LB Bork

[Famspear]

Did The Observer mention something about a limerick?



A blithering blowhard called Bork,
Writes a lot like a Sovereign Dork.
Yes, he’s cooked his own goose
With nonsensical juice,
And he’s done – you can stick in the fork!

[The Jurist]

Hmmmm.... You people sure say a lot of nothing. The problem is, no one comes on here to challenge you on your ignorance, or is it deceptions.

What to start going into law now?

[The Jurist]

These principles are encompassed in the constitutional system of law of the United States.

They are? Here's the Constitution, all on one page, searchable. The word "private" appears once, in the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment - and there it refers to "private property", not "private law".

Then, you are admitting that you do not know anything about constitutional or international law, or law, is that correct?

Actually, I think Caligari is saying that you are as much a "Jurist" as I am an NBA power forward.

EPIC FAIL! Next please.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Hmmmm.... You people sure say a lot of nothing. The problem is, no one comes on here to challenge you on your ignorance, or is it deceptions.

What to start going into law now?

Speaking of saying a lot of nothing - what the heck does that mean?

[Famspear]

Hmmmm.... You people sure say a lot of nothing. The problem is, no one comes on here to challenge you on your ignorance, or is it deceptions.

Hmmmm..... You certainly don't do your homework. We say a lot of things. We expose scams. Over and over and over. Scammers come here all the time and challenge us. And we cook them.

Jurist, if you want to be taken seriously, then say something serious.

If you try to lecture us on the law, you are certainly going to get your *ss handed to you on a plate. Don't let that certainty stop you from trying, though.

[Dr. Caligari]

Hmmmm.... You people sure say a lot of nothing. The problem is, no one comes on here to challenge you on your ignorance, or is it deceptions.

What [sic] to start going into law now?

Sure. You can start by showing where the Constitution says anything about a "private law system." Then you can cite some U.S. Supreme Court decisions that talk about a "private law system." After all, you told me on this thread that "[t]hese principles are encompassed in the constitutional system of law of the United States."

I'll wait.

[LPC]

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.

Why presume? If you had the research abilities of a 6th grader, you'd already know my attorney ID number.

Explain to the forum, line by line, why the paper (that you posted) is wrong (or loony).

Really? You need it spelled out for you in that much detail? You're really that dense?

Look at what I quoted above, which states that way to remove yourself from the federal income tax is to remove yourself from the "body politic." But there is nothing, nothing, nothing, NOTHING in the Constitution that in any way limits the Congressional power to tax to "the body politic."

And there is nothing in the Internal Revenue Code that limits the federal income tax to members of the "body politic."

And the regulations clearly state that the federal income tax applies to citizens and residents of the United States. 26 CFR § 1.1-1(a). (In true tax denier style, Bork actually quotes this regulation, but talks exclusively about the word "citizen" and completely ignores the word "resident," apparently believing that if he doesn't admit that the word is there then the word is not there.)

The belief of a person who lives within the United States that he is not a "resident" of the United States has been found to be evidence of a mental disability. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a finding of mental disability that made a defendant incompetent to stand trial when the defendant "repeatedly proclaimed his beliefs that the federal government is bankrupt, the Department of the Navy runs the country under Admiralty Law and the Uniform Commercial Code, the Internal Revenue Service is really a foreign debt collector based in Puerto Rico and that [the defendant], who lives in Nashville, is not actually a resident of the United States." United States v. Roy W. Wooten, 2004 TNT 87-15, No. 02-6534 (6th Cir. 4/29/2004), (holding that finding of incompetency was supported by the opinion of a neuropsychologist “as well as the court’s own observations of Wooten throughout the pre-trial proceedings”).

Understanding that law is percise,

As is spelling (and punctuation, capitalization, and syntax).

We need facts and not fallacious statements.

Yes, we do. When will you provide some?

[LPC]

A blithering blowhard called Bork,
Writes a lot like a Sovereign Dork.
Yes, he’s cooked his own goose
With nonsensical juice,
And he’s done – you can stick in the fork!

Perfect.

How do you do that?

[LPC]

Hmmmm.... You people sure say a lot of nothing.

Okay. 7:04 pm EST. I'm calling it.

He's a troll.

Autopsy time.

[Judge Roy Bean]

A blithering blowhard called Bork,
Writes a lot like a Sovereign Dork.
Yes, he’s cooked his own goose
With nonsensical juice,
And he’s done – you can stick in the fork!

Perfect.

How do you do that?

Don't encourage 'im.

[The Jurist]

Hmmmm.... You people sure say a lot of nothing. The problem is, no one comes on here to challenge you on your ignorance, or is it deceptions.

What to start going into law now?

Speaking of saying a lot of nothing - what the heck does that mean?

Oh my... This has to be explained?!?

Law, you know... The thing that you people "claim" to know something about. Perhaps you are just parrots that have been told what to think. Is this the fact of the matter?

Again, want to answer questions about law, or are you people just into entertaining yourselves and advancing libelous ad hominem attacks on people.

I have a prediction here, This post will eventually get deleted because I will make you all look as ignorant as you are. It has already shown big time... The fun has only begun.

[Dr. Caligari]

Again, want to answer questions about law, or are you people just into entertaining yourselves and advancing libelous ad hominem attacks on people.

You haven't asked any questions on law. I've asked you several, but you continue to avoid answering them. Why might that be?

I have a prediction here, This post will eventually get deleted because I will make you all look as ignorant as you are. It has already shown big time... The fun has only begun.

Someone looks ignorant here, but it's not us. Why don't you tell me where the "private law system" was "created by the 14th Amendment" and is "encompassed in the constitutional system of law of the United States"?

[The Jurist]

And the regulations clearly state that the federal income tax applies to citizens and residents of the United States. 26 CFR § 1.1-1(a).

All right, what is a resident? Where is this defined? We really need to know this.

By the way, it was requested that the whole document you posted be addressed line by line. You already failed in this matter you chose to attack, so I would request again to address all the issues noted. The forum and I cannot wait to see you blather about it.

And please, no statements like 'He does not have to'. Childish, at best. Bad moderator

________________

*This forum is poorly coded.... Where did you get it, China?*

[Judge Roy Bean]

Hmmmm.... You people sure say a lot of nothing. The problem is, no one comes on here to challenge you on your ignorance, or is it deceptions.

What to start going into law now?

Speaking of saying a lot of nothing - what the heck does that mean?

Oh my... This has to be explained?!?

Yes, it does - what does that sentence ask? 'What to start going into law now?' is meaningless.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
All right, what is a resident? Where is this defined? We really need to know this. ...

You actually know someone who doesn't know that? You've got to be able to do better than this or you're simply going to be ignored.

[The Jurist]

Hmmmm.... You people sure say a lot of nothing.

Okay. 7:04 pm EST. I'm calling it.

He's a troll.

Autopsy time.

No... Sorry, not a troll. You are batting zero thus far.

What is with people... I have been called a shill before, now a troll.
It appears if people are scared of knowledge and answering questions they default to name calling.

Play-time is over. Start honoring the requests, please.

[Dr. Caligari]

All right, what is a resident? Where is this defined? We really need to know this.

If you think the word "resident" in the income tax regulations means something other than the common, dictionary definition, why don't you tell us what it means? And where that definition is found?

In fact, why don't you make one statement about the law-- any statement? Is it because you know that we would cite numerous cases showing you're wrong within 5 minutes after you post?

[wserra]

What to start going into law now?

Not sure what that means. Maybe you mean "want", or "who will", or something that makes sense. Maybe not.

Actually, though, we have already started, with Caligari's and my questions about where you find anything about "private law" in the Constitution. You either ignore it or favor us with your "EPIC FAIL" opinion, something akin to a second-grader's "Nyah, nyah, nyah".

Why don't we start over, then, with something that results in injunctions and, from time to time, indictments. Bork claims that, if you pay him $450 upfront and $300/yr, you "generally" will not have to pay income taxes. How's that work?

[Dr. Caligari]

Start honoring the requests, please.

What requests have you made that we haven't honored? And why haven't you answered any one of the questions I have repeatedly asked you?

[Judge Roy Bean]

...

Play-time is over. Start honoring the requests, please.

Start making sense.

Or better yet, give the computer back to your dad.