need good advice from a professional accredited attorney

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

Perhaps the refusal for cause was based upon the potential fact that there was no "good advice" to be offered by this alleged "accredited attorney" who calls himself Lawdog or sometimes "Scott"(?).

Jerry Carlos

Look, son....

Would you expect a doctor who's an orthopedic surgeon to treat you for a psychiatric problem? Or ask a psychiatrist to deliver your wife's baby? He can do it, a psychiatrist is a medical doctor, you know.

But in the real world, the orthopedist is going to refer you to a psychiatrist, and the psychiatrist is going to refer you to an ob-gyn. It's called "accepting the limits of your expertise." Or, as Clint Eastwood once put it, "A man's got to know his limitations."

Since I hate tax law and refuse to practice it, I obviously don't bother learning more about it. I do not and would not offer tax law advice to ANYONE, not even close family. I'd give them the same advice I just gave here...sorry, that's outside my field of expertise. Let me refer you to a lawyer who DOES specialize in tax law.

So the answer I gave, if anything, reinforced my bona fides to those with IQs above room temperature...which may or may not include you. The jury is still out on that one.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

I don't represent clients that I know are lying to me.

You have license to "represent" "clients?"

Will you prove it to be other than of the same cracker-jack box brand of the Lawdog's?

Or does one just "take your word for it?"

I don't believe reputed "shape shifting" "reptillian" (LOL) "lawyers/attorneys" that cannot prove they are not lying to me.



You say you are a "lawyer?"

NAME?

(Name?)

BAR CARD NUMBER?

Scan of your License to Practice (at) Law? (LOL)

Name and contact information of satisfied "clients," and unredacted evidence of your successes in "court" using your "legal" "theories?"

How about it?

Are you here giving "legal" "advice?"

[mertensv16]

Farmer, you've posted nothing but gibberish. Paraphrasing Macbeth, your incoherent ramblings are full of sound and fury, but they signify nothing.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

So the answer I gave, if anything, reinforced my bona fides

Translation: I can't prove up! I won't prove up!! You can't make me prove up!!! Waah! Waah! Mommy, make him leave me alone!! Waah!! Waahh!! I am too!! Am too!!! Am too!

How can you "reinforce" something you have never proven to exist, as repeatedly, you have been given opportunity?

"Look ma, no (tangible) 'bona fides'."

What "bona fides" Pinochio?

Where are they, in your "answer?"

Look son, you make a claim you prove your claim.

I thought you said you "practiced" ("at?") "law?"

Maybe you better "practice" harder?

And walk the walk you talk?

Originally Posted by Lawdog
Unlike some people here, I don't expect people to just take me at my word.

You too "mert," how about it, my boys?

[mrg]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

Farmer, you've posted nothing but gibberish. Paraphrasing Macbeth, your incoherent ramblings are full of sound and fury, but they signify nothing.

mert, you've posted nothing but ill conceived BAR trade guild propaganda, and spurious apologistic pseudo-legalistic gibberish, and claimed to be something you decline to prove you are.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Look, son....

Would you expect a doctor who's an orthopedic surgeon to treat you for a psychiatric problem? Or ask a psychiatrist to deliver your wife's baby? He can do it, a psychiatrist is a medical doctor, you know.

But in the real world, the orthopedist is going to refer you to a psychiatrist, and the psychiatrist is going to refer you to an ob-gyn. It's called "accepting the limits of your expertise." Or, as Clint Eastwood once put it, "A man's got to know his limitations."

Since I hate tax law and refuse to practice it, I obviously don't bother learning more about it. I do not and would not offer tax law advice to ANYONE, not even close family. I'd give them the same advice I just gave here...sorry, that's outside my field of expertise. Let me refer you to a lawyer who DOES specialize in tax law.

So the answer I gave, if anything, reinforced my bona fides to those with IQs above room temperature...which may or may not include you. The jury is still out on that one.

Even in my old frail body, I would love to meet you in person, and have the opportunity to allow you to express yourself in those same terms face to face. At that point in time, then you would find out what Cancer doctors do, and then perhaps you would shut your infantile mouth regarding your insensitive remarks about doctors. Perhaps you did not read the post in regards to my wife having passed on due to cancer and the Privileged Elitist Doctors who graduated from Med School, admitting that they do NOT know what causes cancer. The same can be said about the attorneys. At least one of them on this forum has already admitted that he does not know all there is regarding law, AND bravo, you have just admitted the same. However, you never have been able to give to the reading audience, a clear and distinct definition of what 'the law' or 'just plain law' is. Can you do it?

My addy is 243 Michael Scott Drive Tallahassee Florida.. come on down and lets talk.

