The Real LB Bork Thread

[LPC]

I would like to comment further...

How did the English Common Law become part of US law?

How did the Roman Civil Law find its way into US law?

Those are questions, not comments.

The answer to your first question is, in most cases, by statute. There is, for example, a Pennsylvania statute that declares that "The common law and such of the statutes of England as were in force in the Province of Pennsylvania on May 14, 1776 and which were properly adapted to the circumstances of the inhabitants of this Commonwealth shall be deemed to have been in force in this Commonwealth from and after February 10, 1777." 1 Pa.C.S. section 1503(a).

The answer to your second question is that, in most cases, it didn't, except in a very general and indirect way.

Hmmm... I am sure Vattel made a bunch of stuff up and put it in a book.

You totally missed wserra's point. What de Vattel said could be absolutely true when it was written and still have nothing to do with current domestic law within the United States.

[Dr. Caligari]

The answer to your first question is, in most cases, by statute. There is, for example, a Pennsylvania statute that declares that "The common law and such of the statutes of England as were in force in the Province of Pennsylvania on May 14, 1776 and which were properly adapted to the circumstances of the inhabitants of this Commonwealth shall be deemed to have been in force in this Commonwealth from and after February 10, 1777." 1 Pa.C.S. section 1503(a).

California was never a British colony, but nonetheless has a similar statute:

The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to
or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the
Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all
the courts of this State.

[GlimDropper]

Mr.Bork, you claim no one on this forum is capable of providing you with a rational debate, that all we do is name call and seem to imply we're somehow unworthy of your efforts to educate. You are of course entitled to your opinion but you might be more convincing if you humored us, just a little and tried to defend one of the quotes from your site that have been posted here. I'll select one, more or less at random and beg your indulgence in the form of a reply.

From this PacLaw PDF:

Q: Do I have to pay state and federal Income Taxes after I terminate my federal status? A: As a general rule: No. However, there are some instances that some people may have to. It depends on one's particular situation and must be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Questions:

1: On what basis do you tell people that if they buy what you sell them they can legally (or lawfully) stop paying state or federal taxes?
2: Is there any case law you can cite to support your answer to question #1? If not do you have any verifiable, documented proof that state and federal governments agree with your opinion of the "general" exemption from taxation your customers enjoy?
3: Do you pay your state and federal income taxes? If so what is "particular" about your personal situation which to your understanding requires you to pay your taxes while the "general" user of your theories would not have to?

I feel that many of the people who may find this discussion will not see you answering questions, no matter how politely stated and might come away thinking that you are unable or unwilling to defend your ideas before a critical audience. Surely this isn't the impression you wish to leave so I invite you to correct that now. I accurately quoted your own words and provided a link to the source of that quote (and I wasn't the first one to do so), I don't believe you can claim I took your words out of context. If you can explain why paying you for the service you provide does in fact remove most people's tax burdens then I could see this forum thread becoming a valuable promotional tool for you. But if you further decline to engage in a topical debate explaining your ideas many people will find themselves agreeing with your critics.

[Pottapaug1938]

We're still waiting for some substance, LB.

We're going to be waiting a long time. Bork HAS no substance, or else he would have pulled it out long ago and sent us running with our tails between our legs.

[notorial dissent]

The answer to your first question is, in most cases, by statute. There is, for example, a Pennsylvania statute that declares that "The common law and such of the statutes of England as were in force in the Province of Pennsylvania on May 14, 1776 and which were properly adapted to the circumstances of the inhabitants of this Commonwealth shall be deemed to have been in force in this Commonwealth from and after February 10, 1777." 1 Pa.C.S. section 1503(a).

California was never a British colony, but nonetheless has a similar statute:

The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to
or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the
Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all
the courts of this State.

I think almost every state, with the possible exceptions of TX and LA, have or had something similar in either their constitutions or statutes, but my impression was that it was largely ignored and very rapidly replaced by statute law. I think almost every state has pretty well dumped the last remnants of "common law" by the wayside except for the few quaint and peculiar oddiments that seem to have survived more by accident than by design.

[Famspear]

In Texas:

Sec. 5.001. RULE OF DECISION.

The rule of decision in this state consists of those portions of the common law of England that are not inconsistent with the constitution or the laws of this state, the constitution of this state, and the laws of this state.

--Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

[Famspear]

....but my impression was that it [the common law] was largely ignored and very rapidly replaced by statute law. I think almost every state has pretty well dumped the last remnants of "common law" by the wayside except for the few quaint and peculiar oddiments that seem to have survived more by accident than by design.

I wouldn't say that the common law has been "ignored," but I pretty much agree with the rest of the comment. Much of the common law has indeed been replaced, in many states, by statutes -- and on a sort of "patchwork" basis.

Certain common law rules are most likely to continue in force in the area of tort law, and in those specific portions of property law and contract law that have not been covered by statutes (such as state property codes and the Uniform Commercial Code).

For example, if the Uniform Commercial Code (as enacted in your state) does not apply to a given contract (and if no other statute applies, either), you generally follow the applicable common law rule.

Texas has a Property Code, but I imagine that this statute doesn't cover every issue -- so some common law rules would remain in the area of property law.

In criminal law, I believe statutes have largely replaced common law in many states.

So, the general rule (presumably, other than in Louisiana) is: The common law rule applies, unless a statute, etc., has been enacted that effectively repeals the common law rule.

[Prof]

The "codification" movement of the 1800's which leads to the establishment of the American Law Institute and the creation of the Uniform Commission on State Laws grew out of a desire to make the law more understandable, predictable, etc., than a common law regime allowed.

Of course, the creation of the Code Napoleon (which became the Code Civil of Europe and then the model for the rest of the world, and which remains a foundation of Louisiana law), was designed to replace the unknown/unknowable law of the ancien regime and make law uniform in all parts of France and ultimately in the rest of Europe.

[Cathulhu]

Still hasn't answered my question either. Hi, Skankbeat!

[wserra]

So, when we started getting into it with Bork here, I took a look at his board for the first time. It's the usual incoherent hodgepodge of "de jure / de facto", common-law, sovereign gibberish. The last forum on the board is called "Enemies of The Republic". There was a thread on Q, with entries for Demo, me and one or two others. Then, maybe ten days ago, that forum became inaccessible to the public, yielding only the message "You are not allowed to access this section." It remains that way. From the board index, you can see that the last post to that forum was two days ago, subject: "Re Quatloos - Demosthenes".

I have no particular desire (or time) to post there, but I am curious about what is being said about me. So I attemped to register. It's a (strictly personal) point of honor that I don't disguise who I am, so I used the login "wserra". The registration process asks you to comment on why you want to belong, so I said exactly why - I want to see comments concerning me. I got the following auto-ack:

Welcome, wserra! This is a courtesy message to tell you that you are successfully pre-registered with Not My Government | Forum. You should receive a confirmation email from our staff for your account within 24 hours! After said confirmation, you will then be sent an email welcoming you from one of the board staff. Best regards,The Not My Government | Forum Staff

That was a week ago, and I have received nothing more. Oh, well, like Groucho, I wouldn't belong to any board that would have me.

Not only are these guys nitwits; not only are they delusional; not only are they scammers; they're cowards.

[LPC]

The registration process asks you to comment on why you want to belong, so I said exactly why -

Some possible reasons:

1. I have *way* too much time on my hands.

2. I find the delusional rantings of the mentally impaired to be amusing.

3. I work for the IRS, and it's part of my job.

4. I work for the FBI, and it's part of my job.

5. I heard that it's where all the cool kids hang out.

6. I'm looking for others who are willing to join in positive resistance against the oppressive, out-of-control federal government that is showing its disdain for individual rights and freedoms by failing to add a cost of living increase to my disability benefits for the second year in a row.

7. I'm planing on filing a lawsuit against the CIA for damages caused by their mind-control experiments on my tricycle, and I'm hoping someone can tell me how to serve process.

8. Aliens have turned me into incorporeal energy, and I'm looking for somewhere to hide from the alien energy carnivores that are now roaming the Internet.

[The Observer]

I have no particular desire (or time) to post there, but I am curious about what is being said about me. So I attemped to register

No biggie. Just ask Demo what they said. Given her track record, she probably already has admin privileges there.

[grixit]

The registration process asks you to comment on why you want to belong, so I said exactly why -

Some possible reasons:

1. I have *way* too much time on my hands.

2. I find the delusional rantings of the mentally impaired to be amusing.

3. I work for the IRS, and it's part of my job.

4. I work for the FBI, and it's part of my job.

5. I heard that it's where all the cool kids hang out.

6. I'm looking for others who are willing to join in positive resistance against the oppressive, out-of-control federal government that is showing its disdain for individual rights and freedoms by failing to add a cost of living increase to my disability benefits for the second year in a row.

