BOBT12
Forum Replies Created
Sonik Speed wrote on Mar 26 2006, 10:43 AM:Addendum to the position defending Larry Becraft.I wish to add one more thing. Larry Becraft (I conclude) has not been acting the way he wants to, but on the contrary acts because he is forced to. If he does not obey, then that would affect his life (at this point in his life). I do not blame him! The poor guy has no choice! So now they are shutting him up.
Some guided wisdom from Johnnie Cochran (the man that has done it all) in his book entitled A Lawyer?s Life:
Quote:?My love for the promise of justice has never wavered, never, but a lifetime working in the legal system has forced me to deal with reality. What we have in this country is the appearance of justice. Inside the courtroom everybody is dressed properly and stands respectfully in the correct place and uses the correct legal language and files the right papers, and it seems like justice is being done. But it?s all a charade. What happens in a courtroom has little to do with real justice for defendants. As a criminal defense lawyer I understood the system, I knew it well, and I used it for my client?s benefit. That was my job and I did it.?Sonik Speed
[post=”2457″][/post]Sonik, I think that your statement is quite accurate. However, I hope those who visit Becraft's website understand his information from this point of view.
Thanks for your reply, SONIK.
Quote:Originally posted by Sonik SpeedBOBT: Larry Becraft appears to be compromised! In an article that I read dated 6-4-04 from Bob Schulz of We The People (WTP), he states, in part . . . . .
SONIK SPEED: Yeah but BOBT – the problem with that article is that it is written by one side of the story. I did however get a chance to speak to Bob as well for about 5 minutes. I quote Bob saying: “…that Attorney now is loosing in Court…”. I cannot prove this and one must only trust my word on this.
It is one side of the side of the story, however, Lowell Becraft is an attorney, he should be aware that it is up to him to give his side of the story. Since he has chosen NOT to give his side of the story I feel that his actions weigh against him.
Quote:Originally posted by Sonik SpeedBING: Has Larry Becraft turned his back on the the Tax Honesty Movement? You be the judge.
SONIK SPEED: He has not betrayed no one. Certainly he has not betrayed Schulz. It would appear (though I do not know the deeper details) that Schulz has somewhat dishonored Becraft and his request regarding some AMAZING RESEARCH CD. I personally reviewed this research and it is the nail in the coffin! Becraft apparently told Schulz NOT TO PUBLICIZE IT. Schulz however did and Becraft sued. I mean, it is Larry's research. He did not want his name publicized, but unfortunately his name is now in public. An act done cannot be undone.
I feel that Becraft has somewhat dishonored Bob Schulz and the WTP organization. As I recall that issue, Schulz?s position was that WTP paid Becraft a great deal of money for income tax research. Becraft gave Schulz a CD with tax information, yet, did not want Schulz to use it publicly, until Becraft did more research (for more money). However, Schulz felt that Becraft was under contract to provide WTP this information in any event. Therefore, WTP had the right to disclose the information as they saw fit. I agree with Schulz?s view.
Quote:Originally posted by Sonik SpeedIndeed it is true that Larry Becraft was “there” at the Larken Rose trial. Becraft however, was not there because he was “representing” Larken. In fact, Larken in his opening statement said (to the effect): “I am here to represent myself because no one can represent me better than me. I have here Larry Becraft who will only be assisting me with the filings etc ….”
Yes, from what I understood on triallogs.com, Becraft was only assisting Larken. However, with that said, Larken was totally ineffective at even asking a question in his defense. It seems that Becraft did little to help. So, I don?t know why Becraft was present.
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/taxation/338…l-coverage.html
Quote:Originally posted by Sonik SpeedIndeed one of the most HOTTEST topic intra-Freedom Movement are the conclusions that most people reach about Larry Becraft. It would seem from my reading of this post that the majority reach the conclusion that Attorney Larry Becraft is a traitor and has stabbed the Tax Honesty Movement in the back. I disagree with most of the findings in this forum attacking Larry Becraft. I will share as to why I disagree. There has not been a single person within the Tax Honesty Movement (not even Irwin Schiff) that has fought against the Courts so hard and diligently, than Larry Becraft. Unfortunately, he has lost the following cases:?
