• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

"The Rule Of Law"

Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
310
Likes
40
“Under basic rules of construction, statutory laws enacted by legislative bodies cannot impair rights given under a constitution. 194 B.R. at 925. "
[In re Young, 235 B.R. 666 (Bankr.M.D.Fla., 1999)]
Juristic Person,

MY RESPONSE: Correct. The Constitution is the supreme law of the law. Statutes are inferior to the Constitution.

Great Work,

Snoop
 

Strawboss

Home Improvement Sales Trainee...
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,880
Likes
12,377
Juristic Person,

MY RESPONSE: Correct. The Constitution is the supreme law of the law. Statutes are inferior to the Constitution.

Great Work,

Snoop
But the problem currently is that activists pass laws (knowing they are unconstitutional) and then get activist judges (who know its unconstitutional) to give them cover...

And as time goes by...more and more laws, regulations, executive orders, etc... are passed and the legal challenges get mucked up in the system for years...and meanwhile the protections afforded under the Constitution are continually eroded away...

Thats our reality today.
 

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
6,672
Likes
12,584
First, thanks for taking the time to reply. I enjoy a good discussion. :)
You quoted lots of cases yet all say the same thing. frivolous I get your point however I do disagree with it and will point out where those decisions are wrong. However, I will concede that although those decisions are wrong, it is virtually impossible to fight the system because the courts are corrupted.

I did misquote. It was Stanton Vrs Baltic mining not Brushaber. I thought I went back and made that correction.

That is simply not true. And, you would know this if you actually read the whole case. The Pollock case which you yourself cited above is 124 pages long! See proof here. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?
Let me quote from
Doyle v. Mitchell Brother
I will post entire paragraphs for clarity and highlight what I feel is relevant.

"As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. This court has decided in the Pollock Case that the income tax of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to population, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation, with certain qualifications prescribed by the act itself." - Stratton's Independence. LTD. v. Howbert, 231 US 399 (1913)
“Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income,' it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities." - Doyle v. Mitchell Brother, Co., 247 US 179 (1918)

"Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word "gain," which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. "Derived from capital;" "the gain derived from capital," etc. Here, we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital; not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, severed from the capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, being "derived" -- that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal -- that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description." - Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 205 -206 (1920).

"...there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word [income] must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court." - Merchants Loan & Trust v. Smietanka, 255 US 509 (1921)
"In determining the definition of the word "income" thus arrived at, this Court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of lexicographers or economists, and has approved, in the definitions quoted, what it believed to be the commonly understood meaning of the term which must have been in the minds of the people when they adopted the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution." - Merchants Loan & Trust v. Smietanka, 255 US 509 (1921)

My reply: The court made it very clear what income was and what the intent must have been when congress used the common definition at the time. Courts can label this argument frivolous all they like, doing so just shows they are corrupt. Labeling this as a frivolous argument without addressing the underlying argument solves and proves nothing. It like accusing me of a crime in Vermont when cameras clearly show I was out on a cruise ship with 100's of witnesses present and calling that a frivolous defense.
You can label it anyway you like but the overwhelming evidence is that income is not what people think it is. The above paragraph clearly points that out and to use your terms, that is case law. So what happens when case law is ignored by courts in the future or any argument using case law is labeled as frivolous?


United States v. Jones, 115 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2015-2038 (D. Minn. 2015) – the court rejected as frivolous the taxpayer’s arguments that individual income tax is unconstitutional because it is "a direct tax which must be apportioned among the several states," noting, "It is well-established that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes the imposition of an income tax without apportionment among the states."
My reply: As you can see above, the courts have repeatedly defined what income is. Isn't it revealing that the IRS codes themselves have never defined what income is? Oh yes, all income from whatever source derived. LOL.
So your link is correct where a tax is imposed on the income of every individual.
Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual
That still does not impose a tax on most peoples labor who are Americans living and working and exchanging their labor for money. That would not be considered income under the definitions provided by case law by the Supreme court. Calling that argument frivolous a million times by lower courts does not overturn the Supreme courts rulings (Case law).

We can break down what individuals are and withholding agents and on and on using SC rulings and IRS definitions.
to quote you
Case law IS THE LAW. So, if case law says it, THAT IS THE LAW. Case law IS THE FINAL WORD. PERIOD!
I'll agree to that. See, we found common ground. :finished 2:

If we are to continue this discussion lets at least agree that calling an argument frivolous is not grounds for overturning case law. I'm more than happy to read any court cases you post, however before doing so please provide a paragraph or sentence at least of why the case is relevant and overturns decisions that I have cited in cases I posted.
Thank you for your consideration.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
44,135
Likes
72,902
Location
Rocky Mountains
But the problem currently is that activists pass laws (knowing they are unconstitutional) and then get activist judges (who know its unconstitutional) to give them cover...

And as time goes by...more and more laws, regulations, executive orders, etc... are passed and the legal challenges get mucked up in the system for years...and meanwhile the protections afforded under the Constitution are continually eroded away...

Thats our reality today.
Which is the crux of the discussion between Snoop and 'we the people' here...

Ships passing in the night...

Snoop is correct in that 'his version' of legal works in the courts system as set up by lawyers. We call it 'color-of-law' because, good intentions aside, that's what it really has become.

We are correct in that 'our version' is constitutionally lawful and works, but it takes a whole lot of study and background to crack his version.

We here believe the law shouldn't require a decoder ring to be just and lawful. The courts deny us that basic right to be secure in our papers without having to fight, or deal with, hired guns who are "just doin ma job... uh tell it to the judge mam" badge-wearing order takers enforcing color-of-law statutes and quotas, or 'revenue enhancement' schemes to our financial detriment.

The judge is part of the scheme for if he truly was interested in the law, he would see the fallacy of the system s/he presides over for what it is, i.e., Theft because of ignorance of 'their' legal game.

We were taught, or told, this was the law, when in reality, it's not.

I would challenge the bond of every officer of the court... IF they even have one, which should be checked by the accused. No signed notarized bond means illegal actions on their part and I think that fraud pierces the immunity veil they hide behind.
 

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
29,516
Likes
39,088
please don't mis-quote me

use my post then reference BB,

don't quote me at all as I don't consider you a worthy adversary, actually quite a bore

As for sovereign, I see you took the definition from wiki, good for you
That is the misinformation campaign formulated by .gov

I am not part of any movement, nor anything to anyone

I am independent, and call it what you will, but I AM NOT 'we the peons'
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
14,772
Likes
26,657
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
Hello BarnacleBob,

YOUR COMMENT: Absolute nonsense [when responding to my claim "Because statutes are REAL LAW, they are not misrepresented by law enforcement, courts and lawyers when they call them what they actually are, REAL LAW."]

YOU GO ON TO QUOTE SECTIONS OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION AND CERTAIN FLORIDA STATUTES, AS IF THOSE PROVISIONS SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM OF "ABOLUTE NONSENSE".

MY RESPONSE: Please cut and paste three sentences in the provisions that you quoted above which you contend most support your claim of "Absolute nonsense" in response to my claims that statutes are real law.

Best Regards,

Snoop
Your playing games, the Fl Constitution sets forth the forms & solemnities politically REQUIRED to pass a law or bill by an act of the legislature... there is no other legitimate means of passing a law or a bill with the exception of a temporary declared emergency by the executive.

The legislature cannot Iawfully, legitimately or constitutionally declare a book of statutes to be enacted into law by creating an "enacting" statute designed to subvert the constitutional requirements for the passage of laws & bills by acts of the legislature....
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
44,135
Likes
72,902
Location
Rocky Mountains
Placeholder...

When they tell you..."It's policy" Which is "Color of law" and not law at at all unless you are operating in some commercial capacity

Given the complexity of the topic, a few points will have to suffice regarding lawsuits
under 42 USC § 1983 for deprivation of federal rights.

Although the 11th Amendment to the United States Constitution generally bars federal
lawsuits against the states, local governments are not considered an arm of the state
and are therefore not entitled to immunity from § 1983 actions.

Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978).

Local governments may be sued for federal constitutional violations attributable
to their official policies or customs. Individual local government officers and employees
also may be sued under § 1983.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
310
Likes
40
But the problem currently is that activists pass laws (knowing they are unconstitutional) and then get activist judges (who know its unconstitutional) to give them cover...

And as time goes by...more and more laws, regulations, executive orders, etc... are passed and the legal challenges get mucked up in the system for years...and meanwhile the protections afforded under the Constitution are continually eroded away...

Thats our reality today.
Hello Strawboss,

YOUR COMMENT: But the problem currently is that activists pass laws (knowing they are unconstitutional) and then get activist judges (who know its unconstitutional) to give them cover...

MY RESPONSE: Not so on either count. Our ELECTED lawmakers do not pass laws they know to be unconstitutional. That would serve no purpose. Instead, our ELECTED lawmakers pass laws designed to correct what they perceive to be existing problems and to prevent potential problems from ever arising. That does not make them "activists". That makes them lawmakers. Making laws is exactly what we ELECT them to do. Otherwise, the problems of society would go unaddressed.

And, your understanding of "activist" judges is exactly backwards. Activist judges "legislate from the bench" or "reverse legislate from the bench" (by striking down needed legislation). Legislating from the bench is when activist judges make NEW laws in connection with legal subjects that are normally regulated by the legislature, but which NEW laws are not based upon existing legislation or based on a logical extension of existing legislation. But, judges who sit by and do nothing when they are called upon to rule on the constitutionality of an unconstitutional statute, are not "activist" judges, they are "passivist" judges (for not doing their jobs in the face of an unconstitutional statute). On the other hand, "activist" judges needlessly strike down needed legislation as unconstitutional if it has any constitutional implications at all, no matter how remote or tenuous.

