Constitutions, Laws, Statutes and Hope
IDEAS or OPINIONS or COMMENTS
It would help if people just first became familiar with some basics.
Read the constitutions and you will not fall for such craziness as “the
courts are not established by the constitutions.” Reading the
constitutions shows otherwise.
Reading statutes is also important. I often encounter people alleging
that some state law states a certain thing, but often when I turn to
that law, it is either misquoted or wrong. We need to focus on accuracy.
Please go here:
This is a page on the Truth Attack website that links to ALL the US
Statutes at Large (huge files), and these files are word searchable.
This page also had downloadable versions of the old and new federal tax
laws as well as links to State constitutions and Codes.
I often detect people relying on the opinions of others because they
cannot find cases. One place to find US Supreme Court cases is here:
Lower fed courts can be found here:
If you want to download whole versions of various titles of the US Code,
Bob Hurt wrote:
> Larry, I’ll post your very lucid comments to the Lawmen list, but I
> wonder if you might address two issues:
> 1. How to Know the Law
> 2. How to Rely upon Authority
> *Knowing the law* presents profound difficulty to newborn patriots,
> and everyone else for that matter. You have said something like “all
> you have to do is look it up.” That sounds good, but LOOK IT UP WHERE?
> Patriots don’t have access to Lexis Nexis and Westlaw or any other
> single-source, reliably comprehensive on-line database of law. Yes,
> the law library provides limited access (which must include the
> cost-effective ability to print it or check it out and take it away
> for study). But you cannot get all of it there, and many people who
> cannot venture forth into the community for health reasons cannot use
> the law library.
> For example,
> · Several volumes of the Statutes at Large and numerous statutes have
> simply disappeared, and nobody knows what happened to them.
> · Florida Statute 2.01 claims the English law as of 4 July 1716 has
> force and effect in Florida to the extent it does not conflict with
> the CUSA or laws of the US or Florida. I’ve looked high and low for
> the English law applicable today and I cannot find it. Now what?
> · Judges whimsically seal or block from publication court cases and
> rulings every day in the USA as a matter of policy or government
> interest. In spite of the fact that our laws depend upon /stare
> decisis/ we cannot find those elements of common law, and so we cannot
> know it. Most assuredly, the judges hide these rulings in order to
> prevent people from obtaining remedy.
> · The US Code in the titles that Congress has not passed into positive
> law obviously differs from the underlying statutes to such an extent
> that Congress does not trust the accuracy of the code. Otherwise,
> Congress would pass it into positive law. And yet, Congress has not
> admitted in what areas it has found difference of flaw. Thus the
> people cannot trust those titles of the USC. Until you and John Roland
> posted the Statutes at Large and IR Statutes and rules, the people
> could get the real thing only at a law library (ugh). And every single
> questioner of the relevant law has to undertake a monumental project
> to learn the statutes and public laws and compare them to the USC to
> distinguish the falsities from the facts. Who has any interest in
> doing that when the courts routinely say the law means something other
> from what it says?
> You have declared that if the U.S. had gone bankrupt, we would know it
> from the court filings. Well if a creditor and debtor settle their
> dispute amicably, they don’t take it to bankruptcy court. If the
> government collected all the metal-backed currency before its creditor
> called the loan, and the creditor took that and other concessions
> amicably, why would they need a bankruptcy hearing to settle the
> dispute? The fact that a bunch of law allegedly exists which we cannot
> find PROVES that the bankruptcy could have happened secretly in a
> court, and the court could have sealed its records of the case for
> So your argument has a serious flaw in it and you never seem to
> address it (though I admit I have not read all you have written). And
> I would not know this had I not personally contacted the law college
> library and the national archives in search of the missing statutes
> and common law, and had I not read over the Florida Supreme Court’s
> hearing documents regarding J.A. Rule 2.420 that blocks public access
> to certain court case documents. MY research turned this up, and I
> imagine yours has turned up even more, to prove WE CANNOT NECESSARILY
> KNOW THE LAW.
> As for the *authority in the law,* we want to believe the court
> rulings, but judges seem to be such lying bastards in tax matters that
> we simply cannot trust their rulings, particularly when many of them
> fly in the face of Supreme Court rulings. You really cannot blame
> people from running to self-appointed gurus like Roger Elvick, Jean
> Keating, Sam Kennedy, and Winston Shrout for a solution. People know
> they themselves don’t have the competence to fight the IRS alone,
> particularly not when it costs them $5000 for propounding a frivolous
> argument, and the IRS has slammed every possible door shut on the
> remedies that they can.
> Tax lawyers don’t do a damned bit of good for the tax honesty movement
> because you only tell them what they cannot do to fight the IRS, not
> what they can and must do, not that it would matter much, for tax
> attorneys like Tom have their own problems preventing the IRS from
> stealing them blind. Do you see tax lawyers banding together to offer
> patriots solutions against the abuses of the IRS BEFORE the DOJ hauls
> them into court? NO. And what solutions do get offered by attorneys
> cost so much that typical tax protestors haven’t the money to pay.