I agree, Becraft appears to have given a great deal of effort to the Tax Honesty Movement, thus, I want to give him the benefit of a doubt.
However, I will be wary of his advice/information for now.
- lambskin wrote on Mar 16 2006, 01:06 PM:http://www.1215.org. If you are not up to taking on the whole thing, then feel free to limit your analysis to these core web pages to which the remainder of that web site is tied:
http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/sovreign.htm
http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/pvcright.htm
http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/pvc.htm
http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm
http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/courtrec.htm
[…]Bill Thornton x@1215.org
[post=”2404″][/post]Thanks for the information, lambskin. 😀
Dear Bing,
Larry Becraft appears to be compromised!
In an article that I read dated 6-4-04 from Bob Schulz of We The People (WTP), he states, in part:
Quote:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Larry Becraft Is CompromisedSchulz asked Becraft why he wanted Schulz to do what he (Becraft) could just as easily do himself. Becraft than told Schulz he could not disclose the information personally because he was in a lot of trouble with the government. Becraft informed Schulz that he (Becraft) had stopped filing personal tax returns in 1991, that the State of Alabama was demanding $70,000 from him, and that that feds would be coming after him next. Becraft also stated that he expected the feds to charge him with ?obstruction of justice,? a far more serious charge than ?willful failure to file.?
Schulz told Becraft he didn?t know why he (Becraft) shouldn?t simply put all his arguments together and submit them to the tax authorities with a demand that they stop prosecuting him because he was not liable to pay the tax, and until they answered his legitimate questions he would not be filing a tax return and would not be paying the tax.
Becraft then informed Schulz that he ?was getting back into the system.? With that statement, Schulz realized that Larry Becraft had been compromised ? and that as a non-filer and highly visible Tax-Honesty advocate, Becraft would not be allowed ?back into the system? and allowed to keep his license to practice law, unless he cooperated fully with the government.
No emphasis added.
I cannot find the link to this article. However, I have a hard copy.
- bruce wrote on Mar 14 2006, 05:05 PM:JWR,
Are you kidding me, are these cops feeling so guilty so as to act that defensive?? I came away from those videos with real concern. After watching most of those guys, if not all of them, I think a psychiatric evaluation would be in order.? I think these cops were only masquerading as public servants sworn to protect.? Sort of reminds me of that Stalone movie where Rambo gets harassed by the Big bad wantabe Cop.
However, it does kind of prove by the cops? overreactions that they do fear proper confrontation, and that is good.? I just hope I don?t meet that one that unsnapped his gun while stalking the poor undercover guy.? Heck, I think if he would have took a step closer like the cop enticed him to he might have got shot.
I wish I could say that we don?t need people with guns keeping the peace, but the fact is we do.? Mankind is corrupt by nature and getting worse and worse all the time.? Some of those thugs sure seemed anxious to meet out their own kind of street justice, and that is scary. Makes a good case for why us defenseless civilians should be able to pack with those kinds of wackos running around with guns.? Just glad I don’t live in So. Florida.
[post=”2395″][/post]Emphasis added.
The government has no duty to protect anyone:
Quote:?As harsh as it may be, the Constitution simply doesn?t impose on government a duty to provide any sort of minimal service to its citizens,? said Assistant County Attorney Andrew J. Murray.U.S. District Court Judge Marvin J. Garbis tried to see how far Mr. Murray would take the argument.
What if a police car had been in the area, the judge wondered, and Ms. Beakes had run to the car screaming that she was being abducted, but the officer was drunk and refused to help her, leading to her being murdered?
Mr. Murray said the county still wouldn?t be liable unless the officer had actually agreed to help, then failed to do so.
Shaking his head, Judge Garbis said, ?I don?t want to go to Anne Arundel County anymore. I?m afraid to go to Anne Arundel county.?
[…]?It?s a fascinating theory,? Mr. Beakes said. ?If there is no duty for them to provide that service, why are the citizens of that county taxed to provide that service??
Emphasis added.
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/office-infor…ghlight=Protect
Maybe We the People need to protect ourselves?
