Shots fired at the Dog Walker being used to justify violence

[SteveSy]

Steve, you're in la-la land (to repeat a phrase used elsewhere in Quatloos recently). I haven't been indoctrinated by "the courts," at least not in the way I think you mean. As we have said over and over, our legal system comes to us from English common law. Case law is an integral part of the system, and has been since BEFORE the Founding Fathers. I did not make this up. This was the case long before you and I were born. Your belief that case law is somehow not really part of the law is delusional. You are trying to rationalize your beliefs about Federal income tax law.

No I'm not delusional. You've accepted an opinion of common law. Not every scholar accepts your view, granted most in law school have. The Holmes approach is a modern view used to obfuscate true history. Of course it’s not surprising considering judges have been rewriting history to fit their opinions for almost a century now.

In class, instead of having the professor "lecture" to you as an "expert," as you would with a history teacher or professor in a high school or college history class, you are subjected to the Socratic method. This is a method of discourse where, instead of having the professor lecture or feed you "answers," you learn to reason for yourself. In law school, you actually teach yourself, to a far greater degree than in high school or college.

Hogwash.....

Try reading Stoner on common law….he backs every bit of his work up with historical fact unlike Holmes rationalizing how judges are really divinely inspired individuals appointed to find the hidden rules behind the proper development of civilization. Hidden rules and laws only a delusional egomaniac could find.

Sir Edward Coke wrote:

"[Common law] is composed of customs and usages, and maxims, deriving their authority from immemorial practice, and the recognition of the courts of justice....Much, indeed, of this unwritten law may now be found in books, in elementary treatises, and in judicial decisions. But it does not derive its force from these circumstances. On the contrary, even judicial decisions are deemed but the formal promulgation of rules antecedently existing, and obtain all their value from their supposed conformity to those rules."

So therefore a judicial decision based on personal desire, such as Holmes's crap, is garbage in garbage out. It is not law and never was. Common law only is law when it is based on something preexisting. Judges only base decisions off of it; they make nothing but an acknowledgement that it exists. Simply acknowledging something there that is not there does not make it there. They are not gods, they are servants to their masters, the people, the one's who actually create basis for common law.

[Famspear]

Dear SteveSy:

For heaven's sake, don't quote Sir Edward Coke. A fundamental premise of tax protester arguments is that the tax protesters, and not the courts, should be the arbiters of what the law is. Sir Edward Coke contended mightily with the Crown that the King was not above the law -- that every person was subject to the law. The law that Coke held forth was English common law, Steve. Judge-made law. This is not something Holmes made up. It's not something I made up. It's not something that judges in the last hundred years or so made up.

Quoting Sir Edward Coke as support for your beliefs! Silly, silly, silly! If Sir Edward Coke is successfully called from the grave to pontificate here today on our disagreement, he will state emphatically that JUDGES sitting as COURTS -- and not the tax protesters or other individuals -- are the proper arbiters of what the law is -- in the context of a real case or controversy.

Yes, you are delusional. Yours, Famspear

[SteveSy]

Dear SteveSy:

For heaven's sake, don't quote Sir Edward Coke. A fundamental premise of tax protester arguments is that the tax protesters, and not the courts, should be the arbiters of what the law is. Sir Edward Coke contended mightily with the Crown that the King was not above the law -- that every person was subject to the law. The law that Coke held forth was English common law, Steve. Judge-made law. This is not something Holmes made up. It's not something I made up. It's not something that judges in the last hundred years or so made up.

See there you go again...it’s the same with all of you. I can quote numerous instances where it directly states the exact opposite, judges do not make law, and you'll run right up and say the same nonsense over and over. It’s futile, you’ve been mentally programmed to say you’re a servant and there isn’t a damn thing that will change your mind. I’m sure many of the slave’s way back when had the same mental road block as you have. The runners were considered nutty idiots looking to get themselves wiped.

