The Core of the Conflict - 
Redemption or Institutionalized Control and Servitude?
Dan Meador vs. Larry BeCraft

    Dan Meador wrote: "The following comment was written by Alabama attorney Larry BeCraft, one of the nation's attorney's who has been visibly on the front lines in the effort to correct government for over two decades. The reasonably short commentary was directed to one of our "patriot" front-line people. I have some comments that follow".

	Larry BeCraft wrote: "I have been going to court for 24 years; I have seen far more than you have or ever will. I know the condition of things in courts and I also know the typical patriot response for this mess is only digging a deep hole for people and ruining their lives.

	RWL (Right Way L.a.w.) runs around advocating the "nom de guerre" and similar useless arguments. People go to hear Dave "psych-path" Miller for his insanity. It is unbelievable that people even but that "Subjects of the British Crown" nonsense. Now that U.C.C. argument regarding the strawman theory has already brought one indictment and I expect more. 

	I don't see lawyers out in front of these patriot pep rallies feeding garbage to the people; they [know] better than to traffic in such crap. However, there are plenty of "Gurus" out there selling snake oil to the people. Their track record consists of sending thousands of people into the jaws of the enemy, however, you are so blind you will never see this reality. 

	I applaud your fight against corruption. However, asserting meaningless legal garbage and trash will never win any battle. Until patriots stop following "Trash Law" they will continue to fill up the prisons. But I guess you will have to learn the hard way".

	Dan Meador's following comment/response: "To provide context for my comments, i'm attaching the Declaration of Intergovernmental Dependance signed by state and local government delegates on January. As many others in the "patriot" community, I've followed Larry's work for several years, and generally, I laud contributions he made to understanding federal jurisdiction and many other subjects. However, there is considerable distance between my understanding of core difficulties relating to government, and his. We addressed some of the differences in private communications, and there are numerous areas where we simply agree to disagree. 

	Consequently, it is necessary to examine the context of our respective positions in order to determine why we disagree. Where Larry is concerned, and hopefully others who might not agree with me, our respective conclusions might be modified when we go to the genesis of disagreement. If and when we finally achieve general agreement concerning root difficulties, there might be a means for restoring government that operates within the confines of constitutionally enumerated powers. 

	The attached Declaration of Intergovernmental Dependence provides a context that cannot be denied. At the third general conference of the council of State Governments, delegates of state and local governments endorsed a compact that flies in the face of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and organic law dating back to the Magna Charta. 

	Anyone who wants to, can locate the complete set of the "Book of the States" in a federal depository library. The document is published in volume 2, Book 2. In the alternative, order a copy from the council of State Governments. The Declaration of Intergovernmental Dependence is a historical fact. And since state and local representatives endorsed this and other compacts in the 1930's, the Federalism scheme has engulfed our nation. 

	Federalism, also known as Cooperative Federalism, is an existent man-made system. The Declaration of Intergovernmental Dependence articulates root ideology. As a system, Federalism has substance and the mechanics of operation. It is purposeful. It has an end objective. It relies on institutionalized accommodation. (It's called Matrix). 

	In general, I believe most people in the patriot community would agree with these minimum statements concerning Federalism. However, I am convinced that those who have invested lifetimes in the existent system via profession or employment have more difficulty coming to terms with Federalism as the vehicle for usurpation of power and general despotism than those who are directly victimized by it. I think attorneys find it more difficult to come to terms with core system corruption than most. I have a 1927 constitutional commentary that probes at least part of the reason. It was written by the commissioner of the Department of Education. In his opinion, there probably were not anymore than ten people in the nation who truly understood the Constitution. The forward also mentions a report given to the American Bar Association national conference held in Denver. The report alleged that America Law schools were turning out Constitutionally illiterate attorneys. 

	If that was the case in the 1920's, the situation is considerably worse today. It has to be. In July, 1995, one of the best defense attorneys in Northern Oklahoma told me I know more about Constitutional Law than any attorney in our country. If that was the case then,, I must know more about Constitutional Law than all the attorneys in the country put together by now. (Not to mention the judges!) In 1990, I considered attending Law School. When I went through the curriculum, I found that only one constitutional course was required to earn a juris doctorate. I don't know for certain, but i've heard the requirement has since been dropped! 