YOUR COMMENT: And as time goes by...more and more laws, regulations, executive orders, etc... are passed and the legal challenges get mucked up in the system for years...and meanwhile the protections afforded under the Constitution are continually eroded away... That's our reality today.

MY RESPONSE: That all depends on who we ELECT to the ELECTED legislative branch, who we ELECT to the ELECTED executive branch and who we ELECT to the ELECTED judicial branch. That is why ELECTIONS are so important in a constitutional republic.

Your comment indicates that you believe that many or most of the statutes that are passed are unconstitutional, such that they require being overturned by the courts so as to muck up the legal system for years. But, this is not so. In the real world, only a tiny, minute fraction of the statutes that are passed are unconstitutional (likely less than 1% ?).

Ultimately the problem about which you (and others here) complain is THE TENSION BETWEEN the rights of MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE, on one hand, and the rights of the single INDIVIDUAL, on the other.

Generally, our federal and state constitutions heavily favor the rights of THE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE, over the rights of the single INDIVIDUAL. This is because if the rights of a single INDIVIDUAL are important, then the rights of A MILLION INDIVIDUALS COLLECTIVELY are MORE IMPORTANT.

The Constitutional framers understood this and they wrote the Constitution to reflect what they believed was THE PERFECT BALANCE between the rights of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE and the rights of the single INDIVIDUAL. The Constitution was about balancing rights and balancing powers (between the three branches of the federal government, between the federal and state governments and between both the federal and state governments and the individual). That was its genius.

Except for a few individual rights expressly set forth in the federal and state constitutions, "WE THE PEOPLE", COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE have all the rights.

Best Regards,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,933
Likes
7,011
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
And, here I thought this thread was going to be inclusive of 'rule of law' and I find the bull gear has jumped the heifer shaft.

K, I am going to sort through this stuff/posts because the rain gave me a day off and I have a buffer of tall sixers to alleviate any brain bruising.
 

Strawboss

Home Improvement Sales Trainee...
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,880
Likes
12,377
Hello Strawboss,

YOUR COMMENT: But the problem currently is that activists pass laws (knowing they are unconstitutional) and then get activist judges (who know its unconstitutional) to give them cover...

MY RESPONSE: Not so on either count. Our ELECTED lawmakers do not pass laws they know to be unconstitutional. That would serve no purpose. Instead, our ELECTED lawmakers pass laws designed to correct what they perceive are existing problems and to prevent potential problems from arising. That does not make them "activists". That makes them lawmakers. Making laws is exactly what we ELECT them to do. Otherwise, the problems of society go unaddressed.

And, your understanding of "activist" judges is exactly backwards. Activist judges "legislate from the bench" or "reverse legislate from the bench" (by striking down needed legislation). Legislating from the bench is when activist judges make NEW laws in connection with legal subjects that are normally regulated by the legislature, but which NEW laws are not based upon existing legislation or based on a logical extension of existing legislation. But, judges who sit by and do nothing when they are called upon to rule on the constitutionality of an unconstitutional statute, are not "activist" judges, they are "passivist" judges (for not doing their jobs in the face of an unconstitutional statute). On the other hand, "activist" judges needlessly strike down needed legislation as unconstitutional if it any constitutional implications at all, no matter how remote or tenuous.

YOUR COMMENT: And as time goes by...more and more laws, regulations, executive orders, etc... are passed and the legal challenges get mucked up in the system for years...and meanwhile the protections afforded under the Constitution are continually eroded away... That's our reality today.

MY RESPONSE: That all depends on who we ELECT to the ELECTED legislative branch, who we ELECT the ELECTED executive branch and who we ELECT to the ELECTED judicial branch. That is why ELECTIONS are so important in a constitutional republic.

Your comment indicates that you believe that many or most of the statutes that are passed are unconstitutional, such that they require being overturned by the courts and so as to muck up the legal system for years. But, this is not so. In the real world, only a tiny, minute fraction of the statutes that are passed are unconstitutional (1% ?).

Ultimately the problem about which you (and others here) complain is THE TENSION BETWEEN the rights of MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE, on one hand, and the rights of the single INDIVIDUAL, on the other.

Generally, our federal and state constitutions heavily favor the rights of THE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE, over the rights of the single INDIVIDUAL. This is because if the rights of a single INDIVIDUAL are important, then the rights of A MILLION INDIVIDUALS COLLECTIVELY are MORE IMPORTANT.

The Constitutional framers understood this and they wrote the Constitution to reflect what they believed was THE PERFECT BALANCE between the rights of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE and the rights of the single INDIVIDUAL. The Constitution was about balancing rights and balancing powers (between the three branches of the federal government, between the federal and state government and between both the federal and state governments and the individual). That was its genius.

Except for a few individual rights expressly set forth in the federal and state constitutions, "WE THE PEOPLE", COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE have all the rights.

Best Regards,

Snoop
Here are some simple ones for you...

1. 2nd amendment...SHALL NOT be infringed...and yet we have all these laws restricting guns, bump stocks, etc... seems pretty clear cut to me. SHALL NOT means exactly what it says...
2. Trumps travel ban. He was clearly authorized to do it. The statutory language was crystal clear. And yet we have district court judges issuing country wide bans...
3. And since we are talking about district court judges - since when do they have the authority to issue a nationwide ban? Hell - even Federal appeals courts dont have the power to make their rulings extend beyond their boundaries - and yet a district judges does?
4. Shifting funding for the border wall. Again - the statute language is crystal clear...and yet a left wing judge mucks up the system by issuing a ban.

The list is a long one where the law was CLEAR - and yet judges are disregarding it in favor of advancing their ideological agendas...hence the phrase - "interpreting the Constitution AS WRITTEN"...

You want to make it sound like the law is functioning as it should...and its just the people that are misinformed.

I beg to differ sir...

I believe that for the most part - lawyers are corrupting the legal system by finding the cracks, exploiting said cracks on behalf of clients that could care less about liberty, freedom and America.

Furthermore - I would contend that for the most part - Congress is full of lawyers. Most members of Congress are lawyers.

Wouldnt it be reasonable to assume that if the system is messed up - and the system has been run by lawyers for many, many years - that perhaps the problem stems in large part...because of the lawyers?
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,933
Likes
7,011
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Snoopie are you pulling your amateur leagal theryioestist-tis stuff again? Listen puppy dog; in the last 4 months this man has had 2 DWS and one of those had a rider of a no insurance tacked on with it....and.....they all got lost in the court somehow. What I am telling you is between the cop/police station and the court house these things evaporated.

yep, there is no way a …."OH"....and yes I have had both motions to dismiss returned to me by the District Attorneys of two different counties......anywhoo's...there is no way a DA is going to let these motions roll in front of a judge. And, it is my speculation that the judge will start asking defendants certain questions AND these questions will lead to a different political view of non payment.

Snoop you B bad dog, bad dog.....
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,933
Likes
7,011
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Hello Arminius,

YOUR COMMENT: The only imposter here is you, scnnoop.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. Eddie Craig is not a "former deputy sheriff" and never had a "career in law enforcement". The closest that Eddie Craig ever came to being a "deputy sheriff" was as a "PART-TIME JAILER" for a period of "TWO WEEKS" in 1992 at which point he was "FIRED, NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RE-HIRE". That makes Eddie Craig the imposter. Not me.

How does it benefit the public for Eddie Craig to intentionally lie to them and defraud them about his "career experience"?

YOUR COMMENT: Eddie, like me and most of us want a return to constitutional republicanism.

MY RESPONSE: There is no need to "return" to a constitutional republic. We are a constitutional republic. Indeed, that is precisely why Eddie Craig hates our government so much. He hates our constitutional republican form of government.

YOUR COMMENT: And to hell with the public policy democracy that's feeding the likes of you and youse lyers...

MY RESPONSE: We are not a democracy (public policy or otherwise). In a democracy, citizens themselves make the law. In a republic, citizens elect REPRESENTATIVES who make the law. Because we have elected REPRESENTATIVES who make the law, we are a republic.

YOUR COMMENT: All of em. It's a totally fake court you espouse.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. All of the court decisions above are the law. Every decision above was written by a judge that "We the People" put into office directly or indirectly through the election process. If it is wrong for "We the People" to pick our own judges directly or indirectly through the election process, then how should the judges be picked? Lottery? Drawing straws? Something else?

I realize that you wish real courts were fake, but the reality is they are not. Your calling real courts "fake" will not make that so. They will still be real regardless of what you call them.

YOUR COMMENT: Anyone with any brains can allocute (withhold?) their consent and you morons have no case.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. This misunderstanding above (to the effect that INDIVIDUAL consent is required) is the result of amateur legal theorists' inability to distinguish between SINGULAR TERMS and PLURAL TERMS. In the phrase, the "CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED" the term, "GOVERNED," IS A PLURAL TERM AND REFERS TO THE CONSENT OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE COLLECTIVELY AS A WHOLE AS REFLECTED THROUGH THE ELECTION PROCESS. The ADDITIONAL consent of the INDIVIDUAL to arrest, prosecute or punish IS NOT REQUIRED. Likewise, in the phrase, "We the People", the word, "We" IS A PLURAL TERM AND REFERS TO ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE COLLECTIVELY AS A WHOLE AS REFLECTED THROUGH THE ELECTION PROCESS. The ADDITIONAL consent of the INDIVIDUAL to arrest, prosecute or punish IS NOT REQUIRED. Finally, in the phrase, "We the People", the word, "People" IS A PLURAL TERM AND REFERS TO ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE AS A WHOLE AS REFLECTED THROUGH THE ELECTION PROCESS. The ADDITIONAL consent of the INDIVIDUAL to arrest, prosecute and punish IS NOT REQUIRED.

