Jurisdiction evidence

[Pottapaug1938]

@Famspear: is this when I'm supposed to lose it and insult you so you can ban me without looking like an asshole?

That's it. He's banned. (Unless someone beats me to it.)

I'm sure that he will now go elsewhere and moan, loud and long, that those ol' meanies over at Quatloos banned him because they were afraid of him.

[Dr. Caligari]

@Cpt Banjo: Father, stop the BS, do you have evidence that the law applies to anyone? I don't care about your other views and interpretations.

I gave you that evidence upthread: stand in front of a police station smoking a crack pipe and see if the laws get applied to you or not.

[JamesVincent]

@Famspear: is this when I'm supposed to lose it and insult you so you can ban me without looking like an asshole?

That's it. He's banned. (Unless someone beats me to it.)

I'm sure that he will now go elsewhere and moan, loud and long, that those ol' meanies over at Quatloos banned him because they were afraid of him.

He hasn't been banned that I see. I want an honest answer from my very simple question.

[Pottapaug1938]

@JamesVincent: I get it, the law is axiomatic, no problem!
LE: BTW, if I don't consent, under this provision of the "consent of the governed" it doesn't apply.

Wrong again. Quatloos is full of examples of people who made that same argument and invariably lost in court. If you haven't been banned, first, try using that phrase in the "Search" box, and you'll find those examples. You "consent to be governed" by your very presence here and your enjoyment of various benefits conferred by being here; and if you don't "consent to be governed," Pal, you are free to travel to whichever country will have you -- but most countries operate much the same way as we do. The exceptions, like Somalia, might not be to your liking, I suspect.

By the way, thanks for showing your true colors as a sovrun.

[Dr. Caligari]

@LPC: you're funny. I don't ask you to prove that the law is the law. I ask you to prove that what is commonly referred as the law, in the context of the OP: US Constitution, US Code, US Regulations, etc. apply to me, or anyone else who doesn't voluntarily submit to the so called authority of the law.

If I don't voluntarily consent to the laws against murder, is it OK for me to cut your head off?

[Famspear]

....I ask you to prove that what is commonly referred as the law, in the context of the OP: US Constitution, US Code, US Regulations, etc. apply to me, or anyone else who doesn't voluntarily submit to the so called authority of the law.

Obviously, the application of law to an individual is not dependent on whether the individual "voluntarily submits" to the authority of the law.

The fact that Travis has asked other people to "prove" that the application of law to him is dependent on whether he "voluntarily submits" to the authority of the law illustrates a symptom of his transference -- the inappropriate repetition, in the present, of some aspect of a relationship that was important in his past. Even a psychologically normal ten year old boy would not honestly believe that laws apply to him only if he "voluntarily submits" to the authority of such laws.

Transference is "the inappropriate repetition in the present of a relationship that was important in a person's childhood." Leonard H. Kapelovitz, MD, To Love and To Work/A Demonstration and Discussion of Psychotherapy , p. 66 (1987). Or: "the redirection of feelings and desires and especially of those unconsciously retained from childhood toward a new object." Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (8th ed. 1976). Or: "a reproduction of emotions relating to repressed experiences, especially of childhood, and the substitution of another person ... for the original object of the repressed impulses." Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language (2d College Ed. 1970).

Travis is still trying (subconsciously) to work through a problem he had with Mommie (or Daddy) that developed in his infant, toddler, or pre-school years -- before he reached the age of about five. He is still upset because Mommie said, "That's the rule because Mommie says so. Travis has to do what Mommie says." Like many tax protesters and so-called "sovereigns," there is still a "little Travis" inside the grown-up Travis, and Travis is substituting other people (or even inanimate objects or concepts such as "law") for the parental figure (Mommie or Daddy) with whom he has been unable to resolve his conflict.

Travis has never found peace with the phrase "because Mommie says so." He heard that phrase many times in his early years, and he developed a smoldering resentment. He is now transferring that repressed resentment which he subconsciously still feels toward Mommie (or toward Daddy or toward whichever parental figure was involved) to other authority figures -- in this case, toward the authority figure of The Law.

Travis is also transferring his resentment toward Quatloos regulars. He wants the Quatloos regulars to "prove" to him with "evidence" that the law applies to him even though he does not "voluntarily submit" to the law. We Quatloos regulars are also his authority figures. But the underlying motivation for his silly questions is the problem he had with Mommie or Daddy many years ago.

Grow up, little Travis.

