The Jurist wrote:Hey, Wes... I understand that the NMG Moderator refused your membership to join the forum.
I appreciate your candor, though, for not using a moniker... That is one on your side.
And you are not powerful enough to let Wes in the forum? Or do you agree with the NMG moderator that it wouldn't be convenient to have Wes looking around the forum that is naming Quatloosians as enemies?
The more I see these sovrun paytriots practicing different than what they preach, I have to be thankful they aren't in charge of the country.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff
"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
The Jurist wrote:I see the flavor of the day is, Critical Thinking: Optional.
Forget critical thinking. I'd like to see some coherent thinking from this jerk.
I somehow don't think that is going to happen. I have yet to see anything resembling coherence in either his scribblings or his rantings. For someone so self assured and convinced of his fantasies, he is woefully lacking in anything to back them up other than the usual "because I said so" response, that seems to be his answer to any and all challenges.
The fact that NO ONE here is either impressed, awed, or taken in by his particular line of BS seems to really frustrate and anger him.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
The Jurist wrote:Just stopped by to see how you play babies were getting along.
And you can do that because we "babies" allow anyone who wishes to express an opinion. You, like all the other paytriots, don't. As Justice Holmes wrote, "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market". We believe that wholeheartedly. You, on the other hand, obviously have concerns about the ability of your stuff "to get itself accepted in the competition of the market". Having read it, I can understand your concern. Erecting a wall to protect nonsense from competing coherent thought makes perfect sense for the purveyor of the nonsense.
the one that was one of us got the charges dismissed
Who might that be?
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
wserra wrote:... As Justice Holmes wrote, "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market". We believe that wholeheartedly. You, on the other hand, obviously have concerns about the ability of your stuff "to get itself accepted in the competition of the market". We believe that wholeheartedly...
Perhaps some here only selectively "believe that wholeheartedly" based on my recollection of comments made here, by some, about the existence of the Christian God, a thought that has received acceptance in the competition of various markets over a significant period of time.
Just one man's observation, yours may vary significantly.
Please resume the regularly scheduled discussion. Thank you.
“Where there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income.” — Plato
Actually, I think Lenny is afraid of it getting laughed at if he actually allowed any kind of discussion of his fantasies, rather like Pete in his prime didn’t brook any opposition since he was “right” too. His stuff fell apart when looked at too closely, just like Lenny’s drivel, although Lenny’s tends more towards inciting snickering and outright laughter, which I am sure he doesn’t appreciate, not that any scammer ever likes being laughed at.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
The Jurist wrote:three people got charged with federal "Criminal" statutes. Two of them got lawyers and are in the fed pen, while the one that was one of us got the charges dismissed. Great being controlled by the "will of the legislature", right guys? I know, you make you living off it.
Any of these people have names?
I know we can rely on you to tell the truth, but if we were to get curious about the details, and want to look up the records, is there any chance of actually finding any record of what you've claimed?
In other words, is anything you've reported verifiable?
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
If the two that got lawyers are now in the pen, their records are public. No need to protect their privacy. So, can you/why can't you come up with any names??
Little boys who tell lies grow up to be weathermen.
I have no doubt that someone who used Bork's nonsense found him/herself in jail. That's perfectly credible. What I want to know is the identity of the one who used that crap to "get the charges dismissed". That's incredible.
"Man bites dog", y'know?
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
The records have all been expunged to keep the masses from finding out you do that.
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
CaptainKickback wrote:Or Person 3 ratted on the other two to avoid jail time and may have gotten just some probation on a minor charge.
However, sans a full case name and/or number and the jurisdiction in which it occurred any claims of victory have the same believability as me commenting on the freaky circus sex I had with Sandra Bullock this weekend.
That was you?
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
CaptainKickback wrote:Or Person 3 ratted on the other two to avoid jail time and may have gotten just some probation on a minor charge.
However, sans a full case name and/or number and the jurisdiction in which it occurred any claims of victory have the same believability as me commenting on the freaky circus sex I had with Sandra Bullock this weekend.
That was you?
I don't remember him being there.
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat
CaptainKickback wrote:Or Person 3 ratted on the other two to avoid jail time and may have gotten just some probation on a minor charge.
However, sans a full case name and/or number and the jurisdiction in which it occurred any claims of victory have the same believability as me commenting on the freaky circus sex I had with Sandra Bullock this weekend.
That was you?
I don't remember him being there.
How could you have done? We were all wearing masks - except for the donkey and the llama of course.
"There is something about true madness that goes beyond mere eccentricity." Will Self
CaptainKickback wrote:
However, sans a full case name and/or number and the jurisdiction in which it occurred any claims of victory have the same believability as me commenting on the freaky circus sex I had with Sandra Bullock this weekend.
Baloney! I bet it was just unusual amusement park sex.
Survivor of the Dark Agenda Whistleblower Award, August 2012.
The Jurist wrote:three people got charged with federal "Criminal" statutes. Two of them got lawyers and are in the fed pen, while the one that was one of us got the charges dismissed. Great being controlled by the "will of the legislature", right guys? I know, you make you living off it.
While names would be great, how about what were they charged with? Some things are easier to prove than others. How about where were they charged, a date would be great too. You don't have to give us names just charge, date, and location we can take it from there.
I am completely baffled by the description. It may have been a criminal case, but in the description the word is enclosed in quote marks as if it is somehow inappropriate. No clue as to the facts, offense, etc. Names would help -- the defendants, the judge, the name of the court. And dates. I have nothing. This is less helpful than that photo of the Loch Ness monster.
Can somebody fill me in on "L.B. Bork"?? I looked up his website and it has a ridiculous photo of him, supposedly glowering with his chin in his chest. What's his real/full name?
As far as I can tell, neither he nor his book have been mentioned in a court decision. He has not been mentioned as anyone's counsel in a court decision.
bmielke wrote:While names would be great, how about what were they charged with?
If the goal is to verify, then names are best because the case records can be found with PACER. Then we'd know what they were charged with, what motions were filed, who was convicted, etc.
Learning the nature of the anecdotal crime without knowing the names of the anecdotal defendants just gives you a *slightly* more specific anecdote that can't be verified.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
bmielke wrote:While names would be great, how about what were they charged with?
If the goal is to verify, then names are best because the case records can be found with PACER. Then we'd know what they were charged with, what motions were filed, who was convicted, etc.
Learning the nature of the anecdotal crime without knowing the names of the anecdotal defendants just gives you a *slightly* more specific anecdote that can't be verified.
If we have date, location and crime then it is a simple matter of going to the FBI, ATF or DEA, and the US Attorneys site for that district and looking at the old press releases. It should be fairly easy to get names. If Bork doesn't want to give them to us. If I have all three I will gladly look through the press releases.
