RSS

Tuesday Night Radio: All Rights Flow from Title; IRS Notice of Levy; Negotiable Instruments = Pledge?

05 May

American Independence Hour hosted by Alfred Adask; 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM Central time, Tuesday nights, on AmericanVoiceRadio.com and also on the KU band, free-to-air satellite link at Galaxy 19.  There’ll be call-ins at 1-855-566-3738.

 
37 Comments

Posted by on May 5, 2015 in Uncategorized

 

37 responses to “Tuesday Night Radio: All Rights Flow from Title; IRS Notice of Levy; Negotiable Instruments = Pledge?

  1. mjday47362

    May 5, 2015 at 7:20 PM

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6331
    26 U.S. Code § 6331 – Levy and distraint

    Section (a) is always missing from the back of the Notice of Levy. This tells who is eligible to pay taxes and eligible to be Levied.

    …….Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official.

     
    • Colin

      May 6, 2015 at 5:20 PM

      I think you’re trying to imply that only federal employees are eligible to be levied. If so, that’s nonsense. You removed the first sentence of that provision, which says, “If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property….”

      Any person means any person. The language about federal employees which follows sets out a procedure by which levies can be assessed against those whose income comes straight from the government, since the government as employer can grant itself permission to assert such levies without requiring the full process otherwise required. That is, federal employees are subject to a simplified levy, but just like the statute says, everyone liable to pay any tax is liable to levies generally. The fact that the law singles out federal employees separately from the “any person” language should make it very, painfully clear that the rest of us are subject to levies as well. That is, if we don’t pay our taxes.

      Disagree? Please find a case in which a levy was rejected because the subject was not a federal employee. And please explain why the argument you’re implying above fails in the various cases cited here: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#levysalaries

       
      • Adask

        May 6, 2015 at 8:13 PM

        Yes, it’s true that “any person means any person.”

        It’s also true that “any person” who: 1) “is liable to pay” and 2) “neglects or refuses to pay” does not mean “any person”. That is a much smaller group than “any person”.

        The question remains: Who is “liable to pay?”

        If 26 USC 6331 does not at least imply that levies can be applied to only officers, employees etc of the United States, why does the law include a specific reference to the “officers, employees . . . of the United States”? If “any person” always means “any person,” wouldn’t that classification include both those who are, and those who are not, “officers, employees . . . of the United States”? If the “officers, employees . . . of the United States” are included under the “any person” classification, why does the law include the sentence that refers only to the “officer, employee of the United States” subset of the “any person” class?

         
      • Colin

        May 6, 2015 at 8:27 PM

        Because, as I explained above and the statute says, it establishes a separate procedure for gov’t employees. The government is giving itself permission to use a simplified procedure when a levy is to be laid on its own employees.

        That language does not in any way limit the levy power on non-gov’t employees. Which is why the argument you’re trying to breathe life into always fails in court, and never success.

        Alfred, it’s just plain wrong. The evidence is not ambiguous. But it doesn’t seem to matter to you, once the fantasy had caught your whimsy. What would convince you to abandon the idea? Would any amount of evidence suffice?

         
      • Adask

        May 7, 2015 at 1:21 AM

        I would be convinced if the geniuses who are bright enough to write the law were also bright enough to write the law in a way that the average person (who did not graduate from Harvard Law) could read and understand. As long as the language of the law is so convoluted that not one man in 1,000 can read and absolutely understand it, I am unlikely to be convinced.

        I might even be convinced if the public schools taught “legalese” and some fundamental principles of law to high school and college students. We live in the most litigious society in the world, and yet our high school kids aren’t taught the fundamentals of contractual relations, trust relations and constitutional law. How can it be that we don’t even teach teenagers how to deal with traffic tickets?

        We send our children out into the mayhem of the “most litigious society in the world” without knowing the least bit of “legalese” that’s required to succeed in this society. Sending our children out into that litigious society without a clue how to deal with it is not merely evidence of a racket, it’s evidence of a deep-seated wickedness that is common within the “best legal system in the world”.

        The public’s ignorance may not be an “excuse,” but it’s also not accidental. The people of your former profession and of the government want the American people to remain ignorant so we are forced to depend on the Bar’s lords, ladies and esquires and the government’s bureaucrats. The system wants us ignorant and dependent so we can be more easily controlled. OK–if lawyers like yourself insist that only they are competent to preside over a legal system that the great unwashed can’t comprehend, then lawyers like you should not be surprised if we try to educate ourselves and reach mistaken conclusions. We are the illegitimate sons and daughters of the “best legal system in the world”.

        So long as the vast majority of people can’t clearly understand the law–and that even includes you, Colin–no one can clearly say what the law means. If anyone could, we wouldn’t need appellate courts. Trial court judges could declare the relevant law, everyone would agree, and no appeals would be necessary.

        If the law was as clear as you imply, every Supreme Court decision would come back 9:0 with all nine justices agreeing on what a particular law means. Instead, we routinely see 5:4 decisions where five justices read the law one way and four read it another. Even the Supreme Court can’t usually agree on what a particular law means. And yet, Colin, you want us to believe that your understanding of the law is precisely accurate while ours is always flawed.

        However, so long as even the Supreme Court can’t agree on what the law means, no one’s opinion of the law is guaranteed to be right–certainly not mine, but also, not even yours. So long as no single individual can absolutely guarantee what the law is, or might be, there is more reason for you to abandon your idea that the law is absolutely fixed, knowable and obvious than there is for me to abandon my opinions on what the law might mean.

        The “law” can be anything any judge says it is on any given day. The “law” can be anything a particular jury believes it to be on any given day.

        While it may be true that some of my analyses of the law reach erroneous conclusions, I do know one thing that’s true: The judicial system is fundamentally an extortion racket, a criminal enterprise run by greedy, dishonorable men and women, whose primary business is not to produce justice, but to instead produce fat fees for shysters.

        Of course, if you’d like to argue that the legal system is not a racket to the readers who frequent this blog or to the American people in general, have at it and good luck with that. I doubt that even one-third of the American people even imagine that the practice of law might be honorable and anything other than a extortion racket designed to exploit and even oppress rather than a reliable source of justice. The percentage of Americans who actually trust and respect the judicial system could be as little as 10%.