Quoting Sir Edward Coke as support for your beliefs! Silly, silly, silly! If Sir Edward Coke is successfully called from the grave to pontificate here today on our disagreement, he will state emphatically that JUDGES sitting as COURTS -- and not the tax protesters or other individuals -- are the proper arbiters of what the law is -- in the context of a real case or controversy.

True they do arbitrate a controversy....that doesn't make them law makers.

Let's try one more time:

"[Common law] is composed of customs and usages, and maxims, deriving their authority from immemorial practice, and the recognition of the courts of justice....Much, indeed, of this unwritten law may now be found in books, in elementary treatises, and in judicial decisions. But it does not derive its force from these circumstances. On the contrary, even judicial decisions are deemed but the formal promulgation of rules antecedently existing, and obtain all their value from their supposed conformity to those rules."

[natty]

So therefore a judicial decision based on personal desire, such as Holmes's crap, is garbage in garbage out. It is not law and never was. Common law only is law when it is based on something preexisting.

What preexisting thing are you talking about? Would it be the demands of the king?

You have Holmes all wrong. The opposite of common law is statutory law. You have been so indocrinated with the "judges making law vs. strict constructionist" political rhetoric that you can't tell when you yourself have been duped.

[SteveSy]

So therefore a judicial decision based on personal desire, such as Holmes's crap, is garbage in garbage out. It is not law and never was. Common law only is law when it is based on something preexisting.

What preexisting thing are you talking about? Would it be the demands of the king?

No....The practices of the people. How they treated matters between themselves. What was acceptable and what was not.

You have Holmes all wrong. The opposite of common law is statutory law.

Opposite of common law, huh? It has no opposite, except maybe judge made law or king made law. Common law is derived from the practices of the people. If that be stripped away then you would have your opposite.

You have been so indocrinated with the "judges making law vs. strict constructionist" political rhetoric that you can't tell when you yourself have been duped.

Duped by what Natty.....I formed my opinion all on my own, thank you very much.

[Cpt Banjo]

Duped by what Natty.....I formed my opinion all on my own, thank you very much.

In other words, Stevie needs no one else's help to be hopelessly wrong.

[SteveSy]

Ok we've gone way off course.....sorry. I'll try and refrain for continuing on this thread.

[SteveSy]

Duped by what Natty.....I formed my opinion all on my own, thank you very much.

In other words, Stevie needs no one else's help to be hopelessly wrong.

Boy...I bet you had to think really had to come up with that one. You're so smart Capt.

[natty]

What preexisting thing are you talking about? Would it be the demands of the king?

No....The practices of the people. How they treated matters between themselves. What was acceptable and what was not.

THE PRACTICES OF THE PEOPLE?

Would that be with guns or knives? That reminds me of "The Gangs of New York".

You must have some kind of utopian delusion that somewhere back in history people actually enjoyed anarchy. Hahahaha.

[Duke2Earl]

It's really quite simple. Sybil talks all about servants and masters and freedom and whatever.... but it all comes down to the same thing. He talks about Common Law and Holmes and Coke and all that but at the very bottom he interprets it all to mean that he personally has the right to self decide what the law is and how it applies to him. And he insists that everyone has the same right. So Sybil what exactly happens when you self decide the law one way and someone else self decides it another way? Do you shoot it out at the OK Corral? Do you have trial by combat? Or do we appoint judges to decide? And exactly what the hell good are judges if their decisions aren't binding and enforcable? The point is someone, something, has to make the decision when there is a disagreement or else the guy with the biggest gun always wins. And don't say something stupid (like you usually do) about how the government has the guns because the history of our court system is literally full of cases where the government has lost... bigtime. We have chosen to use judges to resolve legal disputes... so sorry they don't agree with you. But that just might be because you are a complete idiot.

And as to that reasoning justifying every oppressive regime in history... well then, I expect to see you in the trenches at the armed revolution... because that, Sybil, is the only option you have left. I expect you would last about 30 seconds.

