LOCKED -- What is the jurisdiction of the United States?

[Pottapaug1938]

Our Dingbat Du Jour still has not fessed up to his dishonesty in citing a non-existent U.S. Supreme Court decision called "Conner" that someone can supposedly cite to defeat a charge of willfulness in a federal criminal tax case.

James Vincent beat me to the PD quote.

Now, if PD can admit that his cited case has nothing to do with the proposition which he was trying to argue, his rehabilitation will have taken its first small step.

[Famspear]

Our Dingbat Du Jour still has not fessed up to his dishonesty in citing a non-existent U.S. Supreme Court decision called "Conner" that someone can supposedly cite to defeat a charge of willfulness in a federal criminal tax case.

James Vincent beat me to the PD quote.

Now, if PD can admit that his cited case has nothing to do with the proposition which he was trying to argue, his rehabilitation will have taken its first small step.

Ah, sorry, I hadn't seen PD's confession.

And, as explained to PD a few days ago, the Conner case was a U.S. District Court case in Houston.

If a criminal tax defendant were to cite that case to show lack of willfulness, the tactic could have the opposite effect. Conner is cited over and over and over by tax protesters. They are copying and pasting the citation from the same old tax protester web sites. So, citing the case could be providing the jury with evidence that, far from the defendant having an "actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax laws", the defendant was actually mining the internet for "quotes" that he felt would support his "belief" that compensation for personal services is not taxable. That kind of tactic is evidence of willfulness, not evidence of lack of willfulness.

[arayder]

Btw no such thing as concurrent sovereignty. That by itself would not be sovereignty at all.

The Supreme Court seems to disagree.

The general principle of state-court jurisdiction over cases arising under federal laws is straightforward: state courts may assume subject-matter jurisdiction over a federal cause of action absent provision by Congress to the contrary or disabling incompatibility between the federal claim and state-court adjudication. [Citations omitted.] This rule is premised on the relation between the States and the National Government within our federal system. See The Federalist No. 82 (Hamilton). The two exercise concurrent sovereignty, although the Constitution limits the powers of each and requires the States to recognize federal law as paramount.

Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 453 U.S. 473, 477-478 (1981) (emphasis supplied).

'Course, the Supreme Court seems to disagree with almost everything you say. What do they know?

Schiller.

Notice how they were talking about prosecuting of a case.

Starting to think you boys do not have a clue wtf sovereignty means.


Hey why not look up concurrent sovereignty and paste the definition then?

Oh, please, spare us the debate tricks, PD.

First you tell us that your theory of state sovereignty is supported by constitutional law and makes 14th Amendment deniers such as you immune from federal statute.

Then when the Supreme Court cites the Constitution to support the shared authority of concurrent sovereignty (a concept you deny even exists) you avoid the reality of law saying your refutation is incomplete because Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp is about the "prosecuting of a case". . .as if a government's ability to prosecute cases has nothing to do with its sovereignty.

[notorial dissent]

I'd just be interested to see him actually present his own thoughts on any given subject and not those he is happily regurgitating from whatever rock he can find them under. He can't and won't, because he has shown himself to be without original thought or comprehension, and thinking, it would appear makes hims widdle hed hurt, since he hasn't done any of that from the get go.

So we have unimaginative, highly unoriginal, intellectually dishonest, petulant, totally ignorant of history and civics, pretty much the same for law, except that he thinks he knows better than the Supreme Court, very good at attempting to say something clever, that isn't, and running away, and did I mention the running away part, very good at that, lies about nearly, well really, everything, and particularly lies about his sources, except of course the ones he makes up altogether, likes to make "and I'll show you" threats, and has yet to come even close to managing it.

[Arthur Rubin]

Lol. What is funny is you are thinking I posted that quote as case law or precendent. When in fact I quoted it for the words included in the quote.

What my quote says is the rights associated with the first 8 amendments do not apply to us citizens who only have privileges and immunities.

But please feel free to say it means something different, I would love to hear it.

