The Mental Militia Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: DESTROYED ARGUMENTS  (Read 1123 times)


  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2070
  • Senator, +Lampost, +Rope. Some assembly required
« on: October 29, 2009, 05:07:52 pm »

Larry Becraft has received so many e-mail asking quesions and proffering legal arguments, he has put this togeher. Lot's of info in here.

XXI. The 'bankruptcy of the United States" as alleged by "congressman" Traficant:
    I have heard people discuss statements by "congressman" Traficant allegedly made back in 1993 where he stated in the Congressional Record that the US was bankrupt and this bankruptcy happened back in 1933. This statement has been used to support UCC arguments about the bankruptcy of the United States.

    Frank F. checked the accuracy of this alleged Traficant statement and found it to be utterly false. Here is what he said in a recent e-mail:

 This is 99% bogus.
 You'll notice that it claims to be from the Congressional Record of March 17, 1993, page H-1303, and a speech from Rep. James Traficant (D-Oh). It starts with a double quote mark and it ends much later with another double quote mark.

 Except for the first paragraph (the first 66 words), it is a fake.

 Traficant's own words run from "Mr. Speaker ...." to " ... our demise" and that's the only portion from him or from the Congressional Record.

 Trafficant was arguing against deficit spending, and everything else in the article (starting from the words "It is an established fact ...") is fake. Traficant never said them.

 In fact, if Traficant thought that the Banking Emergency Act of 1933 was Public Law 89-719, we'd all have reason to doubt his soundness of mind, because the Public Law number is clearly decades after 1933 -- in fact it is the number of the Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966.  Ditto for the pretended title and description of HJR 192 (of 1933).  All of that, including the references to canon law and maritime insurance, is fakery, falsely attributed to Traficant.

    The actual page from the Congressional Record is here. Please excuse the copy quality of this PDF file as it was obtained from microfiche. This page proves that those who allege that Traficant made this statement are not telling the truth.
    Please also notice that the fake Traficant statement makes certain allegations:
1. "The United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency banking Act, March 9, 1933";
2. That HJR 192 was a part of the bankruptcy;
3. That the 1913 Federal Reserve Act was effective back to 1870, many years before that act was adopted.

    These congressional acts have been posted on my site. The Emergency Banking Act and HJR 192 are posted, as is the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. Please read these acts to deteremine whether these allegations are true. Reading them discloses that the allegations are false. The password for the Emergency Banking Act and Federal Reserve Act is "Becraft" (with a capital "B")./SNIP
Live Free Or Die: Death is not the worst of evils.

"Resist much, obey little." ~ Walt Whitman

If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws. EDWARD ABBEY


  • Guest
« Reply #1 on: October 29, 2009, 06:01:47 pm »

Nice...Becraft, old fighter, and good.


  • Guest
« Reply #2 on: November 02, 2009, 04:31:20 am »

For my own curiosity, I wish they had the day they published that info with the claim. I made note of this same issue and more around a day or two after Traficant got out. Unfortunately the site I did that on is experiencing host issues so I can't just link to the additional issues. Off the top of my head I think I said that it was possible that Traficant or one of his people could have released that to boost his image as fighting for the people upon his release. This is not a simple game that's being played and this other issue is a distinct possibility. That this lawyer would make note of one possibility separating Traficant from the statement but not the possibility that Traficant could have had that altered statement floated around makes me question the integrity of Becraft. Lawyers are trained to be able to argue things from different angles, SURELY he didn't miss this??
Pages: [1]   Go Up