Time: Tue May 27 06:09:36 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA21051;
Tue, 27 May 1997 05:59:06 -0700 (MST)
by usr10.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id FAA24308;
Tue, 27 May 1997 05:58:58 -0700 (MST)
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 06:07:35 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Comment on "The Cooper File" (fwd)
Cc: Liberty Northwest Conference <libnw@dmi.net>
>Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 00:43:46 -0700
>From: Harold Thomas <harold@halcyon.com>
>To: Liberty Northwest Conference <libnw@dmi.net>
>Subject: Comment on "The Cooper File"
>
>Dear Friends,
>
>I received the following comments (attached at the end of my little
>diatribe) from Attorney Larry Becraft regarding "The Cooper File,"
>recently posted. Larry's comments are very important for several
>reasons.
>
>First, when I posted "The Cooper File," I noted that I couldn't find
>anything wrong with it. I believe I asked for anyone who COULD find
>anything wrong with it to let me know, and I further suggested that
>people send it to their congressional representatives to get an
>explanation. Well, I'm grateful that Larry has let me know that he
>believes there are AT LEAST two things wrong with "The Cooper File." He
>has been quite specific, as you will see below.
>
>Larry's very real frustration comes in having to go into court facing
>terrible case law precedent and/or trying to rescue patriot/tax movement
>types who have already been made to look foolish -- both situations
>sometimes caused by the filing of papers or making of arguments which
>are, quite literally, "frivolous" in that they are based on faulty or
>out of context information.
>
>If Larry's observations about "The Cooper File" are correct, then,
>regardless of how much otherwise correct information is contained
>therein, use of the document could prove disastrous. If the IRS is,
>indeed, really just the BATF operating out of a triple-tiered, offshore
>trust, PROOF of such would be political/legal dynamite. If, on the
>other hand, this theory CANNOT be proved, yet attracts all sorts of
>attention and is rammed in the faces of politicians and the courts,
>guess what happens when the theory is discredited? Yup, a major
>embarrassment for the patriot/constitutionalist/tax movement and
>everyone whom the Establishment and the media lump together under those
>labels. I hope that answers to Larry's questions will be forthcoming,
>and if I receive those answers I'll pass them along ASAP.
>
>Larry's observations about "The Cooper File" bring to mind a couple of
>other realities of the battle against the abuses of convoluted gov't and
>incomprehensible law. First, much of the frantic theorizing that goes
>on with respect to the income tax, the federal reserve, federal
>jurisdiction, you name it, is essentially caused by just those two
>things -- a body of law which, both by sheer volume as well as style,
>has become UNKNOWABLE; and governmental abuse and misapplication of that
>unknowable law to a degree which could fairly be described as
>tyrannical, if not insane.
>
>Second, because of the extent of the fraud and abuses to be found in law
>and gov't, many are coming to the conclusion that correcting any
>meaningful amount of the problem by working "within the system" is naive
>at best. It's like the worst tangle of fishing line you ever saw --
>except that it is wound around your neck and you're hanging by it. Some
>researchers spend literally years trying to figure out "how they're
>doin' it to us," only to wake up to the sad realization that "they" can
>do just about whatever they want and justify it with some gob of
>sophistry which the media will spin into a nice 30 second sound byte for
>Sam and Myrtle to yawn at before they watch Jay Leno. After all, if the
>judge perverts the law and the appeals courts look the other way, or
>worse yet, remand and have the trial judge put a different color bow on
>it, WHAT IS YOUR REMEDY? Trust me, you don't even want to think about
>it.
>
>But Larry Becraft HAS to think about it. He's an attorney. He HAS to
>believe we can make a difference by winning in the courts. And, when he
>sees frantic, flawed theorizing mucking up his chances to WIN in court,
>it has to drive him nuts! Personally I have my doubts that we can "win"
>the WAR in the courts, but I greatly respect Larry Becraft because he's
>a skilled warrior, is fighting his heart out and has won some major
>BATTLES!
