Becraft Strikes Again

[LPC]

By the way Larry referred to this site as run by AHs.

Considering the source, that's good.

Better to be an AH in hell, than to serve in tax protester heaven.

[notorial dissent]

... as in "do as I say, not as I do".

Becraft and Bannister have at least one thing in common, the main difference that Becraft is a whole lot smarter, although whether that is any great distinction I am not sure. Actually, there might be two distinctions, despite what Becraft is doing, it is at least legal as opposed to what Bannister is selling.

He has legal opinions that I would have to call eccentric at best, but he seems to do a fairly respectable just in the courtroom, taking into account that most of his clients are pretty hopeless to start with.

I have to admit that I agree with you here, but I can't say I am impressed with him for the "theories" he presses, or that he approaches things the way he does, but on the other hand, he is the closest thing to competent council that some of these yahoos have any chance of or is ever likely of getting, and he may even mitigate some of the damage they have done, or would do to themselves going it alone. I have problems with the fact that he is for all intents and purposes taking these idiots for a ride as far as what he is charging for his "expertise", but then my mother used to say that stupidity was expensive, and this would seem to prove the rule.

As far as I have been able to determine he generally stays on the clear side of the line with his arguments and so is within his rights. I still wonder how he says some of the things he does with a straight face though.

[Nikki]

Becraft, like many others, might be proficient in his chosen field, but he totally lacks the ability to accept the possibility that he doesn't know everything about all things.

Take, for example, the following excerpt from his web site:

Greatly needed:

FREE ENERGY
This is the new site of a friend of mine, Tom Bearden, from here in Huntsville. Please read Tom's recent letter about the energy crisis sent to the National Science Foundation.

Genesis World Energy

Here is a site for "free energy" links.

The linked sited all proclaim that their owners have overcome hundreds of years of bad science and have discovered ways to extract energy from nothing at no cost. They also claim that they are all victims of massive conspiracies by the <take your choice> oil companies, power utilities, various branches of the government, foreign agents, jealous rivals, etc </choice> to suppress their brilliant work.

Becraft buys all of it. That enthusiastic acceptance is typical of the sovereignorami, birfers, TPs, and so on. It proves that their paranoia is well grounded and that their condition is someone else's fault.

His site is an interesting glimpse into his mind.

[iLOVEcrane]

I recall that, back when I was practicing law, my signature on a complaint or court pleading was my certification that, to the best of my knowledge, and allegation or statement in it was true. Why, I wonder, has Becraft not fallen afoul of a rule like this?

Because he believed it with his.......soul?

[Number Six]

He knows the cases like the the recent tp wrestler's trial was based on fallacies and had no chance of succeeding. He has called these legal arguments, such as the one offered by the defendant in this case "legal swill" and worse. Had the guy had a competant tax lawyer to tell him the case had 0% chance of winning, but if he spoke to the prosecutor to work out a plea agreement in exchange for calling off the trial, it would have been a lot cheaper for the client plus jail time would have been far less.

Let's say you have an ideal case for someone like Lowell H. Becraft, Jr. A wealthy person is a non-filer, but he has done no "evasion" or nothing that looks like fraud and evasion per se. The income is honestly earned, there is a large family at stake, foster kids, charitable giving, and so forth. The person just has either confusion or some moral opposition to filing his/her taxes. Not a tempting target for a prosecutor. Mostly what you have with Becraft are people who get caught up with opportunists and promoters who make their cases worse through bogus filings. At that point the prosecution is shooting fish in a barrel. I don't think MacMcPherson would even take a case like this. He successfully defended tax fraud and evasion--read his book "Tax Fraud and Evasion--The War Stories". But I doubt he has any interest in being connected with the paytriot jokers.

[wserra]

Way back when, I read a good part of the Lloyd Long trial transcript. I was impressed despite myself. Becraft tried a good case, and earned the acquittal. Nothing I saw even bordered on the unethical.

I do think his shtick goes over better with a non-urban jury.

[Nikki]

Then again, if the case deals with someone who clearly structured activities to evade taxes and went on the lam for a couple of years and had a fairly decent standard of living it would probably be difficult to find any sympathy even in a non-urban setting.

[Number Six]

Way back when, I read a good part of the Lloyd Long trial transcript. I was impressed despite myself. Becraft tried a good case, and earned the acquittal. Nothing I saw even bordered on the unethical.

I do think his shtick goes over better with a non-urban jury.

Mr. Becraft quotes from Robert Marlatt on how the Patriot movement failed through lack of legal competance:

"How To Destroy Your Nation

How the Patriot Movement has been Self-Defeating


In order to find a means by which to correct the problems within our Nation, I had to spend many, many hours studying what had gone wrong for those who had already tried to accomplish the same goals. What I found was perhaps more disconcerting than what I expected to find. I expected to find that the political failures were due entirely to the media bias against us – what I found was that media coverage of poorly managed campaigns would probably have done more harm than good. I expected to find that corruption in the judicial system was the cause for all of the legal losses we've suffered – but what I found was piles of legal filings based upon erroneous theories, poorly framed arguments, and philosophy instead of law. I expected to find that the socialist agenda taught to our kids in public schools was responsible for the total lack of understanding they have about proper government, but what I found was that parents simply aren't teaching their children about it at home. So I ask you – who is responsible for the impotence of the Patriot Movement? We are.

How can we lay blame to the Court if we failed to raise the proper arguments, or follow the Court's procedures? How can we blame the Court if we raised no argument based solidly in law, but tried instead to get a Court of law to make a ruling based upon philosophy? How can we claim the Court is in error when we failed to properly research the law and frame an argument based upon it? Far more importantly, How dare we allow a legal precedent to be established which will help defeat all other Patriots who follow after us, simply because we failed to properly proceed with our case."

