The Real LB Bork Thread

[Nikki]

There are dozens of examples.

There are cases where people sued their employers for refusing to stop withholding.

There are other suits against employers for failing to cease deducting tax-related garnishments.

Additional cases exist in Tax Court and various federal and state courts where soverignorami sued the IRS to have withholding terminated.

All of these cases have one thing in common: They lost.

BorkSockPuppet won't cite any court cases related to his theories because he can't find a single one which supports his inane allegations. Instead, he relies on his own version of a word salad shooter to make him appear erudite enough to fleece his marks.

[bmielke]

"Jurist" seems to have "issues" with standard English "usage."

Yes he does, look at the other thread where his misunderstanding of the difference between a resolution and an act lead to a two page discussion that I believe is still on going unless he has moved on.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
The late John Rarick was on my radio show ...

I love this - a "radio show" reference used to imply there is some kind of massive audience out there listening to LB Bork's paid-for advertainment program.

I suppose now we'll be provided with incredibly reliable and authoritative numbers on listenership, demographics, market penetration, etc., etc.

Oh - wait - maybe it will be like the programs on the Internet that the producer has to beg for contributions to keep scamming people out of money to keep getting the messages out about all the mysterious secrets; contributions in cash and blank money orders, of course.

It's just another garden-variety scam and not as good as some we've seen.

[Pottapaug1938]

This is a very important issue of law due to the fact it will assist in establishing to destroy Serra's diatribe about me apart. If you fail to answer it will illustrate that you are all just, well, plain good old-fashioned, gossipers that are very high on yourselves.

No, it means that we are sick and tired of your intellectual humpty-dumptyness (i.e., to you a word means what you want it to mean), cowardice and evasiveness, and the way that you demand that we reinvent the wheel and prove that the well-settled law is the well-settled law -- and then you will come up with yet more excuses for not accepting what we say. You're a waste of our time.

[Nikki]

BorkSockPuppet seems to be totally unaware of his current audience.

In addition to the voluble regulars who are ripping him a new one, there are many readers, some of whom have the ability to make NorkSockPuppet's life really miserable, quietly taking notes.

Some day he will realize just how public the Internet really is.

[Judge Roy Bean]

This is so entertaining; it is truly an exercise at the look at human behavior...
This is a very important issue of law due to the fact it will assist in establishing to destroy Serra's diatribe about me apart. If you fail to answer it will illustrate that you are all just, well, plain good old-fashioned, gossipers that are very high on yourselves.

This is an exercise at watching someone who has a poor grasp of the use of language try to act as if what they write is somehow persuasive.

[The Operative]

I have our latest mental midget on ignore, but the quote from JRB's post enticed me to read Bork's inane replies.

Bork,

First, you haven't hi-jacked the thread, this thread is about you and your theories. So far, most of the posts have been about you and your theories.

Second, Wes started the thread describing a few of your scribblings and asked for anyone to prove the legal basis for any of your ramblings. You have not replied sufficiently to that challenge. Therefore, your question, such as it is, won't be answered since it is up to you to sufficiently support what you wrote on your website.

Third, the one thing in Wes' post that you did respond to only illustrates that you have the same problem as many illiterate tax protesters: you do not understand what you read when it comes to law. The definition of "Country" in Bouvier's law dictionary does not mean what you think it does. You should look up the word STATE in that same dictionary and learn that the word, "state" is used in various senses. In the definition of "country", "state" is not referring to each of the individual states, rather it is used in another sense. Since your reference doesn't mean what you think it does, it is insufficient as support for your statement.

EDIT: The Jurist sent me a PM. I deleted his PM without reading it. I changed the settings on my user account to delete any messages from those that I have on ignore.

[The Jurist]

The rules of this thread: we welcome anyone who wishes to prove any legal basis at all for this stuff, certainly including Bork himself. However, what happened to the last "LB Bork" thread isn't going to happen to this one. Posts free of both fact and law will be moved to the appropriate place.

