The Real LB Bork Thread

[grixit]

Who was it wrote "this isn't right; it isn't even wrong"?

[notorial dissent]

(Because you clearly are a delusional narcissistic douchebag.)
Nice turn of phrase there, being at once both concise and correct.
As far as the actual content goes, it was the typical mish-mash of un-cited assertions, copied/pasted tax denier / paytriot drivel, etc.
Actually, that is unsupported and unsupportable assertions, based wholly on poorly contrived fantasy. And one mustn't forget really poorly written.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them;

I mean who can argue with one of the great minds of the 18th C.

Lenny’s problem is not the “ad hominem abuse” as he puts it, but that he isn’t getting the “ad hominem adulation” which he desires. His major problem is that there aren’t enough of the dim and bewildered running around with severe enough reading deficiencies to think he had actually come up with something, and he certainly isn’t going to find them in this group.

As someone who has read, to my eternal regret, some of the drivel in question, I have to concur with the above stated opinion. I can only read so much gross historical, factual, and logical error in one place before my gorge rises and my eyes refuse to continue, and Lenny you accomplished all that in a few short and drearily tedious paragraphs.

[Arthur Rubin]

Who was it wrote "this isn't right; it isn't even wrong"?

According to Wikipedia, Wolfgang Pauli.

[grixit]

Well Bork is certainly not excluded.

[wserra]

Well Bork is certainly not excluded.

Perfectly true. Morons - er, bosons - are not subject to exclusion.

[The Jurist]

Hmmm... I am sure Vattel made a bunch of stuff up and put it in a book.

You totally missed wserra's point. What de Vattel said could be absolutely true when it was written and still have nothing to do with current domestic law within the United States.

Just stopped by to see how you play babies were getting along.

You people think the "United States" is an island unto itself and it invented everything.

How arrogant, and how ignorant.

Like I said, I have not seen one intelligent comment out of the lot of you.

I see the flavor of the day is, Critical Thinking: Optional.

[The Jurist]

We're still waiting for some substance, LB.

You haven't even chewed your cabbage ONCE, pal.

You don't have the courage to stand up, among people who say that the Emperor Jurist has no clothes, and prove to us that you do. You're just a sniveling coward who throws epithets that are so absurd as to be laughable. I'd stack the competence and achievements of the other regular posters on Quatloos (I am recusing myself) against yours, anytime and anywhere.

If you never come back here again, it will be too soon.

"Pal"?

Hey, I came back just to see what incoherent blather was going on here.
I see there is a bit of it.

You people, using the term loosely, do not even know what state of the forum means. It is hard to have discussion with those who are so far into a box they do not know which end is up. I know, you paid a lot for the compartmentalized education you got and you have to defend it. Nonetheless, it is a sad state of affairs to have such types destroying people.

And I do mean destroy, three people got charged with federal "Criminal" statutes. Two of them got lawyers and are in the fed pen, while the one that was one of us got the charges dismissed. Great being controlled by the "will of the legislature", right guys? I know, you make you living off it.

When in neoRome, the neoRomans do as the neoRomans do. Others, well... Get screwed.

[The Jurist]

Well Bork is certainly not excluded.

Perfectly true. Morons - er, bosons - are not subject to exclusion.

Hey, Wes... I understand that the NMG Moderator refused your membership to join the forum.

I appreciate your candor, though, for not using a moniker... That is one on your side.

[The Operative]

Just stopped by to see how you play babies were getting along.

You people think the "United States" is an island unto itself and it invented everything.

How arrogant, and how ignorant.

Like I said, I have not seen one intelligent comment out of the lot of you.

I see the flavor of the day is, Critical Thinking: Optional.

That only applies to you. Here is a critical thinking exercise for you or anyone else who may be reading this thread. No one who matters, no court, no respected constitutional expert, no widely respected lawyer, agrees with your interpretation. So, why do you so adamantly believe that you are right?

[The Jurist]

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.

Nikki, You are quite happy with yourself, it appears.

Yes, the Internet is public. As I had stated, people will see how childish you "people" are.

Aside that and wserra's attempting to make this a "race" issue, you have all failed to answer my question on private law that would set the foundation to tear your little world apart. Further, you "people" insist on using off-point federal case law to make you claims. Where did you people get your training?

It is not worth debating any of you, as you have broken the thread rules, aside the nonsense.

[The Jurist]

I see the flavor of the day is, Critical Thinking: Optional.

That only applies to you. Here is a critical thinking exercise for you or anyone else who may be reading this thread. No one who matters, no court, no respected constitutional expert, no widely respected lawyer, agrees with your interpretation. So, why do you so adamantly believe that you are right?