        I don’t recall the numbers, but in the 1990s, if I recall correctly, something one-quarter or even one-third of law school graduates quit the judicial-system racket because they couldn’t stand the stench of rampant injustice, incompetence and fraud perpetrated by the courts and members of the Bar. It’s a shame that they quit. They were the ones who really believed in justice and some semblance of “honor” in the judicial system. They were the idealists who believed in fairness and justice. Most of those who quit the racket were the ones who really belonged in our courts. But the existing racket doesn’t want the idealists. Those idealists were no more welcome in the modern court system than we pro se’s and pro pers. The existing judicial system wants greedy plaintiffs who are willing to lie and ignorant defendants who are wealthy enough to hire a defense attorney. The poor and the idealistic are unwelcome. Those who are motivated by conscience moreso that greed are likewise shunned. The real courtroom issues are not about right and wrong, good and evil; in almost every case, they’re only about win and lose, profit and loss.

        To be a highly successful lawyer in the “best legal system in the world,” one must be intelligent, immoral, and totally ruthless. Psychopaths with a Bar card can get rich–provided they don’t get too greedy for their own good. Then, they might get disbarred.

        Which brings me back to you, Colin.

        Despite spending something like $200,000 (in today’s dollars) to acquire a sheepskin from Harvard Law, you apparently deactivated your Bar license after losing one case. Are you one of the “good ones,” one of the idealist who (after facing the inherent corruption and rampant injustice in the “real” judicial system) was so distraught and disgusted that you quit the racket?

        Or, are you one of the real meat-eaters, one of the real psychopaths who are intelligent, highly educated, aggressive and unburdened by any sense of right and wrong who got a little too big for his britches, a little too arrogant, and violated the law so obviously that he had to be disbarred–or at least threatened with disbarment?

        I’m only spitballin’ here, but could it be that you were divorced in Scotland, lost custody of your two sons to their mother, and (being a graduate of Harvard Law and therefore possessing perfect knowledge of the law) subsequently tried to move those kids from Scotland to the US where you could raise them yourself? What if you’d tried to move those kids without the consent of a Scottish court and essentially “kidnapped” them? Could an offense something that I’ve just described cause the Texas Bar to threaten you with disbarment and settle for a “voluntary” deactivation of your Bar license for some number of years?

        Insofar as you regard my notions about the law as nonsensical, you should be able to see why I might also regard your description of why your Bar license been deactivated as nonsensical. Somebody paid $200,000 (today’s dollars) to send you through Harvard Law. You litigated and lost one case and then quit the racket. Virtually nobody abandons a $200,000 license without significant cause. With my limited imagination, I can see only two possible causes: 1) you saw for yourself how corrupt the courts are, hit your own gag reflex, and had to quit in order to maintain your ideals; or 2) You crossed a line, got your butt in a bind (maybe over a custody issue, maybe something else) and were forced to agree to “voluntarily” deactivate your license.

        I find it hard to believe that you are one of the “good guys” who was so appalled by the injustice that’s institutionalized in the courts that you quit in revulsion. If that scenario were true, I can’t understand why you spend your time on this blog seemingly advocating the virtues of the modern law and modern courts. So you see what I’m saying? If you hated the system so much that you quit (and even sacrificed a $200,000 investment), why do you currently spend time on this blog defending that same system?

        More, if you think so highly of our judicial system, why don’t you reactivate your Bar license and get back into the hunt? It’s hard for me to believe that a man with your intelligence, education and aggressive nature couldn’t make far more money as a practicing attorney than he could as someone who teaches “negotiation”. It’s hard for me to believe that a man of your caliber who spends considerable time on this blog defending the system, isn’t passionate about the system and doesn’t long to litigate.

        Which leaves me with option #2: You may have “voluntarily” deactivated your Bar license in order to avoid being disbarred.

        Whatever the explanation for your peculiar behavior, we’re at least seeing circumstantial evidence that your grasp of the law is not as profound as you’d have us believe. You’ve lost the one lawsuit where your appeared as a lawyer in court. And somehow, someway, you probably did something to illegal or unethical that you may have been threatened with disbarment. That’s not evidence of a man whose knowledge of the law can be relied upon.

        One more point: I’ve been trying to make sense of the law for 32 years. In that time, I’ve only learned a very few things that I regard as true to a high degree of probability. One of the few observations I’ve made over those years is that anyone who talks about the law in terms of absolutes is heading for a fall. I’ve watched hustler after hustler in the “patriot” community advocate legal strategies that they claimed were “absolutely certain” to work. Some of those strategies work some of the time; not one of them work all the time–including my own. That’s why, for 25 years, I’ve made it my business to present my ideas as something to be explored and considered but almost never something to be absolutely relied on. It’s also one of the reasons that I don’t generally try to “sell” my ideas. I know they’re imperfect.

        In my experience, those who speak with the greatest certainty and confidence are fundamentally con-artists. They claim to have the absolute truth, but all they have is a sales pitch and knowledge that very few people really seek the truth for themselves. Almost all of us prefer to follow a leader who will do our thinking for us and tell us “absolutely” and “confidently” what the truth might be. That’s much easier than trying to do our own thinking.

        So, if anyone speaks with absolute confidence, I tend to view them as con-artists trying to make a sale. More, I view them as inevitably heading for a fall.

        If I say so myself, I think one of my greatest strengths is that I don’t need absolute certainty. I can embrace and even celebrate the uncertainty.

        You, on the other hand, seem determined to always speak with absolute confidence. Which makes me wonder what you’re trying to “sell”. I wonder if the answer might be that you’d like to “sell” the idea to readers of this blog that the ideas expressed on this blog are fundamentally stupid, as is any hope that non-attorneys can hope to become even marginally competent in dealing with the law.

        If it were true that you’re trying to “sell” those kinds of ideas, my next question is how do you get paid if you make any “sales”. I’m not sending you any currency. So far as I know, none of the readers of this blog are sending your any currency. I’m not aware that you’ve sold any books through this blog.

        But you spend a lot of time on this blog. According to WordPress metrics, out of the last 1,000 comments on this blog, you are the second most prolific “commentator”. Only “pesky nat” has written more comments than you. I’m #3. In the last 1,000 comments, you’ve posted twice as many as I have.

