Since I’m so well connected, I got an email containing the following discussion about self-styled, pro-se lawyer and Indian attorney Luis Ewing. Long time patriot attorney Larry Becraft takes him to task on some of his positions:
I thought this might be of interest to you. I have had personal e-mail exchanges with Mr. Ewing, and he appears to me to be as crazy as Becraft presumes. I tried to sign up as a customer with him, ut he is such an asshole I couldn’t communicate with him. I am about to have serious IRS problems and do not want to get an attorney. I have been planning for this for ten years, and there are just two many “defenses” out there to make any smart decisions.
Hey Mr. Ewing,
There is an old, time-worn expression I have heard several judges utter about pro ses and paralegals during my career: a little knowledge of the law can be a dangerous thing. One part of the battle against abusive govt certainly involves law, thus creating an interest on the part of many to study law. I will not unduly lengthen this note by offering an explanation of why, but it is clear to me that lots of people, when they get interested in “law”, think they know it all and immediately turn into the biggest jerks and freaks I have ever encountered. Frankly, I consider these people to be the south end of a north-bound mule, so I have decided to start making awards to these freaks, which I will name FOOL of the Month. You have just earned my first award for April 1, 2010, Fool’s Day, and I consider you to be nothing more than a stupid, nasty fool.
There have been lots of freaks and misfits that have passed thru this movement selling all sorts of trashy legal arguments they invent, and all of this is directly attributable to the observation I made above that “a little knowledge of the law in dangerous.” These freaks like you fabricate legal arguments that are utterly baseless and they sell them to the innocent and gullible Americans who are justifiably concerned about the course and direction of this country. In my view, these freaks are the lowest conmen, liars, thieves and frauds.
Let me give a few examples. Roger Elvick has always been and always will be nothing more than a conman and car-thief, ever searching for the legal theory to justify stealing cars from car dealers. Those having a similar nature, like Dave DeReimer and Jean Keating, jump on these legal theories and “improve” them with legal ideas they sell to the gullible, like the “redemption process”, “it’s all bonds,” and “birth certificates are the foundation for credit,” and the “Depository Trust Corporation” holds most or all birth certificates. This movement has suffered from crackpots like Austin Gary Cooper who based his legal theories on repealed statutes and other insanity, as well as numerous promoters of various UCC ideas, and others like “it’s all admiralty,” “accept for value,” copyright your name, “we are all trusts” (promoted by that conman “Rabbi” Sean Rice), “non-judicial, commercial” judgments (promoted by flake Carl Valery Thomas) and other legal theories that equal those that could be invented by the patients at the insane asylum. This movement is now at the end of a recent “1099-OID” promotion (fathered by Elvick) that promised 100% success rates, but which spawned only DOJ civil suits, search warrants, indictments and convictions. It is these and other unnamed conmen who have created havoc for the movement and given it a very bad name.
The legal community views all of this hogwash for what it is: legal trash and “jump into jail” schemes. It is unfortunate that most lawyers are so disgusted with this trash that they walk away from the movement, understandably. Similarly, I know of too many formerly committed patriots who, viewing this stupid stuff, have decided to withdraw their support for this movement because they do not want to be associated with it. The obvious beneficiary of this concerted effort to spread trashy legal arguments around the movement is the govt, and those who are injured by the trash are those who have been deceived by the guru promoters.
Here is one example. Seth Sundberg got involved with the 1099-OID process and received 5 million bux. He was arrested last September while driving around southern Cal with 3 million bux in his car and the other 2 million at his home. He went to trial back in January defending himself pro se, but copped a plea. He is looking at a very lengthy sentence, but I suspect that he is working on a 5K “downward departure” with prosecutors because there has already been certain other 1099-OID advocates in southern Cal who have come under attack. I conclude that prosecutors got their info from Sundberg. Please remember that this “process” was a fairy tale.
How about Shane Bucek? He was taught (deceived?) by Jean Keating that the Depository Trust Corp. held his birth certificate upon which credit is based. Bucek used one of those popular commercial instruments to pay a credit card debt and got indicted. At trial while defending himself pro se, he called as a defense witness the President of the DTC, who testified that his company did not possess his birth certificate. Bucek was convicted. In this not insanity? Why are these lies promoted by the gurus?
Let me now direct everybody’s attention to just some of the trash you have promoted. For example, you have said:
There are NO States in Original Jurisdiction in existence today. See Hepburn Dundas v. Elzey.
Here is a link to that case:
This case completely fails to support the contention you make.
The Reconstruction Acts required ALL States to ARCHIVE their Original Constitutions and replace them with what I call “Corporate Charter Constitutions” and made them a mere “statute” which is now superseded by Court Rules which are promulgated by the Supreme Court in every State.
Here are those reconstruction acts:
14 Stat. 428
15 Stat. 2
15 Stat. 14
15 Stat. 41
Please inform me where your above contention is supported by something in these acts that are no longer in effect.
Finally, you state:
The Judicial Districts were ALL Abolished in 1856 by the Act of the 34th Congress.
Can you identify this act by its citation in the US Statutes at Large?
One of the disturbing problems of the freedom movement is the prevalence of lies being promoted by these conmen/gurus. These guys need to be crushed unmercifully.
A document apparently authored by you is posted here:
In this document, you state:
The Judicial Districts were ALL Abolished in 1856 by the Act of the 34th Congress.
I have asked you to answer certain questions about the assertions you make on the page at the above link, including requesting you to provide the actual citation to the act you reference above. This morning, you reply as follows in you usual, obnoxious way:
”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. For further proof 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!!!”
Let me rebut your false allegation about my “lazy butt.” I spent a LOT of time putting together whole files of the US Stats at Large and making them word searchable, and you may find all these searchable Stats at Large here:
These Stats contains all the federal laws adopted by Congress from 1789 to 2008. Thus to answer my simple little question, all you had to do was consult MY work, which is posted for free on the Net.
But, you still did not answer my question. Apparently, you know very little about finding something in the US Stats, but what you state above as the source for your contention is: “34th Congress, 1st Session Chapter 124 Section 5″. The proper citation for this act is 11 Stat. 49, ch. 124, section 5. I attach hereto that particular section of that act and as you can plainly see, nothing in this act supports your assertion.
But furthermore to make answering my question easy so you do not have to get up off your LAZY BUTT while you are stoned on pot, I attach the table of contents for this particular volume of the Stats. I have highlighted in yellow all acts during the relevant years (including years up thru 1859) that have anything to do with any courts. NOTHING in 11 Stat. supports your contention. But in the event that I have overlooked something, can you please provide to me the page number of 11 Stats. where this act is published. Frankly, it is my position that there is no such law because I have looked, and it is you who have lied!!! And now the whole world knows that you spread lies.
Tune into the Tom Cryer/Larry Becraft radio show this afternoon. We will be discussing you.
In addition, I also found this about Luis Ewing:
Here, Luis Ewing makes a bunch of boasts about how he is helping Wesley Snipes get his case dismissed. He claims he’s going to smoke pot with Wesley from his bong after his case is dismissed. I suppose you know, that never happened.
Related articles by Zemanta
- In Law, What is a Pro Per? (brainz.org)
- Clinics help people represent themselves in court (sfgate.com)
- Andrew Kreig: Siegelman Judge Asked To Recuse As Kagan, Rove Oppose Reviews (huffingtonpost.com)
- Legal Aid Clinics Under Attack (dailykos.com)
- Latest militia threat coming into focus (washingtonmonthly.com)