>
>So, if we can't "win" in the courts, is there ANY hope? I think winning
>BATTLES in the courts is an important element if the WAR is to be won.
>However, I feel that the battle for the minds and hearts of the people
>is where the WAR will be won or lost. In this respect, I have mixed
>feelings about something like "The Cooper File." Although I do feel we
>should be careful to be as accurate and thorough as possible (and
>certainly never just plain reckless -- which borders on dishonest, of
>course), nonetheless the fact remains that the problems with law and
>gov't are simply too massive, entrenched and camouflaged to allow for
>nitpicking every strategy and every attack. Many, myself included, do
>not believe it is possible to "play by the rules", much less "win" by
>them, when 1) the rules are largely unknowable, 2) the rule makers
>ignore, violate or change the rules as the game goes along and 3) the
>rule makers engage in arbitrary violence, have virtually all the
>firepower and largely control the dissemination of information to the
>masses who constitute the bulwark of its "public policy".
>
>Hence, the value of even a flawed "Cooper File" may be found in its
>potential to awaken and enrage large numbers of people. Even if they
>are awakened by a bit of bad information, will they not possibly be set
>upon a course which will lead them to find the general mass of hideous
>corruption which is responsible, in the first place, for all the
>"frantic theorizing"? After all, if I had given up on the
>"patriot/tax/constitutionalist movement" because I was offended by
>someone being wrong, rash or extreme, I would have packed it in a VERY
>short way down the path. But the abuses are TOO real, the stench too
>strong. I'm not offended by poor patriots who have "gone over the
>edge," because I've seen and experienced what drove them there.
>
>
>There are a good many things RIGHT with "The Cooper File." Let's use
>them to wake up as many of our fellow Americans as we can. If we can
>fix what's wrong with "The Cooper File," then let's get that done, by
>all means, so that the important work of attorneys like Larry Becraft
>and other researchers is not hampered.
>
>A major problem with this "movement" is that various factions have
>significant differences in viewpoints, values and priorities, and this
>understandably leads to strong differences in interpretation of certain
>laws, circumstances and choices of strategy. Personally, I feel this
>"problem" is our Achilles Heel. It needs to be addressed, but, sadly,
>few of the leading researchers and warriors seem able to set aside their
>differences long enough to make any sincere attempt to listen to each
>other. Sadly, a lot of this is about economics. There is, frankly,
>fierce competition out there for the limited (albeit growing) resource
>of patriots' spendable income. After all, how are the researchers and
>patriot/tax movement leaders supposed to support themselves? (Government
>grants?) Are we to expect "competitors" to throw roses at each other?
>
>But think about it. If any ONE of the various groups or gurus was
>winning consistently and setting repeatable precedents in the courts,
>we'd all know about it in a few weeks and the whole WAR would be over in
>a matter of months; the house of cards would tumble. But, contrary to
>much of the hype, NO ONE IS WINNING CONSISTENTLY! Show me the tax
>movement group whose members have ZERO liens and levies, who freely own
>expensive homes, have extensive assets and hold significant positions
>with major corporations which happily DO NOT WITHHOLD either income tax
>or social security taxes from members pay. Yeah, like that group exists
>and none of us have heard of it!
>
>So, WHAT THE HELL DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE WHO IS LEGALLY CORRECT? And
>would that matter anyway, when we have all seen how corrupt the courts
>are and how there is virtually no remedy, at least that the abused is
>likely to see without squandering his life savings, if not his life
>itself! What is needed is a larger, overall strategy to create the
>public awareness essential to stopping the destruction of Liberty -- no
>matter HOW each of us happens to define that term.
>
>Remember: things have gotten so out of hand in this society that we have
>people working 2-3 days a week just to pay their taxes, and some of them
>can't see anything more important to do than save the spotted owl, for
>heaven's sake!
>
>My, my, all of that over Larry Becraft's comments. They are attached
>below my name and I hope you will seriously consider what Larry has to
>say.