Quote:The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.Thomas Jefferson
- KaosTheory wrote on Mar 2 2006, 01:31 PM:SS,
Glad to meet you. I have been studying the material on this site since I first joined Oct 04.
The term taxpayer has different meanings in different contexts of course. Since you brought up the context of the IRS, I will have to say that a taxpayer is someone who engages in a taxable activity as per the IRC. So, my answer would be contingent upon said activity.
My only problem with the IRS, if any, is that they don't appear to be following their own code. I wouldn't use the word “fight”. As of now, we are in agreement.
KT
[post=”2322″][/post]Emphasis added.
Hello KaosTheory,
The IRS and/or its employees don't follow their code, regulation, or manual, too closely. They seem to follow the rule of pirates…they take whatever they can get their hands on. Of course, they try to appear as sheep to those who appear sleep, however, they are wolves.
By the way, are you the same KaosTheory that I see on suijuris.net? If so, it is good to hear from you.
- Bing wrote on Feb 27 2006, 11:55 AM:What an incredible miscarriage of justice.
I followed and listened to hours and hours of the trial blogs and came away convinced that Judge Dawson is an evil, evil man.
Dawson and the DOJ lawyer's actions were simply shameful.
I was stunned that Dawson refused to permit the jurors to examine Cindy's dog-eared copy of the IRC, even though the book was already admitted into evidence. Amazingly, the idiotic Schiff jurors saw no reason to question the judge's refusal to let them examine the evidence. WTF is up with that!?
Irwin made many mistakes in his defense, to be sure, but he also wrote some very powerful Motions that were not granted.
Schiff is done, and yes, he likely will not get out of prison alive, but we must not give up or lose hope in our struggle for Truth and Justice. A nd we especially must not allow ourselves to be intimidated by the bullying and corrupt DOJ lawyers who are a disgrace to the legal profession.
We must press on even harder and engage and petition the IRS and the USG with even more resolve.
The best thing we can to is to honor the life and work of Irwin Schiff, by pressing the IRS at every chance and to keep writing to them asking them to show us the enacted positive law codified in the Statutes at Large, and the Implementing Regulations published in the Federal Register, which makes an American Citizen liable to pay income taxes.
Irwin Schiff is not a criminal and he is not a convict. He is a great American Citizen!!! Schiff committed no crime and the corrupt DOJ and corrupt IRS know this fact.
May God Bless, Protect, and Look after Irwin Schiff
We will never, never, never, give in to the IRS.
Never!
Bing
[post=”2285″][/post]I agree! Each of us must put up whatever resistance, to government mischief, that we can muster.
- Sonik Speed wrote on Feb 21 2006, 10:41 PM:Of course this case has potential in going to the supreme Court. Now whether the Court will approve to hear it or not is a totally different issue. The statement above is CLEARLY AND UNDENIABLY contrary to many previous supreme Court opinions. Therefore, this 9th Circuit is clearly wrong.
Even though the 9th Circuit is dead wrong and is contrary to about 25 supreme Court opinions, I still do not see the supreme Court granting certiorari to hear this case.
Sonik Speed
[post=”2276″][/post]Sonik, I totally agree with your above statment. What sad news it is.
Thanks for the update.
Bob
- Soteriologist wrote on Feb 15 2006, 09:05 PM:Check this out – “We the People” Goes Hollywood. It's Aaron Russo's “America – from Freedom to Fascism”. Get the word out that this is actually being shown in selected locations around the country. If more people know that it's out there, it'll be tougher for the powers that be to keep it hidden. Apparently it has already been shown in Austin, Denver, and a few other cities. I've been told it is due to be shown in Atlanta in March. I'd be willing to drive the distance to see it there.
It's high time that the people in this country woke up from their TV-induced apathetic slumber. Enough “American Idol(atry)” and “Dancing with the Stars” drivel, already!
Why isn't someone making a reality TV show about IRS abuses? That would be worthwhile.
God save our Republic!
[post=”2265″][/post]Soteriologist, you make a very good point. Thanks.
