Becraft Wants to Hang Gurus?

[LPC]

Found this in a couple of yahoo groups, and it's rather interesting:

From: Larry Becraft <becraft@...>
To: TheUnrepentantPatriots@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Jerry Stanton <farm_stone@...>
Sent: Mon, January 24, 2011 8:10:40 PM
Subject: Re: [TheUnrepentantPatriots] Becraft, FEDERAL CRIMES.Case Law and Jurisdictional Scope

Jerry,

One of the things that I absolutely hate about “newbies” like you is
that you know so little and have so much to learn, yet you think you
know it all. You brashly accuse me of knowing nothing about the money
issue, yet that has been my chief interest in this movement since I
climbed on board back in the late ‘70s. Here is a brief that I wrote on
the money issue back in the mid-80s, to which I have added over time:

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/MONEYbrief.html

Most of my website is devoted to the money issue. My undergrad degree
was in economics.

One of my good friends is Edwin Vieira, the foremost American authority
on the constitutional provisions regarding money. He wrote 10 years ago
his book, Pieces of Eight, which is being reprinted now:

http://solari.com/blog/?p=9592

I suggest you get and read this 1700 page, two volume work.

I taught this movement about 1-8-17 federal jurisdiction, yet you accuse
me of knowing nothing about it. This is the reason why I have absolutely
no respect for you and the group of PNJs you hang around with.

There are lots of lawyers who are deeply involved with movement issues,
but they do not “hang-out” with patriots, because too many of them are
jerks and freaks like you.

Not only do I have no respect for you, I despise you. You are an idiot.

Larry, Chairman
Committee To Hang the Gurus By Their Necks 'Til Doornail Dead.

[Demosthenes]

Didn't Lawyerdud coin the "PNJ" label?

[wserra]

Found this in a couple of yahoo groups, and it's rather interesting:

From: Larry Becraft <becraft@...>
...
I taught this movement about 1-8-17 federal jurisdiction

I know what Art. I Sec. 8 cl. 17 says, but I wondered what Becraft may have "taught" about it. I mean, it seems pretty clear:

The Congress shall have Power . . . To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings

I wondered if Becraft was another of the idiots who doesn't know what "exclusive" means, and who reads this clause to the exclusion of the rest of the Constitution.

The answers to those questions appear to be "yes, he is", and "yes, he does".

[Number Six]

Didn't Lawyerdud coin the "PNJ" label?

Presumably this means "personnage non joueur"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-player_character

[Parvati]

Didn't Lawyerdud coin the "PNJ" label?

Presumably this means "personnage non joueur"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-player_character

I feel inelegant, now. I thought it meant Patriot Nut Job.

[Demosthenes]

I'm pretty sure it's Patriot Nut Job.

[Nikki]

According to he-who-must-be-named (due to the possibility that he'd rise from the grave and return to his career as a disbarred lawyer and wannabe child molester) PNJ does refer to Patriot Nut Job.

As to whether he coined the phrase / abbrevation, who knows? However, I don't recall seeing it being used before he incorporated it in some of the venom he dribbled here.

[Famspear]

"Jerry" responds to Larry Becraft:

Larry Becraft, Chairman of
Committee To Hang the Gurus By Their Necks 'Til Doornail Dead.
Lawyer Becraft, Who was it the wrote the 10.000 page Internal revenue Code?

It was not Gurus.

Who changed the meanings of common words in the laws to confuse the mass's [sic] and plunder and imprison the innocent?

It was not the Gurus.

Who took a oath foreign to the constitution?

It was not the Gurus.
Who is responsible for tens of thousands of innocent people being sent to prison for crimes with no injured party, ever knowling [sic] they contracted their rights away or that the judge presumed they consented?
It was not the Gurus.
Who took the constitutional powers from the Grand Juries to bring charges against the Attorney Judge,s [sic] and Attorneys that have corrupted or [sic] courts?
It was not the Gurus.
Who wrote the commercial Traffic Code [sic] so noncommercial people [sic] are so confused they think they have to get a license and give there [sic] title of there [sic] car to the STATE?
It was not the Gurus.
Who is stealing the homes of families for the banksters with no chain of morgage [sic], no standing in [sic] to be the plaintiff, and a [sic] attorney judge that has no jurisdiction to evict anyone without a proper plaintiff?
It was not the Gurus.
Who is taking the homes and lands of the poor, sick and elderly for back taxes, pretending their property is commercial so thy [sic] can circumvent the the [sic] fifth Amendment and steal it though fraud?
It is not the gurus.
Mr. Becraft, Shakespeare was correct, the bible was correct. If there is a committee to hang anyone, it should be those that created these endless atrocity's [sic].
Lord may the people find the currage [sic] to take back thier [sic] inalienable rights.
Seems fitting to leave the short message I sent you the last time you attacked me, below. your message is at the bottom
Jerry James Stanton


Larry Becraft, Almost all those so called gurus, that you attack are mostly correct in their findings, that fight for freedom. BAR ATTORNEYS find a small flaw in their wall of defense then falsely claim all they do is wrong and destroy them so we all remain slaves to a oppressive government with no remedy.

