Legal Bear

[Judge Roy Bean]

http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... _Smith.wav

This links to where?

Lala land.

[David Merrill]

That's the link.

Whose voice is it?

[ASITStands]

That's the link.

Whose voice is it?

Robert Lawrence speaking in Denver, Colo.

[David Merrill]

Bingo!

I thought that might take a while.

You hear Robert LAWRENCE making a plug for Legal Bear.

[wserra]

So what's next, David? OJ Simpson plugging Larry Becraft? Serius Black plugging Larken Rose?

What's the point?

[David Merrill]

The thread is about Legal Bear. But also about subconscious guidance - like Judge Roy Bean being the gatekeeper to La La Land. And of course you being his attorner Brethren.

Interestingly Legal Bear (Barry SMITH) promoted Robert LAWRENCE after the DoJ became discouraged and withdrew their prosecution. LAWRENCE proceeded to appeal anyway and felt he had lost that (nonsensical) appeal. However the appeal revealed to LAWRENCE and Lindsey SPRINGER too, their mistakes and assumptions.

However Lindsey SPRINGER was set his erroneous presumption was correct, when he was already set straight through observing LAWRENCE he was wrong. With dire results I might add.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... v_1995.wav

http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... lidity.wav

They were so close to unraveling the OMB # Fiasco - (that all the OMB #s get validity from Title 27 U.S.C.) that it is infuriating to watch SPRINGER flush himself down the toilet.

LAWRENCE in his appeal says a fatal presumption at the 5:37 Minute Mark:

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs. ... 05_020.mp3

We are down here at the 1995 PRA act, when the justice asking him about that application of case law is obviously talking about the Notice - on the 1040 Form and Instructions - the 1980 PRA Act.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[wserra]

Interestingly Legal Bear (Barry SMITH) promoted Robert LAWRENCE after the DoJ became discouraged and withdrew their prosecution. LAWRENCE proceeded to appeal anyway and felt he had lost that (nonsensical) appeal.

Not exactly, David.

A dismissal is not appealable, even if someone wanted to appeal it. Lawrence sought costs and attorney's fees under the Hyde Amendment (18 U.S.C. § 3006A). He lost in the District Court. That was the order he appealed. And he didn't "feel" that he lost the appeal, he did lose the appeal.

However the appeal revealed to LAWRENCE and Lindsey SPRINGER too, their mistakes and assumptions.

Which 2007 lesson is, of course, why Springer is facing jail in 2010.

However Lindsey SPRINGER was set his erroneous presumption was correct, when he was already set straight through observing LAWRENCE he was wrong. With dire results I might add.

Perhaps you might rephrase that, this time in English.

They were so close to unraveling the OMB # Fiasco - (that all the OMB #s get validity from Title 27 U.S.C.) that it is infuriating to watch SPRINGER flush himself down the toilet.

Unfortunately, David, as the Seventh Circuit said in Lawrence's Hyde Amendment appeal, there is no validity to the "OMB # Fiasco":

Lawrence’s brief represents an attempt to prove that the PRA could present a valid defense to the criminal charges. Yet Lawrence conceded at oral argument that no case from this circuit establishes such a proposition, and in fact Lawrence cites to no caselaw from any jurisdiction that so holds. In contrast, the government referenced numerous cases supporting its position that the PRA does not present a defense to a criminal action for failure to file income taxes, including: Salberg v. United States, 969 F.2d 379 (7th Cir. 1992); United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698 (11th Cir. 1992); United States v. Kerwin, 945 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1991); and United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34 (6th Cir. 1990). Nor is the correctness of Lawrence’s position evident from the language of the PRA itself. Lawrence provides no explanation for how government conduct can be vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith when there is no law contrary to it.

LAWRENCE in his appeal says a fatal presumption at the 5:37 Minute Mark:

He actually made a fatal error long before that. He filed a notice of appeal.

[David Merrill]

You talk funny.

You contradict youself about whether LAWRENCE intended to appeal or get attorney costs. And apparently you are not listening to the audio snippets.

Oh, well.

That was my point that the circuit justices never addressed the OMB# Fiasco because both SPRINGER and LAWRENCE could not see it to present. The DoJ dismissed because they were getting too close to revealing that the authority behind the OMB#s used for Title 26 is found through Title 27 - Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[wserra]

You contradict youself about whether LAWRENCE intended to appeal or get attorney costs.

He appealed the District Court's denial of his Hyde Amendment motion (seeking costs and attorneys' fees for bad faith govt conduct). I said that before, it's still right, and there's no contradiction.

And apparently you are not listening to the audio snippets.

I read law. You listen to snippets.

[notorial dissent]

Maybe having something to do with attention span and memory retention?

[David Merrill]

I know from watching that he was after an admission or confirmation about WHY the DoJ backed off midstream. Your quibbling is not all that distracting Wesley.

