Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0
HEIGHT=

Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Coffees from Youngevity
HEIGHT=

Coffees from Youngevity

Youngevity Be The Change

Youngevity Healthy Chocolate

GOFoods Youngevity

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.
HEIGHT=

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Ron Paul Forums
HEIGHT=

Ron Paul Forums

APFN Message Board
HEIGHT=

APFN Message Board

Leo Emil Wanta / Wantagate Links

++++++++++++++++++ EBAY ITEMS 4 SALE ++++++++++++++++++

« YRIITL - Mr. Tony Davis will be speaking on new developments in mortgages | Main | VIDEO: REALITY REPORT 19 - Audit the FED Actions, Millions March, Tea Party Tainted, Medical Martial Law,. »

Concerning Lowell Becraft, "implied legislative approval" [sic] and 2 classes of citizens (not one class)

From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Subject: 
concerning Lowell Becraft, "implied legislative approval" [sic] and 
2 classes of citizens (not one class)
Date: Friday, September 18, 2009, 4:17 PM

Greetings Dan:

First
 suspicious encounter with Becraft was a letter he wrote to me -- after I started selling "The Federal Zone" -- http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm DEMANDING that I stop selling it because "it was getting people into trouble" [his exact words].  I later wrote him a summary of good authorities re: municipal law, to which Becraft never responded.  I ignored his DEMAND letter: so much for the First Amendment, eh?  I thought Attorneys were supposed to take an Oath to support the Constitution? See 4 U.S.C. 101 (they are all "officers of the court").


Second encounter was my defense of Norman L. Vroman:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/vroman/  (defeated one felony count)
Vroman telephoned Becraft while I was simply volunteering to help Vroman with research:  Becraft told Vroman to forget the 16th Amendment defense;  I did not speak with Becraft at that time.  I do specifically remember Vroman's telling me to STOP looking any further into the Regulation at 26 CFR 1.1-1, which vainly attempts to create a specific liability for subtitle A, but withOUT the required Act of Congress.

So, I was right over the target, but I got pulled off at a crucial moment.



Third encounter was my defense of a trust in Tucson, Arizona:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/nlhc/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/roll/
I was on the telephone to hear Becraft advise my client to hire a licensed attorney from Phoenix.  The client kept me on long enough for me to rout 1 Federal judge, 2 U.S. Attorneys and 1 IRS agent. That client later confessed to me that he was guilty, however; and, he threw me off his case after I had flown to the Ninth Circuit with his emergency motion:  that client had hired a private attorney while I was on the return flight from S.F. to Tucson, then later
he was witnessed stalking my apartment with a loaded 45 revolver.


Fourth encounter with Becraft was my thorough review of his work on jurisdiction, which truly disappointed me because he continued to advocate only one (1) class of citizens in America -- this despite a very clear holding
by the Alabama Supreme Court.  Becraft's legal office is in Huntsville, Alabama, but to my knowledge Becraft NEVER cites this case -- not in any of his legal work that I have read.  So, it could have happened;  I just haven't
seen him cite this case:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htm#gardina



Fifth encounter broadly includes Becraft's historical involvement with Bob Schulz, Devvy Kidd, Bill Benson et al. While Kidd was openly defaming me, I kept hammering on the Alabama Supreme Court's decision clearly holding that we have two (2) classes of citizens in America, not one.  When I had confronted Kidd in person about these 2 classes of citizens in America,
she replied that she had asked a judge-friend of hers, and he told her that there has always been just 1 class. She did not admit ever having done any more research on that point.  Kidd eventually got fired by Bob Schulz,
after I complained privately to him about her defamations of me:  defamation is a crime in California, where I was living and working at that time.


Sixth encounter was my discovery that Becraft has often advocated what he calls "Implied Legislative Approval" -- documented here in Appendix "P" of "The Federal Zone":

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/append-p.htm

In closing, the following excerpt from an unpublished treatise by attorney Lowell Becraft is extremely relevant to the force and effect of regulations:

CONSTRUCTION OF REGULATIONS

            In 5 U.S.C., section 301, heads of Executive departments are given authority to make and publish regulations.  It has been previously demonstrated how the current federal income tax laws in question today relate back to the 1916 income tax act.  Section 15 of that act defined the terms "State" and "United States" in clear jurisdictional terms.  All income tax acts passed by Congress have authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to promulgate regulations, which he has done since the first income tax act in 1913.  All of the income tax regulations published since January 28, 1921, have defined the people subject to the tax as "citizens of the United States subject to its jurisdiction."  Thus, this phrase has been a part of the regulations for some 67 years, and applied to the 1918, 1921, 1924, 1926, 1928, 1932, 1934, 1936 and 1938 acts, as well as the 1939 and 1954 Codes.

