Motor vehicle titles

[Famspear]

Right I understand how it is impossible for me to have read up on legal research and statutory construction, so I do not have access to the top secret book that allows you to read law correctly but no one else.

Oh, now our iddy-biddy feelin's have been hurt. Tsk tsk tsk.....

There is no top secret book. As legal or accounting practitioners, we do have materials that you don't have -- not because you can't have access to them, but rather because you would have to know what they are and where to find them. But, as you know, you do have access to the actual texts of statutes, cases, and so on.

I understand also that dicta be it 1 year or 50 years old is not an authority, but it does help in understanding why and how they come to the opinion they do. And while I would never quote dicta as an authority in a case, it does help with interpretation, just like reading the house and senate debates on a statute helps the courts decide what the law was intended for.

That's pretty good.

And your phrase, "would never quote dicta as an authority in a case" is a good choice of words. You can quote dicta, and lawyers and judges do that all the time (often, without even clearly stating that the lawyer or judge recognizes that it's dicta). But, one of the keys is understanding the difference between holdings and dicta.

See, I give you credit where credit is due.

[Famspear]

Wow you are so smart, I wonder how anyone could keep up, you must really dazzle your peers. Where can I find some peer reviewed example of your incredible intelligence at? Surely a legal mind as great as yourself teaches or perhaps runs the biggest law firm in Chicago right?

Actually, one of my teachers and some of my friends back when I was a teenager called me a genius, but I believe they were stretching.

I haven't published any peer-reviewed articles in law reviews, but I have had about a dozen or so articles published on the subject of taxation.

I do dazzle my peers (other lawyers and CPAs with whom I work). I can tell sometimes that they're dazzled, by the way they respond to me. It's not a big deal. Smart people are a dime a dozen.

No, I don't teach college or law school, and no I don't run any law firms in Chicago. I've been there and I really like it, but it would be too cold for me in Chicago in the winter, anyway.

Surprised you did not try to educate me on sheperdizing as well.

I'm impressed that you know what it is. But, the correct spelling is "Shepardizing."

You do know that U.S. colleges put out more lawyers every year then ANY other field right? It really don't take a rocket scientist to do your job buddy.

A rocket scientist couldn't handle my job, and I certainly couldn't handle a rocket scientist's job.



Seriously, U.S. federal tax law is one of the most complex areas of law.

While I do think it is funny that you believe I have to go to college to read the same textbook you did....

Stop right there.

First of all, most of what American lawyers read is not in the form of a "textbook" in the sense in which you are thinking. Law school is not high school, and it's not college.

In American law schools, the "teaching" that goes on is (at least in my experience) what I would call "self-teaching." You don't read a "textbook" written by some legal expert, and for the most part you don't sit in class and listen to a professor pontificate about the law. Instead, you read the actual primary authorities -- mostly the verbatim texts of court opinions (they're re-printed in books called "casebooks," but these are not really "textbooks" in the sense that you would see in high school or college).

Second: In class, what the professor does is not so much to "lecture" as to ask a series of questions, calling upon students to respond. Especially in the first semester of law school, it seems to many new law students like a professor's game of "hide the ball."

Gradually, the law student's approach changes. Just as an Army or Marine Corps boot camp changes a person from being a civilian to being a soldier, law school changes the student.

Yes, to really understand law in the way that lawyers and judges do, you probably have to go to law school. Now, many great lawyers (such as Abraham Lincoln) in the old days learned without going to law school, but that's another topic.

I don't even feel the urge to tell you that my reading is at the very top son.

No, but your reading of LAW is nowhere near the top -- "son." That's obvious. That doesn't mean that you're not smart.

But I'm sure that by the 7th grade you were also reading 500 pages a day with an above college grade reading comprehension level as well correct?

Umm, you probably shouldn't have mentioned the 7th grade. According to my uncle, I was speaking in complete sentences at the age of one. When I was in second or third grade, I was reading on just about a 7th grade level -- according to the same uncle, who was teaching 7th grade and living with us at the time -- and at the time he showed me some essay papers written by his 7th grade students, just to find out how well I could read. Funny of you to make me think of that; I hadn't thought about that in many years. He passed away a few years ago.

When your done patting yourself on the back for thinking no one else could possible have access to the same public information then let me know....[snip childish rant]

I haven't patted myself on the back. And, it's not a question of access to public information. Yes, I do have certain materials you don't have, but it's not that you don't have access to them -- you just might not be aware of their existence. The important thing is that you do have access to statutes and cases -- you're aware of them and you read them, but you don't know how to analyze them. That's not because you're not smart -- it's because (in part) you don't have the training.

You need to understand your limitations. I have limitations, you have them, we all have them.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Right I understand how it is impossible for me to have read up on legal research and statutory construction, so I do not have access to the top secret book that allows you to read law correctly but no one else.
...

What you're missing in all of this is the fact that you cannot learn everything you need to know from reading and self-study. If that were the case, we'd let really smart kids fly high-performance aircraft without the benefit of spending hours and hours with certified instructors in increasingly complex and powerful aircraft.

[AndyK]

I seriously question Patriotdiscussions' reading -- no; COMPREHENSION -- ability.

In several of his posts he has demonstrated his ability to grossly misinterpret relatively basic sentences.

As an example, in another thread, he totally blew it in his discussion of taxation of aliens by simply failing to grasp the statements which HE posted.

[Dr. Caligari]

As an example, in another thread, he totally blew it in his discussion of taxation of aliens by simply failing to grasp the statements which HE posted.

Exactly. He claimed that no one can be taxed without his consent. What he was quoting said that a non-resident alien who married a U.S. citizen could consent to be taxed as a resident alien.

[davids]

Famspear has done an excellent job explaining the law school process and has tried to be quite diplomatic in explaining to Patriotdiscussions why he is not capable of understanding legal issues as well as a trained attorney.

Patriotdiscussions will never accept that answer as true. He came to this forum with standard, mundane, run-of-the-mill, seen a thousand times before, lame-ass sovrun legal mythology in his head.

Patriotdiscussions didn't think for a minute before coming to this forum that there might just be something he doesn't know, that actually studying - hard studying - of a subject for many years, and working with it for many more, would give experts in a given field an advantage over someone trained in youtube videos done by nitwits and scam artists. I personally don't think he is stupid, he is just untrained, as Famspear has said, and has a bad attitude.

I for one know nothing at all about taxes and tax law. I'm a complete moron in that area. And I say that even having a law degree. The less you know, the more you think you know.

No doubt he hails from some internet forum where they are real impressed with him, because compared to the average sovrun, he's probably a wizkid. But he's still wrong and his ideas are old and faulty. I suspect he'll continue to pretend that he knows something that real lawyers and real economists and real tax experts don't know and run back to his internet den of idiots and brag about how the experts just don't get it (the implication being that therefore he and his cadre of fools must be the true geniuses). As has been pointed out before, he isn't here inquiring about things in good faith; he's here to belittle and show off and all he's doing is making noise.

[davids]

Of course natural rights do not depend on government, it would only be a moron who believed government gave them a voice box to speak with. But I do think it is cute because speech is punished in some places that pros here thinks they do not have a right to speak. That's really cute.

Let us be clear here, did WE create the government to server US or did we create the government so we could serve it?

Are we the public servant or are they the public servant?

If like our founders and anyone with half a brain realizes,you agree they are there to serve us, then you must also realize there is no way they could grant us rights we did not already have.

Does a butler grant his master the right to speak? The government has only the power WE give it, it's that whole governed by consent thingy the pros here seem to be missing.

If the pros can not understand a basic concept of how rights flow from the creator and not the servant then I think they are not as smart as they pretend to be.

Well, as a practicing lawyer, I am a "pro" and I understand the concept of rights flowing from the creator. So does everyone else commenting on the issue. They are just discussing "rights" in a different sense than you are. What I tried to explain is that, in analyzing whether rights are absolute (hint: they're not) that discussion is immaterial. Your fascination with wanting to think you are smarter than the "pros" says something not so good about you. Go learn how to be a pro at something, anything, and then you'll likely have a different idea about how to approach "pros."

[Pottapaug1938]

Patriotdiscussions wrote:
The government has only the power WE give it, it's that whole governed by consent thingy the pros here seem to be missing.

No, the "pros" are NOT missing the "governed by consent thingy." We understand, among other things, that in order to live in a civil society, we have to subordinate what we might perceive as our natural rights in order to live amongst each other. For example, I might consider it my "natural right" to hunt for food; but I cannot do so in my neighborhood because there are too many houses around and too many innocent people who might be hit by a poorly-aimed shot. I might claim the "natural right" to speak my mind; but countervailing rights dictate that I cannot walk onto the floor of the House of Representatives and do that. I might claim the "natural right" to keep the fruits of my labor; but I exchange a portion of that right, in the form of taxes, to get services such as police or fire protection which I cannot provide on my own.

We also understand that "governed by consent" does NOT mean that we have to consent to each and every thing, such as laws concerning income taxation and our money (and its form), in order for it to affect us.