And he quotes from an earlier "Cracking the Code" author:

“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary – having neither actuality nor substance – is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. therefor can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.”

Right you are if you think you are.

[notorial dissent]

As I have said before, I think Becraft has a good mind, I will leave it to the legal profession as to how good the legal portion of it is.

What I have seen is that he has a capacity for seeing an issue, and coming to a very valid conclusion for all the wrong reasons.

What I find fascinating is that someone with the obvious intellect here can look at something, use what appears to be very careful reasoning with it and come to the absolutely, totally, wrong conclusion.

"How To Destroy Your Nation

How the Patriot Movement has been Self-Defeating


In order to find a means by which to correct the problems within our Nation, I had to spend many, many hours studying what had gone wrong for those who had already tried to accomplish the same goals. What I found was perhaps more disconcerting than what I expected to find. I expected to find that the political failures were due entirely to the media bias against us – what I found was that media coverage of poorly managed campaigns would probably have done more harm than good. I expected to find that corruption in the judicial system was the cause for all of the legal losses we've suffered – but what I found was piles of legal filings based upon erroneous theories, poorly framed arguments, and philosophy instead of law. I expected to find that the socialist agenda taught to our kids in public schools was responsible for the total lack of understanding they have about proper government, but what I found was that parents simply aren't teaching their children about it at home. So I ask you – who is responsible for the impotence of the Patriot Movement? We are.

He very correctly identifies the main tenants of the “Paytriot” movement failures, following it up with a very correct and succinct analysis of their hallmark legal filings, that they are in fact junk and nonsense, and properly identifies the cause, the filers.

How can we lay blame to the Court if we failed to raise the proper arguments, or follow the Court's procedures? How can we blame the Court if we raised no argument based solidly in law, but tried instead to get a Court of law to make a ruling based upon philosophy? How can we claim the Court is in error when we failed to properly research the law and frame an argument based upon it? Far more importantly, How dare we allow a legal precedent to be established which will help defeat all other Patriots who follow after us, simply because we failed to properly proceed with our case."

And then goes off deep into the weeds with the “we didn’t use the right magic words” excuse, when the simple fact is that if the information/facts/law/argument had been correct/valid in the first place then the words wouldn’t have mattered. The reason it failed, and continues to fail is not because it wasn’t dressed up properly or spoken properly, it is that it failed because it was based on nonsense, flawed theory, and just plain old fashioned wishful thinking. You can want to and really really believe a pig is a cow, but unless you can prove it, then it isn’t, and that is what Becraft and his ilk refuse to acknowledge, and why they continue to fail.

And he quotes from an earlier "Cracking the Code" author:

“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary – having neither actuality nor substance – is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. therefor can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.”

Followed up with pure nonsense for justification.

While I can and do subscribe to the believing several impossible things before breakfast scenario, I do think he tends to take it to extremes.

Right you are if you think you are.

[David Merrill]

You probably say that because Larry BECRAFT has done far more harm to the people he prosecutes than the few wins that he uses to lure patriots into his prosecutions.

However, one thing Larry taught me - God-given unalienable rights are unalienable. They cannot be removed - only waived!


Regards,

David Merrill.

[.]

On planet Van Pelt up remains down.

[The Observer]

On planet Van Pelt up remains down.

Exactly - only there can a defense attorney be accused of prosecuting his clients.

[David Merrill]

I have watched him prosecute his clients. He flew out and stayed at one fellow's home and left him bargaining for a two year stint in the federal prison.

He will likely win this one suit so that he gets confidence for more prosecutions. Time will tell. He is much more use to the IRS by convincing people to plead or settle. So a few wins are red herrings to draw in all his client prosecutions.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Larry BECRAFT is on your side if you support the Income Tax, the Fed and endorsement of private credit. You want him to win this one so that he can feed a lot of misguided people to prison or settlements.

If Larry wins this one, he will have a successful template. He will not apply it any more than he has done in the past. Only when the DoJ wants a little more confidence in their pet Patriot Attorney.

[Nikki]

David with little reading comprehension:

The case being discussed was already lost.

As to your allegations regarding Becraft; he still has a better court record than you do. He has actually won several criminal cases avainst tax evaders.

[Prof]

David with little reading comprehension:

The case being discussed was already lost.

As to your allegations regarding Becraft; he still has a better court record than you do. He has actually won several criminal cases avainst tax evaders.

Nikki, you mean that Becraft has successfully DEFENDED cases brought against his clients, who are/were alleged to be tax evaders. The cases were filed by the US government.

[Nikki]

As usual, you are correct.

However, the most important emphasis should be on CRIMINAL. I don't believe he's had any success on the CIVIL side.

[David Merrill]

Actually I have a far better record than BECRAFT.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Actually I have a far better record than BECRAFT.

If we're comparing loss records, sure. Your losses are quite staggering - you should retire now while you're at the height of your powers and on top of your game.

Go out undefeated.

[Demosthenes]

Becraft kicks up just enough "tax honesty" dirt to ensure that those few tax deniers with money will hire him when the inevitable indictments hit.

For example, Becraft's research is the driving force behind Joe Haas' "the RSA will free Ed and Elaine" drivel.

He's also a proponent of "the 16th amendment was never ratified" garbage.

[David Merrill]

Becraft kicks up just enough "tax honesty" dirt to ensure that those few tax deniers with money will hire him when the inevitable indictments hit.

For example, Becraft's research is the driving force behind Joe Haas' "the RSA will free Ed and Elaine" drivel.

He's also a proponent of "the 16th amendment was never ratified" garbage.

Here! Here!

But I have to admit that I always spelled Boors "bore".