LB Bork

[Famspear]

Okay, DAN. We all can presume that you are an attorney.
Explain to the forum, line by line, why the paper (that you posted) is wrong (or loony).
Understanding that law is percise [sic], We need facts and not fallacious statements.

Dan doesn't need to "explain to the forum" -- line by line, foot by foot, inch by inch, mile by mile, or otherwise.

[The Observer]

Okay, DAN. We all can presume that you are an attorney.

Why should we have to presume that? Spend a little time browsing through the various threads here and you will see that LPC has stated that he is an attorney. No presumption needed.

Explain to the forum, line by line, why the paper (that you posted) is wrong (or loony).

Again, spend a little time browsing the threads and you will see where this nonsense has been debunked time and time again, not only by Dan, but others as well. There is no requirement that Dan has to regurgitate the obvious on your demand.

Understanding that law is percise [sic], We need facts and not fallacious statements.

The law is not always precise, which is why we have a judiciary to intepret and clarify the law. The failure of TPs to acknowledge that system is why they demand "facts" and never recognize that the "facts" they trot out in defense of their position are the truly fallacious statements.

Dan doesn't need to "explain to the forum" -- line by line, foot by foot, inch by inch, mile by mile, or otherwise.

On the other hand, Famspear will be glad and more than willing to explain it to you in limerick form.

[The Jurist]

So, that is not true? Please explain why it is not.

I have read the 14th Amendment. It says nothing about a "private law system." If you think the 14th Amendment created a "private law system," please explain (1) what you mean by the phrase "private law system," and (2) why you think the 14th Amendment created such a thing.

These principles are encompassed in the constitutional system of law of the United States.
Then, you are admitting that you do not know anything about constitutional or international law, or law, is that correct?

[The Jurist]

.

Oh my, Observer.... I will have fun getting back to you.

I am seeing that you people PRESUME a bit here at Quatloos.

I must ask, have you ever studied the rules of evidence?

[wserra]

These principles are encompassed in the constitutional system of law of the United States.

They are? Here's the Constitution, all on one page, searchable. The word "private" appears once, in the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment - and there it refers to "private property", not "private law".

Then, you are admitting that you do not know anything about constitutional or international law, or law, is that correct?

Actually, I think Caligari is saying that you are as much a "Jurist" as I am an NBA power forward.

[The Observer]

.

Oh my, Observer.... I will have fun getting back to you.

I am seeing that you people PRESUME a bit here at Quatloos.

I must ask, have you ever study the rules of evidence?

What does that have to do with you making general presumptions about someone when the conclusionary evidence is right in front of you? One does not need a court of law or the rules of evidence to decide the issue of whether a person is an attorney or not when a tort is not involved.

And I must ask, have you ever studied the rules of grammar and syntax?

[Dezcad]

I am an NBA power forward.

Ah, now I know why the Knicks are in such bad shape and haven't made the playoffs in 6 years.

[wserra]

This is not LB & if you read the article it explains who is liable & the communistic basis for the income tax, he does not tell people not to pay or file as tax deniers do. Definitely shouldn't be on the Tax defier list.

Izzat so?

Well, Bork generously offers the public an opportunity to break the bonds of the United States (while, of course, still leeching on such matters as a common defense, roads, schools and countless others). All it costs is $450 plus $300 per year thereafter. (I wonder what happens if you don't pay? Do you revert to the dreaded "U.S. citizen" status?) Here is the "application". (I further wonder how many who pay the fee are not "approved"?) From that document:

Q: Do I have to pay state and federal Income Taxes after I terminate my federal status?

A: As a general rule: No.

Oh, I understand. Bork doesn't "tell people not to pay"; he just says they don't have to. Glad we cleared that up.

[Pottapaug1938]

Pottapaug1938, there is no private law? That is interesting.
Maybe you can explain this to the members of the forum.

That won't be necessary. Most of the regulars on this forum are smart enough to know that there is no such thing, at least as far as the Constitution is concerned; and as for you, I don't think that you're up to understanding the facts, so I won't waste my time.

[Pottapaug1938]

So, that is not true? Please explain why it is not.

I have read the 14th Amendment. It says nothing about a "private law system." If you think the 14th Amendment created a "private law system," please explain (1) what you mean by the phrase "private law system," and (2) why you think the 14th Amendment created such a thing.

These principles are encompassed in the constitutional system of law of the United States.
Then, you are admitting that you do not know anything about constitutional or international law, or law, is that correct?

Actually, the good doctor does know quite a bit about both constitutional and international law, as a quick perusal of his previous posts will show. It is YOU, "Jurist", who knows nothing about either. Of course, you can prove me wrong; and a quick citation of appellate court cases buttressing your points will accomplish that quite nicely.

