The Real LB Bork Thread

[grixit]

Or Person 3 ratted on the other two to avoid jail time and may have gotten just some probation on a minor charge.

However, sans a full case name and/or number and the jurisdiction in which it occurred any claims of victory have the same believability as me commenting on the freaky circus sex I had with Sandra Bullock this weekend.

Paparazzi caught her wearing a pair of 4XL baggy rainbow trunks and two juggling pins and holding a whip. Her only response to shouted questions was to honk a little horn.

[buck09]

Leonard Bork of Wisconsin. There's not that much of interest available. He does have a state tax lien from several years ago (1999. to be exact).

Dept. of Revenue vs. LEONARD BORK
Grant County Case Number 1999TW000372

Type: Delinquent tax warrant
Debtor Name: BORK, LEONARD
Multiple Debtors: No
Amount: $ 12,923.20
Satisfaction:No

BORK, LEONARD - Defendant
Address: GENERAL DELIVERY, KIELER, WI 53812
Interest on verdict $ 4,291.50
Penalty $ 736.70
Tax $ 7,895.00

[buck09]

Don't know if this the the same, but there's a sovridiot in AZ named Leonard Bret Bork, who in 1995, went pro per in this case:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/d ... 995-090858

It has one of the trademarks of a paytriot idiot case:
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED
followed by:
ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGT
and
SANCTIONS ON DEF DUE TO VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

there's two other cases out there, which resulted in civil judgments.

It's either him, or he has an equally daft doppelganger.

Edit: The statute he referenced in the complaint had to do with racketeering. Given previous losses and judgments in 1993, my guess this would be that when things went bad for him, it because obvious that the government was in on the fix.

[wserra]

As we mentioned above, you only get LB Bork's magnum opus, "The Red Amendment", if you pay for it. Still, somebody has put up an excerpt which is not on his web site. It is interesting to see that, if you pay him, you get even less content and poorer writing than you get for nothing on his site.

Bork seems to favor a certain sentence construction: "we can plainly see [some nonsense]" and "it is easily noted [some gibberish]". Especially since he is preaching to the choir - who else is going to pay for this stuff - I suppose it's better to claim nonsense is "plain" or "obvious" than to try to spell it out and lose everyone in the cream cheese. Pronouncements like "one is deemed a belligerent and also regarded, a person" will cross your eyes if you actually try to think about them.

Bork concludes, "Again, without question the main weapon of destruction is the Silent Army – The Bar." "[W]ithout question", huh? So where's my combat pay?

[wserra]

I found another excerpt as well. It appears to be the very beginning of "The Red Amendment".

A few lines:

Even though I do not have a formal law degree, I am a jurist; hence what is portrayed herein is accurate
...
This Treatise contains the inviolate truth. It may cause a person to go into dementia. However, its contents will provide you with the legal knowledge to release yourself from statutory bondage. The reader is forewarned to its potent content.
...
This Book is very special in the sense that it goes into what the courts will not address

No ego problem there.

[grixit]

Ok, i figured it out. When he says "jurist" he means "conjurist". His tangled sentences are actually potent incantations. Unfortunately all they ever seem to summon is laughter.

[The Jurist]

Interesting. I guess most of you, especially Wesley Serra, do not have lives.

Still into the personal attack mode over the substance of what I have put forth in research.

This shows the research is right, you know.

Oh, and it looks like the 100 post thread rule is out the door.... You guys must be desperate.

[wserra]

Interesting. I guess most of you, especially Wesley Serra, do not have lives.

You flatter yourself.

How long do you believe it takes for someone who knows the law to show that what you write is nonsense? I fully agree that spending more than fifteen minutes on a post about you is a waste of time, and I haven't done so. No need.

[notorial dissent]

Speaking of no life Lenny????

So anyone who disagrees with you is attacking you, right???????? Paranoid much Lenny? You should be, you really should be. Job security in your line of work is so very very poor. So sorry, crap is still crap, and calling it for what it is isn't attack, it is just a plain statement of fact. Nothing you have is even of any intrinsic value for originality.

You are an unoriginal hack, your writing doesn't achieve mediocrity, your "research" is not even good fiction, so the only one you are fooling is yourself. If you were at least amusing your dreck might be at least excusable for that, but you are flat out boring and your writing is so poor as to make it not so very worth the effort. Profound you aren't.

I'd suggest a career change, but the village idiot post has been filled by Harvey, and last I heard there was still a surplus of pool cleaners so I guess you'll just have to fall back on being an unemployable, incompetent conman.

[LPC]

Still into the personal attack mode over the substance of what I have put forth in research.

This shows the research is right, you know.

The "substance of what I have put forth in research"? That doesn't even make any sense. I put time into research, and I put effort into research, but I don't put "substance" in research because substance is what I get FROM research.

And research is rarely "right" or "wrong" (unless you're fabricating data or are sloppy about your quotes and sources). It's the *conclusions* derived from research that are what can be "right" (or wrong).

More importantly, what "research" and what "substance"? I haven't seen anything yet from the "Jurist" but frothy rants without any cites to any support from any authority.

