View Single Post
  #106  
Old 04-06-2008, 04:54 PM
Lawdog Lawdog is offline
Mental Jujitsu
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 675
answers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigron-X
As clever as your answers were, you did not answer the questions asked but instead applied your own interpretation of them. In other words, you accepted the challenge to answer the questions, then took it upon yourself to misconstrue them. Babbling out of context does not answer questions.

I answered the questions. He did not LIKE the answers I gave. That's not the same as me not answering them.

It's a little game tax protesters and other cranks like to play. They ask questions, as if they are honestly searching for knowledge. But they have already made their minds up. When they don't like the answers, either they claim you didn't answer the questions at all, or they pose an entirely new set of questions. Well, I don't feel like playing "whack a mole" with someone who is only going to continue to say, "Well, what about x? What about y? What about z?" every time a pet theory of theirs gets torpedoed. Like I said, it's really a political beef, and not really about the legal system per se.
__________________
We reject Skurdal's argument that he is a "free man" exempt from the laws because he has "no contracts" with either the state or federal governments...No persons in Montana may exempt themselves from any law simply by declaring they do not consent to it applying to them...Accepting Skurdal's assertion of exempt status is an invitation to anarchy. We decline that invitation. - State v. Skurdal, Supreme Court of Montana, 235 Mont. 291, 767 P.2d 304 at 308 (1988).
Reply With Quote