7. I'm planing on filing a lawsuit against the CIA for damages caused by their mind-control experiments on my tricycle, and I'm hoping someone can tell me how to serve process.

8. Aliens have turned me into incorporeal energy, and I'm looking for somewhere to hide from the alien energy carnivores that are now roaming the Internet.

9. I've got a scam of my own and am looking for a concentration of easy marks.

[wserra]

DMVP, posting at suijurisclub about Bork:

Chasing after the 14th Amendment for a defense I admit is a dead end. And that is what LB BORK has floundered about for years now. Like with Robert Arthur MENARD, the remedy is non-functional and shows no dynamic because it is just not there. Papering public officials with Notice does not acquire for the member of these sovereignty groups a special status in the law. So what happened is that LB has a few vested members who get a cut from book sales promoting The Red Amendment for ever more meager income.

David's gotcha pegged, Lenny.

[Famspear]

DMVP, posting at suijurisclub about Bork:

Chasing after the 14th Amendment for a defense I admit is a dead end. And that is what LB BORK has floundered about for years now. Like with Robert Arthur MENARD, the remedy is non-functional and shows no dynamic because it is just not there. Papering public officials with Notice does not acquire for the member of these sovereignty groups a special status in the law. So what happened is that LB has a few vested members who get a cut from book sales promoting The Red Amendment for ever more meager income.

David's gotcha pegged, Lenny.

It's pretty bad for you when even a loon like David Merrill not really so very much Van Pelt can correctly identify you as a loser.

[The Observer]

Papering public officials with Notice does not acquire for the member of these sovereignty groups a special status in the law.

And yet, ironically, this is essentially what David does when he attempts "remedy" with his equally worthless UCC filings and bizarre lawsuits.

[notorial dissent]

Ah, yes, bit it is HIS "remedy", and not someone else's.

[bmielke]

DMVP, posting at suijurisclub about Bork:

Chasing after the 14th Amendment for a defense I admit is a dead end. And that is what LB BORK has floundered about for years now. Like with Robert Arthur MENARD, the remedy is non-functional and shows no dynamic because it is just not there. Papering public officials with Notice does not acquire for the member of these sovereignty groups a special status in the law. So what happened is that LB has a few vested members who get a cut from book sales promoting The Red Amendment for ever more meager income.

David's gotcha pegged, Lenny.

That is the most coherent thing have ever seen Van Pelt write.

[Gregg]

That is the most coherent thing have ever seen Van Pelt write.

I'm with ya on that, but the bar wasn't real high on this one.

[buck09]

Ad hominem abuse

Yeah, everyone around here knows what ad hominem arguments are, but as far as I can tell, aside from one other person referring (quite correctly) to you as delusional, I was the only person who simply decided to mock you openly. (Because you clearly are a delusional narcissistic douchebag.) Everyone else is actually willing to give you the opportunity to prove your point.

Unlike the rest of them, I spent about a half hour perusing The Red Amendment in all it's Kinkos-bound glory and it's lovely cover, where you, for some inexplicable reason, choose the Star Trek fonts. Had you used Comic Sans, I would have not opened the book at all.

My first impression was that English may not have be your first language. However, reading your comment about how higher education stifles creativity, I now understand the purpose of your prose. Still more Yoda than Lewis Carroll, but keep trying. Perhaps a few literary anthologies or "how to" books on creative writing would help in that regard.

As far as the actual content goes, it was the typical mish-mash of un-cited assertions, copied/pasted tax denier / paytriot drivel, etc. I've spent a fair amount of time in the paytriot genre, and yours is definitely on the left side of the idiocy bell curve.

Now that you're gracing this community with your presence, I may invoke my rights to fair use and excerpt some of your arguments for the forum, since you seem completely unwilling to engage anyone in debate, rational or otherwise.

So why, as someone who has actually read your work (and remain about as impressed as I would be to see a goldfish survive for a week swimming in warm piss), do I choose the way of mockery? I'll give you a hint, it's not because your arguments were iron-clad, impregnable pillars of glistening legal reasoning... To quote Thomas Jefferson:

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them;

By the way, your new Bio pic is a bit closer to what I expected you to look like after seeing your book, but not quite. Here's what I envisioned after getting a few pages in: