Is a statutory definition

[grixit]

"That'll do, that'll do!" the Chancellor whispered. "Let 'em rest a bit
till I give you the word. He's not here yet!" But at this moment the
great folding-doors of the saloon were flung open, and he turned with a
guilty start to receive His High Excellency. However it was only Bruno,
and the Chancellor gave a little gasp of relieved anxiety.

"Morning!" said the little fellow, addressing the remark, in a general
sort of way, to the Chancellor and the waiters. "Doos oo know where
Sylvie is? I's looking for Sylvie!"

"She's with the Warden, I believe, y'reince!" the Chancellor replied
with a low bow. There was, no doubt, a certain amount of absurdity in
applying this title (which, as of course you see without my telling you,
was nothing but 'your Royal Highness' condensed into one syllable) to
a small creature whose father was merely the Warden of Outland: still,
large excuse must be made for a man who had passed several years at the
Court of Fairyland, and had there acquired the almost impossible art of
pronouncing five syllables as one.

But the bow was lost upon Bruno, who had run out of the room, even
while the great feat of The Unpronounceable Monosyllable was being
triumphantly performed.

Just then, a single voice in the distance was understood to shout "A
speech from the Chancellor!" "Certainly, my friends!" the Chancellor
replied with extraordinary promptitude. "You shall have a speech!"
Here one of the waiters, who had been for some minutes busy making a
queer-looking mixture of egg and sherry, respectfully presented it on
a large silver salver. The Chancellor took it haughtily, drank it off
thoughtfully, smiled benevolently on the happy waiter as he set down the
empty glass, and began. To the best of my recollection this is what he
said.

"Ahem! Ahem! Ahem! Fellow-sufferers, or rather suffering fellows--"
("Don't call 'em names!" muttered the man under the window. "I didn't
say felons!" the Chancellor explained.) "You may be sure that I always
sympa--" ("'Ear, 'ear!" shouted the crowd, so loudly as quite to drown
the orator's thin squeaky voice) "--that I always sympa--" he repeated.
("Don't simper quite so much!" said the man under the window. "It makes
yer look a hidiot!" And, all this time, "'Ear, 'ear!" went rumbling
round the market-place, like a peal of thunder.) "That I always
sympathise!" yelled the Chancellor, the first moment there was silence.
"But your true friend is the Sub-Warden! Day and night he is brooding on
your wrongs--I should say your rights--that is to say your wrongs--no,
I mean your rights--" ("Don't talk no more!" growled the man under the
window. "You're making a mess of it!") At this moment the Sub-Warden
entered the saloon. He was a thin man, with a mean and crafty face,
and a greenish-yellow complexion; and he crossed the room very slowly,
looking suspiciously about him as if he thought there might be a savage
dog hidden somewhere. "Bravo!" he cried, patting the Chancellor on the
back. "You did that speech very well indeed. Why, you're a born orator,
man!"

"Oh, that's nothing!" the Chancellor replied, modestly, with downcast
eyes. "Most orators are born, you know."

The Sub-Warden thoughtfully rubbed his chin. "Why, so they are!" he
admitted. "I never considered it in that light. Still, you did it very
well. A word in your ear!"

[Famspear]

So, where did you put your copy of the Tully case, PD? You were pontificating about it so much, we thought it would be right there at your fingertips.

Oh, but wait. You were actually clueless as to what the Court actually ruled in the case. Almost as though you hadn't really read it. Almost as though you had actually read some wacko's erroneous summary of what the case is about, instead of actually reading the text itself.

Almost as though you didn't really have a copy of the case.

But that would mean that you were pretending to be knowledgeable about the case, when you really weren't.

Oh, but that would never happen, now would it?

[arayder]

Sorry as usual they got me going off topic because jurisdiction escapes them. Taxes from us citizens can be collected from them no matter where they are is correct. Sec 801 of the 1935 social security act is what makes us citizens liable. You sign a contract, you pay the fees.

And, no, PD, the imposition of federal taxes does not occur because you sign a "contract." Taxation is not a "contract."

PD, your usual shuck and jive isn't going to carry the day.

Having had your statute-doesn't-define-states and state nullification arguments debunked you pretend you agree, but want to return to the income-taxes-are-contracts argument you lost just a day or so ago.

One wonders if you really believe in anything.

[arayder]

By the way, PD, have you found that copy of Tully yet?[/size]

No have not found my copy yet.

How very, very disingenuous! My grade school cousin can find a copy of Tully on the web.

PD, I fear for the folks for whom you have suggested you might start an "advice" business.

[Pottapaug1938]

Famspear: By the way, PD, have you found that copy of Tully yet?[/size]

PD: No have not found my copy yet.

How very, very disingenuous! My grade school cousin can find a copy of Tully on the web.

