Author Topic: Larry Becraft  (Read 5535 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bigmike

  • Dedicated Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 72
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Larry Becraft
« on: September 19, 2008, 11:02:16 PM »
Larry Becraft was the attorney who represented Lloyd Long, the taxpayer found not-guilty by a jury because the IRS couldn't show the jurors the law requiring Mr. Long to file a return or show he was liable to pay. If memory serves me correctly, this was the case featured in Aaron Russo's Freedom to Fascism. There is a link for the transcript of that case if you have the time to read it all:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/LongLloyd1.htm

There are many great articles regarding the Patriot Movement on Larry's site you can find here:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/

I posted the following link before on NHFree, but I think it got buried and seems to be more relevant here. It focuses on specific cases that have debunked certain sovereignty arguments. While I haven't had the chance to read through each of these cases, the ones I've looked up so far seem legit. Happy reading:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/deadissues.htm





Offline bigmike

  • Dedicated Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 72
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Larry Becraft
« Reply #1 on: September 20, 2008, 07:58:51 PM »
I also wanted to make it clear that after having talked with other SOVEREIGNS who have successfully "cracked the code", my feeling is that at some point we may come across an aggressive prosecutor or judge familiar with these tactics. Especially in New Hampshire.

Ultimately it will come up to the judge's discretion using these tactics in court. Maybe they'll work, maybe they won't.

My purpose in linking a site that debunks the common myths of the "patriot movement" is not that I feel this is a lost cause. On the contrary, I've read through the UCC and I believe there is validity to contract law-based arguments. But a terrorcrat will do what a terrorcrat wants to do and unless we can make this successful (which in my opinion is forcing the courts to go back to a common law way of doing things or admitting that there was some sort of secret treaty that occured), we have to look at successes and failures of others who have been down this path, instead of the theories floating around in cyberspace.

Again, I believe our success depends on a particular judge's interpretation of the law, how open he is to precedent as a "legal standard" and fairness of the court. If we try to believe that every judge or prosecutor in America has knowledge of some event that happened in the early 1900's, we are fooling ourselves. Even if it did happen, how could they tell each PERSON who swore an oath to keep this a secret? It would have leaked at some point.

Offline mackler

  • Experienced Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Karma: -185
    • View Profile
Re: Larry Becraft
« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2008, 06:34:47 PM »
Larry Becraft is one of the few reliable sources of legal information in the "Patriot" movement (whatever that is).

He's actually gone against the IRS in court an won.  It doesn't get much more credible than that in my book.

I wish people would pay more attention to him, and less to the pushers of legal conspiracy theories.
It happened once that men sat together in a boat at sea.  Whereupon one of them drew forth an awl and began to bore into the boat's bottom.

"Stupid one," the others cried at him, "what are you doing?"

"And what concern of it is yours?" he answered.  "Is it not under my own seat that I am making the hole.

Ed D

  • Guest
Re: Larry Becraft
« Reply #3 on: November 04, 2008, 10:56:14 PM »
I also wanted to make it clear that after having talked with other SOVEREIGNS who have successfully "cracked the code", my feeling is that at some point we may come across an aggressive prosecutor or judge familiar with these tactics. Especially in New Hampshire.

Ultimately it will come up to the judge's discretion using these tactics in court. Maybe they'll work, maybe they won't.

My purpose in linking a site that debunks the common myths of the "patriot movement" is not that I feel this is a lost cause. On the contrary, I've read through the UCC and I believe there is validity to contract law-based arguments. But a terrorcrat will do what a terrorcrat wants to do and unless we can make this successful (which in my opinion is forcing the courts to go back to a common law way of doing things or admitting that there was some sort of secret treaty that occured), we have to look at successes and failures of others who have been down this path, instead of the theories floating around in cyberspace.

