Lindsey SPRINGER's blunder

David Merrill

Lindsey SPRINGER's blunder

Post by David Merrill »

Lindsey SPRINGER is missing the key to avoid sentencing. From another thread:
I read it just fine. You may have lost interest in this thread, but you are mistaken if you think that 27 CFR 70.96 will help Lindsey Springer.
Get a look at that section of the CFR:

http://0-edocket.access.gpo.gov.library ... r70.96.pdf

Maybe we are supposed to miss that first application of the code?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ ... -000-.html

That covers it. The subsequent applications are of course applied to ATF stuff - but that first one is the Income Tax in general.


Regards,

David Merrill.
The Operative
Fourth Shogun of Quatloosia
Posts: 885
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 3:04 pm
Location: Here, I used to be there, but I moved.

Re: Lindsey SPRINGER's blunder

Post by The Operative »

David,

27 CFR only applies to SOME of the taxes imposed by 26 USC. Most of those taxes that fall under that category are found in Chapter 51, 52 and 53 of Title 26. Regular income taxes DO NOT fall under that category. That is readily apparent to anyone who can comprehend the English language.

You have to read the section within the context of the title, chapter, part, subchapter, etc. of the CFR. Section 70.96 falls under Subpart D - "Collection of excise and special occupational tax". What that means is that the portion of the CFR to which you are referring only applies to those excise and occupational taxes imposed under chapters 51, 52, and 53 of Title 26. If you read the entire part of 27 CFR, this would be apparent to most people. Springer is in trouble for taxes imposed under chapter 1.
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak.
David Merrill

Re: Lindsey SPRINGER's blunder

Post by David Merrill »

The Operative wrote:27 CFR only applies to SOME of the taxes imposed by 26 USC.
Thank you! That is the same misdirection you gave us before, on the Legal Bear thread, remember?
27 CFR Ch. I (4–1–02 Edition) § 70.96

§ 70.96 Failure to file tax return or to pay tax.

(a) Addition to the tax—(1) Failure to
file tax return. In the case of failure to
file a return required under authority
of:

(i) Title 26 U.S.C. 61, relating to returns and records...
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.
The 27 CFR authority only applies to these taxes listed above. That's all...

Well, actually that is all I was looking for. 27 CFR may apply authority over more that I have not considered.



Regards,

David Merrill.
Last edited by David Merrill on Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
bmielke

Re: Lindsey SPRINGER's blunder

Post by bmielke »

What critical statement did Mr. Van Pelt edit out? Because his quoted section proves his point, but I trus Mr. Operative (or can I call you The?) a lot more when it comes to knowing the law. I have not yet seen him spout of gibberish, the same can't be said for Mr. Van Pelt.

(I of course could look it up but I figure it's more fun if some of our local experts can at least tell me what I'm looking for.)
David Merrill

Re: Lindsey SPRINGER's blunder

Post by David Merrill »

bmielke wrote:What critical statement did Mr. Van Pelt edit out? Because his quoted section proves his point, but I trus Mr. Operative (or can I call you The?) a lot more when it comes to knowing the law. I have not yet seen him spout of gibberish, the same can't be said for Mr. Van Pelt.

(I of course could look it up but I figure it's more fun if some of our local experts can at least tell me what I'm looking for.)

My name is David Merrill and I posted links. All you have to do is click and read and you will see that the authority for demanding a Tax Return is contingent upon 27 CFR - Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.


Regards,

David Merrill.
bmielke

Re: Lindsey SPRINGER's blunder

Post by bmielke »

Mr. Van Pelt according to the Federal Government (CFR) Chapter 27 is Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms. and your section no longer appears in the January 2010 version. so I think the point is moot. Now if I found the wrong thing by all means correct me.

ADDED: I Checked 26CFR there is no 70.69 there either.

ADDED 2: I understand that at birth you had the last name of Van Pelt just because you lost your way somewhere alng the line and dropped the last name doesn't mean it isn't your last name. But by all means post a copy of a court order signed by a real judge legally changing your name and I will edit the previous posts in this thread.

