Not a person and no SSN De-Tax scams

[webhick]

I would like searcher to provide a case name and cite to the case that says the Bible is the source of common law. A cursory google search didn't turn anything up.

Searcher is unable to do that, seeing as how I smacked him with the ban hammer for fabricating quotes and whining about being scolded about it.

[ashlynne39]

I would like searcher to provide a case name and cite to the case that says the Bible is the source of common law. A cursory google search didn't turn anything up.

Searcher is unable to do that, seeing as how I smacked him with the ban hammer for fabricating quotes and whining about being scolded about it.

I just saw that. I figured this was wholly or partially made up quote also but wanted to see him stumble through some sort of explanation. Oh well. TTFN Searcher.

[Pottapaug1938]

I would like searcher to provide a case name and cite to the case that says the Bible is the source of common law. A cursory google search didn't turn anything up.

Searcher is unable to do that, seeing as how I smacked him with the ban hammer for fabricating quotes and whining about being scolded about it.

I just saw that. I figured this was wholly or partially made up quote also but wanted to see him stumble through some sort of explanation. Oh well. TTFN Searcher.

I would hazard a guess that, somewhere in some court opinion, there is a dictum from some justice which says that the Bible is the source for our common law, and he seized on that like a drowning swimmer seizes on a life ring thrown by a rescuer, without troubling himself further about how authoritative that dictum is.

[The Observer]

Searcher is unable to do that, seeing as how I smacked him with the ban hammer for fabricating quotes and whining about being scolded about it.

Interesting. I told wes in a private e-mail last week that my expectation was that searcher would get hammer-time within 30 days. The lack of intellectual honesty on his part was approaching that of a black hole in space.

[webhick]

Did you put money on it?

[Gregg]

For any newbies who stumble upon this, I'd like to point out that banning posters is something this site has long been very loathe to do. In another post I made somewhere, I pointed out that we (as much as I am able to speak for the collective) don't have "rules" per se. We don't define what is not allowed, but like Potter Stewart, we know it when we see it.

Very recently, a significant shift in the attitude of the site happened. The mission of the site has been to educate, and report on internet scams, tax scams and fraud. For reasons discussed at length among some of the long time members, this site is no longer a safe haven for trolls who just want to yank on people's chains. If you want to SERIOUSLY discuss various scams and such, this is a great place for that. If you want to ask questions, again, there is a tremendous base of really smart people here to help. But, and again only as far as I can speak for more than myself, don't try to get all cutesy with twisting words, misquoting sources, or just being a general PITA, you're not going to find your posts welcome.

There, I said my piece on the recent changes.....

[Pottapaug1938]

I would add that anyone wishing to cite a court case in support of, or in opposition to, a certain proposition should understand the difference between the HOLDING in a case, in which a court decides the issue before it, and the "DICTA", which are comments used by the court to elaborate on the reasons for its decision.

For example, in a mythical case brought to decide who put the "bomp" in the bomp-ba-bomp-ba-bomp, a justice may note that people have long enjoyed the fact that the "ram" was put in the rama-lama-lama-dingdong; but that fact is irrelevant to the issue of just WHO put the bomp....

[Burnaby49]

I would add that anyone wishing to cite a court case in support of, or in opposition to, a certain proposition should understand the difference between the HOLDING in a case, in which a court decides the issue before it, and the "DICTA", which are comments used by the court to elaborate on the reasons for its decision.

For example, in a mythical case brought to decide who put the "bomp" in the bomp-ba-bomp-ba-bomp, a justice may note that people have long enjoyed the fact that the "ram" was put in the rama-lama-lama-dingdong; but that fact is irrelevant to the issue of just WHO put the bomp....

And don't forget some of these clowns citing dissenting opinions as decided law. I once had a lawyer argue that an appeals court decision that destroyed his client's position really supported it because one of the judges on the appeals panel dissented from the majority decision. His "logic" was that if a judge was so passionately convinced of the correctness of his analysis that he would disagree with his fellow justices then his dissent must be given weight and the majority decision ignored. I just said that he could take that argument to court, I was going with the majority decision.

[webhick]

Let's not penalize laymen for relatively innocent mistakes. Only after coming here did I even find out that such things like dissenting options and dicta even existed and what they mean when talking about what the law is.

Anyone can get confused and we don't want to alienate laymen and make this site sound like a bunch of elitists. That being said, I have only so much tolerance for willful ignorance.