> Apparently lawyers hate giving seminars for the feckless so as to save
> them money. What seminars I have seen them give don’t offer any
> specific solutions.
> No, I cannot force tax attorneys like you and Tom to set up training
> to help people with a strategy for beating the IRS in their personal
> income tax situations, but I cannot help noticing that you have the
> basic skills for it AND people need it. For example, you could teach
> people how to attack the individual IRS agents for errors and
> violations of collection procedure and law, and for putting lies and
> freeze codes into the IMF. You could can a lawsuit for attacking the
> agent for that very reason, after trying to get him fired through TIGTA.
> And that constitutes just ONE ares of suggestion. You could teach
> people how to attack judges for their due process violations in tax
> court and USDC, especially since judges cannot sanction or disbar
> ordinary people the way they can do to lawyers.
> Larry, your letter below needs to address the above issues. A number
> of people complain to me that you and Tom are shills for the IRS
> BECAUSE of the above issues, and perhaps other things I haven’t
> mentioned. They don’t understand why you don’t come forth with cogent
> recommendations for them to prevail against the IRS BEFORE going to
> court. You probably would settle a lot of upset by explaing the answer
> to that.
> Bob Hurt
> *From:* Larry Becraft [mailto:[email protected]]
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 29, 2009 7:05 PM
> *To:* dr.no4change
> *Subject:* Re: regarding Teknosis article "Larry Becraft analyzes the
> legal bases of Mercier's Invisible Contracts"
> I have been involved with the organized freedom movement for 30 years
> and not only have observed virtually everything that has happened in
> it, good and bad, I have made more than a substantial contribution to
> it, too often being wrapped up in its very real battles. My experience
> teaches me this: at some stage in their life, virtually every
> participant in the movement realizes that something “is afoot” not
> only with the govt but also the course and direction of our country,
> and he decides to take action. These people understand that they are
> standing at a very important fork in the cross-roads: the road to the
> left leads to slavery, while that to the right is the road to liberty
> and freedom. Once they have this epiphany, they charge down the road
> to liberty.
> But most of our fellow Americans, suffering from an avalanche of
> propaganda, have taken the road on the left, Slavery Road. Our task is
> to expose to these unfortunates the road to the right, Liberty Road.
> However, the captains of Slavery Road have lots of cops on it,
> watching for any liberty-lovers who may expose the message of liberty
> to the rest of the slaves. Liberating slaves is perhaps the highest of
> The message of the movement sent to the slaves needs to be motivating
> and substantive. Yet, too much of the various messages coming from our
> side right now border on the ridiculous and crazy. The captains and
> cops of Slavery Road laugh at legal arguments like the UCC, “we are
> Brits,” the redemption process, “everything is admiralty”, the Forms
> 1099-OID process, names in CAPS, the 1933 bankruptcy, strawmen, birth
> certificates, etc. It appears that a large numbers of the newly freed
> slaves are exposed to these insane arguments promoted by some of the
> “legal” gurus and, being gullible, they fall for these arguments.
> However, I analyze these arguments and too often I find that
> assertions are made without the support of any authority, but then if
> there is cited authority, most of the time I find that when you look
> up that cited authority, it has absolutely nothing to do with the
> asserted proposition. Let me be brutally frank: this is lying!!! But,
> once the novices are exposed to these legal arguments, it is almost
> impossible to convince them of the errors in their beliefs, and
> attempts at education are viewed suspiciously, often resulting in the
> erstwhile educator being falsely accused of being a cop on Slavery Road.
> Part of the message of the freedom movement involves law, because law
> is used by the cops on Slavery Road to control the slave and free
> alike. But, educating one and all with phony legal arguments having
> neither substance nor merit accomplishes nothing but harm. The UCC
> argument had no substance or merit, yet it had a life inside the
> freedom movement of probably 14 years. Countless numbers of people in
> the movement were essentially neutralized because they held such
> beliefs. Nobody can point to anything of substance that was positively
> accomplished by the UCC crowd, altho it must be noted that other
> slaves negatively viewed the people in this movement as nuts and
> flakes as a result. Promotion of similar arguments like those noted
> above have and will accomplish nothing, and the “downside” for the
> movement is being labeled as quacks and freaks.
> Given a choice between slavery and freedom, most human beings will
> chose the latter, and rightly so. Liberty and freedom are precious and
> beautiful as opposed to the misery and suffering of slavery. With such
> a wonderful message, why we do permit this message to be sullied via
> crazy legal arguments? Until we address and remedy this important
> matter of nonsense legal arguments, this movement cannot be effective.
> dr.no4change wrote:
> *Thank you for this great article. I am posting it on PyraBang to
> counter the many pro-freeman arguments being presented there. *
> *If you have any more information of this nature, I would greatly
> appreciate it, so I can add it to my PyraBang portfolio. *
> *Even better… why not join me as a comrade in arms to help stop people
> from being harmed by such nonsense? *
> *We do not have to worry about censorship because it is definitely not
> allowed by PyraBang. *
> *I hope you join my group. I need all the help I can get! *
> *Kindest regards, *