You people are failing to follow the thread rules. Aside addressing the issue of ad hominem attacks against myself and the off-color remarks by Serra, I attempted to bring this discussion back into the rule that was set forth. Due to the fact that this is not a court, I am not going to explain anything to you people. It is obvious that none of you understand the concepts already, especially Serra. That case he cited is a joke. This is how it works? You cite a case and make note about treaties. You have got to be joking!!! His blather did not even come close to encompassing anything in regard to what is involved; not to mention the broad brushed false statements that he made.

Let me tell you what is going to happen here:

1) In general, people despise attorneys.
2) Your failure to answer my question will show you do not know the answer to the common viewer.
3) I will use this thread to show how you act and also illustrate your lack of knowledge of law.
4) It will make what we are doing look better in which will garner more support.

Do all of you understand the simple principles here? I know that you people are not "trained" to understand the issues due to my understanding of how the system has compartmentalized you. By watching your actions I know you people fail miserably in understanding the law. A lot can be learned from what had been stated in this thread as to this fact.

In reference to number 2, most people understand what we are doing in the matter of law. I will show on another venue how simply this works to those who do not.

In closing, a personal note: You people are truly delusional, and laughably pathetic.

[Gregg]

Let me tell you what is going to happen here:

1) In general, people despise attorneys.
2) Your failure to answer my question will show you do not know the answer to the common viewer.
3) I will use this thread to show how you act and also illustrate your lack of knowledge of law.
4) It will make what we are doing look better in which will garner more support.



In closing, a personal note: You people are truly delusional, and laughably pathetic.

[grixit]

Jurist hijacked the thread the way a french aristocrat hijacked a tumbrel.

[Gregg]

Jurist got owned in the thread the way a french aristocrat hijacked a tumbrel.

fixed it for ya

[Pottapaug1938]

... (d)ue to the fact that this is not a court, I am not going to explain anything to you people.

2) Your failure to answer my question will show you do not know the answer to the common viewer.

Of COURSE you aren't going to explain. You have nothing to explain, and you're too much of an intellectual coward to try. You're all for explaining things and educating people when it comes to a worshipful (and hopefully fee-paying) audience, but when you meet up with people who say that "the Jurist has no clothes", you insist that we cannot see your clothes because we have not been sufficiently Educated in Legal Purity.

"Common viewer?" REALLY? I don't know what you mean by that, nor do I care; but as I said before: if it is well setled, in mathematics, that 2+2=4, and you are claiming that 2+2=5, YOU are the one who needs to prove the truth of YOUR assertions. Similarly, when YOU are the one claiming that basic, well-settled principles of common, statutory and constitutional law and precedent are false, YOU are the one who has to offer proof. Every post you make here in which you fail to offer that proof, and instead resort to evasions and distortions, is further evidence that you have no such proof.

The betting is over, and we're calling your hand. It's time to show cards. Ours have been face-up on the table for quite some time.

[wserra]

So I log on this morning, hoping to find that Lenny Bork (hey, he calls me "Wes") has at least attempted to cite some law in defense of his nonsense - not that it is defensible. I see that, in his several posts, he cites no law at all. Instead, he (1) shows his formidable investigative skills by identifying me (something that anyone who has followed Q for a couple of weeks can do, since I make no secret of it), (2) makes silly veiled threats of defamation (if you can point out one thing I said that's not true, Lenny, I'll be glad to correct it - but you can't), and (3) calls a seminal Supreme Court case on an issue important to him "a joke" (I'm sure they value his opinion).

So I have nothing to answer. I wouldn't have posted at all, except for one curious observation. Many of Bork's sites - including ones from which I quoted, including the page in which he claims that people who pay him "generally" will not have to pay income tax, and including his main site - are offline. Quite possibly a coincidence, just Sunday morning connectivity or server problems. But Bork has built conspiracies on less.