>
>Harold Thomas
>
>
>Dear Harold,
>
> Wayne Bentson is a friend of mine whom I have known for about 12
>years. He told me about his position regarding the Fed Alcohol Admin
>several years ago and now it is obtaining circulation. Please answer
>these questions:
>
> What case decided by the Supremes during the 30s found what
>particular act unconstitutional? The original source materials Wayne
>relied upon fails to mention that case, yet this is perhaps the most
>critical aspect of that argument.
>
> The BATF was created in 1972 and thereafter, certain regs
>applicable to the taxes BATF would administer were transferred to it.
>The part of the Cooper memo which states that the IRS is the BATF is
>from certain regs which were adopted by BATF. Rather than adopt whole
>new rules, all it did was adopt existing IRS rules which mentioned the
>IRS; the BATF simply stated that wherever IRS was mentioned, just simply
>change IRS to BATF. This is what happened and people are taking things
>out of context.
>
>There's more, but just check out these two problems.
>
> Larry Becraft
>>Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 06:26:56 -0700
>>To: (Recipient list suppressed)
>>From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>>Subject: Specific Questions for Mr. Lowell Becraft
>>
>>Hello Ron,
>>
>>No, I do not have Mr. Becraft's email
>>address.
>>
>>I now wish to confront him for the
>>following conduct of his, which I
>>witnessed personally (with the
>>exception of Point 9 below).
>>
>>Feel free to forward these questions
>>directly to him, if and when you find
>>his email address:
>>
>>
>>1. Why did he write to the author of
>> "The Federal Zone" and demand that the
>> author stop selling that book? He alleged
>> that it was "harming people." Did he
>> mean to imply that other forms of tax
>> protest were NOT harming people?
>>
>>2. Why did he and Wayne Bentson recommend
>> that Eugene A. Burns retain a licensed
>> bar member from Phoenix to defend Burns'
>> trust against a grand jury subpoena,
>> and do so with me listening on a conference
>> call, when Burns had already retained a
>> licensed bar member in James Everett?
>>
>>3. Why did he advise Eugene A. Burns that
>> Burns did not have a right to a jury trial
>> in that case, when FRCP Rule 38 specifically
>> says that the right to trial by jury shall
>> be preserved inviolate?
>>
>>4. In what other ways, if any, has Mr. Becraft
>> interferred or otherwise obstructed the legal
>> work I have done for clients around the
>> country? In light of points 1 thru 3 above,
>> I feel that this is not an inappropriate
>> question, as well.
>>
>>5. Has Mr. Becraft slandered, or libeled, the
>> author of "The Federal Zone" and/or unjustly
>> criticized any of the work which is published
>> in that book? Did Mr. Becraft obtain a copy
>> of that book, without paying for that copy?
>> Did Mr. Becraft ever read the book? The author
>> has no record of any book order or payment from
>> Mr. Becraft.
>>
>>6. Why did Mr. Becraft fail to answer the memo
>> which the author of the "The Federal Zone"
>> wrote to him concerning the all-important
>> distinction between general federal laws,
>> and federal municipal laws?
>>
>>7. Why did Mr. Becraft insist that the federal
>> income tax is imposed on "aliens here, and
>> citizens abroad," when the state Supreme Court
>> in his home state had already ruled that there
>> are two (2) classes of citizenship?
>>
>>8. Why does Mr. Becraft insist on retaining his
>> bar license, when the historical record now
>> proves that the original 13th Amendment was
>> ratified, penalizing bar licensees with the
>> loss of citizenship and disqualification from
>> ever serving in any public office anywhere
>> in America (e.g. "officer of the court")?
>>
>>9. What conduct of his caused Mr. Bill Medina in
>> northern California to chastise Mr. Becraft
>> so harshly? The conduct in question occurred
>> in a federal court hearing, in a tax-related
>> case, if I am not mistaken.
>>
>>10. Mr. Becraft, do you abuse alcohol?
>>
>>
>>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>http://www.supremelaw.com
========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU
web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail