Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

FW: QUATLOSER LARRY BECRAFT, APRIL'S FOOL OF THE MONTH!!!!

Expand Messages
  • Luis Ewing
    From Luis Ewing at or or or or
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 8, 2010
      From Luis Ewing at <rcwcodebuster (at) comcast.net> or <rcwcodebuster (at) yahoo.com> or <rcwcodebuster (at) gmail.com> or <rcwcodebuster (at) aol.com> or <rcwcodebuster (at) hotmail.com> or <luis (at) luisewing.com> or telephone: (253) 226-3741

      (Note: Please copy and paste all 5 of my e-mail addresses listed above & below and ADD them to your CONTACTS FOLDER.)


      I have 5 different e-mail addresses under <rcwcodebuster @ the following 5 internet providers:


      a.) comcast.net>
      b.) yahoo.com>
      c.) gmail.com>
      d.) hotmail.com>
      e.) aol.com>


      New Web Sites: <www.luisewing.com> or <www.ultimateusers.com>



      SUBJECT: QUATLOSER LARRY BECRAFT IS THE REAL APRIL FOOL OF THE MONTH CAUGHT LIKE A FOOL WITH HIS PANTS ON THE GROUND, PANTS ON THE GROUND, LARRY BECRAFT IS THE REAL QUATLOSER AND FOOL WITH HIS PANTS ON THE GROUND!!!!



      To . . . LARRY "THE LIAR" BECRAFT . . .BE NOT SO CRAFTY, if you want to make your self look like THE FOOL WITH YOUR PANTS ON THE GROUND of ALL MONTHS like YOU are, go ahead and write false information about me.


      Does anyone really believe that there is such a thing as an . .. "EX-IRS AGENT"????


      "To wit, for the false brethren which were craftily sent in, and crept in prively to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage." Galatians 2:4


      For your information, I already sent an e-mail to all of my e-mails list's a long time ago that some of the case quotations in my really really OLD E-MAIL that I wrote (5 to 7 years) that I called the THE OLD UNION versus THE NEW UNION, which contained some case quotes that I pulled mistakenly from some of RICHARD MCDONALDS old material on the Buck Act, at that time, I thought RICHARD MCDONALD was trustworthy, someone else sent me an e-mail "long" before YOU telling me it was a misquote as well as some of the other cases in that really old e-mail.


      An informal E-MAIL with some case quotes is NOT a LEGAL PLEADING LARRY, DUH!!!!


      An informal E-MAIL with some case quotes is . . .NOT A LEGAL MOTION LARRY, DUH!!!!


      An informal E-MAIL with some case quotes is . . . NOT A MEMORANDUM OF LAW LARRY, DUH!!!!


      Why YOU are trying to make a . . . MOUNTAIN OUT OF A MOLE HILL . . . regarding an OLD E-MAIL THAT I ALREADY RE-TRACTED and sent out an apology to all my e-mail list's several years ago????


      Furthermore, that old e-mail article which I called . . . THE OLD UNION v. THE NEW UNION . . . was and is for the most part . . . FACTUALLY CORRECT . . . and showed everyone that there is a difference between States in original jurisdiction under the 1st original dejure Constitutions as opposed to the NEW UNION of federal municipal corporations that suspended, archived and replaced the old Constitutions with NEW CONSTITUTIONS for . . . THE NEW UNION.


      ALL THE WASHINGTON CASE CITES AND RCW'S ARE CORRECT AND THEREFORE 98% OF THAT ARTICLE IS CORRECT AND A COUPLE OF INCORRECT CASE CITES DOES NOT HURT THE ARTICLE IN THE LEAST BIT ANYWAYS, SO I SAY WHOOPY DOO DOO LARRY "THE LIAR" BECRAFT!!!!


      * * *


      YOUR LAME AND DESPERATE AND PETTY ATTACKS ON ME ARE NOT ONLY COMPLETELY UN-FOUNDED AND . . . HAVE NO MERIT . . . THEY ARE FALSE!!!!


      SINCE YOU ARE A . . . JEWISH ATTORNEY . . . THE FOLLOWING SCRIPTURE CLEARLY APPLIES TO YOU:


      "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do: he hath been a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, then speaketh of he of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof." John 8:44

      "And he said, Woe be to you also, ye Lawyers: for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burden with one of your fingers." Luke 11:46

      "To wit, for the false brethren which were craftily sent in, and crept in prively to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage." Galatians 2:4

      "Let him that stole, steal no more: but let him rather labor, and work with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give unto him that needeth." Ephesians 5:28

      "Woe be to you, Lawyers: for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that came in, ye forbade." Luke 11:52

      "Thou shalt not 1receive a false tale, neither shalt thou put thine hand with the wicked, to be a false witness." Exodus 23:1

      "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil, neither 1agree in a controversy 2to decline after many and overthrow the truth." Exodus 23:2

      "Thou shalt keep thee far from a false matter, thou shall not slay the innocent and the righteous: for I will not justify a wicked man." Exodus 23:7



      * * *


      It just shows everyone that YOU LARRY BECRAFT are DESPERATELY looking for something to attack me with, however, the point is moot because as I already said, I already admitted my mistake and retracted my improper use of someone else's case quotations, but I still say WHOOPY DOO, THIS IS NO BIG DEAL, LARRY.


      YOU ARE PATHETIC LARRY BECRAFT!!!!


      Further, I remember that YOU LARRY BECRAFT sent me an e-mail about 6 months to 1 year ago asking me about those citations and I already told you in a reply e-mail that those were mistakes or misquotes came from Richard McDonald and NOT me and that I NO longer trust anyone's case quotations until I pull the case and read the case for myself, however, it seems kind of silly that you are making such a big deal out of nothing, especially when you consider the fact that what I wrote was just an informal informational E-MAIL and NOT something that I ever used in any court case.


      WHAT IS YOUR ULTERIOR MOTIVE FOR SPREADING FALSE STORIES ABOUT ME MISSTATING CASE QUOTATIONS IN AN OLD INFORMAL E-MAIL THAT I WROTE 5 TO 7 YEARS AGO????


      Since YOU . . . LARRY "THE LIAR" BECRAFT . . . are now accusing me of doing the very thing that YOU are in fact doing, i.e., promoting or submitting . . . FRIVOLOUS ARGUMENTS IN COURT . . . YOU LARRY "THE LIAR" BECRAFT . . . clearly fit within the definition of a . . . DISINFORMATION SPECIALIST!!!!


      Now that I take a close look at your modus operandi, I also see that you fit clearly within the . . . 12 PARAGRAPHS AS DISCUSSED IN THE HEBREW SCHOOL of which exerpts were reprinted in the Vienna newspaper "Der Telegraf" of November 1st, 1920, and were taken from the book Duetscher Geist oder Judentum (German Spirit of Jewry!), The way to liberation as depicted by Arthur Trebitsch, Published by Antaios Verlag, Berlin, Vienna, Liepzig. The venomous program of Jew Trebitsch is further proof that organized Jewry follows those Machiavellian principles for the enslavement of the peoples of this planet and the destruction of all higher humanity, culture, and civilization which are outlined in the . . ."Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion."


      It is now obvious to me that you are a . . . JEWISH DISINFORMATION SPECIALIST!!!!


      HOW IS YOUR FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINT ABOUT ME RELEVANT WHEN THE FACT IS THAT I HAVE NEVER USED THAT CASE QUOTATION IN ANY COURT CASE????


      I HAVE NEVER BEEN ADMONISHED, CHASTIZED OR SANCTIONED BY ANY COURT FOR SUBMITTING . . . FRIVOLOUS ARGUMENTS LIKE YOU HAVE LARRY BE NOT SO CRAFTY!!!!


      BUT HERE YOU ARE CAUGHT LIKE A FOOL WITH YOUR PANTS DOWN ON THE GROUND BEING ADMONISHED, CHASTIZED AND SANCTIONED BY A COURT FOR SUBMITTING FRIVOLOUS ARGUMENTS LIKE THE QUATLOSER AND APRIL FOOL OF ALL MONTHS THAT YOU ARE ON . . . QUATLOOS:


      <http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/protcase/becraft.htm>


      <http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/cm-taxpr.htm>



      BUT THAT IS NOT THE FIRST TIME LARRY BE NOT SO CRAFTY HAS BEEN ADMONISHED AND CHASTIZED BY A COURT FOR BRINGING FORWARD A FRIVOLOUS ARGUMENT!!!


      See more of . . . LARRY "THE LIAR" BECRAFT'S . . . LOSSES . . . and . . . FRIVOLOUS ARGUMENTS HERE IF YOU WANT A GOOD LAUGH, HA, HA, HA:


      United States v. Ward, 833 F.2d 1538, 1539 (11th Cir.1987), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 1576, 99 L.Ed.2d 891 (1988), a case in which Becraft served as the defendant's appellate counsel, where the Eleventh Circuit summarily rejected the identical argument


      Unfortunately, Becraft's record of advancing wholly meritless claims does not end with Ward.


      See also United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1036, 107 S.Ct. 888, 93 L.Ed.2d 840 (1987).


      See also United States v. Sitka, 845 F.2d 43 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 77, 102 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988), appeals in which . . . LARRY "THE LIAR" BECRAFT . . . served as co-counsel and counsel respectively, addressed the claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified and that therefore the federal courts lack jurisdiction to entertain tax evasion prosecutions.


      Needless to say, both courts soundly rejected this contention. See Sitka, 845 F.2d 44- 47; Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438-1441.

      See also In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1989), where . . . QUATLOSER LARRY BECRAFT . . . argued the patently frivolous argument that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned tax on citizens residing in the United States.


      LARRY "THE LIAR" BECRAFT'S" . . . record in the federal courts thus exhibits an alarming willingness to utilize appellate court resources to adjudicate claims that a competent attorney should realize have no reasonable possibility of success.


      JEWISH DISINFORMATION SPECIALIST LARRY BECRAFT HAS FIVE (5) CASES AND FIVE (5) LOSSES MAKING FRIVOLOUS ARGUMENTS!!!!


      IS THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK OR WHAT, HA, HA, HA????


      QUATLOSER LARRY BECRAFT . . . IS JUST ANOTHER . . . APRIL FOOL . . . CAUGHT WITH HIS PANTS ON THE GROUND . . . PANTS ON THE GROUND . . . LARRY BECRAFT IS JUST AN APRIL FOOL WITH HIS PANTS ON THE GROUND, PANTS ON THE GROUND, PANTS ON THE GROUND, HA, HA, HA!!!!


      It is only going to appear obvious to everyone that you . . LARRY "THE LIAR" BECRAFT . . . are just trying to make a name off of my coat tails, a distinction you have not earned or deserved especially considering YOU LARRY "THE LIAR" BECRAFT have NO CREDIBILITY AS A COMPETENT ATTORNEY BECAUSE EVERYONE KNOWS THAT YOU LOSE THE MAJORITY OF ALL YOUR TAX CASES AND HAVE NO WINS OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE UNDER YOUR BELT THAT CAN TOUCH MY WIN RATE WITH A TEN FOOT POLE!


      Since I already sent out an e-mail to all my list's admitting my mistake to trust other peoples case quotations and telling everyone sorry for the mistake, YOU LARRY BE NOT SO CRAFTY are just making YOURSELF LOOK LIKE AN APRIL FOOL WITH YOUR PANTS ON THE GROUND, PANTS ON THE GROUND.


      Further, if YOU LARRY "THE LIAR" BECRAFT want to make YOURSELF look like a HYPOCRITE when everyone knows you have complimented me in the past, go ahead and talk about me, I like all advertising good or bad, because even bad advertising is good advertising, because bad advertising is better than no advertising, and further once everyone reads your version and then read my version, they can all see with their own eyes that YOU LARRY "THE LIAR" BECRAFT ARE THE REAL APRIL FOOL OF THE MONTH WHO HAS NOW BEEN CAUGHT LIKE A FOOL WITH HIS PANTS ON THE GROUND, PANTS ON THE GROUND, YOU LARRY "THE LIAR" BECRAFT ARE JUST AN APRIL QUATLOSERS FOOL WITH YOUR PANTS ON THE GROUND, HA, HA, HA!!!!



      HERE ARE A PIECE OR 2 FROM THE E-MAILS WHERE THE HYPOCRITE LARRY BECRAFT COMPLIMENTED LUIS EWING:



      From Larry Becraft at <becraft@...>

      Subject: PERSONAL TITLE IN CAPITALS IS BULLSHIT
      Folks,
      Luis Ewing states the plain and obvious regarding a "popular" issue among "the flakes": the names in CAPS issue is insanity. Please circulate this e-mail to those you know who have been deceived by the likes of Dave DeReimer, who has promoted this issue more than most. One of the biggest problems of this movement is the fraud promoted by people like DeReimer.
      Larry Becraft
      _________________________________

      From: "Larry Becraft" at <becraft@...>

      Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 10:12 PM
      Subject: Names in CAPS and "copyright it"
      That argument about "names in CAPS" has been promoted here in the US for better than 10 years and I explain the basis for that flaky argument and some of its flaws here:
      http://home.hiwaay.net/%7Ebecraft/NamesInCaps.htm

      Just today, another party sent me a news article about some individual who is presently raising this issue in court and getting into lots of trouble; that article is posted here:

      http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041107/REPOSITORY /411070339/1031

      Larry Becraft
      ___________________________________________________

      From : Larry Becraft <becraft@...>
      Sent : Thursday, November 11, 2004 8:17 AM
      To : Luis Ewing <rcwcodebuster@...> or <rcwcodebuster@...>
      CC : jhwilson@..., integritybc@yahoogroups.com, theunlicencedman@..., owlmonone@...

      Subject : Re: proof of all capital corporations and your ability to deny such existence

      The problem is the extraordinary number of con-men here in America willing to sell to the gullible any sort of garbage legal argument. They even sell pieces of paper at 10 bux each. The fellow who authored "Cracking the Code" (not Pete) about the UCC (JHD Ass) is one of them.

      Larry


      _____________________________________


      QUATLOSER LARRY BECRAFT, YOU are just going to look like you really are . . . DESPERATE FOR CLIENTS!


      QUATLOSER LARRY BE NOT SO CRAFTY, it's obvious to everyone that YOU are just jealous that YOU LARRY "THE LIAR" BECRAFT CAN'T TOUCH MY WIN RATE WITH A TEN FOOT POLE!!!!


      Further, I am NOT going to do YOUR HOMEWORK for YOU, if your law skool teachers FAILED or NEGLECTED to show YOU how to even find or do research about ACTS OF CONGRESS, I am NOT going to post them for YOU.


      YOU get off of YOUR LAZY BUTT and YOU go look up THE ACT OF THE 34TH CONGRESS in 1856 AND READ THAT BOOK WHERE IT IS CONTAINED YOURSELF, otherwise, if YOU are TOO LAZY, go ahead and make PUBLIC YOUR FALSE CLAIMS that this ACT DOES NOT EXIST and YOU will be showing everyone else that YOU are in fact a FOOL WITH YOUR PANTS ON THE GROUND, because the 34th CONGRESS did in fact ABOLISH ALL JUDICIAL DISTRICTS IN 1856.


      "Let him that stole, steal no more: but let him rather labor, and work with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give unto him that needeth." Ephesians 5:28

      "And he said, Woe be to you also, ye Lawyers: for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burden with one of your fingers." Luke 11:46


      I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR ANY BS OR BOO HOOING ABOUT HOW YOUR LITTLE WOOSY FINGERS ARE SO TIRED AND YOUR WOMANLY WRIST'S ARE SO SORE FROM WORKING ON YOUR COMPUTER KEYBOARD SCANNING AND MAKING AVAILABLE ACTS OF CONGRESS, YOU PUSS!!!!


      "And he said, Woe be to you also, ye Lawyers: for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burden with one of your fingers." Luke 11:46

      "To wit, for the false brethren which were craftily sent in, and crept in prively to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage." Galatians 2:4

      "Let him that stole, steal no more: but let him rather labor, and work with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give unto him that needeth." Ephesians 5:28

      "Woe be to you, Lawyers: for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that came in, ye forbade." Luke 11:52


      ANY WOMAN WITH COMPUTER SKILLS COULD DO WHAT YOU DID!!!!


      I AM TALKING ABOUT A REAL JOB, A MANS JOB YOU WOOS!!!!


      "And he said, Woe be to you also, ye Lawyers: for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burden with one of your fingers." Luke 11:46

      "To wit, for the false brethren which were craftily sent in, and crept in prively to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage." Galatians 2:4

      "Let him that stole, steal no more: but let him rather labor, and work with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give unto him that needeth." Ephesians 5:28

      "Woe be to you, Lawyers: for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that came in, ye forbade." Luke 11:52



      HAVE YOU EVER PUT IN A REAL DAYS HARD WORK IN A REAL MAN'S JOB????



      "And he said, Woe be to you also, ye Lawyers: for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burden with one of your fingers." Luke 11:46

      "To wit, for the false brethren which were craftily sent in, and crept in prively to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage." Galatians 2:4

      "Let him that stole, steal no more: but let him rather labor, and work with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give unto him that needeth." Ephesians 5:28

      "Woe be to you, Lawyers: for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that came in, ye forbade." Luke 11:52



      I WAS A BERING SEA CRAB FISHERMAN FOR THIRTEEN (13) YEARS!!!!


      I AM ALSO A FORMER LOGGER!


      I AM ALSO A JOURNEY MAN ROOFER!


      A LITTLE SHIT TALKING PUNK ATTORNEY LIKE LARRY BECRAFT WHO HAS NEVER PUT IN AN HONEST HARD DAYS WORK IN ANY REAL MAN'S JOB LIKE YOU LARRY BECRAFT WOULD NOT EVEN LAST 1 DAY ON ANY CRAB BOAT IN ALASKA!!!


      For further proof of all Judicial Districts being abolished, just look up U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1873 United States Statutes at Large, 34th Congress, 1st Session Chapter 124 Section 5 which clearly shows that the "JUDICIAL DISTRICTS" WERE ABOLISHED . . . in . . . 1856!!!


      Here is a PUBLISHED CASE OPINION FROM THE 1ST WASHINGTON TERRITORIAL SUPREME COURT CASE that shows the proper citation to THE ACT OF THE 34TH CONGRESS THAT YOU SAY THAT YOU CANNOT FIND that will lead you to similar decisions at that time period in other States:

      "The act of Congress Aug. 16, 1856, regulating Courts in this Territory, and requiring the Judges of the Supreme Court to assign places for holding Courts, took effect when the order was made, pursuant to the act. The Judicial District of King county having been abolished, by the order of the judges, Nov. 10, 1856, under said act, the clerk of that Court, from that date, lost his legal existence–hence his subsequent official acts were nullities. "A majority of the Judges met in Olympia, then the Capital of the Territory, on the 10th day of November, 1856, and made the necessary order to give effect to the act of Congress. It has been held by this court, in the case of the Territory vs. Leschi, that this act took effect from the time the orders were made by the Judges of the Supreme Court. It is claimed however, that the act of Congress contemplated something more than an informal meeting of the Judges. It will be observed on an examination of the act , that no terms are used indicating orders in term time –the reference is to the orders of the Judges, or a majority of them, and not of the Court. The organic act confers upon the Judges the appointment of clerks for the District Courts. King county, up to the passage of the act of Congress referred to, was a Judicial District. On the said order of the Judges made the 10th day of November, 1856, the District Court for King County was merged into the District Court for the Second Judicial District. The clerk of the King county District Court, for ministerial or judicial purposes, ceased to exist; and as this suit was instituted subsequently to the order made by the Judges, and the bond on which the recovery is claimed, was executed on the 13th day of December, 1856, it follows that there was no District Court for King county –- no clerk having a legal official existence, and the whole proceeding a nullity. MARY ANN BOYER vs. MILES FOWLER et al. [1 Wash.T Sup. Ct. Dec. 1860]


      I already PUBLISH and DISTRIBUTE 3 E-MAILS that EXPOSES and NAMES NAMES of ALL THE SCAMMERS, PATRIDIOTS, PAYTRIOTS FOR PROFIT, JEWISH DISINFORMATION SPECIALIST'S, UNDERCOVER GOVERNMENT AGENTS, etc., and here are the titles:


      1.) BEWARE FALSE PROPHETS LIKE LARRY BECRAFT AND TOMMY CRYER OF TRUTH ATTACK AND OPERATION STOP THIEF! -- Mathew 7:15 & 1 Timothy 1:7


      2.) ARE ALL TAX HONESTY LEADERS LIKE LARRY BECRAFT AND TOMMY CRYER REALLY UNDERCOVER IRS & DOJ AGENTS SETTING YOU UP FOR A BUST OR STING OPERATION 4 TO 5 TO 6 YEARS LATER!


      3.) HOW THE RACIST JEWS LIKE LARRY BECRAFT SILENCE & DISCREDIT THEIR ENEMIES!!!! -- See Revelations 2:9, Revelations 3:9, Revelations 20:4 and John 8:44


      4.) ALL STATE CONSTITUTIONS ARE SUSPENDED AND ARCHIVED!!!!


      * * *

      DOES ANYONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND REALLY BELIEVE THAT QUATLOSER LARRRY BECRAFT IS REALLY JUST AN EX-IRS AGENT????????????????


      "To wit, for the false brethren which were craftily sent in, and crept in prively to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage." Galatians 2:4


      I BET LARRY BECRAFT STILL WORKS FOR THE IRS!!!!


      "To wit, for the false brethren which were craftily sent in, and crept in prively to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage." Galatians 2:4


      SERIOUSLY LOOK AT ALL THE LOSSES THAT LARRY BECRAFT HAS!!!!


      "To wit, for the false brethren which were craftily sent in, and crept in prively to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage." Galatians 2:4


      THERE IS NO WAY ANY OF YOU OUT THERE CAN CONVINCE ME THAT LARRY BECRAFT IS NOT STILL AN IRS AGENT!!!!


      "To wit, for the false brethren which were craftily sent in, and crept in prively to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage." Galatians 2:4


      THAT'S MY OPINION AND YOU CAN TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT!!!!



      * * *



      IT REALLY NOW SEEMS THAT LARRY BECRAFT IS TRYING TO COPY ME BY PUTTING DOWN OTHER SCAMMERS AND PATRIDIOTS AND PAYTRIOTS FOR PROFIT LIKE HIMSELF WHOSE NAME IS FEATURED ON QUATLOOS,


      BUT JEWISH DISINFORMATION SPECIALIST LARRY BECRAFT TRYING TO ADD MY NAME TO THE LIST IS 100% COMPLETELY UNFOUNDED, BECAUSE JEWISH DISINFORMATION SPECIALIST LARRY BECRAFT KNOWINGLY MISSTATED THE FACTS BECAUSE HE ALREADY KNEW THAT I ALREADY SENT OUT AN E-MAIL TO ALL MY LIST'S APOLOGIZING FOR USING MISQUOTES OF CASE LAW IN AN INFORMAL E-MAIL.


      FURTHER, SINCE I HAVE NEVER USED ANY MISQUOTES IN ANY LEGAL MOTION OR LEGAL PLEADING IN ANY COURT CASE, IT SEEMS LIKE PETTY HARASSMENT FOR JEWISH DISINFORMATION SPECIALIST LARRY BECRAFT TO TRY TO FALSELY MAKE IT LOOK LIKE I USE MISQUOTES IN COURT CASES WHEN I DO NOT!

      LET'S ALL CALL JEWISH DISINFORMATION SPECIALIST LARRY BECRAFT ON THIS BULLSHIT RIGHT HERE:


      COME ON LARRY BECRAFT, NAME ONE (1) COURT CAUSE NUMBER ________________________ OF ANY CASE WHERE I HAVE EVER SUBMITTED ANY FRIVOLOUS ARGUMENTS IN ANY COURT????


      GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT LARRY BE NOT SO CRAFTY!!!!


      GET YOUR LIES STRAIGHT LARRY BECRAFT!!!!


      I SEEM TO REMEMBER READING SOME CASE QUOTATIONS WHERE YOU LARRY BECRAFT WERE ISSUED SANCTIONS FOR BRINGING A FRIVOLOUS ARGUMENT IN SOME COURT CASE, IS THAT TRUE LARRY BECRAFT????


      <http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/protcase/becraft.htm>


      <http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/cm-taxpr.htm>


      Oh, here is it is, here is 1 case I just found where . . . YOU . . . LARRY BECRAFT . . . were actually admonished and chastized by 1 court for submitting . . . A FRIVOLOUS ARGUMENT . . . on . . . QUATLOOSERS . . . where your name clearly belongs here:



      <http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/protcase/becraft.htm>


      <http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/cm-taxpr.htm>


      IS THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK OR WHAT LARRY BECRAFT?????


      YOU . . . LARRY BECRAFT . . . ARE THE EPITOMY OF A . . . QUATLOSER APRIL FOOL OF THE MONTH FOR ALL MONTHS POSTER CHILD !!!!


      <http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/protcase/becraft.htm>


      <http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/cm-taxpr.htm>


      NO COURT HAS EVER ASKED FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST ME!!!!


      BECAUSE I DON'T SUBMIT . . . FRIVOLOUS ARGUMENTS . .. LIKE . . . QUATLOSER LARRY BECRAFT A JEWISH DISINFORMATION SPECIALIST!!!!


      <http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/protcase/becraft.htm>


      <http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/cm-taxpr.htm>



      IT SEEMS THAT LARRY "THE LIAR" BECRAFT BY CHALLENGING ME, IS JUST TRYING TO GET ME TO PROVIDE HIM FREE LEGAL ADVICE AND ANSWERS TO MAKE HIS PREVIOUS LOSING ARGUMENTS WORK!!!!


      NICE TRY LARRY, BUT YOU WILL HAVE TO GET IN LINE AND PAY FOR MY LEGAL ADVICE LIKE EVERYONE ELSE!!!!


      SORRY, BUT I AM NOT GOING TO PROVIDE YOU WITH ANY OF MORE OF MY RESEARCH SO THAT YOU CAN GO RUNNING OFF TO COURT SO THAT YOU CAN SAY YOU DID IT FIRST OR LOSE IT ON PURPOSE TO GET MORE BAD CASE LAW PUT ON THE BOOKS RES JUDICATA SO THAT THE NEXT GUY CAN'T BRING IT FORWARD, BECAUSE YOU SCREWED IT UP ALREADY LIKE LARKEN ROSE DID WITH THE 861 ARGUMENT.


      WERE YOU BORN STUPID LARRY BECRAFT OR DID YOUR MOTHER DROP YOU ON YOUR HEAD WHEN YOU WERE A BABY????


      Further, I do NOT advocate or use any of the bogus illegal patriot theories that any of these named scammers use or the scammers that you named use.


      Further, I have NEVER once used any of the case cite quotations that you pulled from my really old e-mail entitled THE OLD UNION v. THE NEW UNION in any court case, it was just an informal informational e-mail.


      Go ahead and make a . . . QUATLOSER FOOL OF YOURSELF . . . and spread false stories that I have used RICHARD MCDONALDS MISQUOTES when in fact I have NEVER used any of them in any court case and YOU will be THE APRIL FOOL OF THE MONTH.


      But if you want to play I AM GAME, just don't CRY like a LITTLE BITCH when I completely make A FOOL OF YOU!


      Maybe I should look up HOW MANY CASES YOU HAVE LOST and maybe YOU could help me come up with a name for this potential new e-mail that I would send out in defense of myself:


      For example:

      "TWENTY (20) REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD NOT HIRE LARRY BECRAFT FOR ANY TAX CASE"?????


      OR IS THAT TOO LOW OF AN ESTIMATE??????????????


      Should it really be:


      "FIFTY (50) REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD NOT HIRE LARRY BECRAFT FOR ANY TAX CASE??????????????????????????
      ??????????????????


      OR HAVE YOU LOST MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED (100) IRS CASES LARRY??????????????????????????


      HOW MANY IRS CASES HAVE YOU LOST LARRY BECRAFT????????????????????


      HOW MANY IRS CASES HAVE YOU WON LARRY BECRAFT??????????????????????????????


      OH, YEAH, YOU WON A CASE . . . "SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS AGO."


      WHOOPY DOO!!!!


      SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS IS A LOOOOOOONG TIME!!!!


      TO QUOTE AND PARA-PHRASE JANET JACKSON:


      "WHAT HAVE YOU DONE FOR US LATELY"????????????????????


      OH YEAH, YOU HAVE LOST AND LOST AND LOST AGAIN AND AGAIN MORE RECENTLY HERE:


      USA v. Clarkson, et al and VERNON RUBEL in the U.S. District Court Western District of North Carolina (Statesville) CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:94-cr-00010-RDP-3. – Date Filed: 04/07/1994 – Date Terminated: 11/30/1994


      USA v. Clarkson, et al and HERBERT DANIEL FLESCHNER in the U.S. District Court Western District of North Carolina (Statesville) CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:94-cr-00010-RDP-2 – Date Filed: 04/07/1994 – Date Terminated: 11/30/1994


      United States v. Barbara Roberts in the U.S. District Court Northern District of Mississippi (Eastern Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:97-mc-00024-NBB – Date Filed: 09/10/1997 – Date Terminated: 07/06/2000 – WHAT A JOKE THIS CASE IS! – THE COURT ORDERED BARBARA ROBERTS TO PRODUCE RECORDS AND THE CASE DOCKET SHOWS THAT BARBARA ROBERTS SIMPLY COMPLIED AND PRODUCED THE RECORDS AND THE ORDER dismissing case by reason of Roberts compliance with IRS Summons (signed by Chief Judge Neal B. Biggers on 7/2/00) Date of Entry: 7/6/00 (jlj).


      I HAVE PREVENTED CLIENTS FROM GOING TO JAIL FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR REFUSING TO PRODUCE BOOKS AND RECORDS IN BOTH CHILD SUPPORT AND IRS CASES!


      I HAVE ALSO GOTTEN CLIENTS OUT OF JAIL FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR REFUSING TO PRODUCE BOOKS AND RECORDS IN BOTH STATE SUPERIOR COURTS AND FEDERAL COURTS!!!!


      I NEVER JUST SIMPLY WALKED MY CLIENTS DOWN THE PLANK AND TOLD THEM TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS AND RECORDS LIKE LARRY BECRAFT DOES!!!!


      SORRY LARRY BECRAFT, YOU CANNOT HAVE THOSE CASE NUMBERS!!!!


      YOU WILL HAVE TO GET IN LINE AND PAY ME A CONSULTING FEE IN ADVANCE LIKE EVERYONE ELSE!!!!


      YOU SEE, I CAN'T GET TO THE COURT OF APPEALS AND GET A CASE WITH MY NAME ATTACHED, BECAUSE I DON'T . . . QUAT LOSE . . . IN THE FIRST PLACE LIKE . . . QUATLOSER LARRY BECRAFT DOES!!!!


      I AM WINNING MOST OF MY CASES AT THE PRE-TRIAL LEVEL AND MOST OF THEM ARE . . . "DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE."


      FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO SEE MY HUGE LAUNDRY LIST OF TESTIMONIALS WITH NUMEROUS WINS AND NUMEROUS COURT CASE NUMBERS, SEND ME AN E-MAIL ASKING FOR MY LIST OF TESTIMONIALS!!!!


      LET'S SEE NOW LARRY BECRAFT, YOU HAVE BEEN IN THE SO CALLED TAX HONESTY MOVEMENT FOR TWENTY (20) PLUS YEARS AND HOW MANY CASES _______________ HAVE YOU WON????



      * * *


      PLEA BARGAINS DON'T COUNT AS A WIN LARRY, DUH, PLEADING GUILTY IS NOT A BARGAIN AND NOR IS PLEADING GUILTY A WIN . . . LARRY "THE LIAR" BECRAFT!!!!!


      * * *


      I WANT TO SEE YOU WRITE NUMBERS FOR WINS AND LOSSES OF IRS TAX CASES THAT WERE "DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE" AT THE PRE-TRIAL LEVEL THAT CAN TOUCH MY WIN RATE WITH A TEN FOOT POLE HERE LARRY BECRAFT:


      1.) ________________ NUMBER OF IRS CASES WON PRE-TRIAL WITH LARRY BECRAFT????


      2.) ________________ NUMBER OF IRS CASES WON AT TRIAL WITH LARRY BECRAFT?????


      3.) ________________ NUMBER OF IRS CASES WON ON APPEAL WITH LARRY BECRAFT????


      4.) ________________ NUMBER OF IRS CASES LARRY BECRAFT PLED GUILTY IN A PLEA BARGAIN?????


      5.) _________________ NUMBER OF IRS CASES LOST?????????????????????


      6.) WE ALL KNOW THAT YOU ARE TOO CHICKEN TO PROVIDE US WITH ANSWERS TO THE PREVIOUS FIVE (5) QUESTIONS!!!!



      HONESTLY LARRY BECRAFT, HOW MANY ____________ IRS CASES HAVE YOU LOST?????????????


      DO YOU REALLY WANT ME TO SPEND ANY TIME DIGGING UP YOUR . . . "LAUNDRY LIST" . . . OF . . . YOUR . . . NUMEROUS LOSSES????????????????


      IT APPEARS THAT TOMMY CRYER . . . IS ALSO POSTED ON . . . QUATLOOS:


      <http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=96>



      QUESTION: WHAT IS IT THAT THEY SAY ABOUT . . . QUATLOSERS . . . LIKE YOU . . . LARRY BECRAFT . . . AND . . . TOMMY CRYER????


      ANSWER: BIRDS OF A FEATHER FLOCK TOGETHER!!!!


      THE FACTS ARE THAT YOU, TOMMY CRYER AND JEFFREY DICKSTEIN ALL TOGETHER CANNOT TOUCH MY WIN RATE OVER TOP 100 RATED IN THE U.S. ATTORNEYS AND TOP 100 RATED IN THE U.S. LAW FIRMS WIN RATE WITH A TEN FOOT POLE.


      MY PRE-TRIAL WIN IN 2004 FOR KURT RIGGIN'S MULTIPLE FELONY COUNT PROSECUTION FOR MANUFACTURING OVER 166 POT PLANTS WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE IN THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE No. 02-1-01835-6 PRE-TRIAL and was . . . "DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE" . . . and this court case has been been . . .ORDERED . . . TO BE . . .."UNPUBLISHED" . . . AND . . . "SEALED" . . . COMPLETELY SLAM DUNKS ALL OF YOUR PUNKS WINS WHICH ARE REALLY MINOR CASES THAT WERE EASILY WON.

      My legal partner Kurt Riggin won his Multiple Felony Count Prosecution for Manufacturing 166 Marijuana Plants that were all over Six Feet Tall of the best . . . PURPLE BUD . . . you ever smoked in your life in the Snohomish County Superior Court Cause No. 02-1-01835-6 PRE-TRIAL.

      That was a case that well known . . . SEATTLE ATTORNEY JEFFREY STEINBORN . . . the lead attorney for . . .NORML . . . and allegedly . . . THE BEST DRUG ATTORNEY . . . in the State of Washington . . . and Jeffrey Steinborn said that could not beat this case without Kurt Riggin doing some jail time and he would have to agree to work with the cops as an . . . INFORMANT . . . A NARC . . . A SNITCH . . . TO RAT OUT OTHER DRUG DEALERS . . . in cooperation with . . . LAW ENFORCEMENT . . . if he had any hopes of getting out of jail early as part of probation agreement!!!!

      But bottom line is that . . . JEFFREY STEINBORN SAID HE COULD NOT BEAT THIS CASE!!!!

      What does that mean?

      IT MEANS THAT LUIS EWING AND KURT RIGGIN ARE THE BEST DRUG ATTORNEYS IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON!

      This Snohomish County Superior Court case has been . . . SEALED!!!!

      Why is that you ask????

      Answer: Because this case set the threshold at a "minimum" of 166 POT PLANTS TO BE A VALID 60 DAY SUPPLY . . . and we left open the question that there may be other patients who have a much greater need to have even more plants depending on how much the individual user could smoke!!!!!

      This is the main reason why the legislature has been making such a big stink about trying to pass RCW statutes setting the 60 day supply to the ridiculously low quantity of plants to 15 or 20 plants, etc.

      IF YOU GET CAUGHT GROWING MORE POT PLANTS THAN THE STATUTORY LIMIT, WE CAN BEAT YOUR MANUFACTURING WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE CASE EVEN IF YOU HAVE SEVERAL HUNDRED OR THOUSANDS OF PLANTS!!!!


      THE RCW MANUFACTURING WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE STATUTE DOES NOT HAVE ANY LANGUAGE PROHIBITING . . . MANUFACTURING OR GROWING WITH INTENT TO SMOKE IT YOURSELF, . . . IT CLEARLY ONLY . . . PROHIBITS MANUFACTURING . . . WITH INTENT . . . TO . . . "DELIVER."


      So go ahead and write something about me Larry Becraft if YOU have the BALLS.


      LARRY BECRAFT, JUST ADMIT THE TRUTH TO EVERYONE THAT YOU AND TOMMY CRYER OF TRUTH ATTACK AND STOP THIEF DON'T EVEN HAVE . . . THE BALLS . . . or . . . THE ORBS . . . TO EITHER STOP FILING AN ESTIMATED INCOME IN LIEU OF WITHHOLDING . . . AND/OR . . . ADMIT THAT YOU DON'T HAVE THE BALLS TO STOP WITHHOLDING ON EVEN YOUR OWN PAYCHECKS FROM YOUR OWN PRIVATE LAW FIRM OR LLC DO YOU?????


      TRUTH ATTACK IS A JOKE!!!!


      OPERATION STOP THIEF IS A JOKE!!!!


      WHY DON'T YOU SHOW US ALL LARRY "THE LIAR" BECRAFT, ANSWER THE QUESTION AND TELL ALL OF US THE REAL REASON, I.E, WHY DON'T YOU HAVE THE BALLS OR THE ORBS TO STOP WITHHOLDING ON YOUR PAYCHECKS FROM YOUR OWN PRIVATE LAW FIRM OR LLC????????????????


      LET'S SEE YOU BEAT YOUR OWN STOP WITHHOLDING CASE FIRST IF YOU CAN?????


      NOBODY WANTS TO BE . . . LARRY BECRAFT . . . OR . . . TOMMY CRYER'S . . . GUINEA PIG!!!!


      LET'S SEE YOU . . . LARRY BECRAFT . . . OR . . . TOMMY CRYER BEAT YOUR OWN STOP WITHHOLDING CASES FIRST!!!!


      I KNOW THAT YOU LARRY BECRAFT AND TOMMY CRYER WON'T EVEN TRY TO BEAT YOUR OWN STOP WITHHOLDING CASES BECAUSE BOTH OF YOU ARE TOO CHICKEN TO STOP YOUR OWN WITHHOLDING ON YOUR OWN PAYCHECKS!!!!


      NEITHER OF YOU 2 QUATLOSERS HAVE . . .A PAIR!!!!


      WRITE WHATEVER YOU WANT TO ABOUT ME LARRY BECRAFT, IT WON'T HELP BRING YOU ANY BUSINESS, IT WILL JUST DRIVE MORE BUSINESS TO ME ESPECIALLY ONCE EVERYONE FINDS OUT THE TRUTH THAT YOU LOSE MOST OF YOUR CASES AND THAT I WIN MOST OF MY CASES!!!!


      Just be aware . . . "PAYBACK IS A BITCH."


      ONCE EVERYBODY FINDS OUT THAT YOU LARRY BECRAFT ARE AFRAID TO STOP YOUR OWN WITHHOLDING ON YOUR OWN PAYCHECKS FROM YOUR OWN LAW FIRM OR LLC, NOBODY IN THE PATRIOT COMMUNITY OR TAX HONESTY MOVEMENT WILL EVER LISTEN TO YOU . . . LARRY BECRAFT . . . OR . . . TOMMY CRYER . . . EVER AGAIN!!!!


      I AM GOING TO START LOOKING UP HOW MANY CASES YOU HAVE REALLY LOST INCLUDING ALL PLEA BARGAINS OF PLEADING GUILTY WHICH CLEARLY ARE LOSSES ALSO!!!!


      BETTER START LOOKING FOR A REAL JOB PUNK!!!!



      Sincerely

      Luis Ewing


      PS – HERE IS THE POT LARRY BECRAFT CALLING LUIS EWING THE KETTLE BLACK HERE ON QUATLOOSERS WHERE LARRY BECRAFT'S NAME CLEARLY BELONGS HA, HA, HA:


      <http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/protcase/becraft.htm>


      Quatloos! > Tax Scams > Tax Protestors > EXHIBIT: Tax Protestor Dummies > Cases

      Tax Protestor Cases Exhibit
      ("Damn, We Lost Again! And why is it that people who sell
      tax protestor materials file their tax returns anyway . . .")

      885 F.2d 547

      In re Lowell H. BECRAFT, Jr.
      UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff/Appellee,
      v.
      Kenneth W. NELSON, Defendant/Appellant.
      No. 88-1113.
      United States Court of Appeals,
      Ninth Circuit.
      Sept. 6, 1989.

      Before FERGUSON, NORRIS and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges.

      ORDER
      In February 1988, Kenneth Nelson was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on three counts of failure to file income tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. s 7203. Nelson, represented by counsel Lowell H. Becraft, Jr., then appealed to this court claiming, inter alia, that the district court erred in refusing to give his proposed jury instruction that a United States citizen residing in the United States is not subject to the federal income tax laws.

      By memorandum disposition dated March 22, 1989, this court affirmed Nelson's conviction, noting that Becraft's argument regarding the inapplicability of the federal tax laws to resident United States citizens had no basis in law. Becraft thereafter filed a petition for rehearing and/or suggestion for rehearing en banc [hereafter "petition for rehearing"]. In the petition for rehearing, Becraft once again argued that the federal tax laws are inapplicable to resident United States citizens.

      Upon receipt of the petition for rehearing, we, sua sponte, issued a show cause order requesting Becraft to explain why damages in the sum of $2500 should not be assessed against him for filing a frivolous petition for rehearing. See Appendix A. We have now reviewed Becraft's several-hundred- page reply to our show cause order [hereinafter "reply"] and have reached the conclusion that Becraft's conduct warrants sanctions. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 provides this court with the authority to impose sanctions to deter frivolous appeals and to conserve limited federal judicial resources. [FN1] See, e.g., Grimes v. Commissioner, 806 F.2d 1451, 1454 (9th Cir.1986) (per curiam); Trohimovich v. Commissioner, 776 F.2d 873, 876 (9th Cir.1985); Nunley v. Commissioner, 758 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam). Pursuant to Rule 38, sanctions may be imposed against pro se litigants, Grimes, 806 F.2d at 1454; Trohimovich, 776 F.2d at 876, litigants represented by counsel, First Investors Corp. v. American Capital Financial Services, Inc., 823 F.2d 307, 310 (9th Cir.1987); Wisconsin v. Glick, 782 F.2d 670, 673-74 (7th Cir.1986), and/or directly against appellate counsel. Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 675 (9th Cir.1981); Coghlan v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 818 (5th Cir. 1988); Braley v. Campbell, 832 F.2d 1504, 1511 (10th Cir.1987).

      FN1. Rule 38 provides: If a court of appeals shall determine that an appeal is frivolous, it may award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee.

      In assessing the propriety of appellate sanctions, we must determine whether the issue raised on appeal--or as in this case, a petition for rehearing--is indeed frivolous. It is well settled that an appeal is frivolous when the result is obvious or the arguments of error are wholly without merit. Grimes, 806 F.2d at 1454; Gattuso v. Pecorella, 733 F.2d 709, 710 (9th Cir.1984); Dewitt v. Western Pacific Railroad Co., 719 F.2d 1448, 1451 (9th Cir.1983). We have no hesitation concluding that the petition for rehearing filed by Becraft in this case meets the frivolity standard.

      Notwithstanding Becraft's insistence that his argument regarding the inapplicability of the federal income tax laws to resident United States citizens raises numerous complex issues, his position can fairly be reduced to one elemental proposition: The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax on resident United States citizens and thus such citizens are not subject to the federal income tax laws. [FN2] We hardly need comment on the patent absurdity and frivolity of such a proposition. For over 75 years, the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized the Sixteenth Amendment's authorization of a non- apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens residing in the United States and thus the validity of the federal income tax laws as applied to such citizens. See, e.g., Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19, 36 S.Ct. 236, 239-42, 60 L.Ed. 493 (1916); Ward, 833 F.2d at 1539; Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517, 519 (7th Cir.1984); Parker v. Commissioner, 724 F.2d 469, 471 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir.1981). Indeed, in Lovell, one of the more recent cases explicitly rejecting a Sixteenth Amendment argument virtually identical to Becraft's position in this case, the court sanctioned the pro se appellants for raising this and other federal tax exemption claims on appeal. See Lovell, 755 F.2d at 520. If a claim is sufficiently frivolous to warrant sanctions against a pro se appellant, it unarguably supports the assessment of sanctions against a seasoned attorney with considerable experience in the federal courts.

      FN2. While Becraft devotes a good portion of his brief, petition for rehearing, and reply to a discussion of the structure of the Internal Revenue Service and the control numbers designated to income tax forms pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, he does so only to provide support for his fundamental proposition that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned tax on citizens residing in the United States. Hence, his entire legal argument hinges on the constitutionality of directly taxing resident United States citizens. Additionally, we note that much of Becraft's reply is also devoted to a discussion of the limitations of federal jurisdiction to United States territories and the District of Columbia and thus the inapplicability of the federal income tax laws to a resident of one of the states. We are somewhat perplexed as to why he included this contention in his reply since he omitted any reference to this issue in the petition for rehearing. In any event, as Becraft should be well aware, this claim also has no semblance of merit. The Eleventh Circuit summarily rejected the identical argument in United States v. Ward, 833 F.2d 1538, 1539 (11th Cir.1987), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 1576, 99 L.Ed.2d 891
      (1988), a case in which Becraft served as the defendant's appellate counsel.

      In reaching the conclusion the Becraft's petition for rehearing is frivolous, we rely not only on the fact that the argument is in direct conflict with "firmly established rules of law for which there is no arguably reasonable expectation of reversal or favorable modification," McDougal v. Commissioner, 818 F.2d 453, 455 (5th Cir.1987), but also on the fact that this wholly meritless claim was pressed in a petition for rehearing after this court had already summarily rejected the claim and characterized it as having no basis in law. Thus, the result of the petition for rehearing was even more obvious than the initial appeal. Indeed, it is beyond our comprehension that a competent attorney, which Becraft certainly is, could harbor a good faith belief that this panel or the court sitting en banc would reconsider the rejection of Nelson's claim of federal tax exemption. While a finding of bad faith is not necessary to impose sanctions under Fed.R.App.P. 38, see Coghlan, 852 F.2d at 814-815 (bad faith not required element of imposition of sanctions under rule 38); Braley v. Campbell, 832 F.2d at 1512 (finding of subjective bad faith unnecessary to impose sanctions under Rule 38); Grimes, 806 F.2d at 1454 ("The purpose of Rule 38 ... is to induce litigants to conform their behavior to the governing rules, regardless of their subjective belief."), the fact that Becraft likely filed the petition for hearing absent a good faith belief of its justification contributes to our strong conviction that Becraft's conduct warrants the imposition of sanctions. See Coghlan, 852 F.2d at 814 ("Bad faith may aggravate the circumstances justifying sanctions....") Moreover, we believe that Mr. Becraft's litigation record in the federal appellate courts demonstrates the necessity of sending a message to Becraft that frivolous arguments will no longer be tolerated. Our research reveals that we are not the first appellate court in which Becraft has raised this patently frivolous Sixteenth Amendment claim. In Ward, a case in which Becraft served as defendant's appellate counsel, see supra, n. 1, the Eleventh Circuit characterized as "utterly without merit" the identical argument raised by Becraft here regarding the applicability of the federal tax laws to resident United States citizens. 833 F.2d at 1539. Moreover, Becraft also advanced the patently frivolous claim in Ward that the federal income tax laws apply only to residents of federal territories and the District of Columbia. Id.; see supra, n. 1. Unfortunately, Becraft's record of advancing wholly meritless claims does not end with Ward. United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1036, 107 S.Ct. 888, 93 L.Ed.2d 840 (1987), and United States v. Sitka, 845 F.2d 43 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 77, 102 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988), appeals in which Becraft served as co-counsel and counsel respectively, addressed the claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified and that therefore the federal courts lack jurisdiction to entertain tax evasion prosecutions. Needless to say, both courts soundly rejected this contention. See Sitka, 845 F.2d 44- 47; Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438-1441. Becraft's record in the federal courts thus exhibits an alarming willingness to utilize appellate court resources to adjudicate claims that a competent attorney should realize have no reasonable possibility of success.

      Based on Becraft's conduct in this case and prior cases, it is clear to us that Becraft has no appreciation for the limited nature of the federal judicial resources upon which all aggrieved individuals depend for vindication of statutory and constitutional rights. For if he did have respect for the extreme demands constantly placed on the court's resources, he would not continue to use the courts as testing ground for revisionist historical theories that have absolutely no basis in law.

      While we are in general accord with the Seventh Circuit's statement that "[c]riminal defendants and their lawyers must abide by the rules that apply to other litigants, ... including the principle that litigating positions must have some foundation in existing law or be supported by reasoned, colorable arguments for change in the law," Wisconsin v. Glick, 782 F.2d 670, 673 (7th Cir.1986) (citation omitted), we are hesitant to exercise our power to sanction under Rule 38 against criminal defendants and their counsel. With respect to counsel, such reluctance, as evidenced by the absence of authority imposing sanctions against defense counsel, [FN3] primarily stems from our concern that the threat of sanctions may chill a defense counsel's willingness to advance novel positions of first impression. Our constitutionally mandated adversary system of criminal justice cannot function properly unless defense counsel feels at liberty to press all claims that could conceivably invalidate his client's conviction. Indeed, whether or not the prosecution's case is forced to survive the "crucible of meaningful adversarial testing" may often depend upon defense counsel's willingness and ability to press forward with a claim of first impression. See United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 656, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 2045, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984). Moreover, because of the significant liberty deprivation often at stake in a criminal prosecution, courts generally tolerate arguments on behalf of criminal defendants that would likely be met with sanctions if advanced in a civil proceeding. See Glick, 782 F.2d at 673.

      FN3. Our research did not reveal any case in which the court has imposed sanctions on defense counsel under Rule 38 and only one case in which sanctions were assessed against a criminal defendant. See Glick, 782 F.2d at 673-74 (state criminal defendants sanctioned for bringing frivolous appeal after unsuccessfully attempting to remove their state criminal prosecutions to federal court).

      Notwithstanding the legitimate countervailing concerns that accompany imposing sanctions against defense counsel, we nevertheless believe that when a criminal defense counsel reasserts an argument in a petition for rehearing which was summarily rejected on direct appeal, and which flies in the face of unambiguous, firmly established law, that attorney exposes himself to the imposition of sanctions under Rule 38. Accordingly, we order Becraft to pay $2,500 in damages. With so many worthy claims waiting to be adjudicated, we are not obliged to stand by silently when an attorney repeatedly breaches his professional responsibility to the court

      We are fully confident that our assessment of sanctions for a frivolous petition for rehearing in this case will have no deterrent effect on litigants and attorneys' advancement of reasonably based novel positions in the future. We sincerely hope, however, that this assessment will deter Becraft from asking this and other federal courts to expend more time and resources on patently frivolous legal positions. [FN4]

      FN4. We wish to emphasize that our decision in this case should not be read as authority for imposing sanctions against a criminal defense counsel for a frivolous direct appeal following conviction; we express no opinion on whether or in what circumstances Rule 38 sanctions may be
      imposed for such an appeal.

      The Clerk of this Court shall enter a judgment in the sum of $2,500 in favor of the United States of America and against Lowell H. Becraft, Jr.

      APPENDIX A

      ORDER
      Counsel for the Appellant Lowell H. Becraft, Jr., 209 Lincoln Street, Huntsville, Alabama 35801, is ordered to show cause why damages in the sum of $2,500 should not be imposed upon him for filing a frivolous petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc. The reasons for the issuance of this order to show cause are as follows:

      1. Appellant Kenneth Nelson was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on three counts of failure to file income tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. s 7203.

      2. By memorandum disposition dated March 22, 1989, this court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

      3. On appeal, Nelson claimed, inter alia, that the district court erred in refusing to give his proposed jury instructions concerning his theory that a United States citizen is not a "person" and that his wages were not "income" within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code.

      4. In affirming Nelson's conviction, this court emphasized that his construction of the Internal Revenue Code has been consistently rejected by federal courts and had no basis in law.

      5. On April 5, 1989, Lowell H. Becraft, Jr., as attorney for Appellant Nelson, filed with this court a petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc.

      6. In this petition, Nelson realleges the inapplicability of federal tax laws to income earned by United States citizens.

      7. Counsel for Nelson acknowledges in his petition that this issue had been presented to, and rejected by, this court in its memorandum disposition of March 22, 1989.

      8. While the court did not impose sanctions in its memorandum disposition, the issue of the applicability of federal tax laws to this case was and is patently frivolous as it finds no support in the Internal Revenue Code and ignores clear legal precedent. See Malhiot v. S. Cal. Retail Clerks Union, 735 F.2d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1189, 105 S.Ct. 959, 83 L.Ed.2d 965 (1985) (appeal frivolous when "result is obvious or [when] the claims of error are wholly without merit").

      9. Frivolous petitions such as this impose an unjustified burden on the federal judiciary. To raise the same frivolous contention on a petition for rehearing and suggestion for en banc review forces this court to consider sanctions in order to assure that its responsibilities are not hindered by wasteful, time-consuming petitions requiring consideration by not only a three- member panel of the court but also the entire court because of the en banc suggestion.

      10. Pursuant to F.R.App.P. 38, this court has the authority to impose sanctions to deter frivolous appeals and to conserve federal judicial resources. See, e.g., First Investors Corp. v. American Capital Financial Services, Inc., 823 F.2d 307, 310 (9th Cir.1987); Trohimovich v. Commissioner, 776 F.2d 873, 875-76 (9th Cir.1985); Nunley v. Commissioner, 758 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam); Stites v. United States Government, 746 F.2d 1085, 1086 (5th Cir.1984) (per curiam).

      Therefore, Lowell H. Becraft, Jr., is ordered to show cause as set forth in this order.

      All documents in opposition to this order must be filed with the Clerk of this court within 20 days from the date of the filing of this order.

      The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order upon Mr. Becraft by United States mail and shall furnish counsel for appellee with a copy of this order.


      HA, HA, HA, THAT'S FUNNY!!!!


      WHAT A HYPOCRITE YOU ARE LARRY BECRAFT!!!!


      WHAT A JOKE YOU ARE LARRY BECRAFT!!!!


      HA, HA, HA, THE MILK IS SHOOTING OUT OF MY NOSE, I AM LAUGHING SO HARD!!!!




      PS -- HERE GRASSHOPPER LARRY, here is some tidbits for you to start on your BEGINNER RESEARCH OF THE RECONSTRUCTION ACTS:


      THE RECONSTRUCTION ACTS

      1. The powers and duties of the military commanders in the districts constituted by the act of March 2, 1867, "to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States," considered and determined.
      2. The jurisdiction of military commissions under that act defined.
      3. Summary of the points considered and determined in the former opinion of the Attorney General on this subject.
      Attorney General's Office,
      June 12, 1867
      Sir: On the 24th ultimo, I had the honor to transmit for your consideration my opinion upon some of the questions arising under the reconstruction acts therein referred to. I now proceed to give my opinion on the remaining questions upon which the military commanders require instructions.
      1, As to the powers and duties of these commanders.
      The original act recites in its preamble, that "no legal State governments or adequate protection for life or property exist" in those ten States, and that "it is necessary that peach and good order should be enforced" in those States" until loyal and republican State governments can be legally established."
      The 1st and 2d sections divide these States into five military districts, subject to the military authority of the United States, as thereinafter described, and make it the duty of the President to assign from the officers of the army a general officer to the command of each district, and to furnish him with a military force to perform his duties and enforce his authority within his district.

      The 3d section declares, "that it shall be the duty of each officer, assigned as aforesaid, to protect all persons in their rights of person and property, to suppress insurrection, disorder, and violence, and to punish, or cause to be punished, all disturbers of the public peace and criminals, and to this end he may allow local civil tribunals to take jurisdiction of and try offenders, or, when in his judgment it may be necessary for the trial of offenders, he shall have power to organize military commissions or tribunals for that purpose; and all interference, under color of State authority; with the exercise of military authority under this act, shall be null and void."
      The 4th section provides, "that all persons put under military arrest by virtue of this act shall be tried without unnecessary delay, and no cruel or unusual punishment shall be inflicted; and no sentence of any military commission or tribunal hereby authorized, affecting the life or liberty of any person, shall be executed, until it is approved by the officer in command of the district, and the laws and regulations for the government of the army shall not be affected by this act, except in so far as they conflict with its provisions: Provided, That no sentence of death under the provision of this act shall be carried into effect without the approval of the President."
      The 5th section declares the qualification of voters in all elections, as well to frame the new constitution for each State, as in the elections to be held under the provisional government, until the new State constitution is ratified by Congress, and also fixes the qualifications of the delegates to frame the new constitution.
      The 6th section provides, "That until the people of said rebel States shall be by law admitted to representation in the Congress of the United States, any civil governments which may exist therein shall be deemed provisional only, and in all respects subject to the paramount authority of the United States at any time to abolish, modify, control, or supersede the same; and in all elections to any office under such provisional governments all persons shall be entitled to vote, and none others, who are entitled to vote under the provisions of the 5th section of this act; and no person shall be eligible to any office under any such provisional governments who would not be disqualified from holding office under the provisions of the third article of said constitutional amendment."
      The duties devolved upon the commanding general by the supplementary act relate together to the registration of voters, and the elections to be held under the provisions of that act. And as to these duties, they are plainly enough expressed in the act, and it is not understood that any questions, not heretofore considered in the opinion referred to, has arisen, or is likely to arise, in respect to them.
      My attention, therefore, is directed to the powers and duties of the military commanders under the original act.
      We see clearly enough that this act contemplates two distinct governments in each of these ten States: the one military, the other civil. The civil government is recognized as existing at the date of the act. The military government is created by the act.
      Both are provisional, and both are to continue until the new State constitution is framed and the State is admitted to representation in Congress. When that event takes place, both these provisional governments are to cease. In contemplation of this act, this military authority and this civil authority are to be carried on together. The people in these States are made subject to both, and must obey both, in their respective jurisdictions.
      There is, then, an imperative necessity to define as clearly as possible the line which separates the two jurisdictions, and the exact scope of the authority of each.
      Now, as to the civil authority recognized by the act as the provisional civil government, it covered every department of civil jurisdiction in each of these States.
      It had all the characteristics and powers of a State government -- legislative, judicial, and executive -- and was in the full and lawful exercise of all these powers, except only that it was not entitled to representation as a State of the Union.
      This existing government is not set aside; it is recognized more than once by the act. It is not in any one of its departments, or as to any one of its functions, repealed or modified by this act, save only in the qualifications of voters, the qualifications of persons eligible to office, the constitution of the State. The act does not in any other respect change the provisional government, nor does the act authorize the military authority to change it.
      The power of further changing it is reserved, not granted, and it is reserved to Congress, not delegated to the military commander.
      Congress was not satisfied with the organic law or constitution under which this civil government was established. That constitution was the be changed in only one particular to make it acceptable to Congress, and that was in the matter of the elective franchise. The purpose, the sole object of this act, is to effect that change, and to effect it by the agency of the people of the State, or such of them as are made voters by means of elections provided for in the act, and in the meantime to preserve order and to punish offenders, if found necessary, by military commissions.
      We are, therefore, not at a loss to know what powers were possessed by the existing civil authority.
      Whatever power is not given to the military remains with the civil government.
      We see, first of all, that each of these States is "made subject to the military authority of the United States" -- not to the military authority altogether, but with this express limitation -- "as hereinafter prescribed."
      We must, then, examine what is hereinafter provided, to find the extent and nature of the power granted.
      This, then, is what is granted to the military commander: The power or duty "to protect all persons in their rights of person and property; to suppress insurrection, disorder, and violence, and punish, or cause to be punished, all disturbers of the public peach and criminals;" and he may do this by the agency of the criminal courts of the State, or, if necessary, he may resort to military tribunals.
      This comprises all the powers given to the military commander.
      Here is a general clause, making it the duty of the military commander to give protection to all persons in their rights of person and property. Considered by itself, and without reference to the context and to other provisions of the act, it is liable, from its generality, to be misunderstood.
      What sort of protection is here meant? What violations of the rights of person or of property are here intended? In what manner is this protection to be given? These questions arise at once.
      It appears that some of the military commanders have understood this grant of power as all comprehensive, conferring on them the power to remove the executive and judicial officers of the State, and to appoint other officers in their places; to suspend the legislative power of the State; to take under their control, by officers appointed by themselves, the collection and disbursement of the revenues of the State; to prohibit the execution of the laws in matters affecting purely civil and private rights; to suspend or enjoin the execution of the judgments and decrees of the established State courts; to interfere in the ordinary administration of justice in the State courts, by prescribing new qualifications for jurors, and to change, upon the ground of expedience, the existing relations of the parties to contracts, giving protection to one party by violating the rights of the other party.
      I feel confident that these military officers, in all they have done, have supposed that they had full warrant for their action. Their education and training have not been of the kind to fit them for the delicate and difficult task of giving construction to such a statute as that now under consideration. They require instruction, and nearly all of them have asked for instruction, to solve their own doubts, and to furnish to them a safe ground for the performance of their duties.
      There can be no doubt as to the rule of construction according to which we must interpret this grant of power. It is a grant of power to military authority, over civil rights and citizens, in time of peace. It is a new jurisdiction, never granted before, by which, in certain particulars and for certain purposes, the established principle that the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority is reversed.
      The rule of construction to be applied to such a grant of power is thus stated in Dwarris on Statutes, p. 652: "A statute creating a new jurisdiction ought to be construed strictly."
      Guide by this rule, and in light of other rules of construction familiar to every lawyer, especially of those which teach us that, in giving construction to single clauses, we must look to the context and to the whole law, that general clauses are to be controlled by particular clauses, and such consideration is to be put on special clause as to make it harmonize with the other parts of the statute as to avoid repugnancy, I proceed to the construction of this part of the act.
      To consider, then, in the first place, the terms of the grant. It is of a power to protect all persons in their rights of person and property. It is not a power to create new rights, but only to protect those which exist and are established by the laws under which these people live. It is a power to preserve, not to abrogate; to sustain the existing frame of social order and civil rule, and not a power to introduce military rule in its place; in effect, it is police power; and the protection here intended is protection of persons and property against violence, unlawful force, and criminal infraction. It is given to meet the contingency recited in the preamble, of a want of "adequate protection for life and property" and the necessity also recited, "that peace and good order should be enforce."
      This construction is made more apparent when we look at the immediate context, and see in what mode and by what agency this protection is to be secured. This duty or power of protection is to be performed by the suppression of insurrection, disorder, and violence, and by the punishment, either by the agency of the State courts, or by military commissions, when necessary, of all disturbers of the public peace and criminals; and it is declared, that all interference, under color of State authority, with the exerc<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.