[Gregg]

if it is well setled, in mathematics, that 2+2=4

In accounting we're still accepting comments on that one...

[LPC]

could any one of you attorneys, lawyers (whatever), provide an explanation of what illustrates private law in statutory construction?

More gibberish. You might as well ask what illustrates private law in grammatical construction.

This is a very important issue of law due to the fact it will assist in establishing to destroy Serra's diatribe about me apart.

Why should we assist you?

And why do you need assistance? Why don't you have an illustration that you can whip out and used to destroy wserra's "diatribe"?

If you fail to answer it will illustrate that you are all just, well, plain good old-fashioned, gossipers that are very high on yourselves.

The purpose of this thread is to allow you to defend your assertions, not to allow you to pose your own self-serving challenges to us.

Wes began the thread with a series of assertions that you have not even attempted to address with any citation to any law, history, logic, or other manifestation of reality.

If you don't want to defend your assertions, or refute Wes's assertions, then leave, but don't think that you can bully us into arguing about your gibberish within the context of the imaginary legal system that you have fabricated.

[Geoff J]

wesley, you are either a pretty lame attorney w/poor research skills or making intentional misrepresentations. Has anyone ever sued you for giving bad legal advice ?

The Law of nations can be used as law within a state jurisdiction via common law incorporation:

Supreme Court of the United States.
THE BANK OF AUGUSTA, PLAINTIFFS IN ER-
ROR,
v.
JOSEPH B. EARLE, DEFENDANT IN ERROR.
THE BANK OF THE UNITED STATES,
PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
WILLIAM D. PRIMROSE, DEFENDANT IN ER-
ROR.
THE NEW ORLEANS AND CARROLLTON
RAILROAD COMPANY, PLAINTIFFS IN ER-
ROR,
v.
JOSEPH B. EARLE, DEFENDANT IN ERROR.
January Term, 1839

The position that the law of nations is part and
parcel of the common law, is supported by the
highest and most venerable authority. Indeed, it has
never been questioned, and more especially the law
merchant. 1 Black. Com. 273. 4 Ibid. 67. Magna
Charta, ch. 30, contains an express provision in fa-
vour of merchant strangers; which occasioned the
striking remark of Montesquieu, 1. 20, ch. 14, that
the English have made the protection of foreign
merchants, one of the articles of their own liberty.
In Triquest vs. Bath, 3 Burr. 1480, 1481. Lord
Mansfield quotes Lord Talbot as declaring a clear
opinion, ‘That the law of nations, in its full extent,
was part of the law of England.’-‘That the law of
nations was to be collected from the practice of dif-
ferent nations, and the authority of writers.’ He
quotes Lord Hardwicke to the same effect, and
Lord Holt. Four names being thus associated, either
of them alone sufficient to establish a point; and,
collectively, making a weight of authority, only
surpassed by the splendour of such an assemblage
of luminaries. In Respublica vs. Longchamps, 1
Dall. 111, a criminal case, the indictment was upon
the law of nations. M'Kean, Chief Justice, a very
learned lawyer, and a very eminent man, says, ‘The
laws of nations form a part of the municipal laws of
Pennsylvania.’-‘This law, in its full extent, is part
of the law of this state, and is to be collected from
the practice of different nations, and the authority
of writers.’

The Law of Nations is the best source for describing why the term "nation" is synonymous with the term "state" and what the true nature of a federal government is:

§ 1. Of the state, and of sovereignty

A NATION or a state is, as has been said at the beginning of this work, a body politic, or a society of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by their combined strength.

From the very design that induces a number of men to form a society which has its common interests, and which is to act in concert, it is necessary that there should be established a Public Authority, to order and direct what is to be done by each in relation to the end of the association. This political authority is the Sovereignty; and he or they who are invested with it are the Sovereign. (10)

§ 3. Of the several kinds of government.

If the body of the nation keep in ifs own hands the empire, or the right to command, it is a Popular government, a Democracy; if it intrust it to a certain number of citizens, to a senate, it establishes an Aristocratic republic; finally, if it confide the government to a single person, the state becomes a Monarch. (11.)

These three kinds of government may be variously combined and modified. We shall not here enter into the particulars; this subject belonging to the public universal law;1 for the object of the present work, it is sufficient to establish the general principles necessary for the decision of those disputes that may arise between nations.
§ 4. What are sovereign states.

Every nation that governs itself, under what form soever, without dependence on any foreign power, is a Sovereign State, Its rights are naturally the same as those of any other state. Such are the moral persons who live together in a natural society, subject to the law of nations. To give a nation a right to make an immediate figure in this grand society, it is sufficient that it be really sovereign and independent, that is, that it govern itself by its own authority and laws.

§ 10. Of states forming a federal republic.

Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.

Perhaps a twinkie will get your brain going ?

[Pottapaug1938]

It's interesting that you went back to 1839 for a case, Geoff. Have you done any research to ascertain whether this case is still in force, and hasn't been diminshed or overturned since? It's also interesting that your quote, regarding the "law of nations", is unidentified as to the source; and also that the use of "state" is used in its European sense, as a synonym for "government" or "Nation" (as in Germany and France, for example).

Your quote also looks like it has nothing to do with the holding in the case, but instead is part of the dicta. Without knowing the subject of the case, or the holding, it is impossible to judge the context of the quote, and thus determine the weight to be given the quote.

Finally, you are quite vague as to just what this mystical "law of nations" is. Is it some sort of international super-constitution; or is it simply another way of referring to the current set of precedents known as International Law, which is more of a matter of custom and which deals with relations between nations, and which binds a nation only with their consent?

I don't see any reason for Wes to worry, just yet.

[bmielke]

wesley, you are either a pretty lame attorney w/poor research skills or making intentional misrepresentations. Has anyone ever sued you for giving bad legal advice ?

Kind of harsh don't yeh think?

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... 0000000003

There is a link to the complete cases. I say cases because these are three consoldated cases. Because this is such an old legal opinion it is not set up as modern ones are but I think this is the key paragraph.

Now apply these just and reasonable principles to Alabama, in her relation of a foreign and independent state, reposing upon the rights reserved to her by the tenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States; and then show the power that can compel her to pass penal laws to guard and protect those perfect, ascertained, constitutional rights from the illegal invasion of a bank created by any other state. If this power exists at all, it can be shown, and the authority by which it acts. But not even a reasonable pretence for any such power or authority has been shown. The conclusion must therefore be, that Alabama, as an independent foreign state; owing no duty, nor being under any obligation to either of the states, by whose corporations she was invaded; was the sole and exclusive judge of what was proper or improper to be done; and consequently had a right to examine and determine whether she could grant a favour to either of those states without injury to herself; unless indeed there be a controlling power in this Court, derived from some provision of the Constitution of the United States. As none such has been set up, or relied upon in the opinion of the majority of the Court; for the present I have a right to conclude that none such exists. And without considering any of the minor points discussed in the argument, or noticed in the opinion, I dismiss the subject.

It appears, (and if I have this wrong I appologize wading through a 172 year old legal opinion is like wading through quick sand to me), that Alabama was not giving equal protection to banks and corporations organized under the laws of other states. I cannot believer that is still in effect.

but I am wrong it was mentioned in a 2005 opinion from the second district.