- Bing wrote on Feb 14 2006, 12:59 PM:Author #2 wrote on Feb 14 2006, 08:42 PM:Bing,
Awesome!? Thanks!
[post=”2258″][/post]Sure. You are welcome.
Bing.
[post=”2259″][/post]Very interesting.
Thanks.
Bob
- Sonik Speed wrote on Feb 12 2006, 06:45 PM:Rattler – EXCELLENT! I LOVE EVERY LETTER AND WORD YOU POSTED! 😀
<>
[post=”2245″][/post]So do I.
Wow!
Quote:Originally posted by ApostleYou might ask this question of yourself. I have chosen one thread out of the many available on this forum. And still you protest. Two of the foundational concepts that the entire website Famguardian.org is built upon is freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression. Would you deny me these very freedoms this site claims to be a proponent of?
Emphasis added.
I must agree with this position. And I want to welcome you as a fellow member.
Quote:Originally posted by ApostleYou expect satan's religion of man (government) to play fairly with you and adhere to the rules if only you can find the right laws to subdue it. But you clearly have no understanding. Satan has no respect for mans law nor Yahweh's. Those who follow after satan exhibit the same traits. In government it is corruption. It matters not that you should pile a mountain of evidence of the truth (man's truth) in front of them they will still judge unrighteously. You have lost.
Emphasis added.
Yes, Apostle, you seem to be correct in a broad sense.
Quote:Originally posted by ApostleOutside of government it is those who would proclaim to be proponents of the laws of man, or the freedoms thereof, or even the rights thereof, and yet when someone exercises that right and it becomes distasteful to the proponent of freedom they would attempt the quash it or pass other laws to suppress it. They have no regard for the Law's of Yahweh nor (regardless what they say) do the they have regard for the laws of man. Just as their father. These give power to the beast.
In my humble opinion, this is often what I see in daily life, and it leads to ignorance, which in turn, tends towards utter confusion.
Quote:Originally posted by ApostleBut you can prepare. The best preparation is to recieve the truth and understand what is going on around you and why.
I agree.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
For those who feel that Apostle is an agent of some sort, I must say that I am only concerned about what he, and people in general, has to say. Each of us are free to listen, or not. Of course, I do not want to see anyone fall into some trap that they are not aware of, such as unintentionally giving an email address.
Professor Steven E. Jones is quite a revelation.
It appears that Professor Jones, and associates, are doing great things toward piercing the public's slugglishness about sternly evaluating the 9-11 issue. I hope that they will continue.
Quote:Jones presented a long list of solid evidences that must be brought before the American people and arraigned in a court to bring the conspirators to justice who perpetrated 9/11 from the inside for nefarious purposes.Consider the facts that he and the 50+ academicians he is working with are bringing forward, not the propaganda that has been hoisted upon us. http://www.st911.org
Those towers were felled by pre-positioned U.S. military-grade explosives, that would have taken just ten men ten trips to put in place, for a controlled demolition, in the week-end prior to 9/11, when the buildings were evacuated for dozens of hours, and the power shut down to the buildings, giving the agents plenty of time to position their explosives where they would do the job, without detection by security cameras. FEMA, the national police contingent, just happened to be in NYC by the hundreds, in preparation for a “drill” scheduled for Sept. 12.
emphasis added.
Perhaps the truth of 9-11 will be made known to all. Maybe folks will stop asking criminals for phantom protection, and be set free.
Once again, thank you Rattler.
I don't know if lambskin (or others) is an agent(s) for the government, or some other fraudulent agency such as the IRS, or not, however, his above advice seems quite resonable.
In any case, I hope that everyone is careful when online, and in their everyday travels.
- Quote:The same day The New York Times broke the story of the NSA eavesdropping without warrants, Tice surfaced as a whistleblower in the agency. He told ABC News that he was a source for the Times' reporters. But Tice maintains that his conscience is clear.
[…]The NSA revoked Tice's security clearance in May of last year based on what it called psychological concerns and later dismissed him. Tice calls that bunk and says that's the way the NSA deals with troublemakers and whistleblowers. Today the NSA said it had “no information to provide.”
It seem that you cannot work for the NSA if you have a conscience.