ADDED 3: I just reread the post I am sorry Mr. Van Pelt I reversed the numbers this happens from time to time. Here is 27CFR70.96 it clearly says excise taxes in the January 1, 2009 version.
Sec. 70.96 Failure to file tax return or to pay tax.

(a) Addition to the tax--(1) Failure to file tax return. In the case
of failure to file a return required under authority of:
(i) Title 26 U.S.C. 61, relating to returns and records;
(ii) Title 26 U.S.C. 51, relating to distilled spirits, wines and
beer;
(iii) Title 26 U.S.C. 52, relating to tobacco products, and
cigarette papers and tubes; or
(iv) Title 26 U.S.C. 53, relating to machine guns, destructive
devices, and certain other firearms; and the regulations thereunder, on
or before the date prescribed for filing (determined with regard to any
extension of time for such filing), there shall be added to the tax
required to be shown on the return the amount specified below unless the
failure to file the return within the prescribed time is shown to the
satisfaction of the appropriate TTB officer to be due to reasonable
cause and not to willful neglect. The amount to be added to the tax is 5
percent therof if the failure is not for more than one month, with an
additional 5 percent for each additional month or fraction thereof
during which the failure continues, but not to exceed 25 percent in the
aggregate. The amount of any addition under paragraph (a)(1) of this
section shall be reduced by the amount of the addition under paragraph
(a)(2) of this section for any month to which an addition to tax applies
under both paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.
(2) Failure to pay tax shown on return. In case of failure to pay
the amount shown as tax on any return required to be filed after
December 31, 1969 (without regard to any extension of time for filing
thereof), specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, on or before
the date prescribed for payment of such tax (determined with regard to
any extension of time for payment), there shall be added to the tax
shown on the return the amount specified below unless the failure to pay
the tax within the prescribed time is shown to the satisfaction of the
appropriate TTB officer to be due to reasonable cause and not to willful
neglect. The amount to be added to the tax is 0.5 percent of the amount
of tax shown on the return if the failure is for not more than 1 month,
with an additional 0.5 percent for each additional month or fraction
thereof during which the failure continues, but not to exceed 25 percent
in the aggregate.
(3) Failure to pay tax not shown on return. In case of failure to
pay any amount in respect of any tax required to be shown on a return
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, which is not so shown
(including an assessment made pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 6213(b)) within 10
days from the date of the notice and demand therefor, there shall be
added to the amount shown in the notice and demand the amount specified
below unless the failure to pay the tax within the prescribed time is
shown to the satisfaction of the appropriate TTB officer to be due to
reasonable cause and not to willful neglect. The amount to be added to
the tax is 0.5 percent of the amount stated in the notice and demand if
the failure is for not more than one month, with an additional 0.5
percent for each additional month or fraction thereof during which the
failure continues, but not to exceed 25 percent in the aggregate. The
maximum amount of the addition permitted under this subparagraph shall
be reduced by the amount of the addition under paragraph (a)(1) of this
section, which is attributable to the tax for which the notice and
demand is made and which is not paid within 10 days from the date of
notice and demand. The preceding sentence applies to amounts assessed on
or before December 31, 1986.
(4) Increases in penalties in certain cases. For increases in
penalties for failure to file a return or pay tax in certain cases, see
26 U.S.C. 6651(d) or (f).
(b) Month defined. (1) If the date prescribed for filing the return
or paying tax is the last day of a calendar month, each succeeding
calendar month or fraction thereof during which the failure to file or
pay tax continues shall constitute a month for purposes of section 6651.
(2) If the date prescribed for filing the return or paying tax is a
date other than the last day of a calendar month, the period which
terminates with the

[[Page 248]]

date numerically corresponding thereto in the succeeding calendar month
and each such successive period shall constitute a month for purposes of
section 6651. If, in the month of February, there is no date
corresponding to the date prescribed for filing the return or paying
tax, the period from such date in January through the last day of
February shall constitute a month for purposes of section 6651. Thus, if
a return is due on January 30, the first month shall end on February 28
(or 29 if a leap year), and the succeeding months shall end on March 30,
April 30, etc.
(3) If a return is not timely filed or tax is not timely paid, the
fact that the date prescribed for filing the return or paying tax, or
the corresponding date in any succeeding calendar month, falls on a
Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday is immaterial in determining the
number of months for which the addition to the tax under section 6651
applies.
(c) Showing of reasonable cause. A taxpayer who wishes to avoid the
addition to the tax for failure to file a tax return or pay tax must
make an affirmative showing of all facts alleged as a reasonable cause
for the taxpayers failure to file such return or pay such tax on time in
the form of a written statement containing a declaration that it is made
under penalties of perjury. Such statement should be filed with the
appropriate TTB officer. In addition, where special tax returns of
liquor dealers are delivered to an appropriate TTB officer, such
statement may be delivered with the return. If the appropriate TTB
officer determines that the delinquency was due to a reasonable cause
and not to willful neglect, the addition to the tax will not be
assessed. If the taxpayer exercised ordinary business care and prudence
and was nevertheless unable to file the return within the prescribed
time, then the delay is due to a reasonable cause. A failure to pay will
be considered to be due to reasonable cause to the extent that the
taxpayer has made a satisfactory showing that the taxpayer exercised
ordinary business care and prudence in providing for payment of the tax
liability and was nevertheless either unable to pay the tax or would
suffer an undue hardship (as described in 26 CFR 1.6161-1(b)) if paid on
the due date. In determining whether the taxpayer was unable to pay the
tax in spite of the exercise of ordinary business care and prudence in
providing for payment of a tax liability, consideration will be given to
all the facts and circumstances of the taxpayer's financial situation,
including the amount and nature of the taxpayer's expenditures in light
of the income (or other amounts) the taxpayer could, at the time of such
expenditures, reasonably expect to receive prior to the date prescribed
for the payment of the tax. Thus, for example, a taxpayer who incurs
lavish or extravagant living expenses in an amount such that the
remainder of assets and anticipated income will be insufficient to pay
the tax, has not exercised ordinary business care and prudence in
providing for the payment of a tax liability. Further, a taxpayer who
invests funds in speculative or illiquid assets has not exercised
ordinary business care and prudence in providing for the payment of a
tax liability unless, at the time of the investment, the remainder of
the taxpayer's assets and estimated income will be sufficient to pay the
tax or it can be reasonably foreseen that the speculative or illiquid
investment made by the taxpayer can be utilized (by sale or as security
for a loan) to realize sufficient funds to satisfy the tax liability. A
taxpayer will be considered to have exercised ordinary business care and
prudence if such taxpayer made reasonable efforts to conserve sufficient
assets in marketable form to satisfy a tax liability and nevertheless
was unable to pay all or a portion of the tax when it became due.
(d) Penalty imposed on net amount due--(1) Credits against the tax.
The amount of tax required to be shown on the return for purposes of
section 6651(a)(1) and the amount shown as tax on the return for
purposes of section 6651(a)(2) shall be reduced by the amount of any
part of the tax which is paid on or before the date prescribed for
payment of the tax and by the amount of any credit against the tax which
may be claimed on the return.
(2) Partial payments. (i) The amount of tax required to be shown on
the return for purposes of section 6651(a)(2) of

[[Page 249]]

the Internal Revenue Code shall, for the purpose of computing the
addition for any month, be reduced by the amount of any part of the tax
which is paid after the date prescribed for payment and on or before the
first day of such month, and
(ii) The amount of tax stated in the notice and demand for purposes
of section 6651(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code shall, for the
purpose of computing the addition for any month, be reduced by the
amount of any part of the tax which is paid before the first day of such
month.
(e) No addition to tax if fraud penalty assessed. No addition to the
tax under section 6651 of the Internal Revenue Code shall be assessed
with respect to an underpayment of tax if an addition to the tax for
fraud is assessed with respect to the same underpayment under section
6653(b). See section 6653(d) of the Internal Revenue Code.

(26 U.S.C. 6651)

[T.D. ATF-251, 52 FR 19314, May 22, 1987, as amended by T.D ATF-301, 55
FR 47614, Nov. 14, 1990; T.D. ATF-353, 59 FR 2522, Jan. 18, 1994; T.D.
ATF-450, 66 FR 29025, May 29, 2001]
CFR
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Lindsey SPRINGER's blunder

Post by Famspear »

David Merrill wrote:My name is David Merrill and I posted links. All you have to do is click and read and you will see that the authority for demanding a Tax Return is contingent upon 27 CFR - Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.