YOUR COMMENT: Only a constitutional common law court is functional in the republic,

MY RESPONSE: All courts in the United States are constitutional (either federal or state). All courts in the United States use common law and are therefore common law courts. And, the United States is a republic because we elect our own governmental representatives.

This misunderstanding above (to the effect our courts are not governed by common law) is the result of amateur legal theorists not knowing what "common law" actually is. Common law is simply case law, judge made law (as opposed to statutes which are made by our elected legislatures). This means that every single decision in my Eddie Craig link that you falsely claim is fake and invalid IS COMMON LAW. And, common law is very alive and well in the legal system today as the cases in my Eddie Craig link demonstrate. But, amateur legal theorists do no know enough to realize this. They are being lied to in order to incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans. Nothing more.

YOUR COMMENT: not the for profit corporation pretend government dens of iniquity and fake law courts liers like you practice in.

MY RESPONSE: Our government is not a private, for-profit corporation. Likewise, none of the three branches of our government is a private, for-profit corporation. I have posted dozens of court decisions (the common law) on this website refuting this amateur legal theory.

You are consumed with hatred and contempt because you are misinformed and mistaken. The more you know that is actually true, the less you will be consumed by hatred and contempt.

Regards,

Snoop.
do I have to read all of that? You snoopie attack the messenger but not the message? why so?
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,483
Likes
10,639
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Making laws is exactly what we ELECT them to do. Otherwise, the problems of society go unaddressed.
Hello snoop4truth.

Which part of the federal Constitution empowers the governnment to address all of society's problems?
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
310
Likes
40
First, thanks for taking the time to reply. I enjoy a good discussion. :)
You quoted lots of cases yet all say the same thing. frivolous I get your point however I do disagree with it and will point out where those decisions are wrong. However, I will concede that although those decisions are wrong, it is virtually impossible to fight the system because the courts are corrupted.

I did misquote. It was Stanton Vrs Baltic mining not Brushaber. I thought I went back and made that correction.


Let me quote from I will post entire paragraphs for clarity and highlight what I feel is relevant.

"As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. This court has decided in the Pollock Case that the income tax of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to population, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation, with certain qualifications prescribed by the act itself." - Stratton's Independence. LTD. v. Howbert, 231 US 399 (1913)
“Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income,' it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities." - Doyle v. Mitchell Brother, Co., 247 US 179 (1918)

"Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word "gain," which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. "Derived from capital;" "the gain derived from capital," etc. Here, we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital; not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, severed from the capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, being "derived" -- that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal -- that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description." - Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 205 -206 (1920).

"...there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word [income] must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court." - Merchants Loan & Trust v. Smietanka, 255 US 509 (1921)
"In determining the definition of the word "income" thus arrived at, this Court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of lexicographers or economists, and has approved, in the definitions quoted, what it believed to be the commonly understood meaning of the term which must have been in the minds of the people when they adopted the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution." - Merchants Loan & Trust v. Smietanka, 255 US 509 (1921)

My reply: The court made it very clear what income was and what the intent must have been when congress used the common definition at the time. Courts can label this argument frivolous all they like, doing so just shows they are corrupt. Labeling this as a frivolous argument without addressing the underlying argument solves and proves nothing. It like accusing me of a crime in Vermont when cameras clearly show I was out on a cruise ship with 100's of witnesses present and calling that a frivolous defense.
You can label it anyway you like but the overwhelming evidence is that income is not what people think it is. The above paragraph clearly points that out and to use your terms, that is case law. So what happens when case law is ignored by courts in the future or any argument using case law is labeled as frivolous?




My reply: As you can see above, the courts have repeatedly defined what income is. Isn't it revealing that the IRS codes themselves have never defined what income is? Oh yes, all income from whatever source derived. LOL.
So your link is correct where a tax is imposed on the income of every individual. That still does not impose a tax on most peoples labor who are Americans living and working and exchanging their labor for money. That would not be considered income under the definitions provided by case law by the Supreme court. Calling that argument frivolous a million times by lower courts does not overturn the Supreme courts rulings (Case law).

We can break down what individuals are and withholding agents and on and on using SC rulings and IRS definitions.
to quote you
I'll agree to that. See, we found common ground. :finished 2:

If we are to continue this discussion lets at least agree that calling an argument frivolous is not grounds for overturning case law. I'm more than happy to read any court cases you post, however before doing so please provide a paragraph or sentence at least of why the case is relevant and overturns decisions that I have cited in cases I posted.
Thank you for your consideration.
Hello Cigarlover,

YOUR COMMENT: First, thanks for taking the time to reply. I enjoy a good discussion. :)

MY RESPONSE: You are welcome. You made me work on that one. HAHAHAHA!

YOUR COMMENT: You quoted lots of cases yet all say the same thing. frivolous I get your point however I do disagree with it and will point out where those decisions are wrong.

MY RESPONSE: You cannot point out where these cases are wrong. They are not wrong. THEY ARE THE LAW. THEY ARE PROOF. THEY ARE THE FINAL WORD. None of the cases I have posted here are in conflict with any higher court decisions. Your beliefs to the contrary are simply mistaken.

YOUR COMMENT: However, I will concede that although those decisions are wrong, it is virtually impossible to fight the system because the courts are corrupted.

MY RESPONSE: The courts reached the conclusions they reached ONLY BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT CORRUPT AND PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY FOLLOW SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT. Only a corrupt court would have reached a different result. And, because every such ruling contains a written legal analysis used by the court and reflects all of the law that the court relied on in reaching its result, the entire world would know if the court was not following the law.

The courts are NOT corrupted. So, you can fight the system in the courts BY USING REAL LAW. But, you cannot fight the system in court BY USING AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES OF THE TYPE YOU REPEATEDLY RAISE HERE.

That means if you make any claim referred to in any of these links below you will lose and be subject to fines and penalties. READ THEM!

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf (CLICK ON PAGES 2,3 & 4 here)
https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-introduction
http://www.jsiegel.net/taxes/IncomeTax.htm
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
http://www.jsiegel.net/taxes/correspondence.htm

https://www.quatloos.com/hereisthelaw.htm

IF THERE IS ANYTHING YOU SHOULD HAVE LEARNED BY CLICKING ON THE LINKS I PROVIDED TO YOU YESTERDAY, IT IS THAT EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO HAS EVER USED AN AMATEUR LEGAL THEORY IN COURT HAS LOST!

YOUR COMMENT: I did misquote. It was Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. not Brushaber. I thought I went back and made that correction.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. You did not misquote the name of the case. Brushaber stood for the proposition for which you cited it, the sixteenth amendment did not give Congress any new powers to levy income taxes. It already had that power.

Let me quote from I will post entire paragraphs for clarity and highlight what I feel is relevant.

"As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. This court has decided in the Pollock Case that the income tax of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to population, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation, with certain qualifications prescribed by the act itself." - Stratton's Independence. LTD. v. Howbert, 231 US 399 (1913)
“Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income,' it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities." - Doyle v. Mitchell Brother, Co., 247 US 179 (1918)

"Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word "gain," which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. "Derived from capital;" "the gain derived from capital," etc. Here, we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital; not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, severed from the capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, being "derived" -- that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal -- that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description." - Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 205 -206 (1920).

"...there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word [income] must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court." - Merchants Loan & Trust v. Smietanka, 255 US 509 (1921)

"In determining the definition of the word "income" thus arrived at, this Court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of lexicographers or economists, and has approved, in the definitions quoted, what it believed to be the commonly understood meaning of the term which must have been in the minds of the people when they adopted the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution." - Merchants Loan & Trust v. Smietanka, 255 US 509 (1921).

My reply: The court made it very clear what income was and what the intent must have been when congress used the common definition at the time. Courts can label this argument frivolous all they like, doing so just shows they are corrupt. Labeling this as a frivolous argument without addressing the underlying argument solves and proves nothing. It like accusing me of a crime in Vermont when cameras clearly show I was out on a cruise ship with 100's of witnesses present and calling that a frivolous defense.

You can label it anyway you like but the overwhelming evidence is that income is not what people think it is. The above paragraph clearly points that out and to use your terms, that is case law. So what happens when case law is ignored by courts in the future or any argument using case law is labeled as frivolous?

My reply: As you can see above, the courts have repeatedly defined what income is. Isn't it revealing that the IRS codes themselves have never defined what income is? Oh yes, all income from whatever source derived. LOL.

MY RESPONSE: Because you do not read the law itself, you do not even realize that the language you cite above DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE STANTON CASE. See proof here. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=726253341774342162&q="Stanton+v.+Baltic+Mining+Co"&hl=en&as_sdt=40003.

YOUR COMMENT: So your link is correct where a tax is imposed on the income of every individual. That still does not impose a tax on most peoples labor who are Americans living and working and exchanging their labor for money.

MY RESPONSE: That amateur legal theory has a 100% failure rate in the courts. CLICK HERE FOR PROOF. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_..."not+income"+"equal+value"&hl=en&as_sdt=40003. In Rice, the court wrote, "Mr. Rice asserts that wages are not income because they are not "gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined." Instead, Mr. Rice contends that wages arise from an equal EXCHANGE OF LABOR or services for property, a transaction in which no gain is "derived." Accordingly, Mr. Rice concludes that he has no taxable income despite Congress' intention to tax his wages as such. We [the court] disagree.

The Supreme Court early established the principle that the word "income", as it is used in the Sixteenth Amendment, is to be construed according to its common, everyday meaning. In Lynch v. Hornby [1 USTC ¶ 20], 247 U.S. 339, 344 (1918), the [Supreme] Court stated, "* * * Congress was at liberty under the [Sixteenth] Amendment to tax as income, without apportionment, EVERYTHING that became income, in the ordinary sense of the word * * *." Under this principle, the ordinary, and perhaps [THE] MOST COMMON MEANING OF "INCOME" HAS BEEN WAGES. Thus, when a coal company argued before the Supreme Court that the proceeds from its sale of ore, which it had dug from its properties, were the return of depleted capital, not income, the [Supreme] Court dismissed the argument, observing "the same is true of the earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital [meaning wages], yet such earnings [such WAGES] are commonly dealt with in legislation AS INCOME." Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, supra note 6, at 415. This quote illustrates that WHETHER OR NOT WAGES CAN BE CHARACTERIZED AS the product of AN EXCHANGE, THEY ARE STILL INCOME within the Constitutional embrace.[7]

[7] See also Crisman v. Commissioner [Dec. 37,210(M)], T.C. Memo. 1980-361; Hanson v. Commissioner [Dec. 36,998(M)], T.C. Memo. 1980-197; Cardinalli v. Commissioner [Dec. 36,445(M)], T.C. Memo. 1979-462. Cf., Kellems v. United States [51-1 USTC ¶ 9280], 97 F. Supp. 681 (D.C. Conn. 1951) (Withholding Act held constitutional; therefore, WAGES... ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY TAXABLE AS INCOME.

Mr. Rice misconstrues the oft-cited phrase that income is "gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined" to mean that wages are not income. Wages are "derived" from labor or services in the sense that they cannot be gained without such labor. Although the wages received by Mr. Rice may represent no more than the time-value of his work, they are nonetheless the fruit of his labor, and therefore represent gain derived from labor WHICH MAY BE TAXED AS INCOME.

Even if we were to agree with Mr. Rice's contention that wages are, in effect, AN EXCHANGE of equal value for value, HE WOULD STILL BE TAXABLE UPON THE WAGES [that] he and Mrs. Rice received in 1978. The general doctrine 798*798 that receipts representing a return of capital are not taxed does not apply when a taxpayer has a zero basis in the property he exchanged for the receipts. See Wilson v. Commissioner [Dec. 22,293], 27 T.C. 976 (1957), affd. per curiam [58-2 USTC ¶ 9574] 255 F. 2d 702 (5th Cir. 1958); Bryan v. Commissioner [Dec. 18,262], 16 T.C. 972 (1951); Rains v. Commissioner [Dec. 10,505], 38 B.T.A. 1189 (1938). Mr. Rice did not establish that he had a basis in the services he rendered to Matanuska, nor did he establish that Mrs. Rice had a basis in the services she rendered to Alaska Teamsters.[9] Thus, EACH HAD TAXABLE GAIN UPON RECEIPT OF WAGES from their respective companies. Section 1001.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=663341609059777283&q="INCOME+TAX"+exchanged++labor+"not+income"+"equal+value"&hl=en&as_sdt=40003. In Talmadge, a tax protestor sued the Commissioner over his taxes. The court wrote, "Tax protester arguments like the claim that wages are not taxable income also suffice... to justify... [A RULING AGAINST THE TAX PROTESTER]. Coleman v. Commissioner [86-1 USTC ¶ 9401], 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986) (wages not income), affg. an Order of this Court; Beard v. Commissioner [Dec. 41,237], 82 T.C. 766, 772-774 (1984) (wages not income), affd. per curiam [86-2 USTC ¶ 9496] 793 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1986); Cornell v. Commissioner [Dec. 40,231(M)], T.C. Memo. 1983-370 (wages not income). EVEN IF WAGES ARE, in effect, AN EXCHANGE of equal value for value, THEY ARE NEVERTHELESS TAXABLE INCOME. Rowlee v. Commissioner [Dec. 40,228], 80 T.C. 1111, 1121-1122 (1983); Rice v. Commissioner [Dec. 38,859(M)], T.C. Memo. 1982-129. And even if we apply section 1001 to determine petitioner's gain, his basis is defined under sections 1011 and 1012 as his cost, not fair market value. Since he paid nothing for his labor, his cost and thus his basis are zero. Rice v. Commissioner, supra. Consequently, even under section 1001, HIS TAXABLE INCOME FROM HIS LABOR IS HIS TOTAL GAIN reduced by nothing, i.e., [meaning ALL OF] HIS WAGES.

… . [P]etitioner's argument is nothing more than a variation of the wages-are-not-income claim frequently advanced by tax protesters, and it is COMPLETELY WITHOUR MERIT. Gammon v. Commissioner [Dec. 51,106(M)], T.C. Memo. 1996-4; Santangelo v. Commissioner [Dec. 50,921(M)], T.C. Memo. 1995-468. Cf. Crow v. Commissioner [Dec. 51,044(M)], T.C. Memo. 1995-584. PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT FAILS for the same reason that other protesters' arguments fail; the worker's cost for his services—and thus his basis—is zero, not their fair market value.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_..."not+income"+"equal+value"&hl=en&as_sdt=40003. In the Mathes case, a tax protester sued the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service and "argued... that wages are received IN EXCHANGE for labor of equal value and therefore result in no taxable gain... ." But, the court held otherwise, threw Mathes' case out of court and ordered Mathes to pay double costs and double attorney fees to the Commissioner fpr making this frivolous claim.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3290765660353995242&q="INCOME+TAX"+exchanged++labor+"not+income"+"equal+value"&hl=en&as_sdt=40003. In Rowlee v. Comm., a tax protester claimed the same thing. He lost. The court wrote, "Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, states that 'gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) * * * compensation for services [MEANING WAGES].' Petitioner has admitted that he EXCHANGED HIS LABOR for the amounts paid to him by his employers during the taxable year... . Similarly unworthy of extended comment is petitioner's assertion that he is not a "person liable" for tax. See secs. 1, 6001, 6011, 6012; United States v. Moore, 692 F.2d 95 (10th Cir. 1979, as amended Oct. 26, 1982); United States v. Slater, 545 F. Supp. 179 (D. Del. 1982). Finally, petitioner claims that he did not have any taxable income or "gain" because the value of his labor was the same as (or more than) the payment he received for it. Petitioner's position has been REPEATEDLY REJECTED by this and other courts."

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7698723013896241323&q="INCOME+TAX"+exchanged++labor+"not+income"+"equal+value"&hl=en&as_sdt=40003. In U.S. v. White, The court held that the following conduct on the part of the tax protester was "FRAUDULENT", SPECIFICALLY HIS FALSELY CLAIMING... "(b) that the federal income tax does not apply to wages or salaries because these are the result of AN EXCHANGE of property (labor) for property (wages) of equal value. NOTE THAT THE COURT DESCRIBED THIS CLAIM AS FRAUDULENT!!!

CLICK ON THIS LINK FOR MORE ON THIS AMATEUR LEGAL THEORY.
http://www.jsiegel.net/taxes/wages.htm

YOUR COMMENT: That would not be considered income under the definitions provided by case law by the Supreme court.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. See the case law above. THIS AMATEUR LEGAL THEORY HAS 100% FAILURE RATE IN COURT.

YOUR COMMENT: Calling that argument frivolous a million times by lower courts does not overturn the Supreme courts rulings (Case law).

MY RESPONSE: There is no lower court decision on income taxes that is in conflict with any ruling of the Supreme Court. The rulings of the lower courts CONFORM to the rulings of all higher courts. Your belief to the contrary is simply mistaken.

YOUR COMMENT: If we are to continue this discussion, lets at least agree that calling an argument frivolous is not grounds for overturning case law.

MY RESPONSE: It is the rulings of the higher courts that result in the lower courts characterizing an tax protester argument as frivolous. None of those lower court decisions are in conflict with any Supreme Court decision. You belief otherwise is simply mistaken.

YOUR COMMNET: I'm more than happy to read any court cases you post, however before doing so please provide a paragraph or sentence at least of why the case is relevant.

MY RESPONSE: I will try to remember that. But generally, the cases that I post are a direct response to a comment of yours which will be posted immediately above the cases I post. So, if I forget to duplicate your comment of yours (to show a case's relevancy), just remember to read your own comment directly above the cases that I post. That will refresh you recollection.

YOUR COMMENT: and overturns decisions that I have cited in cases I posted.

MY RESPONSE: Your comment indicates that you mistakenly believe that the cases I post are in conflict with Supreme Court cases. But, this is not so.

YOUR COMMENT: Thank you for your consideration

MY RESPONSE: And, you.

Best Regards,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

Strawboss

Home Improvement Sales Trainee...
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,880
Likes
12,377
Here are some simple ones for you...

1. 2nd amendment...SHALL NOT be infringed...and yet we have all these laws restricting guns, bump stocks, etc... seems pretty clear cut to me. SHALL NOT means exactly what it says...
2. Trumps travel ban. He was clearly authorized to do it. The statutory language was crystal clear. And yet we have district court judges issuing country wide bans...
3. And since we are talking about district court judges - since when do they have the authority to issue a nationwide ban? Hell - even Federal appeals courts dont have the power to make their rulings extend beyond their boundaries - and yet a district judges does?
4. Shifting funding for the border wall. Again - the statute language is crystal clear...and yet a left wing judge mucks up the system by issuing a ban.

The list is a long one where the law was CLEAR - and yet judges are disregarding it in favor of advancing their ideological agendas...hence the phrase - "interpreting the Constitution AS WRITTEN"...

You want to make it sound like the law is functioning as it should...and its just the people that are misinformed.

I beg to differ sir...

I believe that for the most part - lawyers are corrupting the legal system by finding the cracks, exploiting said cracks on behalf of clients that could care less about liberty, freedom and America.

Furthermore - I would contend that for the most part - Congress is full of lawyers. Most members of Congress are lawyers.

Wouldnt it be reasonable to assume that if the system is messed up - and the system has been run by lawyers for many, many years - that perhaps the problem stems in large part...because of the lawyers?
Hey Snoop...

Bumping this comment because I am thinking you may have overlooked it?

Looking to hear your views on the 4 simple items I have listed...
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
14,772
Likes
26,657
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
Hey Snoop...

Bumping this comment because I am thinking you may have overlooked it?

Looking to hear your views on the 4 simple items I have listed...
Geez & we havent even addressed "common law", "equity" or "lex merchatoria" that resides in the unwritten law.....

F.S. 2.01 Common law and certain statutes declared in force.—The common and statute laws of England which are of a general and not a local nature, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, down to the 4th day of July, 1776, are declared to be of force in this state; provided, the said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state.
History.—s. 1, Nov. 6, 1829; RS 59; GS 59; RGS 71; CGL 87.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...tute&URL=0000-0099/0002/Sections/0002.01.html
 

D-FENZ

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
2,356
Likes
5,374
edit to add:
snoop, the site doesn't take donations except once a year to fund the place for the following year. Otherwise, we don't collect any dough, and no one makes anything off this little corner of the net.
You've got a live one here that's not afraid to dispense some learned legal advice. This would be an excellent chance for you to get snoop's take on the photo copyright infringement mastiffs that have been nipping at your paws.

Put him to work.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
310
Likes
40
Hello snoop4truth.

Which part of the federal Constitution empowers the governnment to address all of society's problems?
Hello Joe King (Joking? Good one.)

YOUR COMMENT: Which part of the federal Constitution empowers the government to address all of society's problems?

MY RESPONSE: None. Different sections empower the federal government to address different problems. YOU WILL HAVE TO BE SPECIFIC. EXAMPLE: Which section of the Constitution empowers the federal government to address PUBLIC HOUSING?

Note that even if the federal government is not so constitutionally empowered THE STATES ARE AUTHORIZED TO DO ANYTHING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DO as limited only by their own state constitutions.

Would you like to know how to get the actual real law itself in connection with ANY legal question?

Snoop
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
310
Likes
40
Geez & we havent even addressed "common law", "equity" or "lex merchatoria" that resides in the unwritten law.....

F.S. 2.01 Common law and certain statutes declared in force.—The common and statute laws of England which are of a general and not a local nature, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, down to the 4th day of July, 1776, are declared to be of force in this state; provided, the said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state.
History.—s. 1, Nov. 6, 1829; RS 59; GS 59; RGS 71; CGL 87.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...tute&URL=0000-0099/0002/Sections/0002.01.html
Hello BarnacleBob,

YOUR COMMENT: Geez & we havent even addressed "common law", "equity" or "lex merchatoria" that resides in the unwritten law.....

MY RESPONSE: In the real law and in the real legal system, there is NO SUCH THING AS "UNWRITTEN LAW". The term "common law" in the provision above (and everywhere else it is used in the real law and in the real legal system) refers WRITTEN DECISIONS OF THE COURTS OF THE TYPE I HAVE POSTED ON THE WEBSITE.


Snoop
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
310
Likes
40
You've got a live one here that's not afraid to dispense some learned legal advice. This would be an excellent chance for you to get snoop's take on the photo copyright infringement mastiffs that have been nipping at your paws.

Put him to work.
Hello D-FENZ,

Please set up an account of GoFundMe.com.

That way, I can contribute anonymously.

Thanks,

Snoop
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,947
Likes
6,904
Location
right here right now
The term "common law" in the provision above (and everywhere else it is used in the real law and in the real legal system) refers WRITTEN DECISIONS OF THE COURTS OF THE TYPE I HAVE POSTED ON THE WEBSITE.
Totally wrong again. Like the liberal morons who are attempting to rewrite history to their lunatic specifictions, you totally make up these prevarications to fit your breadbasket.

Everything you write is designed for war, for division and hate in society, it's easy to see why society is going to hell through your societal attitude and lies of law...
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
310
Likes
40
Here are some simple ones for you...

1. 2nd amendment...SHALL NOT be infringed...and yet we have all these laws restricting guns, bump stocks, etc... seems pretty clear cut to me. SHALL NOT means exactly what it says...
2. Trumps travel ban. He was clearly authorized to do it. The statutory language was crystal clear. And yet we have district court judges issuing country wide bans...
3. And since we are talking about district court judges - since when do they have the authority to issue a nationwide ban? Hell - even Federal appeals courts dont have the power to make their rulings extend beyond their boundaries - and yet a district judges does?
4. Shifting funding for the border wall. Again - the statute language is crystal clear...and yet a left wing judge mucks up the system by issuing a ban.

The list is a long one where the law was CLEAR - and yet judges are disregarding it in favor of advancing their ideological agendas...hence the phrase - "interpreting the Constitution AS WRITTEN"...

You want to make it sound like the law is functioning as it should...and its just the people that are misinformed.

I beg to differ sir...

I believe that for the most part - lawyers are corrupting the legal system by finding the cracks, exploiting said cracks on behalf of clients that could care less about liberty, freedom and America.

Furthermore - I would contend that for the most part - Congress is full of lawyers. Most members of Congress are lawyers.

Wouldnt it be reasonable to assume that if the system is messed up - and the system has been run by lawyers for many, many years - that perhaps the problem stems in large part...because of the lawyers?
Hello Strawboss,

YOUR COMMENT: Here are some simple ones for you...1. 2nd amendment...SHALL NOT be infringed...and yet we have all these laws restricting guns, bump stocks, etc... seems pretty clear cut to me. SHALL NOT means exactly what it says...

MY RESPONSE: I will show you how to get the actual real law on this (and any other) legal subject. Jesus said that if you give a man a fish, you have fed him for a day. But, if you teach a man to fish, you have fed him for a lifetime. I will show you how to find the real law for yourself. That way, you will never need to depend on others for legal answers.

CLICK ON ANY CASE CONTAINING THE TERM, "BUMP STOCK" HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=40003&q="second+amendment"+"bump+stocks"+&btnG=.

YOUR COMMENT: 2. Trumps travel ban. He was clearly authorized to do it. The statutory language was crystal clear. And yet we have district court judges issuing country wide bans...

MY RESPONSE: I will show you how to get the actual real law on this (and any other) legal subject. Jesus said that if you give a man a fish, you have fed him for a day. But, if you teach a man to fish, you have fed him for a lifetime. I will show you how to find the real law for yourself. That way, you will never need to depend on others for legal answers.

CLICK ON ANY CASE CONTAINING THE TERM, "TRAVEL BAN" HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=40003&q=trump+"travel+ban"+&btnG=.

YOUR COMMENT: 3. And since we are talking about district court judges - since when do they have the authority to issue a nationwide ban? Hell - even Federal appeals courts don't have the power to make their rulings extend beyond their boundaries - and yet a district judges does?

MY RESPONSE: Your understanding is incorrect. Except as explained below, federal districts are NOT THE SAME as state borders (where the law stops at the border). Likewise, except as explained below, territories of the federal circuit courts of appeal are not like state borders either (where the law stops at the border). This is because the jurisdiction of the federal government, including the jurisdiction of all of the federal courts is NATIONWIDE AND COAST TO COAST.

Federal district courts are TRIAL courts. So, that is where every federal case must begin (the exceptions are listed in article III of the Constitution and there are exceptions for tax court, etc.). The ruling of every federal district court is binding law nationwide and coast to coast UNLESS AND UNTIL the applicable federal circuit court of appeals reverses that decision or UNLESS AND UNTIL another federal district court makes a contrary ruling. Then, and only then, are the borders of federal districts recognized. Likewise, a decision of the federal courts of appeal is binding law nationwide and coast to coast UNLESS AND UNTIL another federal circuit court of appeal makes a contrary ruling. Then, and only then, are the borders of the territories of the federal circuit courts of appeal recognized. In such a case, every federal district and every circuit court of appeal territory is free to make its own decision or adopt a decision of a sister court.

Every federal district court is governed by and must follow the binding precedent of the federal circuit court of appeals in whose territory it sits. Likewise, every federal circuit court of appeals (and every federal district court in every such federal circuit) is governed by and must follow the binding precedent of the Supreme Court of the United States. Generally, the job of every federal circuit court of appeals is to resolve conflicting decisions of all of the federal district courts in its territory. Likewise, generally, the job of the Supreme Court is to resolve conflicting decisions of all of the federal circuit courts of appeal within the entire United States.

YOUR COMMENT: 4. Shifting funding for the border wall. Again - the statute language is crystal clear...and yet a left wing judge mucks up the system by issuing a ban.

MY RESPONSE: That is simply not true. Judges explain their legal analysis and their legal reasoning IN WRITING in their rulings. These judges cite the legal authority upon which they rely in reaching their conclusions. If you would actual read the law, you would already know this.

CLICK ON ANY CASE CONTAINING THE TERMS "BORDER WALL" HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=40003&q=trump+"border+wall"+&btnG=

YOUR COMMENT: The list is a long one where the law was CLEAR - and yet judges are disregarding it in favor of advancing their ideological agendas...hence the phrase - "interpreting the Constitution AS WRITTEN"...

MY RESPONSE: This is simply not true. Judges do not disregard the law or the Constitution to advance their ideological agendas. Judges only advance their ideological agendas when it does not conflict with the existing law.

YOUR COMMNET: You want to make it sound like the law is functioning as it should...and its just the people that are misinformed. I beg to differ sir...

MY RESPONSE: You reach this mistaken conclusion because you are an outsider to the legal system and because you do not know what is actually going on inside the legal system. Instead, you get all of your information about the legal system from haters and charlatans, all of whom are amateurs with no formal education.

YOUR COMMENT I believe that for the most part - lawyers are corrupting the legal system by finding the cracks, exploiting said cracks on behalf of clients that could care less about liberty, freedom and America.

MY RESPONSE: You are completely delusional. Are you feeling OK? Get a grip! Thirty three (33) of the fifty five (55) Founding Fathers of our republic WHO ACTUALLY WROTE THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION WERE LAWYERS! They were patriots!

YOUR COMMENT: Furthermore - I would contend that for the most part - Congress is full of lawyers. Most members of Congress are lawyers.

MY RESPONSE: Nuclear scientists and nuclear physicists write the protocol for the handling and disposing of nuclear waste. Lawyers do not. Brain surgeons write the proper procedure for brain surgery. Lawyers do not. Aeronautical engineers write the launch protocol for rockets going to outer space. Lawyers do not. Architects, structural engineers, civil engineers, electrical engineers and forensic fire investigators write the building code. Lawyers do not. It makes sense that those who the most about a subject should write the regulations of that subject. The law is no different. Lawyers co-wrote the Constitution and lawyers currently co-write legislation. BESIDES, WE THE PEOPLE ARE ELECTING THEM TO OFFICE.

YOUR COMMENT: Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that if the system is messed up - and the system has been run by lawyers for many, many years - that perhaps the problem stems in large part...because of the lawyers?

MY RESPONSE: You reach this mistaken conclusion because you are an outsider to the legal system and because you do not know what is actually going on inside the legal system. Instead, you get all of your information about the legal system from haters and charlatans, all of whom are amateurs with no formal education.

The judicial system is near perfect. Claims to the contrary are simply not true. The legislative and executive system could be improved by eliminating campaign contributions and gerrymandering (both of which corrupt our election process).

Best Regards,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
44,135
Likes
72,902
Location
Rocky Mountains
Snoop clearly points out what is wrong with 'the law' today.

You don't just argue your point, you bury them so one needs a team of legal beagles to research all the 'points' presented.

That's insanity...
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
310
Likes
40
Totally wrong again. Like the liberal morons who are attempting to rewrite history to their lunatic specifictions, you totally make up these prevarications to fit your breadbasket.

Everything you write is designed for war, for division and hate in society, it's easy to see why society is going to hell through your societal attitude and lies of law...
Arminius,

IN THE REAL LAW, THE TERM, "COMMON LAW" SIMPLY MEANS "WRITTEN CASE LAW" (of the type I have posted above).

HERE'S THE PROBLEM:
In amateur legal theory, the term, "common law", means something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT than what it means in the REAL law. In the REAL law, the "common law" simply means "written case law" (written court decisions written by higher judges who are ELECTED by "We the People" or higher judges APPOINTED by representatives who are ELECTED by "We the People" to make those APPOINTMENTS).

SEE PROOF HERE:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

https://legaldictionary.net/common-law/

https://www.britannica.com/topic/common-law

We currently follow the WRITTEN COMMON LAW now and we have done so for hundreds of years dating back to the middle ages.

FACT: This means that the WRITTEN CASE LAW that I have posted above IS THE "COMMON LAW" (written case law). THIS ALSO MEANS THAT THE "COMMON LAW" IS "AGAINST" AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

WHAT IS THE REAL LAW?

The REAL LAW is comprised of THREE types of REAL LAW (DEPENDING ON THE "SOURCE" OF THE LAW):

1). SOURCE: CONSTITUTION. Constitutional Law (which is written by Constitutional delegates and which is interpreted and applied by the courts);

2). SOURCE: LEGISLATURES/CONGRESS. Statutory Law (which is written by lawmakers who are ELECTED by "We the People" to write those statutes); and

3). SOURCE: JUDICIARY. COMMON LAW, also called WRITTEN CASE LAW (which is written by higher judges who are ELECTED by "We the People" to write it or who are appointed by those representatives who are ELECTED by "We the People" to make those appointments).

THE FACTS ABOUT THE LAW:

FACT: In the REAL law, the "constitutional law", "statutes" and the "common law" ("written case law") WORK TOGETHER TO FORM A SINGLE BODY CALLED "THE LAW".

FACT: REAL LAW comes from ONLY THREE (3) SOURCES: 1). CONSTITUTIONS; 2). LAWS PASSED BY ELECTED LAWMAKERS; and 3). DECISIONS OF HIGHER ELECTED JUDGES (or higher judges appointed by persons who were ELECTED to appoint them).

FACT: So, if a legal proposition was written by any person OTHER THAN a CONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATE, an ELECTED LAWMAKER or a HIGHER JUDGE, then IT IS NOT THE LAW REAL LAW. It is that simple.

FACT: In the REAL law, the "common law" ("case law") cannot be "flipped on" or "switched on" to decide cases. In the REAL law and legal system, the "common law" is never "off" to be "flipped" or "switched" back "on" to decide cases. (It is always "on" all the time.).

FACT: In the REAL law, BOTH the "common law" and "statutes" are equally valid, equally binding and both are in full force and effect at all times (neither one is ever "off" and both are always "on" all the time). This may be hard for amateur legal theorists to understand, but courts, lawyers and governments understand this simple legal principle very well. It works great if you know enough to understand it.

FACT: The ONE and ONLY SOURCE of the REAL law is THE ACTUAL WRITTEN WORDS OF THE REAL LAW ITSELF (not the words of charlatans, haters, posers, malcontents or jailhouse layers who peddle amateur legal theories online).

FACT: ALL REAL LAW IS ALWAYS IN WRITING. THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS.

FACT: ALL REAL LAW IN THE UNITED STATES IS NOW AVAILABLE ONLINE.

FACT: REAL LAW IS NOT SECRET OR MYSTERIOUS. There is no need to "GUESS" about what it is. You can simply read it yourself (as with the REAL law I have posted above).

FACT: If a legal proposition cannot be found in the ACTUAL WRITTEN WORDS OF THE REAL LAW ITSELF, THEN IT IS NOT THE LAW. It is an amateur legal theory (ex: "capital letters denote corporate status). It is that simple.

FACT: REAL law means law that ACTUALLY WORKS all the time.

FACT: REAL law means law that is ACTUALLY BINDING all the time.

FACT: REAL law means law that ACTUALLY APPEARS, IN WRITING, in the law library and online, in APPLICABLE (not inapplicable) Constitutions, Statutes and Court Decisions (not on amateur legal theory websites).

FACT: REAL LAW comes from ONLY THREE (3) SOURCES: 1). CONSTITUTIONS; 2). LAWS PASSED BY ELECTED LAWMAKERS; and 3). DECISIONS OF HIGHER ELECTED JUDGES (or higher judges appointed by persons who were ELECTED to appoint them).

FACT: So, if a legal proposition was written by any person OTHER THAN a CONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATE, an ELECTED LAWMAKER or a HIGHER JUDGE, then IT IS NOT THE LAW REAL LAW. It is that simple.

FACT: REAL law means law that is NOT IMAGINARY (in the way that all amateur legal theory is completely imaginary).

FACT: REAL law means law that is NOT FAKE (in the way that all amateur legal theory is completely FAKE).

FACT: REAL law means law of the type that is taught in REAL law schools and in REAL universities (not as taught by amateur legal theorists).

FACT: REAL law means law of the type that is USED BY THE ENTIRE WORLD except by amateur legal theorists.

FACT: Not one single amateur legal theory is included in the REAL law and legal system.

FACT: In short, REAL LAW IS THE ENTIRE BODY OF THE LAW, except for amateur legal theory.

Amateur legal theories are completely irrelevant in the REAL legal system. Only the REAL law (of the type I have posted above) is relevant in the REAL legal system.

But. amateur legal theorists do not know enough to realize this.

I hope this helps.

Snoop
 
Last edited:

Strawboss

Home Improvement Sales Trainee...
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,880
Likes
12,377
Hello Strawboss,

YOUR COMMENT: Here are some simple ones for you...1. 2nd amendment...SHALL NOT be infringed...and yet we have all these laws restricting guns, bump stocks, etc... seems pretty clear cut to me. SHALL NOT means exactly what it says...

MY RESPONSE: I will show you how to get the actual real law on this (and any other) legal subject. Jesus said that if you give a man a fish, you have fed him for a day. But, if you teach a man to fish, you have fed him for a lifetime. I will show you how to find the real law for yourself. That way, you will never need to depend on others for legal answers.

CLICK ON ANY CASE CONTAINING THE TERM, "BUMP STOCK" HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=40003&q="second+amendment"+"bump+stocks"+&btnG=.

YOUR COMMENT: 2. Trumps travel ban. He was clearly authorized to do it. The statutory language was crystal clear. And yet we have district court judges issuing country wide bans...

MY RESPONSE: I will show you how to get the actual real law on this (and any other) legal subject. Jesus said that if you give a man a fish, you have fed him for a day. But, if you teach a man to fish, you have fed him for a lifetime. I will show you how to find the real law for yourself. That way, you will never need to depend on others for legal answers.

CLICK ON ANY CASE CONTAINING THE TERM, "TRAVEL BAN" HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=40003&q=trump+"travel+ban"+&btnG=.

YOUR COMMENT: 3. And since we are talking about district court judges - since when do they have the authority to issue a nationwide ban? Hell - even Federal appeals courts don't have the power to make their rulings extend beyond their boundaries - and yet a district judges does?

MY RESPONSE: Your understanding is incorrect. Except as explained below, federal districts are NOT THE SAME as state borders (where the law stops at the border). Likewise, except as explained below, territories of the federal circuit courts of appeal are not like state borders either (where the law stops at the border). This is because the jurisdiction of the federal government, including all of the federal courts is NATIONWIDE AND COAST TO COAST.

Federal district courts are TRIAL courts. So, that is where every federal case must begin (the exceptions are listed in article III of the Constitution and there are exceptions for tax court, etc.). The ruling of every federal district court is binding law nationwide and coast to coast UNLESS AND UNTIL the applicable federal circuit court of appeals reverses that decision or UNLESS AND UNTIL another federal district court makes a contrary ruling. Then, and only then, are the borders of federal districts recognized. Likewise, a decision of the federal courts of appeal is binding law nationwide and coast to coast UNLESS AND UNTIL another federal circuit court of appeal makes a contrary ruling. Then, and only then, are the borders of the territories of the federal circuit courts of appeal recognized. In such a case, every federal district and every circuit court of appeal territory is free to make its own decision or adopt a decision of a sister court.

Every federal district court is governed by and must follow the binding precedent of the federal circuit court of appeals in whose territory it sits. Likewise, every federal circuit court of appeals (and every district court in every such circuit) is governed by and must follow the binding precedent of the Supreme Court of the United States. Generally, the job of every federal circuit court of appeals is to resolve conflicting decisions of all of the federal district courts in its territory. Likewise, generally, the job of the Supreme Court is to resolve conflicting decisions of all of the federal circuit courts of appeal within the entire United States.

YOUR COMMENT: 4. Shifting funding for the border wall. Again - the statute language is crystal clear...and yet a left wing judge mucks up the system by issuing a ban.

MY RESPONSE: That is simply not true. Judges explain their legal analysis and their legal reasoning IN WRITING in their rulings. These judges cite the legal authority upon which they rely in reaching their conclusions. If you would actual read the law, you would already know this.

CLICK ON ANY CASE CONTAINING THE TERMS "BORDER WALL" HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=40003&q=trump+"border+wall"+&btnG=

YOUR COMMENT: The list is a long one where the law was CLEAR - and yet judges are disregarding it in favor of advancing their ideological agendas...hence the phrase - "interpreting the Constitution AS WRITTEN"...

MY RESPONSE: This is simply not true. Judges do not disregard the law or the Constitution to advance their ideological agendas. Judges only advance their ideological agendas when it does not conflict with the existing law.

YOUR COMMNET: You want to make it sound like the law is functioning as it should...and its just the people that are misinformed. I beg to differ sir...

MY RESPONSE: You reach this mistaken conclusion because you are an outsider to the legal system and because you do not know what is actually going on inside the legal system. Instead, you get all of your information about the legal system from haters and charlatans, all of whom are amateurs with no formal education.

YOUR COMMENT I believe that for the most part - lawyers are corrupting the legal system by finding the cracks, exploiting said cracks on behalf of clients that could care less about liberty, freedom and America.

MY RESPONSE: You are completely delusional. Are you feeling OK? Get a grip! Thirty three (33) of the fifty five (55) Founding Fathers of our republic WHO ACTUALLY WROTE THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION WERE LAWYERS! They were patriots!

YOUR COMMENT: Furthermore - I would contend that for the most part - Congress is full of lawyers. Most members of Congress are lawyers.

MY RESPONSE: Nuclear scientists and nuclear physicists write the protocol for the handling and disposing of nuclear waste. Lawyers do not. Brain surgeons write the proper procedure for brain surgery. Lawyers do not. Aeronautical engineers write the launch protocol for rockets going to outer space. Lawyers do not. Architects, structural engineers, civil engineers, electrical engineers and forensic fire investigators write the building code. Lawyers do not. It makes sense that those who the most about a subject should write the regulations of that subject. The law is no different. Laws co-wrote the Constitution and lawyers currently co-write legislation.

YOUR COMMENT: Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that if the system is messed up - and the system has been run by lawyers for many, many years - that perhaps the problem stems in large part...because of the lawyers?

MY RESPONSE: You reach this mistaken conclusion because you are an outsider to the legal system and because you do not know what is actually going on inside the legal system. Instead, you get all of your information about the legal system from haters and charlatans, all of whom are amateurs with no formal education.

The judicial system is near perfect. Claims to the contrary are simply not true. The legislative and executive system could be improved by eliminating campaign contributions and gerrymandering (both of which corrupt our election process).

Best Regards,

Snoop
I see that rather than specifically respond to my points - you simply tell me to go figure it out myself - bringing Jesus into the discussion...You probably arent aware of this - but Jesus held a high level of disdain (read DISGUST) for the "teachers of the law" because they perverted it so much...kind of like it is nowadays...

Is calling someone "completely delusional" a legal argument? Did they teach you that in law school? Is it libelous? Could I successfully sue you for defamation because you are attacking my character? Asking for a friend...

Since you are not willing to defend specifics - such as why if the 2nd amendment clearly says "SHALL NOT" - there are still statutes that outlaw, ban, restrict the arms that We the People are allowed to possess. Seems counter-intuitive to me but hey - I am just a kindergarten graduate unlike an esteemed individual such as yourself...

How about we keep it super simple for us yokels...

Answer me this...If the judicial system is "nearly perfect" as you attest - can you explain to me why the Supreme Court has to spend so much time overturning decisions by the Ninth Circuit? I mean really. If the system is near perfect - and all of the participants of the system are upstanding gentlemen like yourself - you would expect the Ninth Circuit to have a reversal rate that is very similar to all the other Circuits yes?

And speaking of that near perfection you refer to...the judge in the Epstein matter that went along with the plea deal that let Epstein walk...is that how the system is supposed to work?

Or how about Obamacare - where the "reasoning" for allowing it was that it was a "tax" - and yet when the "tax" part was removed...we still have Obamacare...you would think that ANY District Judge would have thrown Obamacare out because Justice Roberts' reasoning was crystal clear. Take away the tax and Obamacare is unconstitutional. And yet - it remains...

What about Jussie Smollett? Legal system working just fine you say?

Federal prosecutors with 99% conviction rates. Is that how the system is supposed to work?

I could go on all day...

You smug, pompous, arrogant slug of a human. How dare you come here and try to convince us that your legal system is pristine and us unwashed masses should learn to shut our mouths in the presence of royalty like yourself. You represent a system that is corrupt to its very core.

If you had a shred of honor in you - you would readily admit that the system has been bastardized, and that corrupt entities have manipulated it for their gain at our expense. But you dont. Instead you praise it. You revere it. And mock us as uneducated buffoons...

I hope you get what you deserve.
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,947
Likes
6,904
Location
right here right now
You smug, pompous, arrogant slug of a human. How dare you come here and try to convince us that your legal system is pristine and us unwashed masses should learn to shut our mouths in the presence of royalty like yourself. You represent a system that is corrupt to its very core.

If you had a shred of honor in you - you would readily admit that the system has been bastardized, and that corrupt entities have manipulated it for their gain at our expense. But you dont. Instead you praise it. You revere it. And mock us as uneducated buffoons...

I hope you get what you deserve.
Repeated for truth.

This ignoramous is so friggin stupid he hasn't a clue of what a 'fact' is...
 

Strawboss

Home Improvement Sales Trainee...
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,880
Likes
12,377
This ignoramous is so friggin stupid he hasn't a clue of what a 'fact' is...
Nah...

He knows.

This is what they do. Dance on the head of a pin...just like Slick Willy..."it depends on what your definition of 'is' is..."
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
310
Likes
40
I see that rather than specifically respond to my points - you simply tell me to go figure it out myself - bringing Jesus into the discussion...You probably arent aware of this - but Jesus held a high level of disdain (read DISGUST) for the "teachers of the law" because they perverted it so much...kind of like it is nowadays...

Is calling someone "completely delusional" a legal argument? Did they teach you that in law school? Is it libelous? Could I successfully sue you for defamation because you are attacking my character? Asking for a friend...

Since you are not willing to defend specifics - such as why if the 2nd amendment clearly says "SHALL NOT" - there are still statutes that outlaw, ban, restrict the arms that We the People are allowed to possess. Seems counter-intuitive to me but hey - I am just a kindergarten graduate unlike an esteemed individual such as yourself...

How about we keep it super simple for us yokels...

Answer me this...If the judicial system is "nearly perfect" as you attest - can you explain to me why the Supreme Court has to spend so much time overturning decisions by the Ninth Circuit? I mean really. If the system is near perfect - and all of the participants of the system are upstanding gentlemen like yourself - you would expect the Ninth Circuit to have a reversal rate that is very similar to all the other Circuits yes?

And speaking of that near perfection you refer to...the judge in the Epstein matter that went along with the plea deal that let Epstein walk...is that how the system is supposed to work?

Or how about Obamacare - where the "reasoning" for allowing it was that it was a "tax" - and yet when the "tax" part was removed...we still have Obamacare...you would think that ANY District Judge would have thrown Obamacare out because Justice Roberts' reasoning was crystal clear. Take away the tax and Obamacare is unconstitutional. And yet - it remains...

What about Jussie Smollett? Legal system working just fine you say?

Federal prosecutors with 99% conviction rates. Is that how the system is supposed to work?

I could go on all day...

You smug, pompous, arrogant slug of a human. How dare you come here and try to convince us that your legal system is pristine and us unwashed masses should learn to shut our mouths in the presence of royalty like yourself. You represent a system that is corrupt to its very core.

If you had a shred of honor in you - you would readily admit that the system has been bastardized, and that corrupt entities have manipulated it for their gain at our expense. But you dont. Instead you praise it. You revere it. And mock us as uneducated buffoons...

I hope you get what you deserve.

Hello Strawboss,

YOUR COMMENT: I see that rather than specifically respond to my points - you simply tell me to go figure it out myself - bringing Jesus into the discussion...You probably arent aware of this - but Jesus held a high level of disdain (read DISGUST) for the "teachers of the law" because they perverted it so much...kind of like it is nowadays...

MY RESPONSE: You misunderstand. My good friend, Cigarlover, has had me doing homework for two days straight. I am simply not up to doing more homework today. I am exhausted. I am sorry. I was hoping that instead, today you would answer your own legal question using tools that will empower you to answer ANY legal question that you may have now or will ever have in the future. Here are the tools below.

Below are step-by-step instructions on "HOW TO FIND THE LAW FOR YOURSELF" on ANY subject in ANY jurisdiction absolutely FREE OF CHARGE.

Step By Step:

1. CLICK on this LINK. https://scholar.google.com/.

2. Then, CLICK on "CASE LAW".

3. A LIST WILL COME UP of ALL state and federal JURISDICTIONS in the United States .

4. Then, CLICK ON ANY relevant STATE or FEDERAL JURISDICTION in which you want the law (OR PICK ALL JURISDICTIONS for an overview of ALL of the law across the country on the same legal subject). Note: STATE law ONLY applies in the same STATE where the case was decided.

5. Then, CLICK on "DONE".

6. Then, the SEARCH BAR WILL COME UP.

7. Then, KEY IN ANY LEGAL SUBJECT into the search bar, BOTH WITH AND WITHOUT QUOTATION MARKS. MAKE UP YOUR OWN. (ex: "sovereign citizen", "individual sovereignty", legal effect of not being a "party or signatory to any law", whether a person is "exempt from all laws except those to which he voluntarily assents", "consent to jurisdiction" in a criminal or traffic case, "refusal to consent to jurisdiction" in a criminal or traffic case, "without a victim, there can be no crime", "the requirement of a victim" in a criminal or traffic case, "a victim is required" in a criminal or traffic case, "there was no victim" in criminal or traffic case, "right to travel", "I was not driving a motor vehicle. I was travelling in my privately owned conveyance", "no driver's license is required", "a driver's license is not required", "the traffic stop was unconstitutional", "the arrest was unconstitutional", "the requirement of a driver's license is unconstitutional", "the requirement of auto insurance is unconstitutional", "the requirement of a license plate is unconstitutional", "a driver's license is a contract", "refusal to sign the ticket", "corporate courts", "admiralty courts", whether "the law only applies to governments and artificial persons, not to natural persons", "artificial person", "capital letters", "flesh and blood person", "birth certificate bond", "straw man", "redemption", "accepted for value", "de facto government", "the judge has a personal interest in the case", "right to be represented by a non-lawyer", "represented by an attorney in fact", "represented by a power of attorney", whether "gold and silver are the only lawful money", "federal income tax law does not apply outside Washington, D.C. and other federal territories", whether "federal law applies outside Washington, D.C. and other federal territories", whether there are "two different constitutions", "the Act of 1871", whether "the IRS is a Puerto Rican corporation", "positive law", "the bar association is a monopoly", "The ABA is a monopoly", "judicial immunity", "prosecutorial immunity", "absolute [government] official immunity", "filed a lien against a judge", "11th amendment immunity", whether a government officer/official can be "personally liable for official actions taken under color of law", whether "gold fringe" on the American flag in court converts and transforms the court into an "admiralty or military court", whether a county is a "commercial entity engaged in commerce", etc.).

8. You may also key in ANY STATUTE NUMBER in the relevant jurisdiction (ex: "21052 California Vehicle Code" which, according to amateur legal theory, allegedly limits the application of the entire motor vehicle code to the motorists and vehicles described in that single section of the code OR "28 U.S.C. § 3002 (15) (a)" which allegedly proves that the federal government is a private, for-profit corporation, etc.).

9. You can also key in ANY state or FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL SECTION (ex: "Article I, section 8, clause 3" which, according to amateur legal theory, allegedly authorizes the federal government, as distinguished from state governments, to require driver's licenses ONLY in connection with "interstate commerce").

8. Simply read the cases that come up.

If you'd like to discuss any case that comes up, let me know. I am happy to discuss it.

It is that easy. This simple approach will make you a LEGAL EXPERT. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to ask. I am always happy to help.

All The Best,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
14,772
Likes
26,657
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
Hello BarnacleBob,

YOUR COMMENT: Geez & we havent even addressed "common law", "equity" or "lex merchatoria" that resides in the unwritten law.....

MY RESPONSE: In the real law and in the real legal system, there is NO SUCH THING AS "UNWRITTEN LAW". The term "common law" in the provision above (and everywhere else it is used in the real law and in the real legal system) refers WRITTEN DECISIONS OF THE COURTS OF THE TYPE I HAVE POSTED ON THE WEBSITE.


Snoop
"The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution ***** to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction" -- Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, U.S. Constitution

Unwritten Law and Legal Definition

Unwritten law refers to the law based upon custom, usage, and judicial decisions. It is distinguished from the enactments of a legislature, orders or decrees in writing. Although an unwritten law is not enacted in the form of statute or ordinance, it has got legal sanction. An unwritten law need not be expressly evidenced in court decisions, but may be collected, gathered or implied there from under statute.

In In re Estate of Spoya, 129 Mont. 83 (Mont. 1955), the court held that unwritten law is the law not promulgated and recorded, but which is, nevertheless, observed and administered in the courts of the country. It has no certain repository, but is collected from the reports of the decisions of the courts and treatises of learned men.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/u/unwritten-law/

Equity is a branch of unwritten law, which was founded in justice and fair dealing, and seeks to supply a fairer and more adequate remedy than a remedy at law; can order specific performance, an injunction or rescission.

https://quizlet.com/149851398/business-law-chapter-1-flash-cards/o

Examples: Written & Unwritten Constitutional Law

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. -- Ninth Amendment U.S. Constitution

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -- Tenth Amendment U.S. Constitution
 

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
6,672
Likes
12,584
You misunderstand. My good friend, Cigarlover, has had me doing homework for two days straight.
Don't you think for a minute that I am finished with you either. :dduck:
Your actually making me work a bit as well. I realize I have made some misquotes and mistakes in previous posts.. Not used to being up against a decent adversary.
However, as I have already conceded, there is no way to get a fair trial in Tax court. For that matter in the lower courts as well for the most part. Going forward I will merely point out that in many cases you are using lower court and tax court decisions that are in conflict with the Supreme court decisions. We both can agree that the SC is case law and as such the law of the land.

The problem with many of these cases is one of mere word smithing. Legal definitions as written for a specific part of the IRS tax code which have a different meaning in other parts of the code.
Yes it is complex and intentionally so. I will admit i am a common man. If I am to be held to the letter of the law that law should be clearly legible for all common men to read and understand. It isn't.

Even putting the law aside and just looking at the tax returns. Surely you remember all the years different tax cases were presented to different tax accountants to fill out a return.. None of them ever came up with the same answer. LOL.
Anyway, I will be back on this before the end of the weekend hopefully.. Have a new addition to the family on the way so that could happen anyway.. (New Nephew).
Take the weekend off. :)
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,933
Likes
7,011
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
I hope you get what you deserve.
I think what he deserves has already arrived.

So let me guess, this thread is about how person uses law and uses it with a political bent? correct? Even I got that out of the first vid and it is a true depiction of how things work in legal land.

Take the railroads and all the senators and representatives who collected railroad stock for passing legislation favorable for the railroads; true story.
So this goes on at the national level and is a making a law with a political bent; nothing pristine there at all. So Joe Blow has to work within said passed laws and that is considered equitable towards Joe Blow. Now you take a prosecutor who is bent to help a railroad and he will twist the law so that his presentation is better than Joe Blows and the railroad wins and Joey is out on his keester with big lawyer bills; so Joey is ruined.

NOW, since Snoopie brought driving into this thread and has failed to respond to my posits then he is in agreement with me in that utilizing the right of ways is a god given right. BUT, Snoopie dictates, through the plethora case cites, that what is happening in traffic court does not have a political bent. "actually it is kind of tuff to know what Snoopie thinks because it will not respond." Traffic court and being arrested for a traffic offence/violation is political by the very nature of the arrest. The cop has no warrant, you haven't disturbed the peace and you are not committing a felony, so the question is why the arrest?

The arrest happens because the Charter for the fifty has been subverted for capital gain. Every state does is so it must be right; right? This is called the rule of law, correct? Cops, Judges get to feed their faces by taxing the unknowing and just like Joe Blow was unknowing and lost to a railroad the common man loses to a corrupt legal system and that my friends is political at its very nature.

I have never heard of a politician leaving office with less than they started with.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,933
Likes
7,011
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
In In re Estate of Spoya, 129 Mont. 83 (Mont. 1955), the court held that unwritten law is the law not promulgated and recorded, but which is, nevertheless, observed and administered in the courts of the country. It has no certain repository, but is collected from the reports of the decisions of the courts and treatises of learned men.
Common law?
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
14,772
Likes
26,657
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
Indeed, "common law" is usually unwritten law...

Poor ole Snoop doesnt know difference between supposed real law, fake law, commercial law, equity law, common law or constitutional law.... any educated lawyer would understand these differences.... since he says only written statute laws are real law, I think he's nothing more than a troll misrepresenting himself as a lawyer and/or attourney..... maybe works as a mail clerk or secretary in a law office, etc...
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,933
Likes
7,011
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Indeed, "common law" is usually unwritten law...

Poor ole Snoop doesnt know difference between suposed real law, fake law, commercial law, equity law, or common law.... any educated lawyer would understand these differences.... since he says only written statute laws are real law, I think he's nothing more than a troll misrepresenting himself as a lawyer and/or attourney..... maybe works as a mail clerk or secretary in a law office, etc...
OR, could be Snoop is finally getting an education but is still in resist mode.
Hey took me eight years to come to terms as to what person really ment.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,933
Likes
7,011
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
interesting: .....an explanation for attitude change. yeah once ppl know they have been duped they generally go on a different tack. this message is not bound by add-merail-it-tee laws....