Chris Hansen Under The Gun

[JWR]

Quote by B Rookard

By the way Chris, somewhere out on the internet I have posted a 5000 page document detailing a full rebuttal of your book

B Rookard, can you please show us where this "rebuttal" is?

JWR

JWR,

Go get'em. Looks like a lot of the Family Guardian friends are coming here to prosecute the kill. Thanks to both you and BobT12!

Chris :-)

[Livefire]

As a little note: You wont find Title 26 under the paralell table of authorities either!

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by Chris Hansen

JWR,

Go get'em. Looks like a lot of the Family Guardian friends are coming here to prosecute the kill. Thanks to both you and BobT12!

Chris :-)

You are welcome Chris. I am thrilled to see you in action, and I enjoyed playing a small part, in attempting to bringing out the truth. This has been a very good day in my view.

Of course, in the long run I am amazed with the information that you bring forward.

By the way, I want to thank all who played a positive role in this effort.

[JWR]

Quote by Livefire:

As a little note: You wont find Title 26 under the paralell table of authorities either!

Actually you will find Title 26 USC in the Parallel Table of Authority.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/p...lel_table.html

Scroll down and take note, most of what they use against you crosses over to Title 27CFR which is ATF.

JWR

[B Rookard]

In relation to whether the 1939 Code was repealed, BobT says ...

Originally Posted by BOBT12

I did not see that you made a point. However, I will review this. After review, Chris has sucessfully rebutted the issue many times. As is often the case Brian, you fail to deal with the rebuttal.

So, Chris basically says - repealing statute repealed 1939 Code

Brian says - not so fast, look at section 7 which specfically says that the repealing statute does not repeal congressional acts after Jan. 2, 1939 (which would include 1939 Code).

Chris, finally admits, and I quote: "Yes, you are correct about section 7"

BobT says - "After review, Chris has successfully rebutted the issue"

Huh!!!!

You don't make sense Bob ... I wonder if you honestly "reviewed" the matter. If you had, you would have noticed that Chris avoided the point made, only later to finally admit that I was right.

If I was right ... how could he have "rebutted" it?

...is called the code because it' is a code.

For anyone to sit and argue about such frivilous distraction(s) is just a plain waste of energy.

There are only two type's of [p]eople in any Court, debtors or creditors, and nothing else matters, at the present bankruptcy of the foreign corporations anyway's.

Peace!

[scottinalaska]

I don't feel I could add anything to this lively discussion, but want to thank Chris and Brian for giving so much of their time to the debate.
Chris should be consumed already in his final exam in the religious chapel of Liars(court), but he has been faithful with links and information for all of us right here on SJ. I have so much more insight in PRESUMPTIONS now that Chris has capitalized on it.
Doggone it, when I go in court and ask for facts about the complaining party or statutes or the constitution, I have heard MORE than once, "That is already established, move on!"
Jerks. What the judge truthfully should have said was, "We have OUR presumptions and thus don't have to prove any of them, na na nana na!" Now I have a bit more to go on when I feel like I don't know what to say. Thanks Chris. I hope I have read that correctly. All jump in if I am mistaken.
Brian, thanks for your steadfastness to your beliefs. You haven't proven to me that your position is correct(yes, I may be selfishly bias), but you have proven a number of other things that have certainly been ennumerated by others. Holding feet to the fire will either prove intentional distraction or better - a more complete answer.
Most excellent thread and I woke up this morning looking forward to reading it!
scottinalaska

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by scottinalaska

I don't feel I could add anything to this lively discussion, but want to thank Chris and Brian for giving so much of their time to the debate.
Chris should be consumed already in his final exam in the religious chapel of Liars(court), but he has been faithful with links and information for all of us right here on SJ. I have so much more insight in PRESUMPTIONS now that Chris has capitalized on it.
Doggone it, when I go in court and ask for facts about the complaining party or statutes or the constitution, I have heard MORE than once, "That is already established, move on!"
Jerks. What the judge truthfully should have said was, "We have OUR presumptions and thus don't have to prove any of them, na na nana na!" Now I have a bit more to go on when I feel like I don't know what to say. Thanks Chris. I hope I have read that correctly. All jump in if I am mistaken.
Brian, thanks for your steadfastness to your beliefs. You haven't proven to me that your position is correct(yes, I may be selfishly bias), [emphasis added] but you have proven a number of other things that have certainly been ennumerated by others. Holding feet to the fire will either prove intentional distraction or better - a more complete answer.
Most excellent thread and I woke up this morning looking forward to reading it!
scottinalaska

I couldn't agree more, with one small exception, I don't think that you are showing a selfish bias, the record speaks for itself.

Thanks for your input scott.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by B Rookard

In relation to whether the 1939 Code was repealed, BobT says ...


So, Chris basically says - repealing statute repealed 1939 Code

Brian says - not so fast, look at section 7 which specfically says that the repealing statute does not repeal congressional acts after Jan. 2, 1939 (which would include 1939 Code).

Chris, finally admits, and I quote: "Yes, you are correct about section 7"

BobT says - "After review, Chris has successfully rebutted the issue"

Huh!!!!

You don't make sense Bob ... I wonder if you honestly "reviewed" the matter. If you had, you would have noticed that Chris avoided the point made, only later to finally admit that I was right.

If I was right ... how could he have "rebutted" it?

To borrow a phrase from JRB, this is where my "so what" light goes on. The code does not overrule the Constitution.