 

            The Secretary of the Treasury and the United States are firmly bound by these prior regulations as well as the current Treasury Regulation 1.1-1(c), which defined the subject of the current tax as a "citizen subject to its jurisdiction."  A long line of Supreme Court cases holds that an executive department head such as the Secretary of the Treasury is bound by the regulations he so promulgates and publishes ....

 

            And the Supreme Court has found that regulations consistently promulgated in the same language for repeatedly re-enacted laws are very significant.  In Old Colony R. Co. v. Commission of Internal Revenue, 284 U.S. 552, 52 S.Ct. 211 (1932), the Supreme Court held that such regulations are given an implied legislative approval:

 

            "The repeated re-enactment of a statute without substantial change may amount to an implied legislative approval of a construction placed upon it by executive officers," 284 U.S., at 557

 

[emphasis added]



This "theory", of course, runs flatly contrary to the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court in Commissioner v. Acker and in the other precedents which that decision cites (see exact holding below):

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.htm (excellent ABSTRACT here)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=361&invol=87

"... to uphold this addition to the tax would be to hold that it may be imposed by regulation, which, of course, the law does not permit.
United States v. Calamaro354 U.S. 351, 359 
Koshland v. Helvering298 U.S. 441, 446 -447; 
Manhattan Co. v. Commissioner297 U.S. 129, 134 ."


So, even though I was right over the target way back when I helped Norman Vroman, I eventually came full circle, with no help from Becraft or from any of his "friends".


The point about the missing liability STATUTE is now IN DEFAULT; and, both IRS and DOT are legally estopped (they can NOT come into court at any time in the future, because they failed to answer that SUBPOENA for four and one-half YEARS):

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/nad06.htm  (see Item (7) )
http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/subpoena.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm

The latter were mailed to all intended recipients here, just this past week,
annotated by me very boldly saying IN DEFAULT:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/eddings/delivery.instructions.htm

All of those intended recipients are necessarily material witnesses now
to Paul H. O'Neill's failure to answer that SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE.

When that U.S. Mail started arriving this week, I strongly suspect that Becraft got a few phone calls -- from his "contacts" and "handlers" -- most of whom remain unknown to me.


Conclusions:  Lowell "Larry" Becraft appears to have lost several arguments
concerning two (2) classes of citizens, and the case law prohibiting the IRS or DOT from creating a tax liability by means of Regulations published in the Federal Register, absent the requisite Act of Congress.

I personally believe he's a poor loser, on top of having misrepresented some (not all) of his "tax" case clients by telling them that such Regulations had the force and effect of law.  It's fine with me if he wants to plead FRAUD by the Federal Government as his affirmative defense, because that FRAUD is very well documented now.

In point of fact, my professional life would have been a lot easier without all the obstructions and defamations I had to endure from people in his quarter.


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:07 PM, <Dansmith1954@aol.com>wrote:

id you say Alabama   (home of Forest Gump)

 

Go to  www.WND.com   type Larry Becraft  there are quite a few article's with his name.

Including:

 

Nevertheless, defense attorney Larry Becraft of Huntsville, Ala.,

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=20228 

 

Q: Let me guess at the list: Bill Benson, Joe Banister, Conklin, Becraft – who else?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=10314 

see also: containing Becraft's name

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=10418 

 

Besides Schulz, tax-reform advocate Devvy Kidd, tax attorney Larry Becraft and former IRS agent Joe Banister – all hearings participants, too – also received copies

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=10681 

 

 

I thought I had read a "draft" that was similar to the one you wrote for Benson vs Bentsen......however, I think I was mistaken....Dan

 

Rodearmel vs Hillary Clinton

http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2009/rodearmel-v-clinton-complaint.pdf 

 

 

Judicial Watch

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Judicial-Watch-943339.html

 

WND

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87451

 

Hillary

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/02/02/hillary-and-the-emoluments-clause-part-ii/

September 18, 2009 in Current Affairs | Permalink