Oh, it is the one that overturns 200 plus years of case precedent on what the 5th Amendment's "private property" means (please do not confuse that with case law of which is used on someone that may have a different set of facts applied to him).

And also the one that has no idea how to cross-reference definitions of law.
Operative, ever look at the compilation, In Their Own Words?

The Marxist Revisionists. What would America do without them? Right, Operative?

Thanks for the quote:

• "The takeover was/is done through secret societies (puppets), mainly the Masonic Orders. Americans have been conditioned to patriotically support the United States Military Machine by taking sides in sporting events. - LB BORK"

I am thinking that you have some issue with that. I thought you said that you studied history. Which version? The "packaged" one, it appears.

Like I said, critical thinking for this crew, optional.

[The Operative]

I see the flavor of the day is, Critical Thinking: Optional.

That only applies to you. Here is a critical thinking exercise for you or anyone else who may be reading this thread. No one who matters, no court, no respected constitutional expert, no widely respected lawyer, agrees with your interpretation. So, why do you so adamantly believe that you are right?

Oh, it is the one that overturns 200 plus years of case precedent on what the 5th Amendment's "private property" means (please do not confuse that with case law of which is used on someone that may have a different set of facts applied to him).

And also the one that has no idea how to cross-reference definitions of law.
Operative, ever look at the compilation, In Their Own Words?

The Marxist Revisionists. What would America do without them? Right, Operative?

Thanks for the quote:

• "The takeover was/is done through secret societies (puppets), mainly the Masonic Orders. Americans have been conditioned to patriotically support the United States Military Machine by taking sides in sporting events. - LB BORK"

I am thinking that you have some issue with that. I thought you said that you studied history. Which version? The "packaged" one, it appears.

Like I said, critical thinking for this crew, optional.

As usual, nothing of substance. No one who matters agrees with you. It is that simple. Until you can convince the people that matter, your theories are nothing but bunk. Since no one who matters will ever agree with your nonsensical interpretation, your theories will continue to be bunk.

[Thule]

Redamendment.net traffic rank: 4,415,777
Losthorizons.com traffic rank: 389,352

Even while in jail, Petey can out-scam Bork.

[The Jurist]

I am thinking that you have some issue with that. I thought you said that you studied history. Which version? The "packaged" one, it appears.

Like I said, critical thinking for this crew, optional.

As usual, nothing of substance. No one who matters agrees with you. It is that simple. Until you can convince the people that matter, your theories are nothing but bunk. Since no one who matters will ever agree with your nonsensical interpretation, your theories will continue to be bunk.

Talk about lack of substance, you have not said anything, Operative.

You people do not matter... What matters is where the principles of law work.

Mind Control, it's what's for dinner.

[The Jurist]

Redamendment.net traffic rank: 4,415,777
Losthorizons.com traffic rank: 389,352

Even while in jail, Petey can out-scam Bork.

Another one that is into apples and oranges comparisons, I see.
Again, one of the qualities of an idiot is for one to speak without knowledge.

In short, people are greedy; moreover PAC is not really interested in the Income Tax issue.

The Island Makers Project will answer the difference in traffic issue.

[Thule]

Another one that is into apples and oranges comparisons, I see.
Again, one of the qualities of an idiot is for one to speak without knowledge.

You're really funny when you try to be condescending.

[The Operative]

For a time period before the Revolutionary War, the 13 British colonies were controlled by Great Britain and individuals were citizens of the British empire. In the early 1770s, each of the 13 colonies began establishing provincial Congresses in order to establish independent governments. One reason for this is many were tired of not being represented in Parliament yet still subject to the rule of the British government. These 13 independent states sent representatives to the Second Continental Congress in order to present a united front against English forces and to combine the militias into a joint army.

The Second Continental Congress had to lead the confederation of the 13 states and created the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation formally established a federal government with specific powers with the Congress of the Confederation as the controlling body. The 13 states were to remain sovereign as to the powers not surrendered but were also to remain a part of the union. The Articles also gave a name to the new confederation as "The United States of America". While the Articles created the first federal government, it was literally too weak to accomplish anything. Many things required the approval of a majority of the states. Even treaties with other nations required approval by state legislatures. Even the Treaty of Paris, which was a part of the formal end of the Revolutionary War, took almost two years for it to be finally approved.

Within a few short years, following recommendations from a few statesmen, the states decided to send representatives to a Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. While the original purpose was to amend the Articles of Confederation, the end result was the Constitution. The Constitution was first sent to the Congress of the Confederation which quickly accepted it. Then it was sent to all of the states and eventually, all 13 ratified it.