        And–your comments aren’t brief “Tweets”. They are often fairly lengthy and more like well-written essays than short, shoot-from-the-hip comments that are more typical from other readers. I have some appreciation for how long it takes to write a “well-written essay”. I have some appreciation for the amount of time that must be spend reading articles on this blog or listening to my radio shows before you can write most of your comments.

        You are devoting a considerable amount of time to this blog. Unlike some others who “hang out” on this blog because they are unemployed, you have a paying job. More, your job even involves international travel. I.e., if I understand correctly, you returned from a business-trip Romania last month. Unless you are fluent in what language Romanian’s speak, I don’t understand why it might be necessary to travel to Romania to teach “negotiation” skills. Couldn’t you have sent a book, video or power-point presentation? Couldn’t have have conducted your classes by means of Webinar? In fact, your trip to Romania to teach negotiation reminds of James Bond’s habitual cover as a representative of “Universal Export”.

        In any case, if you have a job that involves international travel, I have to assume that you’re a fairly well-paid and fairly busy. Where to you find time and energy to make as many comments on this blog as you do?

        It’s almost as if you’re being paid by someone (SPLC?) spend time on this blog as a troll bent on diminishing reader confidence in my ideas and their own.

        I’ve visited other blogs and websites with which you’re associated. I’ve been surprised to see that your comments there are very few and, so far as I’ve seen, Tweet-brief. You have friends on those blogs, and yet your comments are brief and hard to find. On my blog, you are the second most frequent commentator and, in terms of actual quantities/lengths of comments, perhaps #1. It may be that you’re just obsessive and completely unpaid, but I think you can see why I might wonder about your real motivations for being here.

        In the end, you doubt my ideas; I doubt your motives. Perhaps that’s fair.

         
      • Ted D. Roofer

        May 7, 2015 at 2:53 AM

        Colin, what are your thoughts about the following?
        President Andrew Johnson, said,”All this legislative machinery of martial law,military coercion,and political disfranchisement is avowedly for that purpose and none other”.

        Consider this too, “Although temporary in theory,a state of martial law may in fact continue indefinitely”.The New Encyclopedia Britannica,Volume 7 Micropedia, Fifteenth Edition 1989.

        Consider this too. “Martial law may be established permanently upon the people by a body of men protected by the military power of the Government”.Senator Hendricks, Indiana,Thirty-Ninth Congress.

        Consider this too. “Martial law interferes with “States Rights”. Under its provisions, Congress would enter the domain of a State and interfere with its internal police,Statutes,and domestic regulations”. Mr. Rogers, New Jersey, Thirty-Ninth Congress.

        Consider this also. “The United States Supreme Court, as at present constituted, has departed from the Constitution as it has been interpreted from its inception and has followed the urgings of social reformers in foisting upon this Nation laws which even Congress could not constitutionally pass. It has amended the Constitution in a manner unknown to the document itself. While it takes three fourths of the states of the Union to change the Constitution legally, yet as few as five men who have never been elected to office can by judicial fiat accomplish a change just as radical as could three fourths of the states of this Nation. As a result of the recent holdings of that Court, the sovereignty of the states is practically abolished, and the erstwhile free and independent states are now in effect and purpose merely closely supervised units in the federal system”. Dyett v. Turner. Utah Supreme Court, Year of, 1968

        NOW consider that the petition for writ of Habeas Corpus, today & for many years, at least for the most part, it is DENIED
        It is written, in pertinent part, in Ex parte Milligan, & re: martial law being in effect,
        “Second. That the writ of habeas corpus is suspended in respect to all persons arrested, or who now, or hereafter during the Rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any fort, camp, arsenal, military prison, or other place of confinement, by any military authority, or by the sentence of any court martial or military commission.”

        Army Regulation 840 – 10, Chapter 2-2
        9
        b. National flags listed below are for indoor display and for use
        in ceremonies and parades. For these purposes, the flag of the
        United States will be of rayon banner cloth or heavyweight nylon,
        trimmed on three sides with golden yellow fringe, 2 1/2 inches
        wide.
        c. Authorization for indoor display. The flag of the United States
        is authorized for indoor display for each—
        (3) Military offices not otherwise authorized an indoor flag of the
        United States, for the purpose of administering oaths of office.
        (4) Military courtroom.

        I will be most grateful to know you think about the foregoing

         
      • Colin

        May 7, 2015 at 11:51 PM

        I would be convinced if the geniuses who are bright enough to write the law were also bright enough to write the law in a way that the average person (who did not graduate from Harvard Law) could read and understand. As long as the language of the law is so convoluted that not one man in 1,000 can read and absolutely understand it, I am unlikely to be convinced.

        I think this is very honest of you. You have a very hard time understanding the law, but that’s only partly because law can be confusing. You are more than smart enough to understand the things you profess to find so baffling. The evidence disproving the idea that a flag’s fringe has jurisdictional meaning is not at all ambiguous or hard to understand. But as long as you tell yourself the question is too hard to understand, you don’t have to abandon your notions. You can continue to believe in the exciting conspiracy theories and holding yourself out as a serious thinker and guru despite not actually knowing anything about the subject.

        You do a lot of pontificating, but you don’t ever seem to do the hard work of finding out whether you’re right or not. That’s the biggest difference between you and a trained lawyer, not the diploma. A lawyer engaged by a client to make an argument in court has to find out, “Is that argument true? Will it succeed?” They do research and advocate ideas that are arguable and abandon the ones that aren’t. You don’t seem to ever abandon any idea, no matter how silly. And when I asked what evidence would get you to do so, you say you won’t ever abandon an idea as long as the law is confusing.

        Doesn’t that give you a tremendous incentive to keep pretending that the law is confusing? As long as you don’t have to back down from wrong ideas, after all, you’ll keep drawing commenters who praise you as a legal genius despite being unable to support your notions with logical arguments or actual evidence. Admitting one of these ideas is actually false would cost you that adulation. Do you think that biases you?

        We live in the most litigious society in the world, and yet our high school kids aren’t taught the fundamentals of contractual relations, trust relations and constitutional law. How can it be that we don’t even teach teenagers how to deal with traffic tickets?

        I do think high school students should take a basic law class. I think it would make them a lot less susceptible to nonsense like the idea that only federal employees have to pay taxes.

        Sending our children out into that litigious society without a clue how to deal with it is not merely evidence of a racket, it’s evidence of a deep-seated wickedness that is common within the “best legal system in the world”.