Words have meanings. If it's dicta, it may not have the meaning you think it does. (If it were a ruling, then there would eventually be Court interpretation as to what it meant, so we need not speculate.)


I think I may have selected the wrong one of your quotes from cases (or briefs) which you are misinterpreting. Please repeat the quote, and I'll tell you what the words mean.

[arayder]

. . .we have unimaginative, highly unoriginal, intellectually dishonest, petulant, totally ignorant of history and civics, pretty much the same for law, except that he thinks he knows better than the Supreme Court, very good at attempting to say something clever, that isn't, and running away, and did I mention the running away part, very good at that, lies about nearly, well really, everything, and particularly lies about his sources, except of course the ones he makes up altogether, likes to make "and I'll show you" threats, and has yet to come even close to managing it.

Our new friend says he has a meeting this week with Bryan Garner, a noted legal scholar who co-edited the last edition of Black's law Dictionary.

Assuming this isn't a tale and the meeting actually comes off it ought to be a pretty interesting event. The idea of PD having his denial confronted, however gently, (Garner seems like a nice guy) paints an interesting picture.

[notorial dissent]

I think just more in line with all the rest of the threats and promises he's made.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Lol. What is funny is you are thinking I posted that quote as case law or precendent. When in fact I quoted it for the words included in the quote.

What my quote says is the rights associated with the first 8 amendments do not apply to us citizens who only have privileges and immunities.

But please feel free to say it means something different, I would love to hear it.

Words have meanings. If it's dicta, it may not have the meaning you think it does. (If it were a ruling, then there would eventually be Court interpretation as to what it meant, so we need not speculate.)


I think I may have selected the wrong one of your quotes from cases (or briefs) which you are misinterpreting. Please repeat the quote, and I'll tell you what the words mean.

The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal Government.

[Patriotdiscussions]

I'd just be interested to see him actually present his own thoughts on any given subject and not those he is happily regurgitating from whatever rock he can find them under. He can't and won't, because he has shown himself to be without original thought or comprehension, and thinking, it would appear makes hims widdle hed hurt, since he hasn't done any of that from the get go.

So we have unimaginative, highly unoriginal, intellectually dishonest, petulant, totally ignorant of history and civics, pretty much the same for law, except that he thinks he knows better than the Supreme Court, very good at attempting to say something clever, that isn't, and running away, and did I mention the running away part, very good at that, lies about nearly, well really, everything, and particularly lies about his sources, except of course the ones he makes up altogether, likes to make "and I'll show you" threats, and has yet to come even close to managing it.

Yep no clue atall. Your just so smart, no one could read and understand what you can mr Hawkins.

How about you get a clue or two?

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZzMKX2 ... CCcQ6AEwBA

[arayder]

I'd just be interested to see him actually present his own thoughts on any given subject and not those he is happily regurgitating from whatever rock he can find them under. He can't and won't, because he has shown himself to be without original thought or comprehension, and thinking, it would appear makes hims widdle hed hurt, since he hasn't done any of that from the get go.

So we have unimaginative, highly unoriginal, intellectually dishonest, petulant, totally ignorant of history and civics, pretty much the same for law, except that he thinks he knows better than the Supreme Court, very good at attempting to say something clever, that isn't, and running away, and did I mention the running away part, very good at that, lies about nearly, well really, everything, and particularly lies about his sources, except of course the ones he makes up altogether, likes to make "and I'll show you" threats, and has yet to come even close to managing it.

Yep no clue atall. Your just so smart, no one could read and understand what you can mr Hawkins.

How about you get a clue or two?

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZzMKX2 ... CCcQ6AEwBA

So you found someone who shares your beliefs regarding state sovereignty?

While your somebody-else-says-the-same-thing-as-me argument may not win the day it at least beats your previous ruses of posting dead case law, non-binding dicta and non-existing case cites.

Now you have to convince the reader why Mr. Haw's argument, which like yours runs counter to over a century of U.S. law, is valid and true.

The floor is yours on this point. . . .

[notorial dissent]

I seem to have hurt Sovrunidjitjibber's widdle feewings. I'm devastated I tell you, devastated.