You can also directly answer his questions, instead of ducking them like you did.

[Thule]

The only Bork worth mentioning:

[The Observer]

Well, Bork generously offers the public an opportunity to break the bonds of the United States (while, of course, still leeching on such matters as a common defense, roads, schools and countless others). All it costs is $450 plus $300 per year thereafter. (I wonder what happens if you don't pay? Do you revert to the dreaded "U.S. citizen" status?) Here is the "application". (I further wonder how many who pay the fee are not "approved"?)

And all of this makes me wonder at the timing of these two erstwhile defenders of the Bork site. Is it possible that Bork has seen a decrease in his cash flow from his sovrun site? And that he is attributing this decline due to the fact that potential customers are being scared off by what they have read in Quatloos? And do our two Bork apoligists get a prime directive to come here and counter the message?

Inquiring minds would love to know.

[wserra]

And do our two Bork apoligists get a prime directive to come here and counter the message?

Whatever the reason, fresh meat is good. Harvey and lorne were starting to smell.

[Gregg]

So, that is not true? Please explain why it is not.

I have read the 14th Amendment. It says nothing about a "private law system." If you think the 14th Amendment created a "private law system," please explain (1) what you mean by the phrase "private law system," and (2) why you think the 14th Amendment created such a thing.

And just maybe the boatload of cases decided upon it in the last 140 years. Surely you're not saying that we set up a super duper fooled them all legal trick to get the peasants to pay taxes and no cases have left a papertrail in the courts?

By the way, nice job on pumping up the sov'run stupids. Go find a site where there is one or two mentions of you, none in the last several months, and protest those mentions to the point of making an active topic out of something you were supposedly trying to cover up. Good Job Sport! Like the use of a sockpuppet, too. Nothing says "pathitic loser" like registering two names the same day to support each other on an internet forum.

[wserra]

And that he is attributing this decline due to the fact that potential customers are being scared off by what they have read in Quatloos?

Nah. Look at this - LB used to like us but doesn't any more. In fact, now "Stay tuned as we will be listing the law breakers (deceivers) of the Quatloos team of gang-bangers (as in ganging up like rapists) by name in this thread. We know how they operate by side-stepping questions and issues so this will be fun, guaranteed."

Y'know, I think it just might. I for one won't have time to do it until the weekend, but I think it's time to take a closer look at ol' LB.

[webhick]

And that he is attributing this decline due to the fact that potential customers are being scared off by what they have read in Quatloos?

Nah. Look at this - LB used to like us but doesn't any more. In fact, now "Stay tuned as we will be listing the law breakers (deceivers) of the Quatloos team of gang-bangers (as in ganging up like rapists) by name in this thread. We know how they operate by side-stepping questions and issues so this will be fun, guaranteed."

Gee, I hope I make the list. I've been up all night for weeks practicing gang signs in the bad parts of town and learning how to shoot guns sideways. It would be an absolute tragedy if all my hard work didn't pay off.

[Pottapaug1938]

LB should know a lot about side-stepping questions, since he's practiced it several times in his Quatloos posts.

[The Observer]

Gee, I hope I make the list. I've been up all night for weeks practicing gang signs in the bad parts of town and learning how to shoot guns sideways. It would be an absolute tragedy if all my hard work didn't pay off.

Isn't that why you have "interns"?

No, the interns were functioning as targets during her practice runs.

But I agree with webhick, I would be terribly disappointed if I didn't make the gang-banger list. I am ever so hopeful that the Bork Board will hand out colorful nicknames or titles as well. Please make it so!

[LPC]

Lb does not advocate that people are sovereign, or soveregin individuals, or sovereign citizens, or anything resembling what alot of the gurus in the list advocate.

The fact that his gibberish uses slightly different terminology from the usual sovereign gibberish does not mean that his gibberish is not sovereign gibberish.

Below is a clip from one of his articles, which should be grounds for removing him from the list

[snip]Like the capital ‘C’ citizen ruse, what people are trying to accomplish here is to claim that they are not 14th Amendment citizens. The problem is they probably are due to the fact they have done nothing to terminate the citizenship.

Yep, that's sovereign citizen gibberish all right.

Thanks for helping confirm our opinions.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I am seeing that you people PRESUME a bit here at Quatloos.
...

Presumptions are a requirement of life. You don't have to study astronomy or quantum mechanics to assure yourself of the fact that the sun will come up in the morning.

When people promote ignorant foolishness such as Bork's (especially for a price) the presumption has to be they are nothing more than con-artists.