Bork's "Income Tax. Do You Volunteer?"

[Imalawman]

Having attempted to wade through "Woe Unto You, Lawyers", I can see why our resident troll population loves it so much. It looks Very Erudite and Scholarly; but it contains enough "organic fertilizer" that it's too bad that our farmers can't grind it up and find a use for it.

So much to rebut; so little time.

Rodell played a role that helped lead to the de-jargoning of the legal profession and making opinions more accessible. The profession needs its intelligent critics from time to time to keep the profession on its toes. I bear him no ill will, except that the illiterate take what he wrote and run with it. They fail to realize that he was essentially one of a kind, not considered a voice of reason, and will likely have no lasting legacy of scholastic achievement. Well, I suppose that sounds just like the type of person they'd be attracted to.

[Arthur Rubin]

Someone has put up a summary of Bork's gibberish "Red Amendment" on Wikipedia, under the title "State National". Now who could have done that?

Is anyone minding the asylum over there? What's next, a Stormfront piece on genetics?

Well, he didn't link the article to anything, or categorize it, so only the new article reviewers would normally have seen it. How did you find it?

Wikipedia, I'm afraid, is not a complete anarchy, so I may not summarily delete the article. If there were a legitimate topic with that name, I might overwrite the article with that.

[wserra]

How did you find it?

Bork is bragging about it. As some sycophant writes:

This is a great way to get it out to a multitude of people all at once. . . I think PAC is on to something in having this article posted on such a widely reached audiences, and what is even better, Wiki is world wide, this could help people in other nations whose governments may be de facto ones, also.

Blah, blah, blah. Smooch, smooch, smooch. But that's the point - Wikipedia does have some degree of credibility, warranted or not in the specific instance. It's bad for Wikipedia to publish stuff like Bork's.

There's not a lot of point in editing something like this. It needs to be written over with "This page used to contain uneditable nonsense". There's gotta be some mechanism for anything not "complete anarchy" to recognize this.

[Judge Roy Bean]

What most Borkites don't realize is Wiki isn't something someone sits down and reads like a newspaper.

Unless or until someone searches it or is given a link to it, no one will ever come across it.

[LPC]

The article has already been nominated for deletion.

[JamesVincent]

He posted an image of a page of law relating to Public Law 15 United States Statutes at Large, Chapter 249, Pages 223-224, calling it an expatriation act. Reading through it seems to indicate it was passed to a. extend the power and protection of the United States to US citizens traveling in other nations and b. granting naturalized citizen immigrants the power and protection of the United States government from persecution by the nation they had left. When I try to research this law it keeps sending me to Borks write-ups of it which dont seem to apply, but I havent found one actual page of law covering it. I even tried using find-law which usually is pretty good at finding stuff like that but no success.

Is this an actual law? And if it is, how would this apply to what he is spouting?

[bmielke]

Someone has put up a summary of Bork's gibberish "Red Amendment" on Wikipedia, under the title "State National". Now who could have done that?

Is anyone minding the asylum over there? What's next, a Stormfront piece on genetics?

Our own Famspear commented on it.

[The Operative]

Some anonymous user removed the nomination for deletion. I promptly undid their edit and restored the nomination for deletion.

[LPC]

He posted an image of a page of law relating to Public Law 15 United States Statutes at Large, Chapter 249, Pages 223-224, calling it an expatriation act.

It's a statute from 1868. I very much doubt it's still in force, considering other statutes having to do with naturalization and expatriation have been codified.

[The Operative]

He posted an image of a page of law relating to Public Law 15 United States Statutes at Large, Chapter 249, Pages 223-224, calling it an expatriation act.

It's a statute from 1868. I very much doubt it's still in force, considering other statutes having to do with naturalization and expatriation have been codified.

I would say that with any law Bork quotes or references, you can be at least 90% certain that his interpretation will be wrong.

[grixit]

He posted an image of a page of law relating to Public Law 15 United States Statutes at Large, Chapter 249, Pages 223-224, calling it an expatriation act. Reading through it seems to indicate it was passed to a. extend the power and protection of the United States to US citizens traveling in other nations and b. granting naturalized citizen immigrants the power and protection of the United States government from persecution by the nation they had left.

That's kind of the opposite of how Bork wants to use it.

[JamesVincent]

Seems he did manage to get himself number one on a list. His article is number one currently on the list of articles to be deleted by the Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... ovember_17

[JamesVincent]

I thought this was a pretty good article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redemption ... nt#History

Too bad it used the SPLC as a reference at the bottom.

[Demosthenes]

Too bad it used the SPLC as a reference at the bottom.

Not too many other publications would have given me 13 pages of space along with the cover.

[JamesVincent]

Has anyone else been looking at the deletion discussion? Interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... e_National

[The Jurist]

You dullards are such a laugh. You sit here and pat each other on the back thinking you have a handle on everything. Too bad you wasted so much getting an education to be told what to think.

As far as Evans worthless gibberish, the term "de jure" is found in Ballentine' s 3rd as:

By right; by lawful right; rightfully complying with the law in all respects.

Accordingly, I have just shown Evans to be a fool, so the rest of his blather really does not have to be addressed.

Have fun playing with each other!

Oh, my other thread... Nice to see it has gotten so many hits and the 100 limit post rule was dismissed. You guys hate me, you really hate me! LOL

[The Jurist]

Has anyone else been looking at the deletion discussion? Interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... e_National

Yes, it is interesting. Total conspiracy to deny the people the truth. Not one of the "attorneys" that have ganged up on the article has given any valid point whatsoever to why is should be deleted per the Wiki rules.

[The Jurist]

He posted an image of a page of law relating to Public Law 15 United States Statutes at Large, Chapter 249, Pages 223-224, calling it an expatriation act. Reading through it seems to indicate it was passed to a. extend the power and protection of the United States to US citizens traveling in other nations and b. granting naturalized citizen immigrants the power and protection of the United States government from persecution by the nation they had left.

That's kind of the opposite of how Bork wants to use it.

Moron.

[The Jurist]

How did you find it?

Bork is bragging about it. As some sycophant writes:

This is a great way to get it out to a multitude of people all at once. . . I think PAC is on to something in having this article posted on such a widely reached audiences, and what is even better, Wiki is world wide, this could help people in other nations whose governments may be de facto ones, also.

Blah, blah, blah. Smooch, smooch, smooch. But that's the point - Wikipedia does have some degree of credibility, warranted or not in the specific instance. It's bad for Wikipedia to publish stuff like Bork's.

There's not a lot of point in editing something like this. It needs to be written over with "This page used to contain uneditable nonsense". There's gotta be some mechanism for anything not "complete anarchy" to recognize this.

Jealous, Wes? Sure appears so.

Thanks for the thread, by the way. People can see what children you all are. It is sad that you people (term used... ah) screw over people every day.

[wserra]

You guys hate me, you really hate me!

In exactly the same manner that we "hate" Schiff, Rose, Mottahedeh, Cryer, Kahn, Kotmair, Bannister et al. You all sell snake oil. You just make it from different snakes.