Lindsey SPRINGER's blunder

[Judge Roy Bean]

I would make one additional condition - that the evidence provided be in the form of actual dispositive rulings that can be verified by persons not on planet Van Pelt.

[wserra]

Right. I use "verifiable" in the standard legal sense: by citation if one exists, otherwise by court, title and docket number.

[Nikki]

Are you excluding all citations to CitComLawCrt ?

[Pottapaug1938]

Are you excluding all citations to CitComLawCrt ?

He's probably excluding all citations not from a genuine court.

[bmielke]

Are you excluding all citations to CitComLawCrt ?

Is that the cite for "Citizens Common Law Court"?

Also would Judge Judy/Judge Joe Brown be acceptable?

[Pottapaug1938]

Are you excluding all citations to CitComLawCrt ?

Is that the cite for "Citizens Common Law Court"?

Also would Judge Judy/Judge Joe Brown be acceptable?

... or Judge Reinhold?

[notorial dissent]

Well, we know for sure of one verifiable instance where he lost outright with a dismissal in favor of sanity and the motorbike, and I doubt seriously if his luck has improved any since then. It has to be embarrassing, at least to most people to lose to an inanimate object.

[Gregg]

Well, we know for sure of one verifiable instance where he lost outright with a dismissal in favor of sanity and the motorbike, and I doubt seriously if his luck has improved any since then. It has to be embarrassing, at least to most people to lose to an inanimate object.

I had forgotten that one, thank you for reminding me

[David Merrill]

Here are the links in 27 CFR §70.96:



http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/u ... 20_61.html
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/u ... 20_51.html
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/u ... 20_52.html
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/u ... 20_53.html


That first one is for the Income Tax in general.

[Famspear]

Here are the links in 27 CFR §70.96:



http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/u ... 20_61.html
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/u ... 20_51.html
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/u ... 20_52.html
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/u ... 20_53.html


That first one is for the Income Tax in general.

No, it's not. You posted the link to Chapter 61 of the Internal Revenue Code. That Chapter does not deal with "Income Tax in general." It deals with tax returns, etc., in general.

We've already been through this, David.

And the rest of your links are the links to Chapters 51, 52, and 53. Not sections 51, 52, and 53. Again, we've already been through this.

[wserra]

No, David, in addition to what Famspear says, that's not it. I know what the law says. I have no problem with what the law says. I have a problem with what you say. For example, in the first post of this thread, you claim that "Lindsey SPRINGER is missing the key to avoid sentencing". So please show us a single person - just one - who has "avoided sentencing" by intoning your mumbo-jumbo about 27 CFR and 26 USC.

[The Observer]

For example, in the first post of this thread, you claim that "Lindsey SPRINGER is missing the key to avoid sentencing". So please show us a single person - just one - who has "avoided sentencing" by intoning your mumbo-jumbo about 27 CFR and 26 USC.

I went through a similar exercise with David a couple of years ago asking him to show where any of his suitors were able to undo the attachment of an IRS levy due to their filing of David's magic UCC paperwork. He never did provide any proof although he did opine that the suitors would probably have to file suit in federal district court to deal with the levy. So much for his magic paperwork.

I expect the same here. David will keep tap-dancing his way through this thread by providing irrelevant links, misquoting the statutes and regulations, and anything else in the vain hope that we will just give up.

[David Merrill]

Demosthenes;


Did your husband break our papertrail for that authority on Page 97?

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040.pdf

Look on the bottom of the 1040 Form - page 2.


Imagine all the poor taxpayers clicking for online Instructions!

[silversopp]

Would it be too much to ask that all of David's non-answers be deleted from this thread until he either provides verifiable examples of his methods working or he admits that it's never worked?

I really hope that David can get his program together quickly, because he's going to need it soon. I have heard, from a very reliable source, than his motorscooter is planning on suing him for defamation of character.

[webhick]

Would it be too much to ask that all of David's non-answers be deleted from this thread until he either provides verifiable examples of his methods working or he admits that it's never worked?

I vote that his non-answers remain intact because they go a long way to reduce his credibility with those who are unfamiliar with him.

[Pottapaug1938]

Would it be too much to ask that all of David's non-answers be deleted from this thread until he either provides verifiable examples of his methods working or he admits that it's never worked?

I vote that his non-answers remain intact because they go a long way to reduce his credibility with those who are unfamiliar with him.

He's also good for our daily dose of schadenfreude....

[bmielke]

Would it be too much to ask that all of David's non-answers be deleted from this thread until he either provides verifiable examples of his methods working or he admits that it's never worked?

I vote that his non-answers remain intact because they go a long way to reduce his credibility with those who are unfamiliar with him.

I agree if I was checking him out as a possible client, (Which I would because he is a non lawyer promising me an easy solution) and I found this site, I would run away from his "Help". Of course now, if I needed his sort of help I would never approach a non-lawyer.

[wserra]

I vote that his non-answers remain intact because they go a long way to reduce his credibility with those who are unfamiliar with him.

That's the way I see it.

So how about it, David - just one verifiable instance of your stuff actually winning.

[The Observer]

how about it, David - just one verifiable instance of your stuff actually winning.

David cannot afford to have any of his theories win; it would leave him out in the cold and far away from the center of attention since every tax lawyer in the world would be marketing the strategy to clients far and wide - and certainly not giving David any credit or money for discovering the process to make yourself free from taxes.

So David constructs theories that have absolutely no chance of winning since this creates a monopoly for him in peddling this stuff to the greedy uninformed out there.

The only question is when is David going to run into a very large, angry and violent suitor who figures out that they were hornswoggled by David's malarkey?

[Pottapaug1938]

how about it, David - just one verifiable instance of your stuff actually winning.

David cannot afford to have any of his theories win; it would leave him out in the cold and far away from the center of attention since every tax lawyer in the world would be marketing the strategy to clients far and wide - and certainly not giving David any credit or money for discovering the process to make yourself free from taxes.

So David constructs theories that have absolutely no chance of winning since this creates a monopoly for him in peddling this stuff to the greedy uninformed out there.

The only question is when is David going to run into a very large, angry and violent suitor who figures out that they were hornswoggled by David's malarkey?

Y'know, David really ought to look into appearing on the next season of Dancing With The Stars. If his footwork, on the dance floor, is one quarter as adept as his verbal footwork in avoiding answering our questions directly, he'll make Fred Astaire look like he had two left feet and lead-soled shoes.