[webhick]

Anarchy tastes like chicken.

The Illuminati says so.

[Famspear]

Dear SteveSy: Uh, dude, read the material you yourself posted. You destroying your own argument. Look at this material you quoted:

----"Much, indeed, of this unwritten law may now be found in books, in elementary treatises, and in judicial decisions. But it does not derive its force from these circumstances. On the contrary, even judicial decisions are deemed but the formal promulgation of rules antecedently existing [ . . . ]"

Nowhere here does it say that judicial decisions are not part of the law. It says that unwritten LAW may be found in [ . . . ] JUDICIAL DECISIONS. And saying that "judicial decisions are deemed but the formal promulgation of rules antecedently existing" is not saying that judicial decisions are not the law. It's saying that judicial decisions ARE the law. Read it again. The "formal promulgation of rules antecedently existing"! Hello? Hello? Anybody home? What part of FORMAL and RULES do you not understand?

Our common law legal system is based on something called PRECEDENT. The rule of STARE DECISIS, by definition, includes the concept that the CASE LAW promulgated TODAY is in some way a formal promulgation and RESTATEMENT of rules "antecedently existing."

The phrase "antecedently existing" means essentially "existing before today." The principle that judicial decisions are only the "formal promulgation of rules antecedently existing" is consistent with, and includes, the principle that judicial decisions themselves are a form of LAW. Maybe it's the big words that are throwing you, dude. --Yours, Famspear

[SteveSy]

It's really quite simple. Sybil talks all about servants and masters and freedom and whatever.... but it all comes down to the same thing. He talks about Common Law and Holmes and Coke and all that but at the very bottom he interprets it all to mean that he personally has the right to self decide what the law is and how it applies to him.

Yes I do...and so do you. That doesn't mean it will be applied that way when you get in front of the judge though.

My position is that people should drop the "Well they said so, so I have to accept what they said.". If the decision has no basis other than "I say so" then its crap and people should say its crap. If people stop accepting the crap it will change. Saying nothing and accepting it status quo will change nothing. But then you see nothing wrong with stealing from and controlling your neighbor to satisfy your good deeds so you wouldn't understand why I believe it’s wrong. Anyone not going along with your plan is an idiot and selfish.

We have chosen to use judges to resolve legal disputes... so sorry they don't agree with you. But that just might be because you are a complete idiot.

All countries have chosen to use judges to decide disputes....does that mean they're all good? Does it mean it should not change if those same judges are ruling on behalf of their employer and not fairly? Does it mean that people should not voice their disgust for it? Does it mean they all should follow it down the path of total servitude or compliace to whatever the whims of the elite are no matter what that might be because they'll be good citizens accepting the rule of law as the judges have deemed it?

See Dukey you have based your position on something that is flawed because it supports even the most corrupt government. You've offered no limits nor imply any exists.

And as to that reasoning justifying every oppressive regime in history... well then, I expect to see you in the trenches at the armed revolution... because that, Sybil, is the only option you have left. I expect you would last about 30 seconds.

lol...k

I do expect a revolution...we've only started down this path about 50 years ago. More and more people are just as fed up with government as I am. Give it another 50 years and we’ll see some serious issues with conformity on all levels. It's only a matter of time. The govenment has serious debt issues that will have to be resolved....it can only come from the people and they are near their limit. At least the one's that are required to pay are....

[Famspear]

Dear SteveSy: Also, I think you're relying on Coke's formulation that the unwritten law found in judicial decisions does not DERIVE ITS FORCE from the FACT that the law is FOUND in those decisions. Fair enough. But whatever than meant to Coke in his day, the idea that A JUDICIAL DECISION is not part of our law (to the extent if any that it ever had any viability) died long ago. I repeat: You are in effect trying to use Sir Edward Coke for the argument that under the U.S. legal system, a tax protester's interpretation of the law is just as "authoritiative" as that of a judge deciding an actual case. That argument is without legal merit. Yours, Famspear