PD, I fear for the folks for whom you have suggested you might start an "advice" business.

PD is bluffing. He has no idea of where to find the full text of Tully, let alone understand what it says. He does not know how to understand statutory definitions (remember the original topic of this thread?); and he does not understand how federal jurisdiction is defined or how it works in practice.

All sizzle; no steak. All hat; no cattle. All smoke; no fire. He is a faker par excellence.

Time to drag out more of what LPC refers to as "doe snot"... until this thread is mercifully locked to spare PD further embarrassment.

[Famspear]

Multiple choice.

PD cannot find his copy of the Tully decision because:

A. The dog ate it.

B. Wait, PD says he's from Orlando, Florida, so maybe an alligator ate it.

C. Mommie accidentally shredded his copy and mixed it into the stuffing for the Thanksgiving turkey.

D. He chewed it up and swallowed it himself at his evening meal tonight, because Mommie said he needed some good ol' dietary fiber.

E. Somethin' else, oh what could it be....

[arayder]

Or "F" - The only place he can find even a partial reference to Tully is at a sov puesdo scholarship site.

I don't suppose it's possible the I'm-in-Florida ruse is just that and our Coy Boy is really from Kansas?

http://cjonline.com/news/2014-09-12/haw ... -jefferson

I mean what's the odds on finding two so messed boys in the same country, at the same time?

[morrand]

All sizzle; no steak. All hat; no cattle. All smoke; no fire. He is a faker par excellence.

Time to drag out more of what LPC refers to as "doe snot"... until this thread is mercifully locked to spare PD further embarrassment.

There's a quote that comes to mind that the Illinois courts love to drag out every time they're called upon to review a case that hasn't actually been presented well for review. (I've not seen anything similar at the federal level, but I'd assume a similar principle applies.) The following is a long form edition.

Regarding the first element, defendant argues that the State failed to present any evidence that he was convicted of an offense requiring compliance with the Act. However, defendant makes only a conclusory assertion with respect to the first element and fails to develop any supporting argument until his reply brief. In other words, defendant does not develop this argument until the reply brief, where he argues that People’s Exhibit No. 1, by which the State purported to show his qualifying conviction, was insufficient because it was not a certified copy of the conviction. No authority is cited for this proposition. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) (eff. Feb. 6, 2013) requires that the appellant’s brief include “[a]rgument, which shall contain the contentions of the appellant and the reasons therefor, with citation of the authorities and the pages of the record relied on.” Further, arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are deemed forfeited. People ex rel. Village of Vernon Hills v. Village of Lincolnshire, 283 Ill. App. 3d 266, 271 (1996). Although defendant’s argument might have merit, an appellant must present clearly defined issues to the court, supported by relevant authority: this court is “not simply a repository in which appellants may dump the burden of argument and research.” People v. Chatman, 357 Ill. App. 3d 695, 703 (2005). Because defendant fails to make any argument to support his contention in the original brief, and fails to cite any authority to support his new argument in the reply brief, defendant has forfeited his contention.

People v. Robinson, 2013 Ill. App. (2nd) 120087, ¶15 (My emphasis).

No, Quatloos! is not a court, but to the extent that PD expects to rely on any of these arguments in an actual court—which, it should be pointed out, has the power to levy fines and penalties and prison time on you even if you do not agree with its reasoning—it might be best to start practicing as though it were. It's more likely to give useful results.

[fortinbras]

The case of US v. Tully (1905) is a very recondite decision turning on an issue that has since been eliminated. A murder occurred in Montana, the murderer was convicted by a state court, then on appeal his lawyer found that the land was apparently that of a federal Army base, so the state court undid its decision and turned him over to federal authorities in anticipation of a federal trial. Except it was then discovered that, while the land had been set aside for federal use, the federal govt was not actually using it, so there was no federal jurisdiction. At this point it looked like the murderer would go free but the federal court said that the issue of jurisdiction was not to be taken lightly.

[LaVidaRoja]

Given that I believe ALL of the threads PD have started end up as "doe snot", why are we still allowing him to post? If he cannot present a coherent question at the beginning, and keep to the subject that he himself has introduced, why is he not on moderated status?

[JamesVincent]

Given that I believe ALL of the threads PD have started end up as "doe snot", why are we still allowing him to post? If he cannot present a coherent question at the beginning, and keep to the subject that he himself has introduced, why is he not on moderated status?

I don't know but I asked him a question in a different thread that he never answered and I asked a question of the regulars in this thread that I actually am curious about.

[JennyD]

My brain hurts. Seriously...

PD.... I .....

OK here goes, in as clear as a comment as I can make to your ever changing and ever moving questions, and comments that make less sense than putting a set of coconut halves on your behind and sitting down on a 500 degree oven..

You are constantly looking for something that just isn't there, I don't honestly know WHY you keep this up anymore, other than to annoy, or confuse people, because that's all you are really doing at this point. Let's look at that for a sec shall we?

1) You ask a question of everyone that implies something that isn't there, because you read it "somewhere" (I have yet to see you put forth a site where you get all these gems of wisdom from, it's kind of like a friend of mine that is convinced A4V works, and because someone didn't get caught immediately upon doing an A4V for 40 grand to the IRS that it's some legal holy grail of tax discharge, no matter how many times i explain that the IRS WILL catch up to it eventually)

2) People answer you, but you don't like the verbiage that is used so then you change the question to include something that isn't even related to the initial question.

3) People call you out on it, and you try to claim that it's because people can't answer you or it's some conspiracy or whatever that the answers don't jive with your "understanding"

4) You go off on a tangent that is really off the line of the original question, and your thread gets closed, and then you start another one.. rinse repeat...

Have you gotten the basic gist yet? You're reading fallacies from some mystical "the government is evil" website, and trying to figure out a way to break the law, but you're getting nowhere here and really starting to make less and less sense as time goes on..

Honestly, why don't you actually take the time YOURSELF to read and understand the laws and the statutes, the wording used, the differences between X & Y without arguing all the time, as I've said before, sometimes, an apple is just an apple, and it's not going to change because some guru somewhere calls it a tomato..

I need Vicodin now, my head is ready to explode.....

[JennyD]

In the case of Tully, the murder occurred on a U.S. military base, so I assume that the victim, who was a U.S. soldier, was "engaged in" the "performance of official duties" at the time of the murder. Unlike the statute in Tully over a hundred years ago, nothing in section 1114 now requires the existence of "exclusive" federal political jurisdiction over the military base in question.

I wonder, in this modern time would this be a crime under the UCMJ and not under a Federal statute? It involved an active military person on a military base.

Is this the question you asked that you refer to?

From a matter of investigative perspective the best answer is "it depends" there are many factors that go into deciding jurisdiction in a case like a murder on a military base. 99.9% of the time the Military handles the investigation and trying of people, however if it involved two civilians that were not military or otherwise engaged in employ on the base, it would most likely be handed back over to the state the base was in, and then there are other circumstances that are equally confusing and make no sense that put it in Federal Courts at times..

I gave up trying to keep it all straight years ago, and just do what the boss tells me at this point.. saves me headaches..

[Patriotdiscussions]

My brain hurts. Seriously...

PD.... I .....

OK here goes, in as clear as a comment as I can make to your ever changing and ever moving questions, and comments that make less sense than putting a set of coconut halves on your behind and sitting down on a 500 degree oven..

You are constantly looking for something that just isn't there, I don't honestly know WHY you keep this up anymore, other than to annoy, or confuse people, because that's all you are really doing at this point. Let's look at that for a sec shall we?

1) You ask a question of everyone that implies something that isn't there, because you read it "somewhere" (I have yet to see you put forth a site where you get all these gems of wisdom from, it's kind of like a friend of mine that is convinced A4V works, and because someone didn't get caught immediately upon doing an A4V for 40 grand to the IRS that it's some legal holy grail of tax discharge, no matter how many times i explain that the IRS WILL catch up to it eventually)

2) People answer you, but you don't like the verbiage that is used so then you change the question to include something that isn't even related to the initial question.

3) People call you out on it, and you try to claim that it's because people can't answer you or it's some conspiracy or whatever that the answers don't jive with your "understanding"

4) You go off on a tangent that is really off the line of the original question, and your thread gets closed, and then you start another one.. rinse repeat...

Have you gotten the basic gist yet? You're reading fallacies from some mystical "the government is evil" website, and trying to figure out a way to break the law, but you're getting nowhere here and really starting to make less and less sense as time goes on..

Honestly, why don't you actually take the time YOURSELF to read and understand the laws and the statutes, the wording used, the differences between X & Y without arguing all the time, as I've said before, sometimes, an apple is just an apple, and it's not going to change because some guru somewhere calls it a tomato..

I need Vicodin now, my head is ready to explode.....

Thanks for your concern Jenny, while many will assign assumptions to what I am looking for and why, and even assume where my knowledge comes from. I'm not concerned, feel free to read any psych research on how many people actually know how to use their mind. Of course ego will always assume they know what they are doing.

http://www.amazon.com/Propaganda-Edward ... 7140501090

I would highly suggest looking into the influence this man and his work had on Americans, you know we learn something everyday.

Again thanks for your concern, be assured I have spent a good amount of time research and will keep doing as such until I find the answers I am looking for.

The reason I am looking is simple, not one single person can explain the things the government does in any kind of non partisan way.

