Bork begins his description of his own work with a quote from former Congressman John Rarick of Louisiana:
Now, I knew I recognized the name, so I looked into John Rarick. He was one of the last diehard segregationists in Congress. He was a judge before he went to Congress, and once referred to integration as "a tool of the Communist conspiracy." As a Congressman, after Martin Luther King was assassinated, Rarick called him "a Communist errand-boy" and a man "whose only claim to fame was disobedience of the law". When someone like this - in 1967 - complains about how the federal government "overthrow[s] the tender balances and protections of limitation found in the Constitution", it's perfectly clear what he's saying - leave the bubbas in Louisiana to their oppressive devices. Southern politicians used such racial codes routinely in the early days of the civil rights movement.We have tolerantly permitted the habitual misuse of words to serve as a vehicle to abandon our foundations and goals. Thus, the present use and expansion of the 14th Amendment is a sham — serving as a crutch and hoodwink to precipitate a quasi-legal approach for overthrow of the tender balances and protections of limitation found in the Constitution.
I don't know if Bork realizes this. If he does, he adopts odious ideas from a racist past. If he doesn't, it shows the level of his "scholarship". He can choose whether he displays evil or ignorance.
So the "Red Amendment" refers to the Fourteenth. Bork clearly finds it to be the root of all evil: it "was used to impose illegal taxes, create an illegal central bank, issue worthless fiat money and confiscate the lawfully-held gold of American citizens". It is, in Bork's words, an "ungratified Amendment". Bork doesn't cite a single case, statute or constitutional provision in support of all those claims of illegality. Bork offers several excerpts on another page; not a single citation to anything among them. Apparently Rarick is enough.
The problem, according to Bork, has to do with one's "Nationality". You need to "correct" your "nationality" in order to become free. Bork will kindly help you with this - for a fee, of course.
So what's all this stuff about "Nationality"? Well, he has put up a pdf called "Nationality Premise". I'll try to describe that "premise", but a warning to the reader - legally, it's gibberish. That makes it difficult to describe. While I love the poem, try describing Lewis Carroll's "Jabberwocky" to someone who hasn't read it.
The gibberish begins in the first non-introductory paragraph: "The general make-up of the American union under the law of nations is that each state is a country (or nation)." That, of course, is nonsense, and Bork just states the nonsense with no support, as though it's obvious. As is typical of sovereign lawyer wannabes, he grabs a legal concept and uses it in a context in which it has no application. There is, of course, a "law of nations". It is a poorly-defined body of principles which is intended to guide relations between countries, and has nothing whatsoever to do with those countries' internal governance. The law of nations, combined with treaties and international agreements, make up international law. The Constitution is supreme over treaties, agreements and the "law of nations". Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957). Bork's train derails just out of the station.
Bork commits the same sleight of hand in another of his screeds which has made the paytriot rounds, one he calls "Income Tax! Do you Volunteer?":
Well, no, it isn't. The Constitution - including the Fourteenth Amendment - is the supreme law of the land. Once case - Reid - blows down the entire house of cards.Before going into great detail—simply put—you are in the wrong nation!
This whole legal issue is based on international law (a.k.a. Law of Nations).
There really is little point in going line-by-line through either of these tracts when their premise is wrong. Still, the reader who goes farther finds sentence after sentence of breathtakingly wrong legal fantasy, stated either without citation or with a citation that fails to support (actually, usually contradicts) Bork's proposition.
So what do you do if "you are interested in claiming your nationality of right held under International Law", even though there is no such thing? Well, I'm sure all the readers will be shocked to learn that you pay Bork. You fill out the form and send it to him with $450. You later send him another $300, perhaps one-time and perhaps every year, it's not clear. What do you get for your (at least) $750? Well, "the legal process involves a procedure, which is not much different than filing a tax return". Oh, it's a "procedure". Informative. What "procedure"? Well, "the process is executed based on research of law and the knowledge of administrative procedures". I get it - it's a procedure procedure. The double-talk just goes on, without Bork ever saying what he does. I wonder why that is?
And what do you supposedly get for your money? Bork offers several things:
No, "technically". The only means of expatriation are set forth in 8 USC 1481. Look at them. "Pay Bork" isn't on the list. And, of course, if you did successfully expatriate, you wouldn't be entitled to be here without doing all the things aliens must do.Q: Am I expatriating? A: Yes, technically
The only true answer here. But it won't "be held against me" because it doesn't do anything.Q: If I was a registered voter will this be held against me? A: No. Because of the fraud that is being committed nothing is ever said, questioned or done pursuant to such issue.
False, possibly criminal. Correct answer: this mumbo-jumbo has no effect on your obligation to pay taxes. If you made enough that you had to pay beforehand, you still do. Ask Bork to tell you of one verifiable instance of someone not having to pay income tax. Just one.Q: Do I have to pay state and federal Income Taxes after I terminate my federal status? A: As a general rule: No.
But Bork doesn't buy into "sovereign citizen" nonsense. No indeedy. So ask him for one person who can show that federal law doesn't apply to him. Just one.Q: Does the United States Constitution still apply to me? A: Only for issues that pertain to public lawor when the federal government deals with you. Example: The gun laws that the federal governmentpasses generally will not apply to you in your country.
Oh. Most things will be different, except those things that won't be different. Pay them more, and maybe they'll explain.Q: How are my legal matters handled as a national de jure? A: Most matters will be handled in a different manner; however, depending on the situation they may be no different.This is where studyof the law will be beneficial. The Coalition may be able to assist in these matters.
Izzat so? No authority? You know the drill: ask Bork for one verifiable instance in which an employer who refuses to stop withholding - as any major employer will - has been found to be "misappropriating your property". Don't hold your breath.Q: What will my employer say when I request that he stop withholding taxes? A: What can he say. . .He has to stop withholding or he is stealing (misappropriating) your property
The various "People's Awareness Coalition" sites have a truly extraordinary bullshit density - the amount of nonsense per column cm. There are many, many more examples.
The rules of this thread: we welcome anyone who wishes to prove any legal basis at all for this stuff, certainly including Bork himself. However, what happened to the last "LB Bork" thread isn't going to happen to this one. Posts free of both fact and law will be moved to the appropriate place.