        Conspiracy theories again. You think the lack of a high school law class is the result of evil planning by shadowy figures? Maybe it’s just that kids don’t want the class and most people won’t need it for years and years, if ever. Consider, for example, that you yourself could take a law class right now, from home, from some of the best legal scholars of the day. And you won’t do it. If it’s not worth it for you to take the time to learn some law, even though you write and speak about it constantly, how invested do you think high school kids and school boards will be in the subject?

        How about you be the change you want to see in the world, and take one of those free law classes yourself? If not, why not?

        OK–if lawyers like yourself insist that only they are competent to preside over a legal system that the great unwashed can’t comprehend, then lawyers like you should not be surprised if we try to educate ourselves and reach mistaken conclusions.

        Are you trying to educate yourself? Is that your primary goal? You’ve flatly refused to take those free classes, and I’ve never seen you actually research a topic with an eye to finding out whether your notions are true or false. Instead you seem to develop an idea that amuses you and then dig around for anything that could conceivably support it. That’s not an education.

        But I can’t read your mind, maybe I’m wrong. What kind of work have you done to find out, for example, whether the fringe on a courtroom flag means anything? What research or study have you done, and what conclusions have you reached? What have you learned?

        If the law was as clear as you imply, every Supreme Court decision would come back 9:0 with all nine justices agreeing on what a particular law means. Instead, we routinely see 5:4 decisions where five justices read the law one way and four read it another. Even the Supreme Court can’t usually agree on what a particular law means. And yet, Colin, you want us to believe that your understanding of the law is precisely accurate while ours is always flawed.

        Judges and other legal experts split on all sorts of tricky legal questions. But the legal questions that get discussed here aren’t tricky at all. One point I keep repeating over and over again is that these ideas never win. Not split decisions, not judges disagreeing with each other—they never win. No one has ever convinced a judge that the fringe on the court’s flag had jurisdictional meaning. And as hard as some people like to pretend that those wins are secret and concealed by strategic concessions by the government, in fact the courts quite openly and clearly write down for the public record how and why these nonsense arguments fail. Flag fringes, taxes on non-governmental employees, multiple tiers of citizenship—you will never, much less “routinely”, see a 5-4 decision on such a thing. They fail unanimously, consistently.

        While it may be true that some of my analyses of the law reach erroneous conclusions…

        Which ones? Have you ever changed your mind about one of your notions?

        I do know one thing that’s true: The judicial system is fundamentally an extortion racket, a criminal enterprise run by greedy, dishonorable men and women, whose primary business is not to produce justice, but to instead produce fat fees for shysters.

        Conspiracy theories again. It’s much easier to blame The Conspiracy than it would be to seriously study and learn the law! And more fun, I’m sure.

        I don’t recall the numbers, but in the 1990s, if I recall correctly, something one-quarter or even one-third of law school graduates quit the judicial-system racket because they couldn’t stand the stench of rampant injustice, incompetence and fraud perpetrated by the courts and members of the Bar.

        What? I’d love to see a source or citation for this number.

        Despite spending something like $200,000 (in today’s dollars) to acquire a sheepskin from Harvard Law, you apparently deactivated your Bar license after losing one case.

        Nope. I wrote a little bio for you below; you’ve jumped to some very weird conclusions about me.

        I’m only spitballin’ here, but could it be that you were divorced in Scotland, lost custody of your two sons to their mother, and (being a graduate of Harvard Law and therefore possessing perfect knowledge of the law) subsequently tried to move those kids from Scotland to the US where you could raise them yourself? What if you’d tried to move those kids without the consent of a Scottish court and essentially “kidnapped” them? Could an offense something that I’ve just described cause the Texas Bar to threaten you with disbarment and settle for a “voluntary” deactivation of your Bar license for some number of years?

        This one made me laugh out loud. I’ve never been to Scotland, never been married, never had kids, never tried to move kids, never been involved in any way with any custody dispute, etc. etc. etc. I think you googled my name, found a custody order, and assumed it was about me. This is exactly the reasoning process that leads you to make so many terribly wrong conclusions about law: you want to assume that something is true because it would be convenient or interesting or cool if it were true. You wanted to jump all over this one so you jumped straight to “just spitballin’,” instead of trying to find out if you had the right guy. You don’t, sorry. There’s at least two other people I know of who have my same name. Here, as with your ideas about taxes and capital names and flag fringes and so forth, you should have done more work to find out whether the idea was true.

        With my limited imagination, I can see only two possible causes: 1) you saw for yourself how corrupt the courts are, hit your own gag reflex, and had to quit in order to maintain your ideals; or 2) You crossed a line, got your butt in a bind (maybe over a custody issue, maybe something else) and were forced to agree to “voluntarily” deactivate your license.

        Your limitation is not your imagination, but your access to facts. You’re so eager to jump to conclusions you don’t stop to consider “I don’t know” as a possibility. Here, the answer is something that didn’t fit your preconceptions: I wanted to follow my girlfriend to a new state, and the easiest way to do that was to get a new job. That job doesn’t require an active law license, and was good enough that I didn’t sweat the change. It’s actually pretty common, since law degrees are useful credentials in lots of professions other than practicing law.

        More, if you think so highly of our judicial system, why don’t you reactivate your Bar license and get back into the hunt? It’s hard for me to believe that a man with your intelligence, education and aggressive nature couldn’t make far more money as a practicing attorney than he could as someone who teaches “negotiation”. It’s hard for me to believe that a man of your caliber who spends considerable time on this blog defending the system, isn’t passionate about the system and doesn’t long to litigate.

        I could make more money practicing law, but there are tradeoffs. People leave the law, especially litigation, all the time for those lifestyle issues: they (I) want to travel more, have more interesting jobs, spend more time with the family, work for a smaller business, live in a place without a big high-dollar legal market, etc.

        I do miss the money I made in litigation, and the occasional fascinating intellectual issue, and the high energy, and some other things. But I don’t at all miss the brutal hours, the short tempers, the not-at-all-occasional drudgery, or the tight deadlines. All in all, I much prefer consulting, at least for now.