Take hedonics for instance in the calculating the GDP. Trillions of dollars very year is added to our GDP this way even though no transaction takes place.

Of course even though fam is not an economist he will surely know this to be false, and furthermore having studied people like me he knows the government does it to protect us.

I do find the comment about the evil government to be laughable, your belief about the government is showing.

By definition the governments main priority is keeping itself safe, how many bunkers does the government have for non government personal?

Are people the government? Are there evil people? If your a repub then there is not many democrats who are not evil eh? Same if you vote the other way. It amazes me how corrupt the government is under the OTHER guys vote, but when your guy is in, government gets pretty trust worthy all of a sudden.

[JennyD]

@PD

My belief in government is showing? I hear people use that phrase so many times (the Evil Government) that it's sort of become a catchphrase around the office as we work for (the Big Bad Evil Govt)

This thread isn't about bunkers for non government personnel nor is it about psychology, you asked a question and many others so far that reek of the SovCit / Tax Protester crowd. You know the people that this site tries to educate against listening to as the results, can range from mild to utterly disastrous.

You have at every turn refused to respond to certain questions, as Famspear pointed out, Tully is online, you would only need type it in a myriad of search engines to find it, and yet you actually came back and said you didn't have a copy. No offense but your thoughts on psychology and well just about anything at all at this point in my mind are highly dubious and I can only surmise are of a more nefarious nature than just "idle curiosity because it interests me". If that were the case, you would have understood the answers given, said thank you, and moved on, instead you change the question, or even veer completely off topic, like you did in your response to my statement (my brain still hurts reading your comments).

The problem is that you can't seem to stick to one thing, even in the confines of a question for more than a country minute, and then come back with stuff that makes so little sense that I wouldn't even print it out to use as wallpaper. Remember, I see ALL of these arguments every single day of my working life, I know these laws (I may not comment much as most here are much more eloquent at responding, and they have faster access to the exact USC (or statue number) than I have.) But it doesn't change the fact that in every single one of your INITIAL assumptions, you have been wrong, proven to have been so, and still you cling to the SovCit mentality..

I can tell you I am not worried for myself or my family when TSHTF, I have resources, training and somewhere to go, and in my lifetime it may never happen (which would be good) But I will never attempt to break the law, or skirt it (like every single question you ever posed does) just to make my position better..

Think about it long and hard before you respond..

I need to get back to Illuminati HQ now, DK is probably wondering where that chart he wanted on the NESARA crowd is..

[Pottapaug1938]

Coming in from Springfield on Route 21, you'll head north, towards Athol. You'll pass through Enfield and Smiths Village; and then just over the Greenwich ("green-witch") line you turn onto Hillside Road, right where Route 21 makes a sharp bend to the right. Continue past the Hillside School (on your right) until you get to Prescott Road. Turn left there; and the road becomes Greenwich Road at the Prescott town line. Near the top of the hill, you'll make a right onto Kelley Hill Road; and then shortly after that you'll take a left onto Dodge Road. There are two houses at the corner; and then, after you pass my orchard, you'll see my white colonial farmhouse on the right, near the top of Mount Pleasant. Pull right in beside the big barn, and I'll meet you there.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
Again thanks for your concern, be assured I have spent a good amount of time research and will keep doing as such until I find the answers I am looking for.
...

PD - you're not looking for answers, you're simply looking for some kind of validation of your self-ascribed, bogus political theories.

Your grasp of socio-political issues is seriously flawed and any authoritative answer to the pseudo-intellectual questions you pose will not change your warped view of the world.

[LPC]

PD.... I .....

OK here goes, in as clear as a comment as I can make to your ever changing and ever moving questions, and comments that make less sense than putting a set of coconut halves on your behind and sitting down on a 500 degree oven..

You are constantly looking for something that just isn't there, I don't honestly know WHY you keep this up anymore, other than to annoy, or confuse people, because that's all you are really doing at this point.[snip]

[snip]Again thanks for your concern, be assured I have spent a good amount of time research and will keep doing as such until I find the answers I am looking for.

Well, that was Jenny's point.

You're only looking for the answers you want to find.

You're not looking for answers you don't want to find.

[LPC]

You're only looking for the answers you want to find.

You're not looking for answers you don't want to find.

See the "A4V" thread, in which someone had an insight about how "When someone has a belief/preconceived notion, then unless the information agrees with your belief then it is disregarded as false."

[Patriotdiscussions]

You're only looking for the answers you want to find.

You're not looking for answers you don't want to find.

See the "A4V" thread, in which someone had an insight about how "When someone has a belief/preconceived notion, then unless the information agrees with your belief then it is disregarded as false."

Correct which is why it will take me years to find out all my answers, because I don't believe, I don't believe sov's and I don't believe you.