Mr. Becraft and all BAR ATTORNEYS AND BAR ATTORNEY JUDGES, have taken a oath foreign to the U.S Constitution, you turn your clients into wards of the court with out their knowledge, considered mentally incompetent or dead and then have them in imprisoned or steal their private property, using color of law. This is not up holding the constitution Mr. Becraft.
Blacks Law dictionary defines private property, in essence, as, Property
protected from appropriation, over which the owner has exclusive and absolute
rights. Also read 5th amendment. Better yet read the entire bill of rights and the definition of the word inalienable.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Cornforth ... sage/17640

Who is it that taught Jerry James Stanton how to spell?

Obviously, no one.

[Nikki]

Spell? Who taught him to think? Oopsie, same answer.

[Famspear]

Spell? Who taught him to think? Oopsie, same answer.

Yeah, I can't imagine why Becraft thinks Jerry James Stanton is a jerk. For example, Stanton sued about 25 defendants in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan last year. His 112 page complaint listed as defendants such people as the "registers of deeds" in various counties, the Attorney General of Michigan, the state Treasurer of Michigan, assorted judges, court clerks, etc., etc.

The case was Stanton v. Hutchins, case no. 1:10-cv-00074-PLM, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan.

Jerry the Jerk describes himself in the introductory area of his complaint as "Sovereign Elector/Progenitor of Michigan" -- and it goes down hill from there. I'm too sleepy and bored on this relatively warm January afternoon in south Texas to bother read enough of the complaint right now to say what his beef was.



Jerry the Jerk suffered his inevitable defeat on June 18, 2010, when the Court entered judgment in favor of the defendants.

[Famspear]

From a brief filed by some of the defendants in Jerry the Jerk's case:

This is a tax protester case against various local and State officials. The volume of
Plaintiff Jerry James Stanton's Complaint (105 pages of 372 allegations, plus about thirty
exhibits) cannot obscure its complete lack of any arguable basis in law or fact. A detailed
exposition of his pleadings is not required for purposes of this motion because, as explained
below, straightforward application of several settled legal doctrines are fatal to Plaintiff's claims. The essence of Plaintiff's claims arise from his refusal to pay property taxes in Branch County, which resulted in legal proceedings initiated by Assistant Attorney General Kevin Smith and an ultimate judgment of foreclosure signed by Branch Circuit Court Judge Patrick W. O'Grady on February 27, 2009. (Judgment of Foreclosure, Compl. at Ex. D.) Plaintiff filed a delayed application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals, which was denied. (MI COA Docket Sheet, Compl. at Ex. I; Def.'s Ex. A.) Plaintiff has not sought relief in the Michigan Supreme Court. (Def.'s Ex. A.) Instead, he filed the instant federal civil rights action in this Court on January 26, 2010.

This Court entered an order on March 8, 2010, denying Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. (3/8/10 Order at 25.) The Court provided a helpful summary of the Complaint and important analysis regarding Plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits. Defendants note in particular the following analysis of the Court:

Themes running throughout [Plaintiff's] complaint include the notions that he is a
'sovereign elector/progenitor, with sovereignty over and above that of the government’
. . . and has inalienable rights that predate the formation of governments, including the
rights to happiness, prosperity, and private property. [ . . . ]

The crux of [Plaintiff's] complaint appears to be that the defendants have acted against
him and his property in reliance on state constitutional and statutory provisions which
violate his federal constitutional rights....

--from the BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF STATE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS OR ALTERNATIVELY FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, docket entry 13, March 17, 2010 (bolding added; footnote omitted).

[wserra]

Jerry the Jerk suffered his inevitable defeat on June 18, 2010, when the Court entered judgment in favor of the defendants.

Given the many gibberish motions Stanton had filed, the last provision of the order dismissing the case was as follows:

Plaintiff SHALL NOT FILE any further documents relating to the merits of the complaint unless he first obtains leave of court. If plaintiff files such a document, the court will reject the proposed filing and may require plaintiff to pay a monetary sanction

Did that end it? Of course not. Stanton is made of sterner stuff than would be deterred by a simple order. A couple of weeks later, "Jerry James Stanton, a sovereign free white man" attempts to file this piece of epic, which he titles "MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE, DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGES, FEDERAL AND STATE CRIMES OF JUDIAL (sic) OFFICIERS (sic) OF THE COURT, FRAUDULENT, VOID ORDER RETURNED". He appears to argue that a federal judge had no power to dismiss his case, but the thing is pretty incomprehensible. The court refused to docket it, since Stanton had not received permission to file. He was, however, not sanctioned.

VICTORY!

[Nikki]

two pages and my brain exploded

[Parvati]

A couple of weeks later, "Jerry James Stanton, a sovereign free white man" attempts to file this piece of epic

That's a truly staggering quantity of guano. This man's brain must be horribly diseased.

[Harvester]

Peanutbutter N Jelly? Becraft is an interesting attorney; I suspect he was just facetiously venting frustration with certain know-it-alls and not advocating violence. Not unlike "Committee to Hang Harvesters By Their Necks 'Til Doornail Dead." He's right about the money issue though, there's a certain fraud at the core of central banking/fiat money. And the FED's own Modern Money Mechanics hints at it:

The actual process of money creation takes place in the banks. As noted earlier, checkable liabilities of banks are money. These liabilities are customers' accounts. They increase when the customers deposit currency and checks and when the proceeds of loans made by the banks are credited to borrowers' accounts.