Again, I believe our success depends on a particular judge's interpretation of the law, how open he is to precedent as a "legal standard" and fairness of the court. If we try to believe that every judge or prosecutor in America has knowledge of some event that happened in the early 1900's, we are fooling ourselves. Even if it did happen, how could they tell each PERSON who swore an oath to keep this a secret? It would have leaked at some point.

The problem seems to be that those kind of fair judges are few and far between, if they are there in any case. Most of them are shills for the state and those who are good are not on the bench... like Judge Andrew Napolitano. I like the Judge alot and he is a great voice for our cause, but I'd rather his voice were being heard from the bench rather than from the set of Fox News.

Kyle M

  • Guest
Re: Larry Becraft
« Reply #4 on: December 10, 2008, 06:48:17 PM »
big mike

since you mentioned cracking the code i assume you read pete hendrickson's book.  Good book.  did anyone hear about a court case involved with some of those folks?  i thought i read something about the IRS going after them but I can't remember where I saw it.


Kyle M

Offline SamIam

  • I've got green eggs and ham. . .
  • Longtime Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 452
  • Karma: 0
  • Gender: Male
  • Peacful Evolutionist
    • View Profile
    • Obscured Truth Network
Re: Larry Becraft
« Reply #5 on: December 10, 2008, 11:12:45 PM »
I also wanted to make it clear that after having talked with other SOVEREIGNS who have successfully "cracked the code", my feeling is that at some point we may come across an aggressive prosecutor or judge familiar with these tactics. Especially in New Hampshire.

Ultimately it will come up to the judge's discretion using these tactics in court. Maybe they'll work, maybe they won't.

My purpose in linking a site that debunks the common myths of the "patriot movement" is not that I feel this is a lost cause. On the contrary, I've read through the UCC and I believe there is validity to contract law-based arguments. But a terrorcrat will do what a terrorcrat wants to do and unless we can make this successful (which in my opinion is forcing the courts to go back to a common law way of doing things or admitting that there was some sort of secret treaty that occured), we have to look at successes and failures of others who have been down this path, instead of the theories floating around in cyberspace.

Again, I believe our success depends on a particular judge's interpretation of the law, how open he is to precedent as a "legal standard" and fairness of the court. If we try to believe that every judge or prosecutor in America has knowledge of some event that happened in the early 1900's, we are fooling ourselves. Even if it did happen, how could they tell each PERSON who swore an oath to keep this a secret? It would have leaked at some point.


Hey Mike,

I think Larry recently worked with Dave Champion to defeat an IRS attack He has a radio show that covers the details of their court cases, and I know he has discussed Larry's work on other cases as well. The guy is very very well versed in the law and really knows what he's talking about. The Dave Champion Show
www.obscuredtruth.com

"I have no fear, but that the result of our experiment will be, that men may be trusted to govern themselves without a master. Could the contrary of this be proved, I should conclude either that there is no God, or that He is a malevolent being." --Thomas Jefferson, 1776

Kyle M

  • Guest
Re: Larry Becraft
« Reply #6 on: December 15, 2008, 06:51:29 PM »
Hey just wanted to say this about the income tax as I see it.  Hendrickson does a great job of showing that income tax applies to US government workers or people who receive a US privilege. I explained how I think it works in the 'slave name thread' but, YES, all US citizens have to at least file a return (notice that I said citizens).  This is because US Citizenship is a benefit privilege.  It is the privilege of having a vessel to deal in commerce.  I know that sounds ridiculous as a benefit privilege if freely offered and freely taken (and by freely I mean consensually) and it seems that US citizenship is forced upon everyone located in certain latitudes east of the Pacific and west of the Atlantic oceans.