[SteveSy]

Dear SteveSy: Also, I think you're relying on Coke's formulation that the unwritten law found in judicial decisions does not DERIVE ITS FORCE from the FACT that the law is FOUND in those decisions. Fair enough. But whatever than meant to Coke in his day, the idea that A JUDICIAL DECISION is not part of our law (to the extent if any that it ever had any viability) died long ago. I repeat: You are in effect trying to use Sir Edward Coke for the argument that under the U.S. legal system, a tax protester's interpretation of the law is just as "authoritiative" as that of a judge deciding an actual case. That argument is without legal merit. Yours, Famspear

Neither is authorative as far as the law is concerned in my opinion. The law is the law. Nothing anywhere requires me to accept a person's opinion of law in a case I was not part of. In short just because some person, a servant of the people, formed an opinion on a law does not require me to change mine. Unless and until the law is proven to be one way or another the opinion is just an opinion. For instance when a judge says somethign to the effect of "Let it be known from hear on out that wages are income" he is just spouting egomanical nonsense. His opinion without supporting facts is unsupported and therefore I have no reason to accept it as "the law".

[gezco]

How many more posts till this thread is closed?

[Duke2Earl]

It's really quite simple. Sybil talks all about servants and masters and freedom and whatever.... but it all comes down to the same thing. He talks about Common Law and Holmes and Coke and all that but at the very bottom he interprets it all to mean that he personally has the right to self decide what the law is and how it applies to him.

Yes I do...and so do you. That doesn't mean it will be applied that way when you get in front of the judge though.

No I don't. I truly do not believe I have the right to self decide the law. Yes, I have an personal opinion on what I think the law means and how it should be applied but that is entirely different from believing I have the right and power to self decide the law. If every person has the right to self decide law then what we have is anarchy.

[SteveSy]

Dear SteveSy: Uh, dude, read the material you yourself posted. You destroying your own argument. Look at this material you quoted:

----"Much, indeed, of this unwritten law may now be found in books, in elementary treatises, and in judicial decisions. But it does not derive its force from these circumstances. On the contrary, even judicial decisions are deemed but the formal promulgation of rules antecedently existing [ . . . ]"

So are the books of "unwritten law" law then? He places it in the same category as judicial decisions.

Nowhere here does it say that judicial decisions are not part of the law. It says that unwritten LAW may be found in [ . . . ] JUDICIAL DECISIONS.

As a mere documentation of something outside judicial decisions.
Judicial decision merely document what already exists from immemorial practices of the people.

And saying that "judicial decisions are deemed but the formal promulgation of rules antecedently existing" is not saying that judicial decisions are not the law.

Yes it is. The phrase "antecedently existing" is in reference not to judicial decisions but from the practices of the people i.e. "common law" derived from commonly accepted practices of the people. It's common among the people.

It's saying that judicial decisions ARE the law. Read it again. The "formal promulgation of rules antecedently existing"! Hello? Hello? Anybody home? What part of FORMAL and RULES do you not understand?

Dude...."formal promulgation of rules antecedently existing". If "antecedently existing" was in reference to the "formal promulgation" the sentence is nonsensical. The "formal promulgation"(judicial decisions) is the "promulgation" of something “antecedently existing “ outside the decisions themselves.

[ASITStands]

I'm wondering if the following might be of help in nailing down the question of taxes under "common law" prior to their incorporation into statute and case law.

http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/cata ... 0521870832
http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/cata ... 832&ss=exc

In other words, if 'SteveSy' wants to return to "common law" to see how it treated taxation, perhaps he need go no further than considering the thoughts presented in this tome.

[natty]

The "formal promulgation"(judicial decisions) is the "promulgation" of something “antecedently existing “ outside the decisions themselves.

If as you say "the practices of the people" are the "antecedently existing" things, then who or what gets to decide what the "practices of the people" actually were?

As usual, stevie's circular arguments are just another excuse for his belief that it is every man for himself.