        Whatever the explanation for your peculiar behavior, we’re at least seeing circumstantial evidence that your grasp of the law is not as profound as you’d have us believe. You’ve lost the one lawsuit where your appeared as a lawyer in court. And somehow, someway, you probably did something to illegal or unethical that you may have been threatened with disbarment. That’s not evidence of a man whose knowledge of the law can be relied upon.

        I’m not sure you know enough about the business of lawyering to know what’s peculiar and what’s not! I’ve appeared in court in many lawsuits, and never lost one outright. (No lawyer realistically has a perfect record, one way or the other.) Never done something illegal or unethical in my practice, never been subject to or threatened with disciplinary action of any kind except a fine for mailing my renewal paperwork late one year.

        You’re so eager to discredit me! It’s interesting to me that your response to my criticism is not to support these wild, weird ideas with evidence or serious arguments, but to delve back into the musty crevices of conspiracy theories. You’re not wrong, you’re just the subject of a conspiracy to attack you, is that right? But what if you’re not? What if the reason you can’t address the serious problems with your ideas is that they’re wrong?

        If I say so myself, I think one of my greatest strengths is that I don’t need absolute certainty. I can embrace and even celebrate the uncertainty.

        I think it’s also a terrible weakness. There are some ideas that you can comfortably, easily conclude are false. A motion to declare yourself the judge and awarding yourself a billion dollars will fail. A motion to adjourn the case because the flag has the wrong fringe will fail. A motion to dismiss because your name was spelled in all caps will fail. We know that because (a) there is nothing to support the validity of these tactics, and (b) there is hard evidence that they have always failed in the real world, and (c) even a cursory knowledge of the law behind these theories shows that it’s totally inconsistent with the claims being made.

        But as long as you can take refuge in the pretend ambiguity, you don’t have to deal with those problems. You can ignore them and say, “Well, anything’s possible!” Consequently you never learn, and your ideas never improve. I don’t think you have much actual expertise to show for your decades of interest in the law. And I suspect that’s one reason you’re so reluctant to take a class: what you learn might illustrate how little you actually know, and devalue all the time and energy you’ve invested in this hobby.

        You, on the other hand, seem determined to always speak with absolute confidence. Which makes me wonder what you’re trying to “sell”.

        Rationality. Not a popular product.

        I wonder if the answer might be that you’d like to “sell” the idea to readers of this blog that the ideas expressed on this blog are fundamentally stupid, as is any hope that non-attorneys can hope to become even marginally competent in dealing with the law.

        I want your readers to know that they can understand the law! The ideas bandied about here are not at all complicated. Anyone can read a basic statute and understand it, and anyone can, if they’re seriously evaluating and weighing the evidence, understand why what another commenter called “Patriot babble” is false teaching. But so, so few people are willing to invest the effort, when the conspiratorial fantasies are so much easier and more exciting.

        If it were true that you’re trying to “sell” those kinds of ideas, my next question is how do you get paid if you make any “sales”. I’m not sending you any currency. So far as I know, none of the readers of this blog are sending your any currency. I’m not aware that you’ve sold any books through this blog.

        I don’t make a cent from this, directly or indirectly. I am still trying to write that book, but I’m a long way from even finishing a draft, much less being able to sell copies. (And don’t really expect to make money from it anyway.) This is a hobby! I’d think you of all people would understand that; why do you blog and get on the radio? I assumed you weren’t making much money off of it, but doing it for more personal reasons.

        I genuinely love conversations like this. And I think there’s a moral value to resisting the spread of harmful fantasies.

        But you spend a lot of time on this blog. According to WordPress metrics, out of the last 1,000 comments on this blog, you are the second most prolific “commentator”. Only “pesky nat” has written more comments than you. I’m #3. In the last 1,000 comments, you’ve posted twice as many as I have.

        You’re welcome! And thanks for being a gracious host.

        And–your comments aren’t brief “Tweets”. They are often fairly lengthy and more like well-written essays than short, shoot-from-the-hip comments that are more typical from other readers.

        Thank you again!

        Unless you are fluent in what language Romanian’s speak, I don’t understand why it might be necessary to travel to Romania to teach “negotiation” skills. Couldn’t you have sent a book, video or power-point presentation? Couldn’t have have conducted your classes by means of Webinar? In fact, your trip to Romania to teach negotiation reminds of James Bond’s habitual cover as a representative of “Universal Export”.

        Mostly they speak Romanian, and as I learned also a lot of German (maybe that depends on what part of Romania). I don’t speak either. My clients all speak English. We travel personally to the job site because it’s so much more effective than just shipping a packet of papers or doing a webinar. I’m not James Bond, unfortunately, and I think real spies probably don’t go telling people about their cover for no particular reason.

        In any case, if you have a job that involves international travel, I have to assume that you’re a fairly well-paid and fairly busy. Where to you find time and energy to make as many comments on this blog as you do?

        I find the time and energy for this the same way anybody does for their interests. If I’m in an airport for an hour, I check the various blogs I follow and maybe write a comment or two. Sometimes I’ll load a page (on this blog or another) before my flight takes off, spend the flight reading and writing responses, then post ‘em when I land. Or I’ll do it to unwind in the hotel after work. If I’m between engagements, I have lots of time for this sort of thing.

        It’s almost as if you’re being paid by someone (SPLC?) spend time on this blog as a troll bent on diminishing reader confidence in my ideas and their own.

        I do want to diminish your readers’ confidence in some of your ideas, because they’re wrong ideas that are likely to hurt people who don’t realize how wrong they are. But no one pays me for it. Too bad! If I applied to the SPLC for a job doing this, would you serve as a reference? (I’m kidding, I don’t think anyone pays for such a thing.)

        I’ve visited other blogs and websites with which you’re associated. I’ve been surprised to see that your comments there are very few and, so far as I’ve seen, Tweet-brief. You have friends on those blogs, and yet your comments are brief and hard to find. On my blog, you are the second most frequent commentator and, in terms of actual quantities/lengths of comments, perhaps #1. It may be that you’re just obsessive and completely unpaid, but I think you can see why I might wonder about your real motivations for being here.

        I comment on lots of blogs, but don’t often use my real name. I do here because you seem like a decent guy, and we met prior to my commenting. I do put more effort into these comments, because your blog is more interesting to me than most. Even so I don’t spend all that much time doing this. My responses are stream-of-consciousness. I think I spend maybe 15-20 minutes a day writing something like this. Maybe more, I’ve never timed it. I justify it to myself by saying it’s research for the book, but realistically I just enjoy it and think it’s morally good.

         
      • Jethro

        May 9, 2015 at 10:21 AM

        Colin wrote: “You removed the first sentence of that provision, which says, ‘If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful…'”. This “first sentence” is chock full of presumptions that may not be merely glossed over — let’s look at them:

        1. “26 U.S. Code § 6331” — What does this have to do with a man?
        2. “If any person” — “Person” is not a synonym for man (or woman); it’s a legal TERM involving one’s “rank in society” with its concomitant rights and DUTIES that such rank imposes. Who says I’m this “person”?
        3. “liable to pay any tax” — a) What man says I am “liable to pay” and where is he? b) What makes a “tax” a tax? Can anybody call anything a “tax” and magically make someone else “liable” to pay it?
        4. “neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after NOTICE” — Ooh, so there must be (sufficient) NOTICE first. If there is not sufficient notice — e.g. one has asked QUESTIONS about the notice — then there cannot be a “levy”. Al has written extensively regarding NOTICE and the right of inquiry.
        5. “shall be lawful” — Says what man?

         
      • Colin

        May 9, 2015 at 4:16 PM

        1. “26 U.S. Code § 6331″ — What does this have to do with a man?

        I don’t understand the question. It’s the code title and section. If you mean how is this relevant to people, it shows what laws they and the government have to follow.

        2. “If any person” — “Person” is not a synonym for man (or woman); it’s a legal TERM involving one’s “rank in society” with its concomitant rights and DUTIES that such rank imposes. Who says I’m this “person”?

        You are a person. When the law uses common, everyday words, it often doesn’t define them or only defines them if they also have meanings outside plain usage. “Person” here just means a person: a human being. That’s you and me and every other individual.

        If you want to show that “person” has some tricky special meaning that doesn’t apply to you, making up reasons is a waste of everyone’s time. Do some research, do some reading, and show us why you think the word has some magical exception. Find some case where someone actually made such an argument work. Until you locate something like that, mumbo-jumbo about rank in society and duties and such has as much weight as saying, “I’m not a person because I’m a cat.” It’s playing pretend, not engaging with the real world.

        3. “liable to pay any tax” — a) What man says I am “liable to pay” and where is he? b) What makes a “tax” a tax? Can anybody call anything a “tax” and magically make someone else “liable” to pay it?

        A man doesn’t say it, the law does. The taxes are defined and imposed by the law, and people are liable to pay those taxes that are applicable to them.

        4. “neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after NOTICE” — Ooh, so there must be (sufficient) NOTICE first. If there is not sufficient notice — e.g. one has asked QUESTIONS about the notice — then there cannot be a “levy”. Al has written extensively regarding NOTICE and the right of inquiry.

        Yes, there must be sufficient notice. What constitutes sufficient notice is a question of law. You can make up answers all day long, but so what? If you want to win a case on the theory that notice was insufficient, “Your honor, I pretended that notice was insufficient because I asked questions!” won’t do it.

        If you want to know what constitutes proper notice, do some research. Look at cases where people have challenged the sufficiency of notice in this context. Look to see if the statute defines what proper notice is.

        I’ve never researched notice under sec. 6331, but when it comes to notice generally, asking questions doesn’t defeat it. Once someone gives you notice, you’ve got notice. You can’t pretend that you weren’t on notice just because you asked some questions. You can ask all the questions you want, but you’re still on notice.

        5. “shall be lawful” — Says what man?

        Not a man, the law.

         
      • Jethro

        May 9, 2015 at 6:54 PM

        Colin wrote: “I don’t understand the question. It’s the code title and section. If you mean how is this relevant to people, it shows what laws they and the government have to follow.”
        Which “people”? How do you know? Did you write the code? Is my name in there?

        “You are a person.”
        Who says I am *that* person?

        “‘Person’ here just means a person: a human being.”
        Except it doesn’t say that, does it? And there is no mention of a man, is there?

        “That’s you and me and every other individual.”
        Individual what? Are you aware Black’s (4th) defines “individual” as “…single PERSON as distinguished from a group”. No word of a *man*, is there?

        “…mumbo-jumbo about rank in society and duties…”
        Are Black’s Law definitions “mumbo-jumbo”?

        “A man doesn’t say it, the law does.”
        Really? Does “the law” have a mouth to talk? Does it have hands to write?

        “You can make up answers all day long, but so what?”
        Did you mean to say “make up QUESTIONS”? If so, when the notice itself says: “If you have any QUESTIONS about this notice, you may contact us at…”, that’s just a little ‘suggestion box’ for better service, right?

        “Once someone gives you notice, you’ve got notice. You can’t pretend that you weren’t on notice just because you asked some questions. You can ask all the questions you want, but you’re still on notice.”
        Really? EXCELLENT! Then here’s my notice to you, Colin…
        >>YOU ARE DELINQUENT IN YOUR JETHRO TAXES. YOU OWE $1,334,583,342,498,323.56. PAY NOW OR YOUR PROPERTY WILL BE SEIZED. YOU MAY APPEAL TO JETHRO TAX COURT IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS ASSESSMENT.
        You got your notice. You may not ask questions. Have you or have you not made your appeal?

        “[Says] Not a man, the law.”
        That’s very interesting. How can “the law” say anything? Does “the law” have vocal cords?

         
  2. mjday47362

    May 5, 2015 at 7:22 PM

    http://www.iamthewitness.com/doc/IRS.Incorpororated.pdf

    The IRS is a private, collection agency that falls under 15 US Code, not 26 USC.

     
  3. mjday47362

    May 5, 2015 at 7:25 PM

     
  4. mjday47362

    May 5, 2015 at 7:26 PM

    http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm

    31 Questions and Answers about the Internal Revenue Service

     
  5. mjday47362

    May 5, 2015 at 7:29 PM

    IRS Drops Attack For Six Years – No Evidence of Jurisdiction

    http://marcstevens.net/articles/irs-drops-attack-six-years-no-evidence-jurisdiction.html

     
  6. mjday47362

    May 5, 2015 at 7:31 PM

     
    • Colin

      May 6, 2015 at 5:40 PM

      Wrong. I like Alfred, but he doesn’t know very much about the law. He’s completely wrong in that post. There’s an explanation here: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#law

      And once again, people have tried this argument before in court. And they always lose. That link shows some cases in which it’s happened. You’ll never see someone citing a case in which this argument won.

