Fake "quotes" foisted by tax protesters

[Famspear]

Yawn.....

Man, it's been slow lately.

Here's my nomination for "Tax Protester Fake Quote of the Month" for the month of November, from a dingbat user calling himself/herself "motla68", at the "saving to suitors club" forum:

The Supreme Court has ruled: "All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…"
Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985)

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthre ... on!/page21

Of course, the "quote" is a complete fabrication. And (of course) the citation to the "Rodriques" case is not a citation to a Supreme Court case. It's a decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The correct citation (with correct spelling of the names of parties) is: Rodrigues v. Donovan, 769 F.2d 1344 (9th Cir. 1985).

Nowhere is the supposed "quote" actually found in the text of that case.

These are the folks our mascot Harvey Hamster is hanging out with, now that everyone else has abandoned him.

[Kestrel]

Want to liven things up a bit? From northern India, here's a kind of tax protest I appreciate:

The tax office that really IS a nest of vipers

Amongst the comments was this gem:

"Could they do a delivery to the Houses of Parliament, do you think?"-- Liz
"Come on, Liz, there are enough in there already, don't you think?"

[Harvester]

Thanks for that Famspear. I've seen these non-sourced quotes a little too frequently. If you've concluded 'motla68' is a tax protester, then you've more patience than I; couldn't make heads or tails of his posts and gave up trying.

[bobhurt]

The Supreme Court of the United States of America has determined, "All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…" Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985

Today, 1 June 2013 I received the above quote from Shane Buczek and Googled the citation. I found a bunch of web sites citing it, but no Supreme Court site, of course. Among them I saw this site with the lovely comment by Famspear exposing the citation as tommyrot.

Thanks for helping to keep the Patriot Myth Mongers straightened out, Famspear. It saddens me to think Shane didn't smell a rat in the citation text. It makes no sense at all for the US Supreme Court ever to have uttered such incomprehensible drivel. But, I'd love to see the judge's face when the PMM tries to cite it in open court.

[Judge Roy Bean]

When mired in deliberate ignorance you have little choice but to make stuff up.

[notorial dissent]

Particularly when you can't find a real source that agrees with or doesn't make outright fun of your cockamamie delusions.

Besides, it saves on all that nasty research and reading you actually have to do otherwise, and in most cases since, since your audience is even dumber and less inclined to do so, it saves on having anyone question your wisdom. For some reason, doesn't seem to work so well in court, but sells well.

[fortinbras]

Besides everything else about this fake quote ...

The name of the case is fudged; it:

Rodrigues v. Donovan (9th Cir., Aug. 26, 1985) 769 F.2d 1344.

The plaintiff was Sherwood T. Rodrigues (spelled with a G, not a Q) and the named defendant was Secretary of Labor Raymond J. Donovan (spelled with two Os).

And the words quoted simply don't appear anywhere in the decision. "Codes" or "regulations" or "creator" simply do not occur anywhere in the decision. If you wanna see for yourself:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... 0924854314

The case never went to the Supreme Court, and so far the Supreme Court has never mentioned the case much less quoted it.

Litigants attempted to use the bogus quotation -- and the sentence does not otherwise occur in ANY case (this means that the 'quotation' is not to be found as a court's holding in any other decision, either) -- in at least three cases and the courts were not impressed: Turberg v. Texas Dept of Criminal Justice (ED Tex., Oct. 26 2011) [" Specifically, he seeks “proof of claim” that the U.S. Constitution is applicable to him through any act of Congress or tax laws, or a contract bearing his signature. He cites a case called Rodrigues v. Donovan, 769 F.2d 1344 (9th Cir.1985), in which he says that the Supreme Court held that “all codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, and not human creators in accordance with God's laws,” even though Rodrigues is not a Supreme Court case and said nothing of the sort."]; Kitchens v. [John] Becraft (ED Tex., July 18, 2011); US v. Mellor (ND Iowa, Jan. 6, 2009) 103 AFTR2d 384.