[Pottapaug1938]

Let's not penalize laymen for relatively innocent mistakes. Only after coming here did I even find out that such things like dissenting options and dicta even existed and what they mean when talking about what the law is.

Anyone can get confused and we don't want to alienate laymen and make this site sound like a bunch of elitists. That being said, I have only so much tolerance for willful ignorance.

I don't object when laymen make mistakes of this sort -- once, or perhaps a couple of other times; but when someone like searcher refuses to listen to people who work, or have worked, with court opinions for many years and understand how to read them to find out what the important parts are, I do take exception when I am told that a dictum quote mined from a court decision is just as important as anything else the court said.

[Burnaby49]

Let's not penalize laymen for relatively innocent mistakes. Only after coming here did I even find out that such things like dissenting options and dicta even existed and what they mean when talking about what the law is.

Anyone can get confused and we don't want to alienate laymen and make this site sound like a bunch of elitists. That being said, I have only so much tolerance for willful ignorance.

In my example it was a lawyer, not a layman, trying to con me. Essentially he must have considered me a fool if he felt the effort worthwhile.

BTW, up here in Canada we use the word obiter rather than dicta. According to Wikipedia it's one and the same;

"Obiter dictum (plural obiter dicta, often referred to simply as dicta or obiter) is Latin for a statement "said in passing". An obiter dictum is a remark or observation made by a judge that, although included in the body of the court's opinion, does not form a necessary part of the court's decision."

[Famspear]

Let's not penalize laymen for relatively innocent mistakes. Only after coming here did I even find out that such things like dissenting options and dicta even existed and what they mean when talking about what the law is.

Anyone can get confused and we don't want to alienate laymen and make this site sound like a bunch of elitists. That being said, I have only so much tolerance for willful ignorance.

I don't object when laymen make mistakes of this sort -- once, or perhaps a couple of other times; but when someone like searcher refuses to listen to people who work, or have worked, with court opinions for many years and understand how to read them to find out what the important parts are, I do take exception when I am told that a dictum quote mined from a court decision is just as important as anything else the court said.

When the crooks, the wackadooster, tax protester-tax deniers, come here and pontificate and claim to understand the law better than the people they so smugly call the "elitists" -- that's when the wackos get slapped around, rhetorically speaking.

It's one thing to be wrong through innocent misunderstanding caused by the complexity of a topic. It's quite another to be completely wrong about even the most basic tenets of a highly technical, complex body of knowledge (e.g., brain surgery, elementary particle physics, U.S. federal income tax law) while exaggerating one's own importance in that very field and falsely claiming that 99.99% of the experts are somehow wrong and "corrupt."

arrogant (adjective): "exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance in an overbearing manner". Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 63 (G. & C. Merriam Company, 8th ed. 1976).

[to] arrogate (verb): "to claim or seize without justification.... to make undue claims to having". Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 63 (G. & C. Merriam Company, 8th ed. 1976).

One of the lessons I learned years ago is that there is no such thing as a "self-appointed" expert. By definition, the status of "expert" is something that must be granted to you by someone else -- and the "expert" status can be generally recognized only when that someone else, in turn, is recognized as someone qualified to grant that status.

In truth, it is often these tax protester-tax denier types who are self-appointed elitists. Many of them want to be considered as experts, as the "elite," if you will in some field of knowledge. But they're too lazy or corrupt to do all that it really takes to achieve that exalted status. So, the only people who recognize them as experts are their own victims and some fellow-scammers -- people unqualified to grant them the status of "expert."

[Gregg]

I have seen someone quote the Pleading of one party (the party that lost) as the court's decision, and not being able or willing to admit that they were horribly wrong as to what the court said...

[notorial dissent]

It's called shopping for an answer that fits your need, and usually is the result of people who either don't read, or can't understand what they are reading, they just found words that suited their purpose.

[grixit]

In the end the truth is that Searcher was not actually searching.

[notorial dissent]

To be searching implies to actually be looking for something, not just wanting to sub-tile-ly try and sneak your opinions and agenda past someone while pretending to innocence all the while presenting it as a question. However, the total lacking of subtlety, cleverness, or a clue, is generally a serious handicap in that sort of game. That and getting tetchy when called on the aforesaid attempt at game playing.

This is usually behavior I associate with 3-5 year olds who are trying to get away with something they have been told "NO" about, while pretending they are trying to do something else, and very seldom works for them either, and can be cute or exasperating to watch depending on the circumstances. The case in point here, was neither cute nor entertaining. A lot can be forgiven for originality or entertainment value, he had none of either, in abundance.