Pure/Common-Law/Non-Statutory/etc Trusts

User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 6142
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: Pure/Common-Law/Non-Statutory/etc Trusts

Post by Pottapaug1938 »

I vote for closure. If fmmcosta is as clueless as he appears, he is unlikely to understand repetitions of the explanations that we've already given him; and if he is playing a role and is really a sovrun troll, then he is going to go on playing Van Peltian word games ad infinitum as long as this thread remains open.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
Top
User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 7660
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:39 pm

Re: Pure/Common-Law/Non-Statutory/etc Trusts

Post by wserra »

fmmcosta wrote:
U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases 785, 794 wrote:The amendment [fourteenth] reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution
It's only necessary to examine one of these "quotes".

As The Operative noted, the Rhodes case (1866) precedes the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868). At p 794, the Court is discussing the Thirteenth Amendment (1865). "fmmcosta" just copied from some moron's site without bothering to verify. As others have pointed out, none of the cases s/he cites support the nonsense s/he has been subjecting us to.

I see Imalawman's "leaning towards" opposition to locking the thread, but I'm going to do so. Inanity has been adequately addressed in 185 posts.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
Top
Imalawman
Enchanted Consultant of the Red Stapler
Posts: 1808
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Formerly in a cubicle by the window where I could see the squirrels, and they were married.

Re: Pure/Common-Law/Non-Statutory/etc Trusts

Post by Imalawman »

wserra wrote:
fmmcosta wrote:
U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases 785, 794 wrote:The amendment [fourteenth] reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution
It's only necessary to examine one of these "quotes".

As The Operative noted, the Rhodes case (1866) precedes the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868). At p 794, the Court is discussing the Thirteenth Amendment (1865). "fmmcosta" just copied from some moron's site without bothering to verify. As others have pointed out, none of the cases s/he cites support the nonsense s/he has been subjecting us to.

I see Imalawman's "leaning towards" opposition to locking the thread, but I'm going to do so. Inanity has been adequately addressed in 185 posts.
(for the record, I read the total wrong, I thought we were only at 100) I agree that 185 is enough.
"Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs" - Unknown
Top

Return to “US”