Part of the Constitution specifies the qualifications of representatives and senators. One aspect of those qualifications is a time frame that a representative or senator must have been a citizen of the United States before they were eligible. Obviously, the framers believed that a citizen of one of the 13 states was a citizen of the United States, otherwise, no one would have been eligible for the first Congress under the Constitution.

One of the powers of the new government under the Constitution was naturalization. Congress passed a few laws concerning how a person immigrating from another country could become a United States citizen. At least one of those laws specifically made a child of immigrant parents a citizen of the United States if the parents became a citizen of one of the states before Congress had passed any naturalization laws.

Are all persons born within a state to be always deemed citizens of that state, notwithstanding any change of domicil; or does their citizenship change with their change of domicil? The answer to this inquiry is equally plain and satisfactory. The constitution having declared, that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states, every person, who is a citizen of one state, and removes into another, with the intention of taking up his residence and inhabitancy there, becomes ipso facto a citizen of the state, where he resides; and he then ceases to be a citizen of the state, from which he has removed his residence. Of course, when he gives up his new residence or domicil, and returns to his native, or other state residence or domicil, he reacquires the character of the latter. What circumstances shall constitute such a change of residence or domicil, is an inquiry, more properly belonging to a treatise upon public or municipal law, than to commentaries upon constitutional law. In general, however, it may be said, that a removal from one state into another, animo manendi, or with a design of becoming an inhabitant, constitutes a change of domicil, and of course a change of citizenship. But a person, who is a native citizen of one state, never ceases to be a citizen thereof, until he has acquired a new citizenship elsewhere. Residence in a foreign country has no operation upon his character, as a citizen, although it may, for purposes of trade and commerce, impress him with the character of the country.1 To change allegiance is one thing; to change inhabitancy is quite another thing. The right and the power are not co-extensive in each case.2 Every citizen of a state is ipso facto a citizen of the United States.3
__________________________
1. See 1 Kent's Comm. Lect. 4.
2. See Rawle on Const. ch. 9, p. 87 to 100.
3. Rawle on Const. ch. 9, p. 85, 86.

Looking at those laws, the Constitution, and knowing the history leading up to the Constitution, it is obvious that people thought of themselves as citizens of a state and as citizens of the United States. Prior to the 14th amendment, the interpretation of the courts was that a person had to be a state citizen before they could be a citizen of the United States unless they were naturalized by a process specified in a federal naturalization law. While a state could claim someone a citizen of the single state, it could not make them a citizen of the United States unless he or she was a state citizen by birth. That was strictly a power of the federal government.

After the 14th amendment, the only thing regarding citizenship that changed was the relationship between federal and state citizenship. Before, federal citizenship was a result of being a citizen of a state or a naturalization law. After, state citizenship was the result of first being a U.S. citizen. Prior to the 14th amendment, there were some issues with the situation where only citizens of the states could be U.S. citizens. First, persons that were not free, white men could not become U.S. citizens (See Scott v. Sandford). They could become citizens of a state but that did not make them U.S. citizens. Also, those born within the District of Columbia and U.S. territories were not U.S. citizens unless their parents were U.S. citizens or they were otherwise naturalized into U.S. citizenship. The 14th amendment allowed people of other races to become U.S. citizens and solved some of the other issues concerning citizenship.

You want to know what group made persons born in one of the states a citizen of the United States? The Second Continental Congress as duly elected representatives of the thirteen states when they wrote the Articles of Confederation.

How is that for substance? Excuse me while I accept the interpretation of a Supreme Court Justice about the Constitution over yours.

[Nikki]

The Borkster seems to have issues with an Internet forum failing to prostrate itself at his feet in adulation of his knowledge.

Unfortunately, he continues to fail to provide any specific information -- such as a case citation -- supportive of his penchant for appearing naked (in the sense of having any facts to support his inanities) in public.

In any case, we will continue to strive to demonstrate to all readers that the Borkster is nothing but a scammer. He offers nothing more than a high-tech (Internet-based) negative pressure wallet emptying machine.

He will happily accept funds from anyone, but will continue to fail to provide a single instance of his theories or suggestions being of benefit to anyone other than himself.

[Pottapaug1938]

You haven't even chewed your cabbage ONCE, pal.

"Pal"?

Yeah, "pal". If you spend much time in New England -- at least, where the old-time New Englanders are common, you'll find out that "pal" isn't exactly or universally a term of endearment. I once saw an ugly bar fight follow the words, "well, Pal, why don't you step outside and see if you can't back up your yap."

[LPC]

I see the flavor of the day is, Critical Thinking: Optional.

Forget critical thinking. I'd like to see some coherent thinking from this jerk.