Regards,

David Merrill.
No, David. You will not see that "the authority for demanding a Tax Return is contingent upon 27 CFR - Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms." The legal duty to file a federal income tax return is imposed by the Internal Revenue Code, not by title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

By the way, David, in one of your posts, you're quoting from section 61. But the citation "26 U.S.C. 61" in the cited regulation is not a citation to 26 U.S.C. section 61. It's a citation to 26 U.S.C. chapter 61 (i.e., 26 U.S.C. sections 6001 through 6116).

The Operative is correct, David. And, as usual, you are confused.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
David Merrill

Re: Lindsey SPRINGER's blunder

Post by David Merrill »

Title 26 U.S.C. §61, relating to returns and records;
That looks like Section 61 to me.

The legal duty to file a federal income tax return is imposed by the Internal Revenue Code, not by title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
The OMB# comes from the authority in CFR 27 - which comes close to the thread topic. The PRA is cited to require the Information on the Return. The PRA has to have an authority in the CFR and that is the authority right there:

http://0-edocket.access.gpo.gov.library ... r70.96.pdf
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Lindsey SPRINGER's blunder

Post by Famspear »

David Merrill wrote:
Title 26 U.S.C. §61, relating to returns and records;
That looks like Section 61 to me.
No. Read the heading -- "relating to returns and records." Now, read the heading for SECTION 61 and compare it to the heading for CHAPTER 61. Also, look at the other citations in the regulation. The citations are to CHAPTERS of the Internal Revenue Code, not SECTIONS of the Code.

In fairness to you, David, the form of the citation "26 U.S.C. 61" would indeed often be intended as a citation to a "section." So, it's an easy mistake to make. But, as one of my college professors used to say "you gotta be smarter than the book." Read each word carefully, and read with an eye to the context of what you are reading.

And, the OMB number and the PRA have nothing to do with the legal obligations to file a federal income tax return or pay federal income tax. Those obligations are imposed by statute, not by title 27 of the C.F.R.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Lindsey SPRINGER's blunder

Post by Famspear »

Oh, and by the way, you stated that this looks like "Section" 61 to you:
Title 26 U.S.C. §61, relating to returns and records;
That's because you yourself inserted the section symbol "§" in your "quote." That symbol is not found in the actual text of the regulation, David. Naughty, naughty boy. Read the text of the link that you yourself posted. Did you think no one would notice your "error"?
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Lindsey SPRINGER's blunder

Post by Famspear »

To make David's error ever more obvious, read the actual headings for Internal Revenue Code SECTIONS 61, 51, 52, and 53, and compare to the headings for CHAPTERS 61, 51, 52, and 53 (from the Cornell Law School web site). First the "sections":
section 61- Gross income defined

section 51- Amount of credit

section 52 - Special rules

section 53 - Credit for prior year minimum tax liability
Now, look at the headings for the CHAPTERS:
chapter 61- INFORMATION AND RETURNS

chapter 51 - DISTILLED SPIRITS, WINES, AND BEER

chapter 52 - TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND CIGARETTE PAPERS AND TUBES

chapter 53 - MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER FIREARMS
Now, here is the actual text of the material that David Merrill Not Really So Very Much Van Pelt cited, at 27 C.F.R. 70.96(a):
Addition to the tax—(1) Failure to file tax return. In the case of failure to file a return required under authority of:

(i) Title 26 U.S.C. 61, relating to returns and records;

(ii) Title 26 U.S.C. 51, relating to distilled spirits, wines and beer;

(iii) Title 26 U.S.C. 52, relating to tobacco products, and cigarette papers and tubes; or

(iv) Title 26 U.S.C. 53, relating to machine guns, destructive devices, and certain other firearms ......
--from 27 C.F.R. 70.96(a).
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Lindsey SPRINGER's blunder

Post by LPC »

You people are really arguing with the moron?
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.
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Lindsey SPRINGER's blunder

Post by Famspear »