      Why is it, do you think, that these arguments always skip the can we tell whether the argument works phase? They go straight to, look at me, I’m an expert, believe this amazing story I have to tell you. Whether you’re buying a story or a used car, don’t skip steps: look to see if it actually works.

      (By the way, notice the guy giving Alfred a hard time in the comments there. He’s full of himself, lecturing Alfred on how he’s found the One True Way to defeat the IRS for good. Guess what happened to him? Charged, convicted, sentenced to prison. One reason I respect Alfred, despite disagreeing so strongly with him, is that he’s not defrauding people. He’s got wrong ideas, but he’s not charging admission to read them.)

       
      • Adask

        May 6, 2015 at 8:49 PM

        I like you, too, Colin. But, I understand that you’ve only represented one client in court–and lost that case. That’s a small statistical sample, but technically it brands you with a 100% courtroom failure rate. Your “legal advice” was wrong and therefore lost your case. And, unlike me, you DID charge a fee for that faulty advice. Does that mean that you, and all other licensed attorneys who lose their case in court (that would be at least 50% of licensed attorneys) are frauds?

        More, you’ve led me to believe that you voluntarily chose to render your former Bar license “inactive”. That’s fascinating for a couple of reasons:

        1) By rendering your law license “inactive” after losing just one case, you seemingly imply that you just can’t stand the practice of law–and yet, here you are, slumming with the pro se’s on my blog, declaring like a judge what the law is and isn’t. If you are so fascinated and competent in all things legal, and love the subject of law so much that you devote considerable time and energy to read articles on this blog and then comment on them, why don’t you just reactivate your law license and practice law with the licensed attorneys (who, on average, lose 50% of their courtroom cases)?

        2) It’s my understanding that it currently costs about $49,000 per year in fees and tuition to attend Harvard Law School. That should translate into $150,000 for a three-year degree from Harvard Law School–plus room and board. $200,000. I know that you attended Harvard when the fees were nominally lower, but adjusted for inflation, were probably pretty close to today’s fees and tuition. That implies that after somebody spent the best part of $200,000 just to get you through law school, you (or somebody) has rendered your Bar license “inactive”.

        I find that hard to believe. If my parents had had the equivalent amount of money to pay my way through Harvard Law School, and I voluntarily deactivated my Bar license after losing just one case, they would giver serious consideration to hiring a hit man to have me whacked. Of course, they wouldn’t do that because it would deprive them of the pleasure of strangling me, themselves.

        I don’t know who paid your Harvard Law School costs, but they can’t be pleased that your Bar license is deactivated.

        More, your determination to hang out on this blog discussing legal issues indicates that you still like or even love the law. So, voluntarily deactivating your Bar license makes no sense to me.

        I am left to wonder if the real explanation for that deactivation was involuntary. Were you threatened with disbarment? Did you agree to allow your license to be deactivated in order to avoid the stigma of disbarment? Did the Texas Bar Association make you an offer you couldn’t refuse?

        My point is that your track record in the legal system belies your implied claims to know all things about the law. You might know a lot about the law, but you don’t know everything. No one does. Acting as if you do–especially if you charged money for that act–might also render you a fraud.

         
      • Colin

        May 6, 2015 at 11:45 PM

        I like you, too, Colin. But, I understand that you’ve only represented one client in court–and lost that case. That’s a small statistical sample, but technically it brands you with a 100% courtroom failure rate.

        One big happy! But your understanding is wrong. I think you’re misinterpreting a comment of mine. I practiced at a large firm for five or six years, which was enough time to take two big cases to trial. Until recently we only had a judgment in one, but now we have judgments in both. In one, we were the defendants; one client (a company with no money) was found liable and three others (individual people with some money) were found not liable on an eight-figure claim. In the other big case we were plaintiffs, and won an eight-figure judgment. It’s less than we were asking for, so a mixed result, but I was happy with the results of both cases.

        Aside from those two big trials, I’ve represented dozens of clients, in court and out. I’ve handled pro bono cases including a criminal appeal (won), working guys trying to recover the proceeds of a house sale (won) and an immigration matter (lost). Plus tons of other matters; when you work at a big firm you wind up handling pieces of lots and lots of cases. Those are just the two big trials and the small stuff I handled mostly on my own. It’s not like I was undefeated, but overall my record is pretty good!

        And, unlike me, you DID charge a fee for that faulty advice. Does that mean that you, and all other licensed attorneys who lose their case in court (that would be at least 50% of licensed attorneys) are frauds?

        Nope! Losing a case might mean your legal arguments are wrong, or just that the facts were against you. On the other hand, if a lawyer charged a client for the kind of advice that you throw around here, then yes, they would be frauds. A lawyer who took money to run a “man or other animals” defense should be sanctioned, and in fact lawyers who run these frivolous tax arguments do get sanctioned and suspended. The difference is that most lawyers advance theories that, even if the court ultimately disagrees, are reasonable. Whereas the stuff that gets tossed around here is completely unreasonable, and has no basis whatsoever in law or fact. Arguments that can’t possibly be right are frivolous, and abusive both to the system and the client. That’s what gets lawyers sanctioned.

        1) By rendering your law license “inactive” after losing just one case, you seemingly imply that you just can’t stand the practice of law

        Nope! More assumptions on your part; you leap to conclusions with extraordinary rapidity. I moved from lawyering to consulting because I met a girl. Long story short, she had to move cross-country for her career, and I liked her better than I liked lawyering, so I went with her. It wasn’t feasible to get another law job (we were only planning to stay in the new city for a year, and firms don’t tend to hire for the short term) so I took a consulting position to stay mobile. These days I teach and consult in the field of negotiation, but the job and quality of life are a lot better. I get to travel a lot, including internationally, and work with people in dozens of different industries. Best of all you can do consulting from any city with an airport, so it was easy to move with my girlfriend. We’re getting married soon, so I think I made the right call!

        –and yet, here you are, slumming with the pro se’s on my blog,

        I don’t think of this as slumming! I enjoy these conversations. And I get a kick out of talking with people who are fired up about something, even (especially?) if their ideas are wacky.

        declaring like a judge what the law is and isn’t.