I'll tell you what. You advance a proposition, and provide some "research" to support that proposition, and I'll tell you why you're wrong.

Or you can continue to troll with snarky pontifications. Your choice.

[buck09]

Hey Lenny - given your point of view on the so-called federal government, what recourse do you have if someone violates federal copyright law (which we all know was made by the corrupt de jure government) and reproduces your book, in full?

Would you use federal copyright law to enforce your copyright? How would that work, assuming the person isn't a citizen of the same state as you?

Just thinkin' about it - a copy of TRA is one phone call away, and one high-speed scanner away from being posted far and wide. We all know that your marks, who are just as delusional as you, are just about as flat-broke as you.

Let me know what law governs copyright so I can determine if it is permissible for me to reproduce your work.

[notorial dissent]

The problem is that Lenny has already over saturated the available market, and so even if you went to all the trouble of actually scanning the drivel, always assuming your scanner didn't revolt in disgust, there still wouldn't be enough takers to justify the wastage of time and electricity. You can pretty well judge a scammer's standing when even the geniuses over at SUI start laughing at him. I mean, when the great Merrill pronounces "he's got it wrong", you know they're down the old thumper. Tough luck Lenny, maybe one of those pool cleaning slots will open up real soon, although in Wisconsin, maybe not. I'd suggest manure mucker at one of the dairies, since you have practice slinging it, but that would be skilled labor, so you probably couldn't qualify.

[buck09]

The problem is that Lenny has already over saturated the available market, and so even if you went to all the trouble of actually scanning the drivel, always assuming your scanner didn't revolt in disgust, there still wouldn't be enough takers to justify the wastage of time and electricity.

The scanner can identify legal tender and shutdown if you try too many times to copy it, I wonder if it does the same thing for BS.

Next time I have a beer with my paytriot buddies (I score a 2 in the "six degrees of LB Bork" game, BTW), I'll check to see if TRA bears any copyright notices. For all I know, Lenny could have made himself a subject to the Grand Cabal by putting their mark - (C) - on his work.

[The Jurist]

Hey Lenny - given your point of view on the so-called federal government, what recourse do you have if someone violates federal copyright law (which we all know was made by the corrupt de jure government) and reproduces your book, in full?

Would you use federal copyright law to enforce your copyright? How would that work, assuming the person isn't a citizen of the same state as you?

Just thinkin' about it - a copy of TRA is one phone call away, and one high-speed scanner away from being posted far and wide. We all know that your marks, who are just as delusional as you, are just about as flat-broke as you.

Let me know what law governs copyright so I can determine if it is permissible for me to reproduce your work.

Are you suggesting some kind of theft? Does not surprise me.

[The Jurist]

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.

And you are not powerful enough to let Wes in the forum? Or do you agree with the NMG moderator that it wouldn't be convenient to have Wes looking around the forum that is naming Quatloosians as enemies?

The more I see these sovrun paytriots practicing different than what they preach, I have to be thankful they aren't in charge of the country.

In answer to the question, I could have taken care of the matter; however we have a community and many people are involved. Moreover, a man cannot judge his own cause so it was best to have someone else make a determination on the matter.

I know Wesley and others were concerned about the rejection, so I have posted it here.
Oh, and as far as I know there was no response from him so in case he did not receive it, Well...

Wesley Serra,

I received your request to join the Not My Government (NMG) forum and noted that you put as your reason for your request:
My name appeared in an area of the forum which recently became not available to the public. I like to know what is being said about me.

The NMG forum moderators have the right to move threads in and out of the public view, and do so quite often in the interest of political developments that are revealed within the thread, as well as to move threads to their appropriate topics as we restructure the form. The People’s Awareness Coalition staff are reviewing the thread you mentioned to determine if the information should remain private to NMG forum members or should be made available for public viewing once again.

As to your request, it is evidenced in the Quatloos forum that you, as well as many others, ignore the rules of your own forum and consider Quatloos an Internet-based pissing contest. It is obvious that you have no interest in understanding the information discussed within the NMG forum, even without your very clear reason for wanting to join the NMG forum that you presented honestly and forthrightly in your request to join.

However, the honesty of your request isn’t enough to dissuade me from believing that you’d ignore the rules of the NMG forum. As such, your request is denied.

I believe that honest behavior should be rewarded in kind. Therefore, the post that your name/handle appeared in prior to being removed from public view follows:

<START NMG POST>
This space is reserved for Quatloos "wserra". This guy is a major deceiver and fabricator of information.

Assumption is the mother of all defamation tort actions.

Quote:

Judge Roy Bean wrote:
Someone please tell me why this shouldn't go into the pissing contest trashbin.

wserra wrote:
Because amongst the pissing is a clear case that "LB Bork" is a scammer, something which merits a better fate than auto-pruning. It merits search-engine indexing, in fact. I do agree with Pottapaug that "Jurist" should be mooted out, but I also intend to look further into Bork.

That was taken from a thread on the Quatloos forum.

<END NMG POST>

Nothing else specifically about you has been added to the thread at this time.

Thank you for your interest in becoming a member of the NMG forum.