Justice Joseph Story introduced the doctrine to American jurisprudence, primarily as a means of reconciling the competing laws of free and slave states with respect to fugitive slaves by allowing each state a principled way to accommodate (and, if necessary, avoid) the law of the others. Id. at 21-22. Story opined that comity between nations is appropriate due to "mutual interest and utility," Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws § 35 (8th ed. 1883), even if it is an "imperfect obligation" that "`cannot be reduced to any certain rule.'" Id. §§ 28, 33 (quoting Saul v. His Creditors, 5 Mart.(n.s.) 569, 595-96 (La.1827)). Story also shared Lord Mansfield's view that comity should not be extended to contradict the forum state's law or policy. See id. § 38. The Supreme Court expressly adopted Justice Story's views, first in Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 38 U.S. 519, 589, 13 Pet. 519, 10 L.Ed. 274 (1839) (citing Story for the proposition 424*424 that comity, as "part of the voluntary law of nations," "promote[s] justice between individuals [and] a friendly intercourse between the sovereignties to which they belong" but is "inadmissible when contrary to [the forum state's] policy, or prejudicial to its interests"), and, most famously, in Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. at 163-65, 16 S.Ct. 139, discussed above.

(My bolding)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... 0000000003

I don't understand what one little excerpt from an unamed source has to do with anything. So I won't touch that.

I also fail to see how a case involving banking law applies to anything that you have said... oh wait a minute all you did was insult a regular member here, post a case from 171 years ago, and post some BS excerpt from something you lack the intellectual integrety to source. Make a point next time.

[wserra]

wesley, you are either a pretty lame attorney w/poor research skills or making intentional misrepresentations. Has anyone ever sued you for giving bad legal advice ?

In 34 years of practice, no. If you were interested more in truth than in mud-slinging, you could actually check. Still, when mud-slinging is all you know, I suppose truth doesn't matter.

The Law of nations can be used as law within a state jurisdiction via common law incorporation:

[Snip quote from Bank of Augusta v. Earle.]

True enough, especially in 1839. Still, you leave out nearly 200 years of law, and an important sentence from Earle itself. That sentence: "But, in the absence of a statute plainly to the contrary, if a case arise, within the law of nations, that is the law to be applied to it in judgment." 38 U.S. at 537 (emphasis supplied). Statutes can - and do all the time - abrogate the common law. Bork would have it that not only does the law of nations survive statutes, but it survives the Constitution itself. Earle not only says no such thing, but says the opposite. Remember how I pointed out above that Bork's citations, such as they are, contradict him? This is a perfect example.

A more recent court made exactly this point. "We have travelled far since Mr. Chief Justice Taney delivered his famous dictum that "a corporation can have no legal existence out of the boundaries of the sovereignty by which it is created," and found it necessary to resort to principles of comity in order to sustain its right to enforce a foreign bill of exchange it had purchased.2 [Footnote citing Earle - WS] . . . That notion, too, has been supplanted in the application of the limitations of the United States Constitution by a more direct and immediate approach to the question of fairness, which arises under the Fourteenth Amendment and which, alone, seems relevant and material. International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310". Westcott-Alexander, Inc. v. Dailey, 264 F.2d 853 (4th Cir. 1959).

In other words, the "law of nations", as used as common law in the early 1800s in Earle, has been thoroughly supplanted by long-arm statutes, International Shoe and the Fourteenth Amendment itself. Thanks for citing a case that makes my point, and reinforces (were such necessary or possible) how full of it Bork is.

The Law of Nations is the best source for describing why the term "nation" is synonymous with the term "state" and what the true nature of a federal government is:

Snip a lengthy quote from de Vattel's "Law of Nations". Perhaps you could explain exactly how the opinions of an 18th Century Swiss diplomat-author became part of U.S. law.

Perhaps a twinkie will get your brain going ?

Further comment seems unnecessary.

[LPC]

The Law of Nations is the best source for describing why the term "nation" is synonymous with the term "state"

Nonsense. The state of New Jersey is not a "nation" under any definition or understanding of the meaning of "nation."

And the word "nation" is often used to describe a people sharing a culture and certain governmental qualities, such as the Cherokee Nation, even though lacking the qualities of a governmental "state."

One of the persistent qualities of the adherents of various legal delusions is that they are always trying to pound square pegs into round holes and then announce conclusions based on the perfect fit.