[notorial dissent]

But, but , but, they found it on the innerwebs, it just has to be true!!!!

[Judge Roy Bean]

Besides everything else about this fake quote ...

Litigants attempted to use the bogus quotation in at least three cases and the courts were not impressed: ... Kitchens v. Becraft (ED Tex., July 18, 2011) ...

I'm shocked such a thing would come up in a case involving him!

[Famspear]

Besides everything else about this fake quote ...

Litigants attempted to use the bogus quotation in at least three cases and the courts were not impressed: ... Kitchens v. Becraft (ED Tex., July 18, 2011) ...

I'm shocked such a thing would come up in a case involving him!

I believe it was a John Becraft in this case.

[fortinbras]

Since that one quote had been worked to death, I have another example, from my compilation:

One opinion frequently quoted by scofflaws is in Robertson v. Dept of Public Works (1934) 180 Wash 133, 39 P2d 596, wherein Justice Tolman used the phrase “complete freedom of the highways”. Usually when this fragmentary quotation is accompanied by effusive words of praise for Justice Tolman, such as “If ever a judge understood the public’s right to use the public roads, it was Justice Tolman” and “the words of Justice Tolman ring most prophetically”; but they seem to know nothing more about him. {Warren W. Tolman (1861-1940), Justice on the Washington State Supreme Court from 1918 to 1937, Chief Justice in 1925-1926 and 1931-1932.} Among other things, they don’t seem to know that Justice Tolman was in the minority and writing a dissent in this case, which did not deal with Driver’s Licenses at all but with whether the State government could refuse a hauling permit to a trucking firm (not a license to an individual driver) which planned to deadhead (run empty trucks) on half of its trips – the majority felt that deadheading would unnecessarily burden the highways and impinge on highway safety. But even Justice Tolman, writing in his dissent, said: “Nothing herein said is intended to reflect upon the right to refuse a permit to a person unfitted to drive a truck or without a driver’s license, or a person who habitually violates the rules of the road.” (Wash at 146, P2d at 601). These overlooked words of Justice Tolman have been quoted by courts who encountered scofflaws who tried to use a very selective quotation from Tolman’s dissenting opinion to justify unlicensed driving; State v. Dempsey (Wis.App. 1/26/87) 136 Wis.2d 557(t), 402 NW2d 390(t) petit.den (Wis.Supm) 136 Wis.2d 563, 407 NW2d 560 cert.den 482 US 930; City of Billings v. Beckman (Mont.Dist. 5/20/02)(the defendant is one of the co-authors of The Law That Never Was; “This case [Robertson] is not controlling law in Montana, nor does it support the contention that an individual has a fundamental right to drive a motor vehicle on a public road without a Driver's License. Montana law is clear. The Appellant was required to obtain a valid Montana Driver's License to operate a motor vehicle on a public road and this requirement does not violate Appellant's Constitutional rights.”) -- it appears that they hadn’t read the decision itself, weren’t aware they were trying to use a minority opinion, and were particularly unaware of Justice Tolman’s words about a Driver’s License. Justice Tolman had previously been with the majority in a decision in an insurance case in which an unlicensed motorist was held to be making an illegal use of his automobile. Neat v. Miller[& U.S. Fidelity Guaranty Co.] (1932) 170 Wash 625, 17 P2d 32.

[sprit]

Hey guys,Tax protesters support the false notion that they do not have to pay tax on income they earn. Participating in a tax protester scheme can have serious.GBWhatsapp

[mashak]

Hey guys,Tax protesters support the false notion that they do not have to pay tax on income they earn. Participating in a tax protester scheme can have serious.GBWhatsapp

I got it.. Very good Post Reaply.. GB Whatsapp

[wserra]

The above two posters: (1) post six minutes apart; (2) to long-dead threads; (3) with completely generic and illiterate comments; (4) from the same IP in Laos. Do we need to wait for the spam links to be edited in?

I don't think so.

[Pottapaug1938]

Agreed.

[Burnaby49]

Go for it.

[wserra]

They're gone.