The bank doesn't lend pre-existent money, your signature on the note allows the bank to create new money, expanding the money supply in the amount of your note. Nice scam. And for years to think they made all their money off fees and borrowing for next to nothing and loaning it at 5%. HA!

[johnnyrie]

"Jerry" responds to Larry Becraft:

Larry Becraft, Chairman of
Committee To Hang the Gurus By Their Necks 'Til Doornail Dead.
Lawyer Becraft, Who was it the wrote the 10.000 page Internal revenue Code?

It was not Gurus.

Who changed the meanings of common words in the laws to confuse the mass's [sic] and plunder and imprison the innocent?

It was not the Gurus.

Who took a oath foreign to the constitution?

It was not the Gurus.
Who is responsible for tens of thousands of innocent people being sent to prison for crimes with no injured party, ever knowling [sic] they contracted their rights away or that the judge presumed they consented?
It was not the Gurus.
Who took the constitutional powers from the Grand Juries to bring charges against the Attorney Judge,s [sic] and Attorneys that have corrupted or [sic] courts?
It was not the Gurus.
Who wrote the commercial Traffic Code [sic] so noncommercial people [sic] are so confused they think they have to get a license and give there [sic] title of there [sic] car to the STATE?
It was not the Gurus.
Who is stealing the homes of families for the banksters with no chain of morgage [sic], no standing in [sic] to be the plaintiff, and a [sic] attorney judge that has no jurisdiction to evict anyone without a proper plaintiff?
It was not the Gurus.
Who is taking the homes and lands of the poor, sick and elderly for back taxes, pretending their property is commercial so thy [sic] can circumvent the the [sic] fifth Amendment and steal it though fraud?
It is not the gurus.
Mr. Becraft, Shakespeare was correct, the bible was correct. If there is a committee to hang anyone, it should be those that created these endless atrocity's [sic].
Lord may the people find the currage [sic] to take back thier [sic] inalienable rights.
Seems fitting to leave the short message I sent you the last time you attacked me, below. your message is at the bottom
Jerry James Stanton


Larry Becraft, Almost all those so called gurus, that you attack are mostly correct in their findings, that fight for freedom. BAR ATTORNEYS find a small flaw in their wall of defense then falsely claim all they do is wrong and destroy them so we all remain slaves to a oppressive government with no remedy.

Mr. Becraft and all BAR ATTORNEYS AND BAR ATTORNEY JUDGES, have taken a oath foreign to the U.S Constitution, you turn your clients into wards of the court with out their knowledge, considered mentally incompetent or dead and then have them in imprisoned or steal their private property, using color of law. This is not up holding the constitution Mr. Becraft.
Blacks Law dictionary defines private property, in essence, as, Property
protected from appropriation, over which the owner has exclusive and absolute
rights. Also read 5th amendment. Better yet read the entire bill of rights and the definition of the word inalienable.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Cornforth ... sage/17640

Who is it that taught Jerry James Stanton how to spell?

Obviously, no one.

You know, reading posts like Mr. Stanton's just makes me, well, sic.

[notorial dissent]

In Becraft’s case isn’t it kind of a kettle pot situation???? Of course it is also a case of he’s right and every one else is wrong, so that should really be no surprise I guess.

The fact that one of his “good friends is Edwin Vieira”, should be the first indication of cause to worry, and that he thinks he is “the foremost American authority
on the constitutional provisions regarding money” should answer the rest of the question.

Having read his 1-18-17 argument and his ideas about money, I am amazed that he managed to pass the bar with that kind of a selective reading impairment.

He tortures “exclusive” in much the same way Pete and his ilk torture “includes” and all to the same end.

Very painful to wade through.

[Nikki]

Becraft is ... right about the money issue though, there's a certain fraud at the core of central banking/fiat money. And the FED's own Modern Money Mechanics hints at it:

The actual process of money creation takes place in the banks. As noted earlier, checkable liabilities of banks are money. These liabilities are customers' accounts. They increase when the customers deposit currency and checks and when the proceeds of loans made by the banks are credited to borrowers' accounts.

The bank doesn't lend pre-existent money, your signature on the note allows the bank to create new money, expanding the money supply in the amount of your note. Nice scam. And for years to think they made all their money off fees and borrowing for next to nothing and loaning it at 5%. HA!

So close, but Harvester, what happens to the money supply when the loan is repaid?

[Judge Roy Bean]

...

So close, but Harvester, what happens to the money supply when the loan is repaid?

Shhhhhh!

You're perilously close to revealing Illuminati secrets. If Harv really understood how loans were funded he'd be bored.

[Harvester]

So close, but Harvester, what happens to the money supply when the loan is repaid?

It shrinks!
Fortunately for the banksters, the quantity of new money created via lending is greater than the quantity repaid. This is necessary to keep the scam going. Otherwise we'd be staring at a debt crisis.