Sorry Charlie! Wages are taxable; your argument frivolous

[grixit]

Have mercy, Ima-- please don't take his precious collection of bellybutton lint!

[webhick]

Have mercy, Ima-- please don't take his precious collection of bellybutton lint!

I was going to put in a request that, for his own good, you confiscate his rubber woman. I mean, it's been patched so many times that it's probably more duct tape than it is latex or vinyl and that can't possibly feel good. Or maybe it does, if you like the feeling of adhesive on your winkie.

Reminds me. Doktor A. owes me for that pool plaster woman I shipped overseas. I hope the boys where he was going to be stationed are enjoying it plenty.

[LPC]

In most warrior courtroom victories, those records cannot be cited as the records have been sealed (can't let the cat outta the bag now!).

From the Tax Protester FAQ:

Of course, there is no evidence of this nonsense, and it doesn’t even make any sense.

If a judge didn’t want it known that he had ruled in favor of a tax protester, why doesn’t the judge simply rule against the tax protester instead of for him? A decision against a tax protester is easy to justify, based on all of the other court decisions described in this FAQ. A decision for the tax protester goes against all the published decisions by other judges, so why would the judge rule for the tax protester and then keeps [sic] the decision a secret? Why would anyone go to so much trouble? And if the judge believes the decision is right, why keep it a secret?

And how does the judge keep the decision a secret from the successful tax protester and keep him from exercising his 1st Amendment right to publicize the decision? Oddly enough, no tax protester has ever claimed to have have [sic] his own (favorable) decision sealed; it’s always something that happens in some other case that no one can identify.

It all makes no sense.

(Obviously, there are some typos in the FAQ that need to be corrected.)

[notorial dissent]

It's always happened for/to someone else, but they can't really say who or when or about what, because, of course, it never really happened. The funny thing is that the courts rule in favor of people all the time in tax court, they just don't rule in favor of the fruit loops who are making it up as they go along, sort of like Harvey and crowd, and for some reason the courts don't seal those "victories", maybe because they are real victories and not wishful thinking.

[wserra]

(Obviously, there are some typos in the FAQ that need to be corrected.)

Since the "all the good ones are sealed" gibberish is the dumbest of the dumb, you were probably laughing too hard when you wrote it to type accurately.

Understandable.

[.]

And, convulsions of laughter notwithstanding, you have to admire someone who will [sic] his own prose with no excuses.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Keeping the "warriors" ( ) motivated requires fuel; the most efficient fuel contains references to secrets.

[Harvester]

BREAKING NEWS
Harvester just got the role of the Scarecrow in the upcoming remake of The Wizard Of Oz

Ha! Won't be long before we're all singing:

Ding Dong! the FED is dead
which is dead?
the big bad FED
Ding Dong! the wicked FED is dead!

http://www.barefootsworld.net/sui_juris ... ction.html

[Judge Roy Bean]

...

http://www.barefootsworld.net/sui_juris ... ction.html

Old mythologies just never die.

[Joe Dirt]

BREAKING NEWS
Harvester just got the role of the Scarecrow in the upcoming remake of The Wizard Of Oz

Ha! Won't be long before we're all singing:

Ding Dong! the FED is dead
which is dead?
the big bad FED
Ding Dong! the wicked FED is dead!

http://www.barefootsworld.net/sui_juris ... ction.html

(Scarecrow)
I could wile away the hours
Conferrin' with the flowers
Consultin' with the rain
And my head I'd be scratchin'
While my thoughts were busy hatchin'
If I only had a brain

I'd unravel any riddle
For any individ'le
In trouble or in pain

(Dorothy)
With the thoughts you'd be thinkin'
You could be another Lincoln
If you only had a brain

(Scarecrow)
Oh, I would tell you why
The ocean's near the shore
I could think of things I never thunk before
And then I'd sit and think some more

I would not be just a nuffin'
My head all full of stuffin'
My heart all full of pain
I would dance and be merry
Life would be a ding-a-derry
If I only had a brain

[Pottapaug1938]

I found this description of the Erie case to be particularly funny:

Well I began to investigate. I found that 1938 was the year of the *Erie Railroad v. Tompkins* case (304 U.S. 64) of the Supreme Court. It was also the year the Courts claim they blended Law with Equity. I read the Erie Railroad case. A man had sued the Erie railroad for damages when he was struck by a board sticking out of a boxcar as he walked along besides the tracks. The District Court had decided on the basis of Commercial (Negotiable Instruments) Law: That this man was not under any contract with the Erie Railroad, and therefore he had no standing to sue the company. Under the Common Law, he was damaged and he would have had the right to sue.

This overturned a standing decision of over one hundred years. *Swift v.Tyson* in 1840 was a similar case, and the decision of the Supreme Court was that in any case of this type, the Court would judge the case on Common Law of the state where the incident occurred - in this case Pennsylvania. But in the Erie Railroad case, the Supreme Court ruled that all federal cases will be judged under the Negotiable Instruments Law. There would be no more decisions based on the Common Law at the federal level. So here we find the blending of the Law with Equity.

Leaving aside shameless liars, only someone who never bothered to read Erie would claim it had anything to do with contracts or negotiable instruments.

Erie stands for the proposition that there is no Federal common law in cases of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. The Swift decision had resulted in increased forum-shopping, as litigants selected courts on the basis of perceived advantages in their common law; and the Erie decision ended this practice.

In my first year of law school, I bought three fantastic T-shirts in another law school's bookstore. One had a torts theme, one had a contracts theme, and the third, the "civil procedure" shirt, used the Erie decision to illustrate that theme. The shirt gave the case name and citation; and it showed a locomotive heading down a railroad track, with Tompkins lying alongside the track.

I always wished that a T-shirt would come out for Lason v. State (12 So. 2d. 325), but no such luck (this case contains the funniest paragraph in the history of U.S. court decisions).

[webhick]

In my first year of law school, I bought three fantastic T-shirts in another law school's bookstore. One had a torts theme, one had a contracts theme, and the third, the "civil procedure" shirt, used the Erie decision to illustrate that theme. The shirt gave the case name and citation; and it showed a locomotive heading down a railroad track, with Tompkins lying alongside the track.

I always wished that a T-shirt would come out for Lason v. State (12 So. 2d. 325), but no such luck (this case contains the funniest paragraph in the history of U.S. court decisions).

Law-geek!

There needs to be better way to say that. Leek?

[Imalawman]

I always wished that a T-shirt would come out for Lason v. State (12 So. 2d. 325), but no such luck (this case contains the funniest paragraph in the history of U.S. court decisions).

The cite is actually 12 So.2d 305. Wow, even though I work in a law firm, I'm not sure that is safe for work.

[Pottapaug1938]

I always wished that a T-shirt would come out for Lason v. State (12 So. 2d. 325), but no such luck (this case contains the funniest paragraph in the history of U.S. court decisions).

The cite is actually 12 So.2d 305. Wow, even though I work in a law firm, I'm not sure that is safe for work.

Thanks for the correction. I first learned of the case when I walked into my law school's library and found a classmate practically rolling on the floor with laughter -- with a Southern Reporter in his hands.

[LaVidaRoja]

And yes, if you google "Lason v. State", it comes up

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
Law-geek!

There needs to be better way to say that. Leek?

Gleek.

You're welcome.