Congratulations, you seem to have found someone whose view of reality is as skewed, flawed, and wrong, as yours.

Mr Hawes is entitled to his opinions about this and any other subject, however, his opinion(s) do not constitute a legal fact or condition, or anything worthy of notice or concern except as an exercise in wasted effort. What does, however, are the determinations and rulings by the state supreme courts and ultimately the U S Supreme court

I can find any number of self professed experts who are more than willing to expound and at great length on any variety of things and speak profoundly and sententiously and still be just as WRONG as you and Mr Hawes.

Congratulations, you have now shown that your research skills are on par with the rest of your skill set, which is to say negligible to non-existent.

Thank you for playing, now please go back to your basement, your mommy is calling you.

[AndyK]

Again, PD has shot his arrow into the side of the barn and is scrambling madly to find justifications for the circles he's painting around it.

PD has not only missed the target; he's shot into the wrong side of the barn.

His perverse insistance on ignoring every current law, apposite court opinion, or legitimate source in favor of plaintiff's arguments, overruled court cases, repealed laws has long since ceased to be amusing.

Throw in that he flat-out lies and refuses to answer simple questions and one has no choice but to consign him to the sludgy bottom of the barrell of trolldom.

PD is not here to discuss or learn. He's here only to spout gibberish in an attempt to have adults talk to him. If he could get out of mommy's basement into the sunshine, he might actually have a face-to-face conversation with a real human being. But he doesn't want that. He'd prefer to hide behind an Internet avatar, pretend that he has some knowledge of something, and relish in his pseudo-conversations.

[JamesVincent]

Yep no clue atall. Your just so smart, no one could read and understand what you can mr Hawkins.

How about you get a clue or two?

How about you stop being an asshole? I think that you would improve your "discussions" immeasurably. Oh, and those little red lines underneath words mean they're misspelled.

[Patriotdiscussions]

I seem to have hurt Sovrunidjitjibber's widdle feewings. I'm devastated I tell you, devastated.

Congratulations, you seem to have found someone whose view of reality is as skewed, flawed, and wrong, as yours.

Mr Hawes is entitled to his opinions about this and any other subject, however, his opinion(s) do not constitute a legal fact or condition, or anything worthy of notice or concern except as an exercise in wasted effort. What does, however, are the determinations and rulings by the state supreme courts and ultimately the U S Supreme court

I can find any number of self professed experts who are more than willing to expound and at great length on any variety of things and speak profoundly and sententiously and still be just as WRONG as you and Mr Hawes.

Congratulations, you have now shown that your research skills are on par with the rest of your skill set, which is to say negligible to non-existent.

Thank you for playing, now please go back to your basement, your mommy is calling you.

I did find someone who has the same twisted views, a mr Madison father of the constitution.

From #40

Do they require that, in the establishment of the Constitution, the States should be regarded as distinct and independent sovereigns? They are so regarded by the Constitution proposed.

Do these principles, in fine, require that the powers of the general government should be limited, and that, beyond this limit, the States should be left in possession of their sovereignty and independence? We have seen that in the new government, as in the old, the general powers are limited; and that the States, in all unenumerated cases, are left in the enjoyment of their sovereign and independent jurisdiction.


But then again, what would he know compared to you scholars.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Still waiting for you guys to teach me a lesson by posting up the definition of concurrent sovereignty.

I know I will be waiting awhile.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Yep no clue atall. Your just so smart, no one could read and understand what you can mr Hawkins.

How about you get a clue or two?

How about you stop being an asshole? I think that you would improve your "discussions" immeasurably. Oh, and those little red lines underneath words mean they're misspelled.

I give what I get, and I know what the red line means, however you should realize when someone is playing up the assumption that I'm a hick in moms basement.

[arayder]

PD has hitched his wagon to the ultimate expression of states rights: secession.

I say "hitched his wagon" because once again we really don't know what PD believes on the subject. We do know he has borrowed a couple of pages from Hawes' book that support his central beliefs. . not that we really know what those beliefs are either.

It is kind of funny that PD chides others for getting "a clue" and reading a book. If one reads just a little U.S. history one finds that the idea that the states created the Union and therefor are more powerful, have greater sovereignty and may secede when they please is as old as the nation itself.

One should also know that such a belief has no validity in the United States. That's a way of saying the the matter has been settled in blood.

It's bad enough that PD denies the certainty of law. But I find it odious that his self-centered "I don't want Obama Care" philosophy suggests the civil war dead died in vain.

[Patriotdiscussions]

I'd just be interested to see him actually present his own thoughts on any given subject and not those he is happily regurgitating from whatever rock he can find them under. He can't and won't, because he has shown himself to be without original thought or comprehension, and thinking, it would appear makes hims widdle hed hurt, since he hasn't done any of that from the get go.

So we have unimaginative, highly unoriginal, intellectually dishonest, petulant, totally ignorant of history and civics, pretty much the same for law, except that he thinks he knows better than the Supreme Court, very good at attempting to say something clever, that isn't, and running away, and did I mention the running away part, very good at that, lies about nearly, well really, everything, and particularly lies about his sources, except of course the ones he makes up altogether, likes to make "and I'll show you" threats, and has yet to come even close to managing it.

Yep no clue atall. Your just so smart, no one could read and understand what you can mr Hawkins.

How about you get a clue or two?

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZzMKX2 ... CCcQ6AEwBA

So you found someone who shares your beliefs regarding state sovereignty?

While your somebody-else-says-the-same-thing-as-me argument may not win the day it at least beats your previous ruses of posting dead case law, non-binding dicta and non-existing case cites.

Now you have to convince the reader why Mr. Haw's argument, which like yours runs counter to over a century of U.S. law, is valid and true.

The floor is yours on this point. . . .

Tell you what if you can find ANYTHING in that last century of law that specifically states that the United States is sovereign over any state(I.e. the us is sovereign over florida,etc), not that it shares sovereignty for purposes of prosecuting crimes.

Find that, I will admit defeat and study under your formidable knowledge sir.

[JamesVincent]

I give what I get, and I know what the red line means, however you should realize when someone is playing up the assumption that I'm a hick in moms basement.

And you're getting being put upon for a good reason. Since day one you have been an ass. Anytime someone (rightfully) corrects you, no matter what manner they use, you have been an asshole. Every time you have opened your mouth you have been wrong, except for the time you admitted you were wrong. And even then you acted like an ass. You have been intellectually dishonest at every point, when you weren't just outright lying. You have tried your best to come across as this great mind. Instead, you have shown the world how much of an asshole you really are. You have backpedaled, finagled, and lied about the sections of supposed law that you have quoted, only to be shown that they are either wrong or flat out lies. You have done done absolutely nothing that a thousand trolls before you have already attempted, and failed. Your "research" has been proven to be nothing other then you cruising sovereign citizens websites, looking for quotes that agree with your conclusions instead of looking for the law to see why it is. You have ignored every post that does not please you or follow your twisted sense of what law is. And when you do bother to retort most of the time you act like... you guessed it... an asshole. Your grammar is atrocious, your sentence structure unbelievably poor and your logic is laughable at best. Yet you insist on playing with the adults. Well, you want to play with the adults, you're going to get treated as an adult. I do not remember anyone calling you a hick, that would an insult to all the honest hicks out there, of which I would probably number.

In summary, change your attitude and maybe you'll get somewhere. Otherwise you just look like some asshole hiding, in Mommy's basement, behind the cloak of internet anonymity. And if you don't want your feelings hurt, don't play the game.

[JamesVincent]

Tell you what if you can find ANYTHING in that last century of law that specifically states that the United States is sovereign over any state(I.e. the us is sovereign over florida,etc), not that it shares sovereignty for purposes of prosecuting crimes.

Find that, I will admit defeat and study under your formidable knowledge sir.

The onus is on you, not us. You brought the subject up, you prove, in quoted, valid, law why it is what you say it is.