We're not your parents.

[Pottapaug1938]

To follow on a theme I raised in an earlier post, Travis is typical of a child who finds out that the other children won't play the way that HE wants them to play, and so he stamps his foot, sticks out his lower lip and says something like "I doan' wanna DO that, an' you can't MAKE me I'm taking my ball and I'm going home!"

He also reminds me of the neighborhood girl who, around 20 years ago, was physically and verbally harrassing my son, then around 6 years old (a year younger than the girl). When Dan asked her to stop, she said "it's a free country!" Dan asked if that meant that, in a free country, people can do what they want and no one can stop them. Alix said "that's right!" Dan then picked up the bucket of water which I had planned to use to wash my car....

A short while later, Mom comes boiling over and tried to tear Dan a new one for "picking on a GIRL!" I told her about what her daughter had said, and suggested that if her daughter didn't want any more spontaneous baths, she ought to be more careful about what she said and did. Mom then humphed about how I should have come to talk to her first, and then stomped off after I reminded her of the consequences, for Dan, of me doing that. Later, the girl's father joked with me about how Alix had gotten what was coming to her....

[AndyK]

Travis, just like many of the assorted tax deniers (specifically including E&E) frequently spout "show me the law", "I'll pay you umpteen dollars if you can prove [whatever]", or "how does the law apply to me" have their minds closed to any rational answers or explanations.

There's an old joke about someone coming across a young boy shooting a 22 at the side of a barn. Said barn was adorned with bulls-eye targets, each one with a 22 hole in the dead center. When asked how he became such an accurate shot, the boy replied "After I take a shot, I paint the bulls-eye around it."

Similarly the sovereigns, tax deniers, et al, and Travis. They establish a conclusion and then go mining for out-of-context statements, biblical references, moral judgements, and so on to support said conclusion.

They carefully don fact goggles (similar to beer goggles) to prevent them from seeing anything which conflicts with their predetermined conclusion.

Even if they were shown a law which specifically stated (for example) 'Travis is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States with respect to all aspects of 26USC, they would still find fault.

[wserra]

May I point something out to my colleagues here?

travis has been banned. He cannot respond to new posts. This is not to say that we can't continue to discuss his position (such as it is), but it does not seem fair to continue discussing or addressing him.

[Thule]

@LPC: you're funny. I don't ask you to prove that the law is the law. I ask you to prove that what is commonly referred as the law, in the context of the OP: US Constitution, US Code, US Regulations, etc. apply to me, or anyone else who doesn't voluntarily submit to the so called authority of the law.

If I don't voluntarily consent to the laws against murder, is it OK for me to cut your head off?

I´ve asked the same question some times. The response is usually something about how cutting of heads is "immoral", and therefore forbidden. To which my response seems to be that they do not seem to mind a certain set of rules for society, provided that they are the ones deciding what the rules should be.

At this point I usually cuts their heads off, just to make a point

[Famspear]

May I point something out to my colleagues here?

travis has been banned. He cannot respond to new posts. This is not to say that we can't continue to discuss his position (such as it is), but it does not seem fair to continue discussing or addressing him.

I would respectfully disagree in part. I view our purpose here at the Quatloos forum as being in part a teaching role. To that extent, I would argue that Travis' comments are fair game whether he has been banned or not. (And personally, I would not have banned him.)

In my last post, I said "Grow up, little Travis." To the extent that I was addressing Travis, I agree with Wes that it was unfair since he cannot respond to what I said.

But the phrase "Grow up, little Travis," was also partly rhetorical and, like the rest of my post, was intended as a teaching. It was aimed not just at Travis but at anyone else who reads this thread and tends to think the way Travis thinks. (Now, since I have no credentials as a psychologist and no formal training in psychology beyond the two college courses I took, anyone can of course question the value and validity of my teaching. I certainly have no expertise in psychology.)

As many Quatloos regulars are aware, I strongly believe that an understanding of why some (but perhaps not all) tax denier scammers and so-called "sovereign" scammers do what they do and say what they say requires acceptance of the idea that transference -- psychological transference -- is behind at least some of their actions and their statements.

While it is fun (and perhaps a bit sadistic) to watch Travis "twist in the wind," so to speak, he certainly brought this on himself. The posts by me and others both before and after he was banned do serve, in my view, a beneficial teaching purpose, and are fair to that extent.