He thought he had the reason pegged and was mistaken.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... ng_Bob.wav

[David Merrill]

Glad to have you here Captain - just remember I am an Admiral nowdays.

[David Merrill]

The source of authority for the OMB# behind the PRA tracks back through the federal register to Title 27 of the United States Code. That is whether you utilize the 1980 PRA or the 1995 PRA. Alcohol, tobacco and firearms! Not Income Tax (Title 26).

Robert LAWRENCE and Lindsey SPRINGER got too close to revealing this for the Department of Justice to be comfortable with. That is the reason they withdrew the charges so mysteriously.


http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... ements.wav


Regards,

David Merrill.

[wserra]

Robert LAWRENCE and Lindsey SPRINGER got too close to revealing this for the Department of Justice to be comfortable with. That is the reason they withdrew the charges so mysteriously.

Is that also the reason, David, why in a couple of months Springer himself will have bars painted on his view of the world?

Wait a second, I see it now. Springer could have pulled down the whole corrupt temple of the federal income tax, as evidenced by the Lawrence dismissal. However, he realized the chaos such an act would have on the US govt. Therefore, in a truly remarkable act of self-sacrifice, he fell on his sword.

What a guy.

[David Merrill]

Robert LAWRENCE and Lindsey SPRINGER got too close to revealing this for the Department of Justice to be comfortable with. That is the reason they withdrew the charges so mysteriously.

Is that also the reason, David, why in a couple of months Springer himself will have bars painted on his view of the world?

Wait a second, I see it now. Springer could have pulled down the whole corrupt temple of the federal income tax, as evidenced by the Lawrence dismissal. However, he realized the chaos such an act would have on the US govt. Therefore, in a truly remarkable act of self-sacrifice, he fell on his sword.

What a guy.

While you might know the mind of the Department of Justice better than I do... Well, let's run on that thought. Why don't you just confirm that the OMB # system of authority tracks back to Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms?

In your tort lawyer way, you are actually trying to convolute my point to say I am somehow denying SPRINGER is headed for prison?

Linking this to the thread subject matter. Barry SMITH - Legal Bear - underwrote Robert LAWRENCE who was speaking in Denver about theories counselled by Lindsey SPRINGER. Like so often it goes, my telling them they were incorrect was rejected. Maybe even dismissed with a new conviction the erroneous approach was correct. Ergo the bullheaded defense that eventually failed SPRINGER.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[.]

Maybe even dismissed with a new conviction the erroneous approach was correct.

One of the better recent examples of Van Pelt's word-salad. Gibberish continues to rule on planet Van Pelt.

[Nikki]

While you might know the mind of the Department of Justice better than I do... Well, let's run on that thought. Why don't you just confirm that the OMB # system of authority tracks back to Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms?
...

Regards,

David Merrill.

Why should anyone, other than yourself, confirm YOUR erroneous allegation?

If you have any evidence -- such as a specific statute or regulation -- that shows ATF is the basis for the OMB numbering, please provide it and edify us.

Until then, we won't bother holding our breath.

[David Merrill]

Maybe even dismissed with a new conviction the erroneous approach was correct.

One of the better recent examples of Van Pelt's word-salad. Gibberish continues to rule on planet Van Pelt.

Explain why this is so difficult for Wesley to understand then?

Why don't you just confirm that the OMB # system of authority tracks back to Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms?

From the photo of his law firm, he could just reach up and find it right there in the office library.

[The Observer]

In your tort lawyer way, you are actually trying to convolute my point to say I am somehow denying SPRINGER is headed for prison?

No, he is trying to tell you that you are denying that Springer is headed for prison because he failed to obey the laws. What you are trying to convolute is the reason why Springer is headed to prison - that somehow he just made the wrong argument. It is simply amazing how many people who challenge the tax system never seem to make the right argument when they get their day in court. Why is that, David? How come you made the wrong argument that caused you to spend some time in the slammer? Why didn't you get it right?

Like so often it goes, my telling them they were incorrect was rejected. Maybe even dismissed with a new conviction the erroneous approach was correct. Ergo the bullheaded defense that eventually failed SPRINGER.

How ironic. Our telling you that you were incorrect has been rejected by you many times over. Are you preparing a new bullheaded defense that will also fail?

From the photo of his law firm, he could just reach up and find it right there in the office library.

Wow - an opportunity to prove Wes wrong and you are passing it up? Or is this just a vain attempt in hoping that no one will notice that your bluff has failed?

[David Merrill]

You missed my point:

It would be so easy to just verify that the OMB# behind the PRA tracks through the federal register back to Title 26 - The Internal Revenue Code. Knowing Wesley, he has already done that and now hopes you can run interference in time for this not getting to SPRINGER to utilize in appeal.


Regards,

David Merrill.