You're welcome.marc stevens wrote:
Thank you. Answer the question I posted or start another thread.
I didn't know you asked me a question.
I didn't know you made the rules here, either.
Oh wait, you don't. So piss off.
You're welcome.marc stevens wrote:
Thank you. Answer the question I posted or start another thread.
Because vagueness allows their theories to escape the hard cold logical response that preciseness demands. Why else do so many of the TP theories rely on tortured interpretations of what "includes" means? Only vagueness allows for that kind of intellectual dishonesty.Duke2Earl wrote:Why do the wackos all have to ask vague questions?
It says, "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; — to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; — to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; — to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; — to controversies between two or more states; — between a state and citizens of another state; — between citizens of different states; — between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."marc stevens wrote: Does the US constitution say the following at Article III sec 2?
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law, and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States..."
Yes it would.marc stevens wrote:Does it apply the to federal courts, including the one in Wyoming?Joey Smith wrote:OK, I'll bite:
Does the US constitution say the following at Article III sec 2?
Yes, that is the first part of III.2"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law, and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States..."
I think Steven's choice of an avatar says a great deal about his lack of maturity and lack of confidence in his position regarding income tax and the courts.bmielke wrote:Also am I the only one that finds the Stevens' Wserra Avatar a bit disturbing. Ok I have an AK47 wielding cat, but to have a non-celebrity that is not yourself strikes me as a bit creepy.
I think man-crushes are cute.bmielke wrote:Ok Marc I answered your two questions where are you going with this?
Also am I the only one that finds the Stevens' Wserra Avatar a bit disturbing. Ok I have an AK47 wielding cat, but to have a non-celebrity that is not yourself strikes me as a bit creepy.
Someone else already did. I figured you only needed one answer.marc stevens wrote:LPC wrote:Not exactly. My guess is that he's eventually going to go down some rabbit hole of nonsense about the meaning of "United States" or the "standing" of the United States to bring a "case."wserra wrote:You all know where this is going, right?
I have to say that it's a bad sign when someone starts that vague and unfocused in his argument.
Why not just answer the question?
My comments above are directed at your arguments, not you personally.marc stevens wrote:You like to attack me, why not examine the basis of what I presented?
Are you talking about the "State of Wyoming" or just "Wyoming"?marc stevens wrote:Does it apply the to federal courts, including the one in Wyoming?Joey Smith wrote:OK, I'll bite:
Does the US constitution say the following at Article III sec 2?
Yes, that is the first part of III.2"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law, and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States..."
We have rules?Duke2Earl wrote:Tell you what, brainboy, if you're so brave why don't you play by our rules?
Back in my gubmint days. I was sorely tempted once, when I received a "refuse for cause", red stamped, response to one of my filings to send it back with more red stamps with "notice of dishonor, refusal rejected by a vessel in commerce under UCC etc..." on the front. But after consideration (which was short) I realized that the person in question could easily out-crazy me and I shouldn't get into that battle.LPC wrote:Are you talking about the "State of Wyoming" or just "Wyoming"?marc stevens wrote:Does it apply the to federal courts, including the one in Wyoming?
That's the question that Edwards asked of the IRS agent.
Hell yes! LPC is hereby fined 100Q for not knowing the rules.LPC wrote:We have rules?Duke2Earl wrote:Tell you what, brainboy, if you're so brave why don't you play by our rules?
So far, I haven't seen any honesty, or any investigation.marc stevens wrote:Oh no! Honest investigation, better run!
I haven't yet seen any issues presented, either. So far, all we have is a question about the text of the constitution and a question about geography. (Or was it about geography?)marc stevens wrote:Just examining the issues there Wesley, stop with the hysterics.
That's a kind of "strawman" argument, because no one here is afraid of judges being wrong.marc stevens wrote:I am only asking questions, what are you really afraid of, admitting a federal judge was wrong?
Thanks for your concern, bmielke, but I could care less. For better or worse, that's what I look like. (It's the picture from our web site.)webhick wrote:I think man-crushes are cute.bmielke wrote:Also am I the only one that finds the Stevens' Wserra Avatar a bit disturbing. Ok I have an AK47 wielding cat, but to have a non-celebrity that is not yourself strikes me as a bit creepy.
Someone with barely nine posts under their name is in no position to be ordering folks around.marc stevens wrote:Thank you. Answer the question I posted or start another thread.
To add to the above: judges are found wrong all the time. It's called an appellate reversal, sometimes of a decision of a trial judge and sometimes of a decision of a lower appellate court. The thing is, marc, every time this happens there is a published opinion setting forth, in specific and well-cited detail, why the previous judge(s) were wrong. All we've seen from you and your ilk are whines like "the courts are corrupt...the judges are scared of the IRS and of losing their income" and the like.LPC wrote:That's a kind of "strawman" argument, because no one here is afraid of judges being wrong.marc stevens wrote:I am only asking questions, what are you really afraid of, admitting a federal judge was wrong?