Sincerely,

[The Jurist]

The problem is that Lenny has already over saturated the available market, and so even if you went to all the trouble of actually scanning the drivel, always assuming your scanner didn't revolt in disgust, there still wouldn't be enough takers to justify the wastage of time and electricity. You can pretty well judge a scammer's standing when even the geniuses over at SUI start laughing at him. I mean, when the great Merrill pronounces "he's got it wrong", you know they're down the old thumper. Tough luck Lenny, maybe one of those pool cleaning slots will open up real soon, although in Wisconsin, maybe not. I'd suggest manure mucker at one of the dairies, since you have practice slinging it, but that would be skilled labor, so you probably couldn't qualify.

Scammer?

You people have "rules", you know.

Pools? Installed one in-ground at age 17, but have not any connection with them since.
I have a calling now... Thanks for your concerns.

[The Jurist]

Interesting. I guess most of you, especially Wesley Serra, do not have lives.

You flatter yourself.

How long do you believe it takes for someone who knows the law to show that what you write is nonsense? I fully agree that spending more than fifteen minutes on a post about you is a waste of time, and I haven't done so. No need.

Awe, come on Wes. You have spent a lot more energy on this thread than 15 minutes. I guess you just admitted that you have wasted your time on this whole thing. Which brings up the matter of you people and your rules...

Maybe you and your friends here can give me a determination on this:

Attorney Matters
Advice on Ethical Questions
The court does not provide advisory opinions on ethical questions.

Attorneys may seek advice from the professional ethics committee of their local bar association or may seek advice from the Committee on Professional Ethics of the New York State Bar Association. Inquiries may be sent to the latter committee by mail addressed to it at One Elk Street, Albany, NY 12207, by fax to (518) 487-5694, or by e-mail to ethics@nysba.org. All inquiries should include the inquirer’s name, mailing address, telephone, and fax number.

When faced with a question of professional ethics, practitioners should first consult the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR part 1200) and relevant ethics opinions. The ethics opinions of the New York State Bar Association’s Committee on Professional Ethics may be accessed on the Association’s website.

RULES OF
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

RULE 8.4:
Misconduct
A lawyer or law firm shall not:
(b) engage in illegal conduct that adversely reflects on
the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a
lawyer;
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit
or misrepresentation;
(h) engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects
on the lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer.

____________

I have not made a Bar complaint in some time. Any merit? I and others think that there is.

[The Jurist]

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?

Because I am right.

Oh, and Operative... I see that you are helping me get the word out with another one of my quotes (or something encompassed in me and my work).

In regard to education, have you ever heard of Peg Luksik or Charlotte Iserbyt? They expose what I knew about by using common sense... Some of their work here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 8354815608#
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 5239993744#

By the way, it seems the lot of you lack common sense.
I really wonder what it is like to be a "Tool" (defined on Island Makers).

[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?

Because I am right.

But who says you are right? It is ridiculous for a person to reach a conclusion about law that contradicts 150 years of precedent and to declare that his or her theories are right. If anyone and everyone could do that, it is an invitation to anarchy. Frankly, I prefer the U.S. over Somalia.

In this country, when it comes to law, until someone who matters (i.e. a court of law) agrees with you, your theory is nothing but a theory. Anyone who matters that looks at your theory would find that it is bunk. Therefore, your ideas are nothing but bunk.

Oh, and Operative... I see that you are helping me get the word out with another one of my quotes (or something encompassed in me and my work).

You really are full of yourself. That quote only shows that you are an idiot. You cannot accept the fact that those who actually know the law have explained that you are wrong. Therefore, your excuse for obstinately holding on to your idiotic theories is to claim that education is a negative.

In regard to education, have you ever heard of Peg Luksik or Charlotte Iserbyt? They expose what I knew about by using common sense... Some of their work here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 8354815608#
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 5239993744#

By the way, it seems the lot of you lack common sense.
I really wonder what it is like to be a "Tool" (defined on Island Makers).

I have not watched the videos and do not care to. A thorough and complete study of education in the United States is not something that I care to do. However, I will say that most of the studies that I have read typically ignore several factors in order to support their conclusions. Also, the very first image on the second video showing that it was at a "Freedom Law School" conference immediately indicates that it is most probably conspiracy theory nonsense.

BTW, I would bet that it is obvious to 99.99% of all people who ever meet you that you are the one who lacks common sense.

[wserra]

I fully agree that spending more than fifteen minutes on a post about you is a waste of time, and I haven't done so. No need.

Awe, come on Wes. You have spent a lot more energy on this thread than 15 minutes.

Yes, as I posted above, I probably have. Reading is fairly important. You probably should learn how.

Maybe you and your friends here can give me a determination on this:

Well, I don't think I can give you a "determination". Still, in the spirit of the legal profession providing helpful general information on legal matters, I offer the following.

You know from my web site that my office is in the First Judicial Department (the Bronx and Manhattan). Complaints about lawyers there go to:

Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Department
61 Broadway
New York, NY 10006

Hope this helps.

I have not made a Bar complaint in some time. Any merit? I and others think that there is.

You and others couldn't find your asses in the dark with both hands and a flashlight.