![Cool 8)](./images/smilies/icon_cool.gif)
Thoughts, anyone?
Yes, what is the moral duty to respond?Famspear wrote:I think this thread has just about had it.
![]()
Thoughts, anyone?
Oh, boo-hoo! The rest of the world owes you an answer to your every question, eh PD?Patriotdiscussions wrote:Yes, what is the moral duty to respond?
I think it is funny you jerks say you want to educate people, when really it looks like you want to belittle them and pat yourself on the back.
A question comes up you can not answer, hey lock the thread..... Lmfao
This is a perfect example of troll-boy's approach; and an example of one which I have seen many times before on Quatloos. Keep asking endless questions and "moving the goalposts"; and when we get tired of the troll's antics and discuss locking the thread, the troll crows something like "you won't answer my questions, so you're locking the thread".Patriotdiscussions wrote:Yes, what is the moral duty to respond?Famspear wrote:I think this thread has just about had it.
![]()
Thoughts, anyone?
I think it is funny you jerks say you want to educate people, when really it looks like you want to belittle them and pat yourself on the back.
A question comes up you can not answer, hey lock the thread..... Lmfao
You don't have to go to law school to understand the basic concepts behind a case. I never finished college, and the little college I did go to was either for computer networking or history. It does, however, require an open mind and that is something most of the trolls we see lack. They don't truly want to learn, they want someone to tell them the answers, and they really don't want to hear them since they already "know" it. So you get a one sided argument in which people who do know try to explain to a brick wall why they're wrong and the brick wall just reiterates the same thing over and over, or continually change what they're after. I know, from personal experience, that it takes less then 5 minutes to find 90% of the cases discussed on Quatloos on pages like WestLaw, Justia, Google Scholar, or others. People without a Pacer account may be limited in their searching but can still find out the relevant parts, especially in older cases. The issue is more psychological then it is in learning or teaching, like Famspear brought up in another thread.Pottapaug1938 wrote: ....You want an answer? Then, go to law school and learn how to analyze cases and perform legal research.
I think there are examples of documents sent outside of a court that are properly affidavits, yes.noblepa wrote:2. Isn't an affidavit normally filed in court, and associated with a specific case currently before that court? Can a document sent to a third party (not a court) even be properly called an affidavit, even if it fits the definition in all other respects?
Unless and until a "moral" is codified into law or regulations promulgated by legal authority, "moral duty" is a personal affair and you cannot unilaterally impose your view or expectations on anyone.Patriotdiscussions wrote:...
Great post, I can see I have more studying to do. Now I have just one question and everyone seems to skip it in favor of the legal duty to respond.
What is the moral duty to respond about? Where can I find information about this moral duty to respond?
First, Paul - welcome to Quatloos!noblepa wrote:Hi,
I've been lurking on this site for a long time and enjoy it very much. I've learned a lot. I am not a troll; I believe that the legal experts here truly know the law. ...
Even if an affidavit does not enjoy the prima facie assumption of truth, isn't the actual effect the same? If one party to a case makes certain statements (perhaps in the form of an affidavit) isn't the trier of fact (a jury or the judge), likely to accept those facts, unless the other party rebutts those statements?
2. Isn't an affidavit normally filed in court, and associated with a specific case currently before that court? Can a document sent to a third party (not a court) even be properly called an affidavit, even if it fits the definition in all other respects?
I can see no place for legal interpretations in an affidavit, but that doesn't stop the whacko denizens of the 'net from grinding out "Affidavits of Truth" with all kinds of gibberish in them.noblepa wrote:Would not a document containing conclusory legal interpretations be more properly considered a motion? Again, this would only apply in court and for a specific case.
Thanks,
Paul Noble
Already addressed above. See "I am not required to file a tax return because I wrote a letter to the IRS demanding to know where in the Internal Revenue Code it says I am required to file and the IRS has failed to respond" in the Tax Protester FAQ.Patriotdiscussions wrote:The reason I ask is because people have sent letters to the IRS and not paid taxes and seem to have come out ok.
They told you so themselves, didn't they? Well, then it must be true.[/sarcasm]Patriotdiscussions wrote:Pondsford and nord Davis in particular.
If it is the same Nord Davis, Nord Davis Jr., he was one of the earlier TD/ sovrun types. IIRC was also pretty big proponent of the common law jury situation. Died in 1997? I believe. Was a pastor with Christian Identity, a big, very racist church organization that made the KKK look like pikers.LPC wrote: I only believe what I can verify from reputable sources. You're certainly not a reputable source, and I don't even know where to start looking to find anything about "Pondsford" or "Davis." I did run "Pondsford" through both PACER and the US Tax Court, and nothing showed up.
If you are talking about anyone who writes A4V on their Tax Returns with an affidavit of fact that they are accepting for value, it is NOT true that they have come out ok, sometimes it takes a bit for the IRS computers to catch up, or someone to see the situation, but in the end the IRS will come after you with a vengeance...Patriotdiscussions wrote:Thank you air, it is a question I would truely like an answer too. I went thru google scholar and have found nothing on it.
I have also tried to find the other part, they have to respond if not doing so would be misleading.
The reason I ask is because people have sent letters to the IRS and not paid taxes and seem to have come out ok.
Pondsford and nord Davis in particular.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. Didn't your mother ever teach you that?Patriotdiscussions wrote: The reason I ask is because people have sent letters to the IRS and not paid taxes and seem to have come out ok.
Grixit wrote:Hey Diller: forget terms like "wages", "income", "derived from", "received", etc. If you did something, and got paid for it, you owe tax.
That phrase "moral duty to respond" comes from your quote from the Tweel case. The facts of that case and the context in which the quote appears make very clear what the court was referring to.Patriotdiscussions wrote:Yes, what is the moral duty to respond?