I don't agree with you Sam, in that we are in common law.  I believe that the law the US government operate is a version of commercial law, and similar to Roman Civil Law.  It is a private body of statutes and acts that apply only to the so-called citizens and subjects of of that private organization.  The reason I call it private while the US Government calls it public is that it is private to all those who claim to be citizens (and therefore privately subject to that law) and foriegn to those not subject to that law but whom may reside in the same geographically region (kinda like the Roman Empire).  The United States, or State Of X, is definitely not the landmass mentioned above.  I've heard Mark Stevens points that out before and also know it to be true.  I read a good book that showed the legal basis of that but apologize as it is on my other computer which is conveniently in the shop  ;).   If I remember it I'll let you know the name of that one.  But for all US citizens it IS public law.

Now I don't think UCC arguements work on Income Tax because UCC is also private law.  It is the law of the Law Merchants (also confusingly called Law Merchant).  One Law Merchant can use it against another in a case decided in the admiralty but in an Income Tax case I believe it is foreign law and of no effect.  It appears the Income Tax is also a Tax on Law Merchants  but only applies to Law Merchants who are under US limited liability insurance, that is incorporate by and under the US, i.e. US citizens.

Now from what I can tell (and again I am far from an expert) commercial law appears as common law because it is the common law of the sea.  It works on the affidavit system, which is why things like Habeas corpus and other writs still work in commerce, because someone must take an oath upon it.  Am I write about this? I've never done a Habeas corpus but it seems to be an affidavit of claim.  Does anyone know if you have to take an oath upon a Habeas corpus?

Offline Ox

  • Experienced Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Larry Becraft
« Reply #7 on: December 17, 2008, 12:06:06 AM »
I don't agree with you Sam, in that we are in common law.

"Common law" simply means case law.  It fills in the gaps to help resolve legal disputes containing problematic fact patterns not contemplated by legislators. 

Now from what I can tell (and again I am far from an expert) commercial law appears as common law because it is the common law of the sea.  It works on the affidavit system, which is why things like Habeas corpus and other writs still work in commerce, because someone must take an oath upon it.  Am I write about this? I've never done a Habeas corpus but it seems to be an affidavit of claim.  Does anyone know if you have to take an oath upon a Habeas corpus?


If by commercial law you mean the UCC then you are mistaken b/c the Uniform Commercial Code has been enacted by the legislatures of all 50 states, making it statutory, not common, law.

Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus

Offline mackler

  • Experienced Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Karma: -185
    • View Profile
Re: Larry Becraft
« Reply #8 on: December 17, 2008, 02:52:26 PM »
I don't agree with you Sam, in that we are in common law.

"Common law" simply means case law. 


I would differ from you slightly on that.  I use common law to mean case law in areas where there has been no legislation.  In other words, areas of law that have developed entirely in courts rather than in legislatures.  Thus, cases interpreting statutes are still case law, but are not common law.
It happened once that men sat together in a boat at sea.  Whereupon one of them drew forth an awl and began to bore into the boat's bottom.

"Stupid one," the others cried at him, "what are you doing?"

"And what concern of it is yours?" he answered.  "Is it not under my own seat that I am making the hole.

Kyle M

  • Guest
Re: Larry Becraft
« Reply #9 on: December 17, 2008, 05:03:20 PM »
Your both right about the meaning of common law.  The common practice fills in the law where none exists.  People mean so many things by common law sometimes I get confused.  I guess I mean to say that most cases don't deal in one's natural rights as a man or woman.  It seems to me that most people seem to mean natural rights when they say common law.  Or they also mean common law practices like writs. 

But UCC is still private law.  Its the statutory enactments you quote on legal documents not the UCC itself right?  Thanks for the Habeas link.  I'll check that out.

Offline Ox

  • Experienced Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Larry Becraft
« Reply #10 on: June 17, 2009, 11:00:29 PM »
I don't agree with you Sam, in that we are in common law.

"Common law" simply means case law. 


I would differ from you slightly on that.  I use common law to mean case law in areas where there has been no legislation.  In other words, areas of law that have developed entirely in courts rather than in legislatures.  Thus, cases interpreting statutes are still case law, but are not common law.



Good point Mackler.  I agree with your clarification.