Law Notes for Your Protection

[KarenM]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Well, Shoonra, mrg (aka mindlessly repeating gibberish) appears to be a loudmouthed drunk with a thesaurus fetish. You can't really expect too much from someone like that.

and a severe case of "parens" envy - parentheses for the linguistically-challenged

[mrg]

"Decisions?" "Rulings," perhaps? By what means? Opinion?

Yes?

"...proper way...?"

"...accepted methods...?"

"...proper way," according to whose OPINION; for, you see, the phrases "proper way," and "accepted methods," are, of a matter of course, open to speculative interpretation, are they not, and thus, would logically be, perhaps, subject to opinion (BELIEF)?

Further, and more importantly:

Will you kindly provide a quote where I have actually "said" (so YOU say), specifically, and with precise particularity, that I do not "regard court decisions as any sort of proof?"

For how, precisely, is it other than that while your "whine cellar" sewing circle's ad hominem gang-rape, though cowardly; serpentinely presuming to put precise words into my mouth is a low and pitiable sham ruse, at best?


Thank you though for testifying that I do indeed "support" my "own assertions" (just not in keeping with what is in your own beliefs as to what constitutes "accepted" methods" (e.g. ad hominem attacks alleging homosexuality and "tertiary syhphilis?")

Ma nisrat lech bamoch?

Translation: "I can't prove up. I won't prove up. You can't make me prove up!!" "Waah, Waaah!!!"

Left to right KAPUST stirring the pot, SUSSMAN holding the howling LAWDOG. KarenM and the young SUSSMAN?


Here, I will remove the offending stipulatives that neither the three of you appear able to fathom nor (obviously), accomplish:

Originally Posted by mrg

Is this:

indeed FACT, or, perhaps OPINION, or, mere CLAIM?

[For, you see, I earnestly seek a validly verified "legal" expert's evaluative analysis of integrally comprehensive knowledge applied to gldskr's own applicable evaluative analysis of integrally comprehensive knowledge ("The USC is a corporate code and only concerns corporate matters.), in order to form my own applicable evaluative analysis of integrally comprehensive knowledge, and, so, you see, according to LAWDOG himself, he IS such PERSON. I am sorry to have to give expression in those terms, that you have such difficulty with, for, you see, I must. I greatly apologize if you cannot yet comprehend.]


Does Lawdog have a verifiable record of posting "...FACT not OPINION..." as he CLAIMS or, does LAWDOG post somewhat rhetorically convoluted OPINION ("belief") as may be illustrated in LAWDOG'S own words?

If FACT:

Can you substantiate the FACT with verifiably valid proof positive?

[There are but two (2) RESPONSIVE answers.]

If not, why not?

Will you substantiate the FACT with verifiably valid proof positive?

[There are but two (2) RESPONSIVE answers.]

If not, why not?


If this is merely your CLAIM:

Can you PROVE your CLAIM

[There are but two (2) RESPONSIVE answers.]

If not, why not?

Will you PROVE your CLAIM?

[There are but two (2) RESPONSIVE answers.]

If not, why not?

Thus far, how, precisely is it not FACT that you have a, by now, substantial record of default, claiming that you WILL NOT respond?


How, precisely, would it not, rather be that you, in FACT cannot uprightly, straightforwardly, forthrightly, honestly, and impartially respond with integrity, nor can you afford to?

Originally Posted by Lawdog

...we want to keep this site a "circle jerk"

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Well, Shoonra, mrg (aka mindlessly repeating gibberish) appears to be a loudmouthed drunk with a thesaurus fetish.

You can't really expect too much from someone like that.

Originally Posted by KarenM

and a severe case of "parens" envy - parentheses for the linguistically-challenged

[KarenM]

As usual, another valuable, content-filled contribution to the forums.

Although, your family pictures are quite good. It's not everyone who goes to the trouble of having etchings done.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by KarenM

As usual, another valuable, content-filled contribution to the forums.

Although, your family pictures are quite good.

It's not everyone who goes to the trouble of having etchings done.

Is this what you mean?

Originally Posted by KarenM

The acronym is essentially equivalent to POSKNAMRG.

Have a nice day.

In fact, what does that mean?

You want to spell it out like a man, or are you a coward?

Click here: KAPUST, ANDREW

Now THIS really IS "another valuable, content-filled contribution to the forums."

Hey Andy doesn't it just warm the ****les of your red blooded true blue All-American™ HEART© to know that the people whose "protection" racket you are a strong arm enforcer for are the proud sponsors of:


Hey Andy, there's some real pictures of my family. We call the one on the right "Lucky."

"Etch" that into the hole in your soul.

Why don't you quit hanging with those creatures you are here "trolling" for and join the family, maybe you could work to keep this from happening instead of making sure it does happen; its not too late yet, or is it?

YOUR TAX FRN's AT WORK (And..its all perfectly "legal," they are dead right about that!)

Originally Posted by KarenM

Have a nice day.

"AND ALL THE SHIPS AT SEA"

[Dillon Hunt]

Originally Posted by gldskr

28 USC Sec. 1746(1) contemplates geography not jurisdiction, because if it did, it would be a non sensical impossibility. The USC is a corporate code and only concerns corporate matters.gldskr

Territory or Contract = Jurisdiction

Please define the term "State" and "the United States" ?

One can just sign " DH, w/o the U.S. " and nothing else.

Geographically speaking, Do you have any Factual Proof, that when one is standing in a State of the United States, one is standing in all these States at the same time? One could be located in three or maybe four States maximum depending on which border lines.

Geographically speaking, If one is standing in D.C. is one standing within or without the United States ?

LOL

Thanks
Dillon

[ezrhythm]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Well, Shoonra, mrg (aka mindlessly repeating gibberish) appears to be a loudmouthed drunk with a thesaurus fetish. You can't really expect too much from someone like that.

...Their tongue is as an arrow shot out; it speaketh deceit: one speaketh peaceably to his neighbor with his mouth, but in heart he lieth in wait.

And the personal attacks continue. Not to mention the thread hi-jacking.

[mrg]

Andrew?

Bernard?

[mrg]

Hey lawdog!

Where's your proof that you are what you claim to be?

How about some names and contact information of satisfied customers?

Where's those copies of published "court wins?"

Isn't that what you expect from others?

But you're "different?"

C'mon, son.

Prove up, my boy.

Hey lawdog, can you hear me?

[mrg]

Andrew........?

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by RJWILSON6200

Cohen v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821)
The Court Ruled, That “THE FEDERIALIST PAPERS” are…. [came from the primary objective of THE MAGNA CARTA …. to protect the people from summary judgements, that is, you being ripped off…no due process]….. THE EXACT RECORD of the intent of the lawmakers.
[Intent of the lawmaker IS the LAW!]

If this is supposed to be a quotation, it's a fake.
The decision in Cohens [with an s] v. Virginia did say that the Federalist (which it did not call "the Federalist Papers", although it twice mentioned the alternative title of "the Letters of Publius") expresses the intention behind the framers of the Constitution, but it doesn't claim it to be an exact record. In fact, the whole decision doesn't once use the word "exact".

As for the bracketed slogan, it's a bit misleading. The intent of the legislature - not just the one member who wrote a proposal - is very important, and the collective intent is usually expressed in such things as committee reports and (in the last half-century) explanatory statements. But even the clearly stated intent cannot prevail over a contrary clear text of the law itself.

As for the author's emphasis on the Seventh Amendment, you'll find it's applicability is limited. The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury in a civil lawsuit "at common law". The guarantee only applies to those cases "at common law". Tax cases and traffic cases are not "common law", and therefore the Seventh Amendment is unavailable for them.