LPC wrote:You people are really arguing with the moron?
I know, I know! Somehow he seems almost normal today, though. ("Normal" in the sense of "a normal tax protester".) Maybe that's it. The devious insertion of the symbol for "section" in one of his posts, in an attempt to deceive us is, strangely, almost endearing. It's as though Mr. Not So Very Much Van Pelt suddenly just wants to act like of the "regular guys" -- one of the "regular," run of the mill, tax protester/tax denier types, that is.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
David Merrill

Re: Lindsey SPRINGER's blunder

Post by David Merrill »

Famspear wrote:
David Merrill wrote:
Title 26 U.S.C. §61, relating to returns and records;
That looks like Section 61 to me.
No. Read the heading -- "relating to returns and records." Now, read the heading for SECTION 61 and compare it to the heading for CHAPTER 61. Also, look at the other citations in the regulation. The citations are to CHAPTERS of the Internal Revenue Code, not SECTIONS of the Code.

In fairness to you, David, the form of the citation "26 U.S.C. 61" would indeed often be intended as a citation to a "section." So, it's an easy mistake to make. But, as one of my college professors used to say "you gotta be smarter than the book." Read each word carefully, and read with an eye to the context of what you are reading.

And, the OMB number and the PRA have nothing to do with the legal obligations to file a federal income tax return or pay federal income tax. Those obligations are imposed by statute, not by title 27 of the C.F.R.
I was just making it absolutely clear - even to skeptics that the authority backing enforcement of the Income Tax in general is found in under the penumbra of Title 27 U.S.C. Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The Observer had made a point of misdirection that omitted the mention of Section or Chapter 61, as though only 51-53 existed. Now people are covering for his misdirection by saying that the 27 CFR §70.96 only covers these sections by Delegation of Authority:
You are saying that the authority comes from 17 CFR for:

· § 6101. Period covered by returns or other documents
· § 6102. Computations on returns or other documents
· § 6103. Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information
· § 6104. Publicity of information required from certain exempt organizations and certain trusts
· § 6105. Confidentiality of information arising under treaty obligations
· [§ 6106. Repealed.]
· § 6107. Tax return preparer must furnish copy of return to taxpayer and must retain a copy or list
· § 6108. Statistical publications and studies
· § 6109. Identifying numbers
· § 6110. Public inspection of written determinations
· § 6111. Disclosure of reportable transactions
· § 6112. Material advisors of reportable transactions must keep lists of advisees, etc.
· § 6113. Disclosure of nondeductibility of contributions
· § 6114. Treaty-based return positions
· § 6115. Disclosure related to quid pro quo contributions
· § 6116. Cross reference

Just like we find about alcohol:

· § 5101. Notice of manufacture of still; notice of set up of still
· § 5102. Definition of manufacturer of stills

tobacco:

· § 5201. Regulation of operations
· § 5202. Supervision of operations
· § 5203. Entry and examination of premises
· § 5204. Gauging
· [§ 5205. Repealed.]
· § 5206. Containers
· § 5207. Records and reports

and firearms:

§ 5301. General provisions


Which amplifies my point - not The Observer's. It does bring a clearer meaning to my interpretation though - thank you.
The amount to be added to the tax is 0.5 percent of the amount stated in the notice and demand if the failure is for not more than one month, with an additional 0.5 percent for each additional month or fraction thereof during which the failure continues, but not to exceed 25 percent in the aggregate.
The obligations are imposed by signature consent - called endorsement. They are enforced by citing notice and demand made by the Treasury through the IRS.
Those obligations are imposed by statute, not by title 27 of the C.F.R.
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/9144/p ... wcodes.jpg

There is no positive law from the IRC and so there is no authority in the statutes without consent by signature endorsement. Looking closely at the CFR we read that there is such an authority presumed but then it is also public notice in any U.S.C. code book that there is no statutory authority in Title 26 of the Code.



Regards,

David Merrill.
.
Pirate Purveyor of the Last Word
Posts: 1698
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:06 am

Re: Lindsey SPRINGER's blunder

Post by . »

The undisputed king of gibberish and word-salad wrote:I was just making it absolutely clear
As in implying a quotation, while hoping that you wouldn't get caught.
The undisputed king of gibberish and word-salad wrote:positive law
One can always rely on Van Pelt to try to change the subject when cornered.