	I think this is the greatest disability there is to the law profession. Attorneys go through three years of law school brainwashing then they spend their professional lives genuflecting to black robed  bandits. If they don't yield, and practice proper decorum, they are banished from practice and are apt to get thrown in the clink. 

	To step back far enough to conclude the whole damn mess is a charade and accommodates usurpation of power and despotism has to be extremely traumatic. It's traumatic for anyone, but those who operate within the system throughout their professional lives are even more encumbered.     Larry serves as a primary example. He has written superior memoranda on federal jurisdiction, and the neccesity of Congress creating federal agencies before they have lawful authority. He knows Congress didn't create the Internal Revenue Service or the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and he knows that if it required a constitutional amendment to impose a national prohibition against alcohol, it would require an amendment to impose national prohibition against drugs. Yet he does nothing significant to correct conspicuous usurpation of power - He recites case law that accommodates IRS, FBI, DEA, et al, as though the decisions are legitimate. 

	My objective isn't to be overly critical of Larry. Larry does a hell of a lot more for the constitutionalist cause than most attorneys. And among his contributions, is the occasional caution like the one above. 

	Remember the Texas group responsible for Credit Money Orders? They and others who promoted similar devices are in prison. Remember the Comptroller Warrent? And how about the farm claim program? Was there any doubt that government would target the commercial Redemption program "Site Draft"? 

	I get a giggle out of some of Larry's criticisms. Dave "psycho-path" Miller has distorted the English language sufficiently that his briefs are impossible to understand. But I learned something important from Dave: The least common denominator. And even though Right Way L.a.w. may not have what is presently an effective defense, the "Straw man" (JOHN DOE) juristic entity is a legitimate issue. But the current commercial "Redemption" rage, whether concerning the juristic JOHN DOE or the Treasury Account used to "charge-back" presentments "accepted for value" will fall through the cracks when the powers-that-be settle on strategy. 

	Why? Because the constitutionalist community doesn't carry a big enough enforcement stick. If the crook doesn't fear the cops, he has no incentive to quit stealing. Likewise, if the moral reprobates dressed in black (robes) has no fear of legal reprisal, he doesn't give two hoots in hell what paper- work someone puts in his court. So long as he can send a county sheriff or U.S. Marshall to nab whoever he wants, that's what he will do. And he will continue to do it until someone slaps his butt in jail. 

	Entrenched powers operate on what my mother calls the Golden Rule: He who has the Gold makes the Rules! And they're darned sure going to pull out the stops when people go meddling with their fiat credit and monetary monopolies. 

	I don't know that I can emphasize this enough: Those responsible for the binary system implemented here in the United States via the Uniform Commercial Code are responsible for 40% of the world's population going to be hungry. They could care less about ten-thousand or several hundred thousand patriots turned out on the street, thrown in prison, or outright killed. So long as they can get by with what they are doing, they will. They're intent on undermining American Sovereignty and solvency, and to the point there is a sufficient enough unified force to put an end to it, they will continue to pursue their objectives. [The economic control and manipulation of the credit system to the detriment of the people- where they remain 'property' of the state as well 'what' they think they own!] 

	Consequently, there must be more focused strategy that engages the contest in judicial and political forums in such a fashion as to force general disclosure. We aren't going to secure reliable individual remedies until we secure general remedies. But, even before that, we're going to have to come to grips with what we're dealing with, and the mechanics of how it operates.

	Mechanics of Federalism were pretty well advanced by the time the attached Declaration of Intergovernmental Dependence was endorsed. But the Declaration serves as a point of demarcation. It was among the early compacts that facilitated a secret war against the America people through state and local government institutions. Today, we are dealing with the end product - the product is institutionalized despotism. In order for the scheme to succeed, it has relied on moral reprobates, in virtually all decision-making positions, particularly our court systems. And I would suggest that since the first quarter of the century, there hasn't been a published court decision that isn't tainted by the underlying Federalism scheme. 

	This, I believe, is the great gulf that dividesLarry and me: Larry hasn't come to terms with the reality and implications of Federalism. I laud his research - The two memoranda cited earlier don't scratch the surface of his contributions - but he is conceptually encumbered because he has yet to accept that government institutions, particularly what passes for courts of law, are corrupt to the core! 

	On the other hand, I appreciate his realism concerning so many patriot silver bullets, including the commercial "Redemption" program. 

	In 1995 or 1996, Walker Todd, former general council for the Cleveland Federal Reserve Bank, testified at one of the CMO trials in Dallas, Todd told the jury the privately issued CMO is as legitimate as those issued by banks - banks issue the fool things every day! But the defendants went to prison in spite of Todd's testimony. [Gee, I wonder what percentage of the jury were federal employees...75%?] 

	Would you go to a pirate's court for justice? Hardly. To the pirate, law is a matter of convenience. I've been there, so I speak with the voice of experience. 

	Just as certainly, every criminal tax case or tax civil suit prosecuted by the government in the several states is without law. Larry knows that as well as I do, and as well as most other patriots know. Consequently, there is common ground that even Larry shares if he considers what he knows in that context: our court systems are completely reprobate, [and] they are lawless. But on the other end of the spectrum, where patriots will quickly agree that our courts are without even the semblance of integrity, there is a lack of cognitive understanding. The lack of understanding pivots on our inability to execute and enforce lawful remedies. Coming to terms with the institutional Golden Rule might help understand the perils of screwing with the current de facto credit and monetary schemes. 

	Read the Declaration of Intergovernmental agreement, then if you don't know it, read the Declaration of Independence. Let of the former soak in. Until you come to intellectual and emotional terms with what each document means; you probably aren't going to be able to grasp how deeply rooted this scheme is. We are dealing with a highly organized scheme that is entrenched throughout institutional America. So long as we pursue individual remedies, without deploying strategy to effect general remedies, the patriot community will continue to provide fodder for the grist mill.

	See 1937 Declaration of Intergovernmental Dependence Article below following: The core of the conflict : Redemption or Slavery - Editor Comment by Robert Kelly of "The American's Bulletin" 

	Well, since you have read the 'Core' comment by Becraft and the comment by Dan Meador, I will add my comments as well. I cannot stand in the shadow of Mr. Becraft, for i'm not an attorney. I cannot equal Dan Meador, for he is far better experienced in tax law than I will ever be. But, I have been involved in the Freedom Movement for 20 years and 9 of those as editor of the American's Bulletin. I'll take it as a right to make this comment. Obviously, over the years, I have learned far more than what I learned in 'government school!' 

	If asked what I've learned from my involvement in the movement. my answer would have to be, "That the government has lied to the American people in every manner, have taken their "rights" away and replaced them with privileges, has instituted an economic form of enslavement by design through bankruptcy of the United States (federal corporation) and a plethora of other proceeding and subsequent acts to the detriment of the individual and the people as a whole". 

	But I have many questions! Why is there the presumption that, for whatever reason, we (the people) cannot seek freedom, if we first determined that we are not free? As to the IRS Income Tax, which has been researched and documented for over 25 years, what could be the resultant statement from all of that research and study? Simple, "No one has been able to produce any federal law or statute that proves that any man or woman is liable for the tax!" (Only State or Federal Employees are liable for the Tax and officers of corporations!) 

	And with the research done within the 'movement' into the other various issues, i.e. 'Right to Travel', 'Marriage License', 'Keep and Bear Arms', 'Hunting', 'Fishing', and a host of other issues, .... does not apply to the free people (those being within a collective capacity known as 'Sovereigns' and having all power. At least as it is to be applied to the American people). Now before you liberals go berserk on that statement, in my opinion, there can be ways to ensure accountability, competency, responsibility, safety, etc., if only the 'State' would serve the people under lawful 'restrictive' Constitutional government of which, today, they do not 9or do they have evidence to the contrary?) Just what is 'De facto' anyway? 

	Understand, that it is difficult to talk about so-called 'Constitutional Rights' on one hand (because of the brainwashing from government schools and what we have believed) and the reality of the facts, on the other hand, that you have no rights within this De facto-federal (bankrupt) corporation and the States who pledged their support within this form of economic enslavement! 

	But, as to BeCraft's comments, he has 24 years experience with the courts etc., he "knows the condition of things in the courts." Are we then to presume that Mr. BeCraft knows of the corruption of the courts? Of their Martial Rule status (i.e., "I don't want to hear that Constitutional crap in my courtroom!") Has Mr. BeCraft, over his 24 years accumulated the secrets to deal with the courts to perfect his defense for his clients and win for them each and every time? Maybe, due to his experience, he can prove that we have Constitutional courts, lawful money, that our rights are fully protected by the courts, that the states operate outside the bankruptcy and are acting purely under constitutional law/restriction. Maybe he can prove that we have nothing to fear from 'our' government (both at State and Federal level)! I do not believe any position or question is "meaning- less legal garbage". Only the documented facts and evidence can prove the matter(s).

	Are there those out there that have superior knowledge of the law who can document and answer the vital questions of today? We're still waiting.

	Is it possible that Mr. BeCraft can produce the documentation and evidence on how the/a state constitution (or for that matter the federal constitution) operates upon the private man or woman? Or has 'other' things happened (been imposed and enacted) to allow a foreign imposed jurisdiction over and upon men or women. Maybe the "Strawman" issue does have merit?

	Maybe Mr. BeCraft has access to the federal law/statute that specifically makes you the reader subject to a private federal income tax! Maybe he can produce it for the 'rest of the people'! 

	Does he reject the patriot issues; i.e., "We are NOT subjects of the British Crown" and the "UCC/Strawman" etc., solely because he is an attorney and his first allegence is to the court and in his opinion, the people do not have the right to seek out the means to further their freedom? 

	Can we agree on the point that the State and it's officers/employees refuse to give full disclosure on any matter or question relative to the issues of our day? 

	As to "sending thousands of people into the jaws of the enemy", that happens every day all across America, where the people are arrested in 'victimless' crimes and the jails and prisons are overflowing....well before REDEMPTION came along. 

	There are many questions that need answering. We can, should, and must ask and demand the answers to 'those' questions. But if we ask such a question to an 'agent' of the De facto bankrupt institutionalized government, supposedly our 'public servant', will we get an honest and truthful answer? 

	Redemption has caused a resurgence into the freedom issues. What we have learned in more detail, is of the economic/monetary scheme that is in operation in our country today. Well, by what authority did your 'servants' go bankrupt and put in place a credit system, place all your property  under state ownership and MAKE YOUR CHILDREN WARDS OF THE STATE? Are you 'chattel' property or are you really FREE?! If any thing, Redemption should get a lot of people off the couch and 'pissed off' enough to get in the face of their so-called elected officials and representatives...and demand answers! 

	And if they should refuse or fail to answer your questions (to prove that you do live in a free country, have rights and utilize a Constitutional money system etc.)...gee, should you continue voting, and giving your 'masters' agents any respect, honor, or otherwise? 

	The presumption is, that millions of Americans just don't care. As long as they have their T.V., beer, and can send the kids off to government school, they'll obey a foreign government, turn in their guns and lick the boots of their socialist masters. Most Americans have no concept of what freedom is! 

	Most Americans, when told that they do not own their home, their land, their car, boat or plane, and their children, a gaze comes over their face and their response is "Duh, got a cold one?" 

	Redemption disclosed that the State 'owns' EVERYTHING! And YOU pay a USE tax to use (what you think) is your house, car, etc. Then as you down that cold beer, you sit there and have the audacity to 'think' you are free! 

	I wonder if Larry BeCraft can disprove that we own all that we have and that we DO NOT PAY A USE TAX TO THE STATE? 

	Remember the old saying, "If the State can take it away, you never owned it in the first place!" 

	Since the Redemption program deals with the credit transactions, those involved in the program need to understand, learn, and know what the bankers know and do! (Web Editor's Note : Read "The Merchant Bankers" by Joseph Wechsberg) If the bankers over the many years have the privilege to create what we think is money, out of thin air (to your detriment), why can't the people do it as a matter of right? Did you forget that when you bought your Home or car that it was YOU that created the money by your signature and then you signed another agreement and then put the 'item' up as collateral for the loan! THE BANK DIDN'T LOAN YOU A DIME! Yet, should you fail to make the payment, the bank (state) comes and kicks you out or takes the car....because it still belongs to them. It was the collateral! 

	Who said the bankers would own it all? All I want to be is free, I want to live in free land and be able to own my property. I do not feel it is too much to ask nor seek in America. Is that now 'old fashioned'? 

