LB Bork

[The Jurist]

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.

Strictly speaking, there is no federal common law... To use court cases in support is a violation of Due Process. But of course, you people are into violating the rights of people just like not answering questions and advancing ad hominem attacks, right?

[Dr. Caligari]

Strictly speaking, there is no federal common law... To use court cases in support is a violation of Due Process.

To cite court cases is to violate due process? Where did you get that idea from?

But of course, you people are into violating the rights of people just like not answering questions and advancing ad hominem attacks, right?

You're the one who has yet to answer a single one of my questions (or anyone else's for that matter).

[The Jurist]

What to start going into law now?

Actually, though, we have already started, with Caligari's and my questions about where you find anything about "private law" in the Constitution. You either ignore it or favor us with your "EPIC FAIL" opinion, something akin to a second-grader's "Nyah, nyah, nyah".

I am still waiting for the original answers to the article that was written-off as loony by the one that admits he is attorney on board. Once the article is properly debunked, maybe the questions you asked will be answered. So far all I have gotten is childish, non-responsive gibberish.

And, an epic fail is an epic fail.

[The Jurist]

All right, what is a resident? Where is this defined? We really need to know this.

If you think the word "resident" in the income tax regulations means something other than the common, dictionary definition, why don't you tell us what it means? And where that definition is found?

In fact, why don't you make one statement about the law-- any statement? Is it because you know that we would cite numerous cases showing you're wrong within 5 minutes after you post?

The noted attorney (aka, Daniel B. Evans) said the article he posted ignored the fact that 'resident' was noted in the regulation. So what? Apples and oranges to the subject matter discussed. So, you people were asked about what a resident was all about first. Answer please.

[Famspear]

What to start going into law now?

Actually, though, we have already started, with Caligari's and my questions about where you find anything about "private law" in the Constitution. You either ignore it or favor us with your "EPIC FAIL" opinion, something akin to a second-grader's "Nyah, nyah, nyah".

I am still waiting for the original answers to the article that was written-off as loony by the one that admits he is attorney on board. Once the article is properly debunked, maybe the questions you asked will be answered. So far all I have gotten is childish, non-responsive gibberish.

And, an epic fail is an epic fail.

No, you haven't received gibberish, childish or otherwise.

Get it straight, buster. The rest of the world is not here to prove to you what you want proved. If you want to copy and paste a specific statement from the article and explain why you think it's correct, be my guest. If we are so inclined, we will respond.

We'll decide whether the article needs to be "debunked," and we'll decide, if needed, whether the "debunking" is properly done.

[Gregg]

I think I'm tired of this one already, he's not just stupid, he's a real dickhead, too.

Epic Fail? Goodness, you're not in middle school are you? Or is that your own self assessment of your life?

Get ready for the ignore.

[The Jurist]

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).

Oh no! Not this worthless position. Two words: Grace Commission.

And it appears that "wserra" likes his Marxism.

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.

Boy, that sure is a deceptive statement... You must have a big brush to broad-brush that one. Also, nice touch on using the word "people" to encompass everyone. Great attorney trick. Another great attorney trick, this deciever left out a lot of the content of which that was taken from. Talk about MASTER DECEPTION. Afraid of something?

Question wserra: Does anyone have to be involved in criminal activity, or be associated with criminals?

[grixit]

.

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?

Ok, i'm just a layperson here, so everything i know about the rules of evidence i learned from Law and Order. Here goes:

Lawyer1: Your Honor, the 14th Amendment create a system of private law!

Lawyer2: Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence.

Judge: Well, Counselor? Can you show me the actual words in the 14th Amendment where it does that?

Lawyer1: Um, er, no i can't.

Judge: Sustained!

Lawyer1: But on this website it says so!

Lawyer2: Objection! Hearsay!

Judge: Sustained!

DAH-DUNK!

[The Jurist]

[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.

Same question to you LPC, Does anyone have to engage in criminal activity, or be associated with criminals?

[The Jurist]

I think I'm tired of this one already, he's not just stupid, he's a real dickhead, too.

Epic Fail? Goodness, you're not in middle school are you? Or is that your own self assessment of your life?

Get ready for the ignore.

Is Greg violating the Forum rules by using profanity, and also being a bit middle schoolish?

Just curious.

[The Jurist]

Strictly speaking, there is no federal common law... To use court cases in support is a violation of Due Process.

To cite court cases is to violate due process? Where did you get that idea from?

Am Jur, and Black's Law Sixth. But attorneys break the law all the time. An interesting custom and usage that they seem to get away with all too much.

[wserra]

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).

Oh no! Not this worthless position. Two words: Grace Commission.

Well, yes, two words do appear to delimit your knowledge. "Epic fail". "Grace Commission". Once you get past two words, "Jurist" changes the subject.

For example, the Grace Commission's conclusions - right or wrong, constantly misleadingly cited - were that one-third of available taxes were wasted, one-third were never collected (in part because of people like Bork) and "therefore" the remaining income tax revenues never got past debt service and transfer payments (which includes a couple of minor programs called "Social Security" and "Medicare"). Whatever you make of this - and yes, it's more complicated than that - the relevance is unclear. What do you think finances national defense? Education subsidies? It's hardly as though OMB says, "OK, let's go out and waste one-third of income tax collections, but nothing from other sources of revenue".

And it appears that "wserra" likes his Marxism.

"Marxism" is only one word. You might be able to handle one more.

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.

Boy, that sure is a deceptive statement... You must have a big brush to broad-brush that one. Also, nice touch on using the word "people" to encompass everyone. Great attorney trick.

I see. When Bork wrote that, he was only addressing the one unspecified person who asked the question. That's why he put in it his FAQ.

Gregg's right - this guy's too dumb to be as entertaining as I thought he was going to be. Delete his posts? Hell, no. He makes it clear that Bork is every bit the scammer we say he is. If I were Bork, I'd probably say he's one of us, setting him up to look bad.

[The Jurist]

Get it straight, buster. The rest of the world is not here to prove to you what you want proved.

I beg to differ, Firstly, Quatloos made a claim without justification, not the world. Facts are precise and not to be broad brushed and wherefore Quatloos must prove its claim with accuracy.

Secondly, my name is not buster (temper showing there, Famspear)

**Where did everyone go... There must be a lot of 9 to 5ers on board here**

[wserra]

To cite court cases is to violate due process? Where did you get that idea from?

Am Jur,

All 150 volumes?

and Black's Law Sixth.

All 700 pages?

Q. Where'd you get that crazy idea of Coulomb's Law, Jurist?
A. Physics.

[Gregg]

Is Greg violating the Forum rules by using profanity, and also being a bit middle schoolish?

I might be, we don't have a set in stone list of standards here, common sense, grace and context go a long way towards justifying a lot around here. And honestly, I only called you a dickhead because I thought it may be rude to call you an asshole on your first day.

But there's always tomorrow.

[Judge Roy Bean]

My troll-alert light has finally reached full intensity and the don't care light is blinking more and more rapidly.

Someone please tell me why this shouldn't go into the pissing contest trashbin.

[Pottapaug1938]

The (ahahaha) Jurist is a troll in the mold of Harvester, lorne and Van Pelt. Like them, he is constantly issuing challenges which demand proof of things that have been discussed many times before on Quatloos; but when he is challenged for citations to court cases which buttress his assertions, the verbal tapdance and shuffle begins anew.

It's time to press the collective "No Comment" button on this guy. Until and unless he summons up the guts to provide proof of his assertions, his scribbles aren't worth a second of our collective time.

[wserra]

Someone please tell me why this shouldn't go into the pissing contest trashbin.

Because amongst the pissing is a clear case that "LB Bork" is a scammer, something which merits a better fate than auto-pruning. It merits search-engine indexing, in fact. I do agree with Pottapaug that "Jurist" should be mooted out, but I also intend to look further into Bork.

[The Jurist]

To cite court cases is to violate due process? Where did you get that idea from?

Am Jur,

All 150 volumes?

and Black's Law Sixth.

All 700 pages?

Q. Where'd you get that crazy idea of Coulomb's Law, Jurist?
A. Physics.

Look it up... You are the one's that have to prove your claim.

Understanding that many men know many things, and no one knows everything...
Just as I noted above, you people do not know law... You better PRACTICE some more.

[Pottapaug1938]

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.

Strictly speaking, there is no federal common law... To use court cases in support is a violation of Due Process. But of course, you people are into violating the rights of people just like not answering questions and advancing ad hominem attacks, right?

Your cowardice and slipperiness is truly breathtaking. You respond to my post without addressing ANYTHING of what I said. You quote from the Erie case -- which is irrelevant here; you make an assertion about citing court cases which is so colossally ignorant and wrong I have to consider it as possibly the stupidest thing I've ever seen on Quatloos; and you end with a bunch of gibberish.

You really ought to stop using the computer when there are no grownups around.