cohen;
Jim Deal;
John Feld;
John Gliha;
John Hecht;
John B. Kotmair;
Joseph Banister;
Joy Foundation;
Justin Garriott;
Ken "The Hornet" Hunter;
Lamar Hardy, Hawaii;
Larry "Lowell" Becraft;
Law Research Registry;
Les Hollingshead;
Lynda Wahl;
Lynn Meridith;
Marcia Doerr;
Mel Stamper;
Pat Patton;
Paul Andrew Mitchell;
Paul Lienthall;
Richard Cornforth;
Richard Standring;
Right Way Law;
Save-A-Patriot Fellowship (SAPF);
Sean O'Hara;
Solutions Group;
Steve DeLuca (S.T. Fitzgerald, Thomas Luca, other alisases)
Steven Swan;
Steven Beresford;
Supreme Law Firm;
Tax Ax; (NOT;
Tax Statement;
The Informer;
Tom Scambos;
Tom Smith (Alleged Doctor);
Treasury Tax Secrets;
Virginia Cropsey a/k/a Little Red Hen
Wallace Institute ( A Disgrace to William Wallace and Clan Wallace);
Wayne C. Bentson
"We The People Foundation"

Review Pending
Paul Sulla, Attorney

People who do not seem to understand have not seen as many people as Mr. Bell has seen, get hurt. They lose their property, jobs, paychecks, and / or families. They obviously do not have the discernment to understand how vitally important this issue is, and how we MUST stay on point or lose.

There is no room for those who claim it is their 1st Amendment Right for supporting people who are espousing such res judicata arguments. The courts and the Kotmair case made it clear. Guilt by association is NOW supported by CASE LAW.

Comment on this!

2002 - 2003 by Financial & Tax Fraud Education Associates, Inc. A non-profit corporation. All rights reserved. No portion of this website may be reprinted in whole or in part without the express, written permission of Financial & Tax Fraud Education Associates, Inc.. Contact us by e-mail to  This site is
Cyber-Museum of Scams and Frauds 

    Main Page - Thursday, 07/24/03

    Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]


    messageboard.gif (4314 bytes)