Jerry Carlos

[mrg]

Translation:

KAPUST, SUSSMAN, and "SCOTT" contemplate a "legal" "determination"

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

Even in my old frail body, I would love to meet you in person, and have the opportunity to allow you to express yourself in those same terms face to face. At that point in time, then you would find out what Cancer doctors do, and then perhaps you would shut your infantile mouth regarding your insensitive remarks about doctors. Perhaps you did not read the post in regards to my wife having passed on due to cancer and the Privileged Elitist Doctors who graduated from Med School, admitting that they do NOT know what causes cancer. The same can be said about the attorneys. At least one of them on this forum has already admitted that he does not know all there is regarding law, AND bravo, you have just admitted the same. However, you never have been able to give to the reading audience, a clear and distinct definition of what 'the law' or 'just plain law' is. Can you do it?

My addy is 243 Michael Scott Drive Tallahassee Florida.. come on down and lets talk.

Jerry Carlos

That doctors admitted to you that they do not know for sure what causes cancer ought to tell you that they are being honest, because they admit the limits of their knowledge. It's people like David Merrill who, on top of having lost every verifiable time, are so sure of themselves that ought to give you pause.

I've never been married, so I admittedly don't know exactly what it feels like to lose your spouse. But I lost my mother to complications from diabetes back in 2003. That my mother died at the relatively young age of 59 is not "proof" that her doctors were ignorant or incompetent.

It hurt like hell to lose my mother. Not only was she fairly young, but I was the one who found her body. Death isn't pleasant. I know that you are feeling depressed right now. That is totally normal.

No human being is all knowing or all powerful, be that human being a doctor, a lawyer, or a member of any other profession.

You ask what "the law" or "just plain law" is. Your question is too vague to be answered. Secular law, religious law? If you mean religious law, which religion? Jewish law? Christian? Muslim?

In any event, if you mean the secular law...which includes the Constitution of the United States...the law is always changing. New statutes are passed by Congress and the state legislatures. New cases are decided. The law is not fixed. It changes. Society changes, and the law reflects that change. Sometimes, the law leads that change.

Of course I don't know all the law. I'm only licensed as an attorney in Georgia. Thanks to things such as the 10th Amendment, the law can vary widely from one of the fifty states to another. Even considering the state I AM licensed in, the laws passed by the legislature make up about 50 thick books of annotated statutes. Caselaw from the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court of this state are another huge body of law I have to consider whenever I take a case. And if the U.S. Constitution or U.S. Code contradict the laws of my state, I have a Supremacy Clause issue to consider.

The law is rarely cut and dried. If it were, every Supreme Court case would be 9 justices on the official opinion of the court, none contra. Many Supreme Court cases now are 5-4 votes. If some of the best legal minds in America can be so sharply divided, your expectation that I (or anyone else) can give you "the law" or "just plain law" in a few paragraphs on an internet bulletin board is shockingly naive.

Words to ponder....

[Notorial dissent]

While not saying this is the case, I would refer you to the IRS website and the section on frivolous arguments. the scenarios posited all fall within those definitions, and that is how they will be treated. In the first place, people aren't in the habit of generating false W-2's and it will be considered as valid, particularly against any of the arguments presented.

[indago]

mertensv16 wrote:

The first sounds like the standard tax denier argument that since the value of his labor equaled the value of the money he received, he had no income. I'd explain that this argument is not and never has been the law; has been rejected by every court; and that if he were to raise it, he'd likely be sanctioned.

I am reminded of a discussion that I had with a young dairy farmer a few years back. There were several persons present in the room at the time. The discussion turned to a form that he filed with the government at the end of the year. I asked him if he declared, on the form, that he purchased seed and fertilizer for his fields. He said that he did. I asked him if he had purchased any new equipment; he noted that he had purchased a new diesel tractor, and that he was depreciating it over a period of time, and that he declared this depreciation on the form. I asked him if he filed on the form his costs for his milking equipment, and other farm implements. He said yes. I asked him about other expenses concerning his farm, and he declared that he had listed them all on the form that he had sent to the federal government. I asked him if he declared on the form the money that he received in the marketplace for the farm products that he sold. He said that he did. Then, I asked him if he worked on the farm. He said yes. I asked him if his wife worked on the farm. He said yes to this. I asked him if he had any children. He said that he did have, and that they all had their chores to do on the farm. I asked him if he declared on the form the value of all of their labor. He thought for a moment, and then declared that he did not; that there was no place on the form for this. I asked him if he signed the form, declaring that the information that was contained therein was accurate, under the penalties of perjury. He thought about that, and said yes. I then said to him, "Let me get this clear in my mind. You file a form with the government in which you declare that you purchased seed for planting; fertilizer for the fields; a new tractor for plowing and other work on the farm; milking equipment, and other farm implements; fuel for the tractor; and that you sold the farm products in the marketplace; realized a profit; and that you operated this farm without any labor; and you swore to this under the penalties of perjury." He looked at me for a long, hard moment, thinking about what I had just said, and declared, "Yes, I guess that's what I did." The silence was deafening in the room.