	Oh, by the way, I don't care what our so-called 'public servants' did with the money issue. (Since they violated Article I section X of the U. S. Constitution) [We won't even talk about the CAFR Reports of Billions stashed]. If your government agents put in place a credit system based upon a valueless paper system, why cannot the people just access the same credit process? What do you think? What are you going to do? Verify the points and facts? Is it Redemption or slavery? Robert Kelly (American's Bulletin) 1937 Declaration of Intergovernmental Dependence 

	The declaration of intergovernmental dependence that follows is published on pages 142, 143 of the Book of the States, Volume 2, Book 2. Delegates who attended the third general assembly of the Council of State Governments signed it. The Council of State Governments, which now has headquarters in Lexington, Kentucky, was incorporated in 1933 as the product primarily of members of the Council of State Legislatures. Both were financed to a great extent by Spelman Fund, which was and still is a fund of the Rockefeller Foundation. A declaration of intergovernmental dependence was signed at the general assembly held in Denver in1935, but a limited number of states were represented. 

	Representatives of the several states have since signed at least one similar declaration. The Council of State Governments is contemporaneously classified as a government entity, albeit a third tier of non-constitutional government. Most funding is currently approved by state governments. The following declaration provided the early ideological framework and rationalization for the state and local government side of Federalism, also known as Cooperative Federalism. 

	Declaration of Interdependence of the Governments within the United States of America in Common Council, signed at Washington, District of Columbia, on January 22, 1937 by delegates to the Third General Assembly of the Council of State Governments. When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for a nation to repair the fabric which unites it's many agencies of government, and to restore the solidarity which is vital to orderly growth, it is the duty of responsible officials to define the need and to find a way to meet it. 

	A way does not come of itself. The maintenance of just and efficient government is as intricate, as arduous, and as imperative as any human endeavor. One hundred and fifty years ago - a government dedicated to the preservation of every man's endowment of life, liberty and happiness. 

	Inevitable changes have come. The fundamental patter of states united for the benefits of all the people remains the same as it was when the founding fathers wove it. But the far flung tapestry of our many governments has stretched so taut that the fabric has weakened. The essential thread of cooperation too often is lacking. 

	Now, for the first time since the memorable day when the form of our Constitution was determined, official delegates of the States are gathered together, seeking to revive the original purpose- "to form a more perfect union". 

	It was meant that the States, while creating a nation, should yet preserve their own sovereignties and a maximum of self-government. But, now if the claim of states' rights, is to prevail, it must be justified by a demonstration of states' competence. When our union was formed, there was no land transportation, nor any remote communication, except by the revolutionized by the advent of transportation as swift as the wind and of communication more rapid than lightning. Our area has trebled. The number of our people has increased beyond belief. 

	How have our governments met their mutual problems brought by this modern era? They have developed a "No Man's Land" of jurisdiction. 

	In thousands of instances their laws are in conflict, their practices are discordant, their regulations are antagonistic, and their policies are either competitive or repugnant to one another. 

	In taxation alone, scores of conflicts between federal and state laws exist. 

	The interstate criminal is a standing headline on Page one of every newspaper. 

	The forty-eight states pass laws on crime, labor, taxation, relief, corporations, parole, domestic relations, and other questions momentous to our social and economic system, with no thought of harmony. And this discord has been further stitched into our pattern of life by all other agencies possessing the power of legislation. This is not as it should be. 

	The trend of federal-state projects, exemplified by social security, demands immediate action if those projects are to succeed completely.

	All officials should conduct their own governments properly. But we hold that they must act with earnest regard also to the other units of government. The bonds of good will and the lines of communication, which connect our many interdependent governments, must be immeasurably strengthened.

	Through established agencies of cooperation, through uniform and reciprocal laws and regulations, through compacts under the Constitution, through informal collaboration, and through all other means possible, our nation, our states, and our localities must fuse their activities with a new fervor of national unity. 

	We, therefore, representatives of the officers of government here assembled, do solumenly pledge our loyal efforts to the accomplishments of such purpose. 

	As our forefathers by the Declaration of Independence affirmed their purpose to improve government for us, so do we by this Declaration of Interdependence affirm our purpose to improve governments for our contemporaries and for our posterity. End...?

	Note; Well, here we have representatives of 'officers' (agents/employees) pledging efforts and compacts for themselves and NOT FOR THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE whom they are servants of. But, as to "improve" government is a bit ludicrous, when we have more socialist/communistic government today in America, than at any other time in our country's history.