LB Bork

[Geoff J]

Here's my list. Please add to the names as needed.

Joe Banister
Clifton Beale
Bill Benson
Brett Bork
Dave Champion
Robert Clarkson
Jack Cohen
Chuck Conces
Bill Conklin
Richard Cornforth
Tommy Cryer
Bill Drexler
Chris Hansen
Christopher Hansen
Steve Hempfling
Pete Hendrickson
Jean Keating
Devvy Kidd
John Kotmair
Mitch Modeleski (Paul Andrew Mitchell)
Peymon Mottahedeh
David Myrland
Victoria Osborn
Gordon Phillips
Tom Scambos
Robert Schulz
Otto Skinner
Lindsey Springer
Richard Standring
Harold Thomas
Ken Thompson (The Inhabitant)
Lynda Wall

Demo, you can scratch LB's (Brett Bork) name off the list. There is absolutely 0% detax snake oil propagated or sold at his website, pacinlaw.org or at notmygovernment.us

[Geoff J]

Help me put together a list, please.

Roger Elvick
The Dim Duo from the Dorean Group
Jean Keating
Winston Shrout
Tim Turner
Sam Kennedy
Eddie Kahn
Barton Buhtz
Shawn Rice
David-Wynn:Miller
Michael-Edward:Keith
David-Clarence:Schroll
Sam Davis
Jack Smith
Bill Bauer
Mary Croft
Karen Tappert
William Diehl
Greg Gentry
David Myrland
Richard Cornforth
LB Bork
Dave Mack
Keith Livingway
Doug Riddle
Gordon Hall
Brandon Adams
Lee S. Crudup (Grand Sheik Nature El Bey)
King Solomon of Sovereign Solomon Brothers
Ronald Karyance Delorme (Little Shell Pambina)

LB Bork advocates AGAINST people claiming to be sovereigns. Not an accurate representation to have him on this list as a "sovereign" enthusiast

[LPC]

Demo, you can scratch LB's (Brett Bork) name off the list. There is absolutely 0% detax snake oil propagated or sold at his website, pacinlaw.org or at notmygovernment.us

Hi, LB, and welcome to Quatloos.

And you must have overlooked this little gem: INCOME TAX! DO YOU VOLUNTEER?, authored by LB Bork.

[Geoff J]

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.

[The Observer]

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.

Whoever you are, you need to understand something. This site has been operating for a number of years with a number of regular contributors who have the experience and knowledge of what qualifies a person to be desginated as a tax defier. And these people pretty much see eye-to-eye with each other on that criteria.

One of those criteria is that tax defiers typically try to redefine what the law really says about the legality and liability for taxes, the meaning of citizenship, and what taxes individuals are liable for. As such, the website that you are making a stand for definitely meets that criteria. So if you want to make a clear case for that site to be not seen as a supporter of tax defiance, you will need to convince the owner of that site that they are definitely in the wrong about their intepretation of the law and get them to change the site to reflect that.

Otherwise, our verdict remains the same. Guilty as charged.

[Geoff J]

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

I'M A STATE CITIZEN
You do not have jurisdiction over me because I am a “state citizen”.
This workaround is practically the same as the capital ‘C’ citizen. It will also get you nowhere.
People are getting this from the principles of the original Constitution. 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. The court will consider that you are such a citizen under a legal rule called a “legal fiction”. A legal fiction is a presumption made by a court due to the lack of evidence to the contrary of which the court formulates its belief. There are plenty of legal fictions based on facts and legal doctrines that will show that you are a 14th Amendment citizen.
To end this misplaced theory, there are no state citizens. The 14th Amendment usurped the status. One has to be in political rebellion against the original Constitutional system to be a citizen. In other words, as the term “citizen” means political rights, the right/status is dead. That is why the Coalition is centering on state nationality: the de jure “citizen” status is not able to be used.
Face it: The government of your state (country) has been taken-over by a bunch of insurgents. Your neighbor, who is voting for them, put them in office and has stolen your political rights.
• For more information: http://www.pacinlaw.org/pdf/Citizen_Legal_Fiction.php
• And also see: http://www.pacinlaw.org/pdf/14th_Section_2.php
• Also see: http://www.pacinlaw.org/pdf/Some_Questions.php
4) I'M A SOVEREIGN
I am a sovereign man. This claim has many avenues of which may be explored.
An anarchist is someone that believes in no government. What rules does ‘this’ sovereign man follow? Does he set his own moral code? Would one really want this sovereign man living around him? Maybe he likes to do things that you believe to be immoral. Another case, is a man that follows his religion a sovereign man? This man notes that God is the sovereign. This sovereign man cannot do whatever he wants if he is beholden to the law of Scripture. How is he sovereign?
The point is, most do not know what is encompassed when they claim to be a sovereign man.
To clarify some points here, some people believe in God, some do not. Either type of belief will nonetheless bring one under a system of law entitled “natural rights” (or one might say: born free with unalienable rights). Accordingly, one could speculate that one is in full control of his life and not beholden to anyone. In a perfect world, this would be great; however, people in America are born within the dominion of a multi-tiered governmental system. That brings us to:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” —Declaration of Independence
In international and constitutional law, the state is considered the sovereign. Once someone submits to any benefit of a government whatsoever, in most respects he has pruned his natural rights. As a general rule, using any court or filling-out any government forms will render you a citizen/subject. Moreover, most do not understand that rules of law place a man to be under the dominion of a government at his birth; accordingly, he is a citizen/subject of the governmental system. Such issues aside, the maxim of law that “a man is king of his castle” illustrates that he has dominion within the limits of his property; however, “the games” begin when he leaves that property. Although he is born free with natural rights, being a citizen of a government clips his sovereignty. This is similar to the states having a clipped sovereignty under international law for being a member of the Union under the United States Constitution.
 Simply put: Members must follow The Rules.
The long and the short of the sovereign man standing is, the private law system created under the 14th Amendment and its legal fictions will render the state the ruler over the man. And, one should take into consideration of what William Penn stated: “Those people not governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.” In other words, if the state knows that you do not have a superior law form that governs your life, it will be controlling you if you are living within its dominion.
So, sovereign man? Not if you are a “citizen member” under the dominion of government. If you are not a citizen of that government, you may be treated as stateless; and depending on the people in dominion you may not be able to own property, or have many other rights afforded to that body politic. Sorry, but in view of the systems of public and private law and in the realm of the international arena, if you are claiming to be a sovereign man, you better have your own island.
In summary, it is ventured that someone who parrots the phrase “I’m a sovereign” is thinking he is not under the so-called corporate United States government. Just saying such a thing will not put a force-field around them. As the maxim of law goes, the contract makes the law.
• For more information: http://www.pacinlaw.org/pdf/Sovereigns_ ... bjects.php

[Geoff J]

Whoever you are, you need to understand something. This site has been operating for a number of years with a number of regular contributors who have the experience and knowledge of what qualifies a person to be desginated as a tax defier. And these people pretty much see eye-to-eye with each other on that criteria.

Your statement amounts to , "If it's on Quatloos, it's just gotta be true". There is nothing at pacinlaw.org or notmygovernment.us which promotes people not paying taxes, which is the M.O. of tax denier/defiers.

[Pottapaug1938]

I would say that this excerpt from LB's scribblings cements his place on the list.

[Geoff J]

I would say that this excerpt from LB's scribblings cements his place on the list.

Maybe we can start an arbitrary "list" on our forum of "Facts deniers", we'll put you &/or Quatloos at the top, since you offered a baseless statement.

[Pottapaug1938]

Whoever you are, you need to understand something. This site has been operating for a number of years with a number of regular contributors who have the experience and knowledge of what qualifies a person to be designated as a tax defier. And these people pretty much see eye-to-eye with each other on that criteria.

Your statement amounts to , "If it's on Quatloos, it's just gotta be true". There is nothing at pacinlaw.org or notmygovernment.us which promotes people not to pay taxes, which is what tax denier/defiers do.

The Observer's statement is nothing of the kind, Geoff. All he is saying is that the regular contributors to which he refers -- many of whom have years of experience and/or advanced degrees in subjects related to the law and income taxation -- are well equipped to figure out who is and is not a tax denier.

As in the case of the notorious "Cracking the Code", it took me only a few seconds' worth of perusal of each site to see that LB is competely off-the-wall crzy, be it about taxation, citizenship, or any other political subject.

[LPC]

This is not LB

Then what? Relative? Girlfriend? Boyfriend?

Your first two posts to this site were to "defend" someone whose name appears only 2-3 times on this site, and in postings from several months ago. So you came here looking for the name of someone you already knew.

& if you read the article it explains who is liable

I'm not sure that the article "explains" anything, but simply restates the author's delusions.

And several of those delusions are typical tax denier delusions, such as is found on page 3:

The only true remedy [to income tax liability] is that of removing yourself from the body politic (i.e. the political system) that has been deviously and stealthily created by and under the unlawfully installed Fourteenth Amendment.

It doesn't get much loonier than that.

[Pottapaug1938]

I would say that this excerpt from LB's scribblings cements his place on the list.

Maybe we can start an arbitrary "list" on our forum of "Facts deniers", we'll put you &/or Quatloos at the top, since you offered a baseless statement.

Baseless? When the offered excerpt from his scribblings shows that he is hung up on, among other things, a mythical distinction between "state" citizenship and "14th Amendment" citizenship? When LB makes a big fuss over being a "Citizen" vs. a "citizen"? When he goes on and on about some mythical "private law system"? When he mouths words advising against declaring oneself a "sovereign", but then proceeds to set forth the exact same theories used to justify "sovereign" declarations?

I have to correct myself -- this doesn't cement LB's place on the list, it welds him firmly to it.

[The Observer]

Your statement amounts to , "If it's on Quatloos, it's just gotta be true".

If you are going to reduce my statement to a pithy quote, so be it. But if you are asking me to place a bet on the accuracy of Quatloos versus the accuracy of LB's sites, I would be more than glad to place a bet.

There is nothing at pacinlaw.org or notmygovernment.us which promotes people not paying taxes, which is the M.O. of tax denier/defiers.

And predictably, you have already been handed your head by the experts here by making this untrue statement. It is probably not wise to continue to do so if you wish to avoid further embarassment.

Here is how the situation appears to me. LB (and yourself) are trying to hide behind the semantics of the above quote. While the site (in your mind) does not expressly or specifically state that people should not pay income taxes or does not specifically direct or advise people to not pay their taxes, the logical conclusion of what it is preaching is that people should not pay taxes. Hence, LB (and yourself) are relying on intellectual dishonesty in making the claim that the site is not a tax defiance site.

Coincidentally, intellectual dishonesty is also another hallmark of tax defier behavior.

[The Jurist]

I would say that this excerpt from LB's scribblings cements his place on the list.

...When he goes on and on about some mythical "private law system"?

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

[Thule]

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

Not "private law". "Private law system". As in;

The long and the short of the sovereign man standing is, the private law system created under the 14th Amendment and its legal fictions will render the state the ruler over the man.

[The Jurist]

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

Not "private law". "Private law system". As in;

The long and the short of the sovereign man standing is, the private law system created under the 14th Amendment and its legal fictions will render the state the ruler over the man.

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

[Thule]

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

There is a huge colony of pink elephants on the far side of the moon. If you disagree, please explain why it's not.

[Dr. Caligari]

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.

[The Jurist]

This is not LB

Then what? Relative? Girlfriend? Boyfriend?

Your first two posts to this site were to "defend" someone whose name appears only 2-3 times on this site, and in postings from several months ago. So you came here looking for the name of someone you already knew.

& if you read the article it explains who is liable

I'm not sure that the article "explains" anything, but simply restates the author's delusions.

And several of those delusions are typical tax denier delusions, such as is found on page 3:

The only true remedy [to income tax liability] is that of removing yourself from the body politic (i.e. the political system) that has been deviously and stealthily created by and under the unlawfully installed Fourteenth Amendment.

It doesn't get much loonier than that.

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, We need facts and not fallacious statements.

[wserra]

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

There is a huge colony of pink elephants on the far side of the moon. If you disagree, please explain why it's not.

Because, if they're on the moon's far side, as far as we're concerned they're a huge colony of black elephants. Moreover, the original 14th Amendment prohibited Titles of Pachydermity, so they're not elephants. They're very large termites. Why do you think there are no houses on the far side?

This very important topic deserved its own thread.