Is a statutory definition

[Famspear]

.....I do find it cute you folks your [sic] the only ones with access to books or the ability to comprehend them.....

Yes, it is odd, isn't it?

For example, you come off as a blowhard by challenging the regulars here on some point of law by asking, in so many words, how such and such a position reconciles to the Tully case, and it turns out that you not only had not read the Tully case, but didn't even have a copy of it.

Call us stuck up, I guess, we do sort of expect that you actually read the material. And, silly us: we do sort of have this idea that you must actually have read something before you can comprehend what you have read.

It's one thing if you don't have access to legal materials. It's quite another to be appear to challenging Peter E. Hendrickson for the title of Blowhard-in-Chief.

[arayder]

Can the Feds prosecute me for jaywalking in Orlando?

Well they can not, because they do not have legislative jurisdiction to make or enforce laws for the city of Orlando.

Well, that's neither here nor there.

The question at hand is your original, clumsy inference that the federal tax code is invalid because it doesn't define a "state".

That notion has been disproven, not that you ever had the the fortitude to come right out and state it as your argument.

Likewise your idea that the sovcit notion of uber-state nullification trumps the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution has been debunked. But I give you credit for at least saying that bit of absurdity out right.

So isn't it time for you to start a new thread which you begin by spinelessly posing one of your borrowed beliefs as a simple question about which you pretend to have no opinion?

[Patriotdiscussions]

.....I do find it cute you folks your [sic] the only ones with access to books or the ability to comprehend them.....

Yes, it is odd, isn't it?

For example, you come off as a blowhard by challenging the regulars here on some point of law by asking, in so many words, how such and such a position reconciles to the Tully case, and it turns out that you not only had not read the Tully case, but didn't even have a copy of it.

Call us stuck up, I guess, we do sort of expect that you actually read the material. And, silly us: we do sort of have this idea that you must actually have read something before you can comprehend what you have read.

It's one thing if you don't have access to legal materials. It's quite another to be appear to challenging Peter E. Hendrickson for the title of Blowhard-in-Chief.

Not that I did not print out a copy and it is lost in the mounds of shit on my desk, but the basics was, convicted, overturned, kicked up to Feds, could not prosecute because no jurisdiction.

Please elaborate on the main points I am missing.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Can the Feds prosecute me for jaywalking in Orlando?

Well they can not, because they do not have legislative jurisdiction to make or enforce laws for the city of Orlando.

Well, that's neither here nor there.

The question at hand is your original, clumsy inference that the federal tax code is invalid because it doesn't define a "state".

That notion has been disproven, not that you ever had the the fortitude to come right out and state it as your argument.

Likewise your idea that the sovcit notion of uber-state nullification trumps the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution has been debunked. But I give you credit for at least saying that bit of absurdity out right.

So isn't it time for you to start a new thread which you begin by spinelessly posing one of your borrowed beliefs as a simple question about which you pretend to have no opinion?

Hey I got an ideal, waste more of your time stalking me online so you can prove your Cracker Jack psych eval about me wanting to brag again.

Idiots always make me laugh.

[fortinbras]

I am not going to make an issue of US v. Tully (D.Mont. 9/23/1905) 140 Fed 899. It's not reader friendly, it deals with issues that were rare and complex back in 1905 and now are even tougher to understand, and there doesn't seem to be a copy of the text for free on the internet.

But what I object to is your failure to learn from the good information you've been getting. You seem to start with a simple question, when it's answered instead of building on the answer, you pull out of you sleeve a good deal more stuff, some of it unrelated and some of it based on entirely different legal issues, that you were keeping back when you were pretending to start simply. This is not how you learn, this is how you make yourself unwelcome.

[Pottapaug1938]

PD has long since proven that, with this thread, he is once again "just asking questions" to which he already thinks he knows the answer and wants either confirmation from us, or wants to catch us using a phrase which he can twist into his fervently hoped-for confirmation. He is, once again, moving the goalposts, and is once again refusing to answer direct questions put to him. He is, once again, mischaracterizing to put it politely) things which we have said in the past.

It's time to put this thread to bed, folks; and frankly, if he does this again with another thread, it's time for moderated status.

[arayder]

At this point in his threads PD reminds me of the bad guy in the old westerns who having fired about twelve rounds from his six shooter finally runs out of ammo.

He points his revolver at the good guy and pulls the trigger only to hear a click. Unwilling to believe he's empty he pulls the trigger three mover times and then throws the gun at the good guy. He throws like a sissy.

If the western is for kids the Gene Autry like good guy walks out from behind cover and puts the bad guy under arrest while he gives him a lecture on how crime doesn't pay.

If it's a western for older folks the good guy shoots the bad guy. If it's a Sam Peckinpaugh western we see the blood shoot out the bad guys' back.

If it's Quatloos western PD starts a new thread and right away gets shot several more times because he fails to brings a gun to the gun fight. "Was I supposed to bring a Colt?" "And can you learned gentlemen tell me where it says I was supposed to load it?"

[Famspear]

Not that I did not print out a copy and it is lost in the mounds of shit on my desk....

Baloney.

Please elaborate on the main points I am missing.

We already did. And, you missed ALL the main points.

I suggest we close the thread.

[wserra]

It's time to put this thread to bed

I suggest we close the thread.

Concur. However, as long as people keep answering, trolls keep posting.