While you're busy making stuff up, please take a moment to tell us all about how you or anyone else has ever demonstrated in any federal court any discrepancy between what is contained in the US Code and the underlying statutes.
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.
David Merrill

Re: Lindsey SPRINGER's blunder

Post by David Merrill »

My point for years now is that Robert LAWRENCE got close through bringing in the PRA arguments, based in the OMB# which is published through the CFR - albeit not 26 CFR but 27 CFR. That is the delegation of authority we are looking at - notice and demand - for the collection of the Income Tax right there:

http://0-edocket.access.gpo.gov.library ... r70.96.pdf

Thanks for clarifying the ambiguity in the CFR between Section and Chapter. They really should have specified in my opinion, but that is okay - it still makes my point. The delegation of authority for the OMB/PRA process is derived from activities involving the ATF, which holds a lot of enforcement power. You might already know that IRS agents cannot carry firearms but ATF agents of course can be much better armed.

As far as positive law goes you better just look in any law dictionary. There is no authority in the statutes of Title 26 or Title 27. It is all derived from consent, notice and grace, and like I cited above notice and demand.

Lindsey SPRINGER's folly stems from Robert LAWRENCE's false impression that the 1995 PRA superseded the 1980 PRA in application to the information gathering of the 1040 Form when the Instructions to that form notify the taxpayer of the 1980 PRA specifically. LAWRENCE and presumably SPRINGER, neither one ever understood what prompted the DoJ to drop charges for Willful Failure to File against LAWRENCE on the eve of trial.


Regards,

David Merrill.
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Lindsey SPRINGER's blunder

Post by Famspear »

Ah, I see it didn't take long for David to revert to the expression of his traditional Van Peltian gibberish.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 7508
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:48 pm
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Lindsey SPRINGER's blunder

Post by The Observer »

David Merrill wrote:The Observer had made a point of misdirection that omitted the mention of Section or Chapter 61,...
I never made any such point. Please show where you think I did.
Which amplifies my point - not The Observer's.
Again, I did not make the point you are claiming that I did.

For someone who is particularly fussy about the accuracy of how you are named, you are very sloppy in recognizing the specific names of others.
"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
User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 6112
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: Lindsey SPRINGER's blunder

Post by Pottapaug1938 »

I'm going to turn off the "Ignore" button, for David Merrill, for a moment, to observe that anyone who cites an "authority" like Black's Law Dictionary to buttress a legal point is already in trouble. "Black's" does indeed have its uses; but if I were still practicing law, and I were trying to construct a legal argument, Black's is one of the last resources I'd use. Citations to CURRENT case law, which has not been reversed on appeal, is so much more persuasive; and until David cites those, in context, to buttress his assertions, the "Ignore" button will go back on, as of the moment I stop typing this comment.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 7568
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:39 pm

Re: Lindsey SPRINGER's blunder

Post by wserra »

Let's try a new tack here. Not that it will work, but arguing with David only produces one of two things: (1) a change of subject, or (2) a lengthy incomprehensible post.

So David: please cite us to any verifiable instance of your stuff working. In this thread, you espouse some theory that regs in 27 CFR can only apply to ATF activities. When called on it, you change the subject to how 26 USC is not "positive law". There are hundreds of similar errors to which you can change the subject, so I won't argue with you. However, I will ask you for a single verifiable instance where either of these has worked.

Since I know you can't provide one, let's broaden the question. Please provide a verifiable instance of any of your stuff working. Provide a verifiable instance of one of your many "suitors" prevailing. We know that you have been to jail at least twice, which your stuff obviously couldn't avoid. We know that your Colorado state court attempt at redress for your latest incarceration was thrown out on its ear; your federal attempt will be as well, once either the Court takes notice or you attempt to press the issue. We know plenty of times your stuff has failed. Provide one time that it has worked.

I made the same challenge during the couple of weeks I posted at Suijurisclub about a year ago. No one there was able to prove that their pet theories won anything but sanctions. Perhaps you can do better here.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume