old news.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

On the other hand, if I say I'm not a lawyer then I obviously have no qualifications to discuss the cases I cite, which means that anything I say can be automatically dismissed. Of course, being unqualified hasn't stopped the uneducated and uninformed tax deniers from pontificating about the law as if they had the faintest clue about it.

Since most of you seem to be anarchists at heart and don't accept the concept of authority to begin with, what does it matter what my qualifications are? Either way, you'll find something to complain about, won't you?

Being a "lawyer" imparts no qualifications to you whatsoever.

What you say will be considered for its truth and merits, and if found wanting, will be rejected.

Otherwise, if what you say has value, it will be accepted as such.

[BOBT12]

error, deleted.

[BOBT12]

error, deleted.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by psholtz

Being a "lawyer" imparts no qualifications to you whatsoever.

What you say will be considered for its truth and merits, and if found wanting, will be rejected.

Otherwise, if what you say has value, it will be accepted as such.

It is hard to state the issue in more basic terms then this. I am looking to the justness in the rules (statues, act, etc.), for it is the people's responsibility to oversee the government in the final analysis.

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.... Were I called upon to decide, whether the people had best be omitted in the legislative or judiciary department, I would say it is better to leave them out of the legislative. The execution of the law is more important than the making of them.”--Thomas Jefferson

Originally Posted by mertensv16

Since most of you seem to be anarchists at heart and don't accept the concept of authority to begin with, what does it matter what my qualifications are? Either way, you'll find something to complain about, won't you?

”Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” –William Pitt

Regardless of what some rules may say, the people must judge the rule and the facts to see that justice is done.

”Woe to those who decree unjust statutes and to those who continually record unjust decisions, to deprive the needy of justice, and to rob the poor of My people of their rights…” –Isaiah 10:1,2

Why should we exclude our conscience from the application of the law? Hitler had a highly ordered society, yet, why should we want to follow this example? I see many of this mindless desire to obey unjust rules (sometime called laws)today, I think many of us here have, and we reject the mere promulgation of a unjust rule as basis of law.

Every mind is self owned, and , therefore, that first property; everything else in nature is unowned. Every action caused by a mind - the movement of an arm, the speaking of a word - is owned by that mind. Every liability and every benefit generated by an action accrues to the mind that gave rise to the action. This is the origin of all property, and all liability. -Locke

I am against losing unalienable rights. I am against direct taxes on the individual, regardless of what rights the courts may conspire to usurp. For instance, I am not opposed to killing in self-defense. Yet, I am opposed to murder. Are these questions only the government can answer?

”Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master” –George Washington

Shouldn’t the people look at these questions for themselves? Why should we want (fully informed) juries, when only the government and attorneys know all the answers?

”The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.” –Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice, U. S. supreme Court, 1941

I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. What I can do, I should do and, with the help of God, I will do! –Everett Hale.

”Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” –Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p.491

The End of Law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge Freedom. –Locke

Or it will be doomed to producing tyranny.

Let us look the Declaration of Independence for a guide, "We hold these truths to be self-evident".

The Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. -Hamilton, Federalist No. 78

In any event, my conscience, my law, must always be my final guide. I hope that this conscience is what we the people are guided by.

The safety of the people is the supreme law.... The safety of the people cannot be judged but by the safety of every individual.... Unjust is State power where the law is either uncertain or unknown. -- Maxims of Common Law

You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe. -John Adams

Emphasis added.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by BOBT12

It is hard to state the issue in more basic terms then this. I am looking to the justness in the rules (statues, act, etc.), for it is the people's responsibility to oversee the government in the final analysis.

Regardless of what some rules may say, the people must judge the rule and the facts to see that justice is done.

Why should we exclude our conscience from the application of the law? Hitler had a highly ordered society, yet, why should we want to follow this example? I see many of this mindless desire to obey unjust rules (sometime called laws)today, I think many of us here have, and we reject the mere promulgation of a unjust rule as basis of law.

I am against losing unalienable rights. I am against direct taxes on the individual, regardless of what rights the courts may conspire to usurp. For instance, I am not opposed to killing in self-defense. Yet, I am opposed to murder. Are these questions only the government can answer? Shouldn’t the people look at these questions for themselves? Why should we want (fully informed) juries, when only the government and attorneys know all the answers?

Or it will be doomed to producing tyranny.

In any event, my conscience, my law, must always be my final guide. I hope that this conscience is what we the people are guided by.

Emphasis added.

Monitoring the activities of government is the first watch of every American that is interested in maintaining any degree of freedom. To that end, I am including another document that clearly shows how one such government official makes the bold profession that she holds the 'sole' ownership "interests in the above fictitious name.."
Bear in mind, the implications of 'claiming' ownership of the name of a government agency.

Jerry Carlos

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

This is one of those "Heads you lose, tails you lose" questions. If I say I'm an attorney who's been practicing tax law for many years, it automatically follows that I'm a jack-booted lackey of the IRS who is only parroting the Official Government Line because to do otherwise would jeopardize my career. I'm furthermore part of the Great Tax Conspiracy, encompassing every attorney, CPA, law professor, judge, and Congressman in the country, which meets on alternate Tuesdays at a Subway sandwich shop in the basement of the IRS headquarters in Washington (it gets really crowded) to find new ways to hide the real law from the public.

Oh yeah, it'd also mean I'm a member of the B.A.R. and have an autographed picture of the Queen to which I pay homage thrice daily while kneeling on a copy of the London Times and reciting the Magna Charta backwards. (Seriously, people, this business about the B.A.R. is the most asinine, looney-tune, brain-dead piece of paranoid crackpottery that I've come across since I started visiting this site, even surpassing the complete lunacy of the gold-fringed flag stuff.)

On the other hand, if I say I'm not a lawyer then I obviously have no qualifications to discuss the cases I cite, which means that anything I say can be automatically dismissed. Of course, being unqualified hasn't stopped the uneducated and uninformed tax deniers from pontificating about the law as if they had the faintest clue about it.

Since most of you seem to be anarchists at heart and don't accept the concept of authority to begin with, what does it matter what my qualifications are? Either way, you'll find something to complain about, won't you?

The only reason I ask is because your analysis is terrible. I see several examples in this thread alone where you posted cites and commentary which contain obvious errors.

At no point have I, nor the majority of the people on this site promoted anarchy, which further goes to illustrate your lack of understanding. Unless by some distorted criteria you categorize anyone who is disenfranchised and disgusted with the lack of governmental accountability and choose to speak out about the injustices and corruption qualifies as being an anarchist.

Your paranoid response indicates exactly how little you know about not only me, but most of the people here. I have not promoted a single one of things you mention in your post.

Your post is a classical example of a long winded non-answer response. As it is apparent your paranoia of being chastised and ridiculed prevented you from answering a direct question.

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

The only reason I ask is because your analysis is terrible. I see several examples in this thread alone where you posted cites and commentary which contain obvious errors.

Really? Why not give one example of what you think is erroneous?

At no point have I, nor the majority of the people on this site promoted anarchy, which further goes to illustrate your lack of understanding. Unless by some distorted criteria you categorize anyone who is disenfranchised and disgusted with the lack of governmental accountability and choose to speak out about the injustices and corruption qualifies as being an anarchist.

It's one thing to speak out against injustice and governmental corruption. It's quite another to claim that government has no right or authority to tell "sovereign individuals" what to do, whether it be to carry a driver's license, drive below a certain speed, or pay income taxes. I'm not suggesting that you in particular share this view, but a lot of the posters on this site seem to.

As it is apparent your paranoia of being chastised and ridiculed prevented you from answering a direct question.

Son, the day I feel chastised or ridiculed by anything posted on this site will be the day the Cubs win six consecutive World Series. Do you honestly believe that anyone could possibly feel ridicule from the crackpot theories about lawyers that are posted on this site? Consider the source -- why should I care about what some uninformed wacko thinks?

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

Son, the day I feel chastised or ridiculed by anything posted on this site will be the day the Cubs win six consecutive World Series. Do you honestly believe that anyone could possibly feel ridicule from the crackpot theories about lawyers that are posted on this site? Consider the source -- why should I care about what some uninformed wacko thinks?

Without throwing in the kitchen sink with the title of Attorney, let us make a hypothetical presumption that you are a GREAT and FAMOUS attorney with ironclad credentials. That would be an honor to anyone professing to be an attorney.

Now, you (as this GREAT and FAMOUS attorney) makes such a declaration as you have in the emphasized text of the quotation above. As being the party to whom you have directed such a statement I would simply have to say "Thank You for the compliment"; the compliment being that 'in law' you have just recognized "we the forum" as members of the Grand Jury who are deliberating on the viability of a potential 'indictment'.

"uninformed" is usually synonymous with the word "Ignoramus", which has the following definition:

"IGNORAMUS, practice. We are ignorant. This word, which in law means we are uninformed, is written on a bill by a grand jury, when they find that there is not sufficient evidence to authorize their finding it a true bill. Sometimes, instead of using this word, the grand jury endorse on the bill, "Not found." 4 Bl. Com. 305. Vide Grand Jury.

A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856."

Now, you, (as this GREAT and FAMOUS attorney), have lost all credibility due to your having stipulated "why should I care about what some uninformed wacko thinks?" That statement directed toward the members of the Grand Jury, clearly shows that you have no regard for the Law (as it may be) or for the protocol of the judicial proceedings.

Jerry Carlos

[Lawdog]

What is this fascination the wackos have with Bouvier's pre-Civil War legal dictionary? That thing is so old that many modern legal concepts that we take for granted...like the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment...aren't even in there because they did not exist yet. The world can change a lot in 150 years. Would you use an Encyclopedia Britannica set that was that old?

In modern times, grand juries return either a "true bill" for an indictment or a "no bill" for failure to indict. Because of the modern, negative meaning of the term ignoramus, I doubt anyone would want to sign a document that used that word.

Pre-civil war legal dictionaries are of historical interest, and that is about it. Time to wake up and smell the 21st century, folks.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

Really? Why not give one example of what you think is erroneous?

Sure, when you disclose what qualifications you have that make you believe you actually understand any of the cites you reference. Otherwise it's a waste of my time.

Originally Posted by A Seriously Insecure Individual

Do you honestly believe that anyone could possibly feel ridicule from the crackpot theories about lawyers that are posted on this site? Consider the source -- why should I care about what some uninformed wacko thinks?

Yep. Your post illustrates you're already on the defensive.


At least Shoonra and Lawdog have the character to acknowledge their background.

You are nothing but a coward and because of the fear of ridicule you refuse to answer the question.