[JamesVincent]

May I point something out to my colleagues here?

travis has been banned. He cannot respond to new posts. This is not to say that we can't continue to discuss his position (such as it is), but it does not seem fair to continue discussing or addressing him.

Why is his title still showing to me then? I thought it used to be the title and whatnot disappeared after someone was banned.

[LPC]

(And personally, I would not have banned him.)

Should I un-ban him?

(I get the sense that each moderator operates independently, because the only person in my banned list is travis, so it could be that I'm the only one who can un-ban him.)

I simply decided that his obnoxious incoherence had crossed a line.

But I can un-ban him and put him on my ignore list if that's what others would prefer.

[JamesVincent]

(And personally, I would not have banned him.)

Should I un-ban him?

(I get the sense that each moderator operates independently, because the only person in my banned list is travis, so it could be that I'm the only one who can un-ban him.)

I simply decided that his obnoxious incoherence had crossed a line.

But I can un-ban him and put him on my ignore list if that's what others would prefer.

I know quite a few forums that use a 24 hour ban for people being stupid. Something we can think about?

[LPC]

@LPC: you're funny. I don't ask you to prove that the law is the law. I ask you to prove that what is commonly referred as the law, in the context of the OP: US Constitution, US Code, US Regulations, etc. apply to me, or anyone else who doesn't voluntarily submit to the so called authority of the law.

Which is just incoherent nonsense.

If "laws" only applied to people who agreed to voluntarily submit, it wouldn't really be a "law," now would it?

It's just sophistic BS. Pretending not to argue about the nature of "law" while denying that laws can exist without unanimous consent.

[LPC]

(And personally, I would not have banned him.)

Should I un-ban him?

(I get the sense that each moderator operates independently, because the only person in my banned list is travis, so it could be that I'm the only one who can un-ban him.)

I simply decided that his obnoxious incoherence had crossed a line.

But I can un-ban him and put him on my ignore list if that's what others would prefer.

I know quite a few forums that use a 24 hour ban for people being stupid. Something we can think about?

I've changed his status to a 6 hour suspension, which will end up being about 12 hours after I first banned him.

[wserra]

Why is his title still showing to me then? I thought it used to be the title and whatnot disappeared after someone was banned.

There's a difference between being banned and being removed from the user database. Banning, as Dan says, need not be permanent. When getting rid of spammers - or someone like Van Pelt, where the intention is they not return - an admin (I think it takes an admin) will remove the user, leaving or not leaving the user's posts as appropriate. webhick and I do that with spammers. It can't be undone, at least not relatively easily as with banning. While banning can be permanent, it also can be a "time-out", as is now the case with someone we know and love.

[JamesVincent]

Why is his title still showing to me then? I thought it used to be the title and whatnot disappeared after someone was banned.

There's a difference between being banned and being removed from the user database. Banning, as Dan says, need not be permanent. When getting rid of spammers - or someone like Van Pelt, where the intention is they not return - an admin (I think it takes an admin) will remove the user, leaving or not leaving the user's posts as appropriate. webhick and I do that with spammers. It can't be undone, at least not relatively easily as with banning. While banning can be permanent, it also can be a "time-out", as is now the case with someone we know and love.

Ah. Thank you for the explanation, that kinda confused me. Maybe we need a BANNED title picture so there is no further confusion.

[JamesVincent]

I´ve asked the same question some times. The response is usually something about how cutting of heads is "immoral", and therefore forbidden. To which my response seems to be that they do not seem to mind a certain set of rules for society, provided that they are the ones deciding what the rules should be.

At this point I usually cuts their heads off, just to make a point

Immoral to who? Beheadings do still occur and are part of other countries penal code.

[webhick]

Why is his title still showing to me then? I thought it used to be the title and whatnot disappeared after someone was banned.

There's a difference between being banned and being removed from the user database. Banning, as Dan says, need not be permanent. When getting rid of spammers - or someone like Van Pelt, where the intention is they not return - an admin (I think it takes an admin) will remove the user, leaving or not leaving the user's posts as appropriate. webhick and I do that with spammers. It can't be undone, at least not relatively easily as with banning. While banning can be permanent, it also can be a "time-out", as is now the case with someone we know and love.

Ah. Thank you for the explanation, that kinda confused me. Maybe we need a BANNED title picture so there is no further confusion.

That's a good idea. Yeah, we can add two groups (Temp Bans, Perm Bans) with special images, but it would still take an admin to add any given ban to the group. There's a mod to automatically do it. I'm making some backups now and I'm going to install it.