        Potayto potahto. I think of it as “accurately identifying what the law is, with citations to authority and logical arguments.” If you disagree with my take on “what the law is and isn’t,” why don’t you find some actual evidence to support your notions? It’s something that’s notably lacking in your writing.

        If you are so fascinated and competent in all things legal, and love the subject of law so much that you devote considerable time and energy to read articles on this blog and then comment on them, why don’t you just reactivate your law license and practice law with the licensed attorneys (who, on average, lose 50% of their courtroom cases)?

        Because we’re not living in our current city long enough to justify joining a firm or building a solo practice. We’re moving again soon, probably for the long term, and I’ll get licensed in our new state and I might practice there. Sort of depends on what the market is like and whether I ever get tired of all the traveling I do these days.

        I don’t know who paid your Harvard Law School costs, but they can’t be pleased that your Bar license is deactivated.

        That would be me. I had some help from my family, but like just about every lawyer I know I took out big loans. I’m still paying them off, but working for the firm for years helped a lot—that job paid very well, and I was able to pay them down pretty aggressively. It’s pretty common for lawyers to work in “Biglaw” just long enough to pay off loans, build a nest egg, buy a house, stuff like that. Then they leave to do something they like better, like a smaller firm or government work or consulting or brewing beer. That wasn’t my original plan, but it worked out that way.

        More, your determination to hang out on this blog discussing legal issues indicates that you still like or even love the law. So, voluntarily deactivating your Bar license makes no sense to me.

        I love having conversations like this, and my education means that law is a good topic for them. I’d probably be interested in the economics things you post too, but I don’t know much about it, so I don’t bother. I do like the law, and I like the fact that refuting these silly arguments occasionally leads me to learn something new.

        Deactivating the license saves me a ton of time and money each year. I’m licensed in two states, and if those were active I’d have to pay the fees and take CLE classes in both states. Such a hassle! I don’t need the licenses to be active to be a consultant, so why pay the extra money?

        I am left to wonder if the real explanation for that deactivation was involuntary. Were you threatened with disbarment? Did you agree to allow your license to be deactivated in order to avoid the stigma of disbarment? Did the Texas Bar Association make you an offer you couldn’t refuse?

        Aaaaaaand here’s the conspiracy theory. Alfred, you aren’t the victim of some kind of elaborate plot by the Texas Bar Association. The reason I criticize your ideas is that they’re wrong, and I enjoy the argument and I think there’s a moral value to refuting the kind of dangerous nonsense that can hurt people who fall for it.

        No, I’ve never been threatened with disbarment. Or threatened with anything else. Or investigated. Or even been involved in anyone else’s disciplinary proceedings. Or done anything that would lead to any of those things. Never been involved with attorney discipline in any way, at all, ever. (Well, once I forgot to send in my bar renewal form on time, so had to pay a fine. I don’t think that counts, and no one used it to blackmail me into spying on Alfred Adask!)

         
  7. mjday47362

    May 5, 2015 at 7:34 PM

    A Law By and For the People

    http://www.americanlawoftheland.com/

     
  8. Peg-Powers

    May 7, 2015 at 9:59 AM

    Well I declare y’all: If I found a certain blog site “completely unreasonable” and “has no basis in ‘truth’ ” and “completely wacky” and needed constant effort to “refute silly arguments”—–I’d stay the hell away—–I wouldn’t waste my time!

    Colin, you are full of crappola. YOU ARE a house built on sand; a cloud without water carried about of winds; a tree whose fruit withers, without fruit, and twice dead; raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering star, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever. (NT, Jude).

     
    • Colin

      May 7, 2015 at 10:19 PM

      Well I declare y’all: If I found a certain blog site “completely unreasonable” and “has no basis in ‘truth’ ” and “completely wacky” and needed constant effort to “refute silly arguments”—–I’d stay the hell away—–I wouldn’t waste my time!

      Different strokes for different folks. I particularly enjoy conversations with people who disagree with me, and the wackiness of the ideas being floated here means they’re pretty entertaining. I’m writing (or at least trying to write) a book about irrational beliefs, partly because I’m so interested in this mindset.

      YOU ARE a house built on sand; a cloud without water carried about of winds; a tree whose fruit withers, without fruit, and twice dead; raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering star, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

      That’s not all! I AM Spartacus, Number Four, the Monarch of the Sea, the one who knocks, the walrus, what I yam, a man of constant sorrow, and your huckleberry.

       
  9. Jim on Oregon

    May 7, 2015 at 11:06 AM

    Colin, you have missed out on decades of Alfred’s insights that have helped thousands of our people to see the NATURE and CAUSE of the fraud of the so-called “judicial system”.

    Your main argument that he does not cite any “wins” is not convincing. The criminal system CANNOT and DOES NOT allow a decisive “win” to stand as precedent, if the legal theory exposes its counterfeit substitution with its UCC and trust “law” and its unrebutted “silent judicial notice” of want of status, standing, and character to support otherwise valid arguments against venue and jurisdiction.

    Huge numbers of cases have been dismissed against “patriots” using Alfred’s theories, but for reasons of procedural errors by the prosecution and off-the-record settlements, etc. In two of my own cases, the deputy merely failed to appear to witness after I had presented the proper counterclaim. Are these not “wins”?

    I know of several other significant WINS that have been “sealed”. SEALED? Ha! These administrative courts are such a FRAUD! There are NO constitutional JUDICIAL courts or judges, and I suspect it is because the private corporate “UNITED STATES” and its private, corporate political subdivisions are not bound by constitutional mandates, and that almost NOBODY in this land (except maybe a few of Alfred’s students) can successfully establish admissible evidence of their organic character, status, and standing as BENEFICIARIES to the protections of judicial due process, and compel judicial FIDUCIARY conduct.

    Please, Colin, do not attempt to counter these statements with your state-controlled brainwashing of your law school “edjumacation”, which deliberately DOES NOT teach anything but how to use “legal” process within its private, foreign venue OUTSIDE the organic state. You do not appear to understand WHY and HOW “law” was changed to its commercial counterfeit, and the attendant PRESUMPTIONS that the party defendant MUST overcome to prevail. You just don’t get it.

     
    • Colin

      May 7, 2015 at 10:23 PM

      I’m curious, have you ever run across theories like Alfred’s that you initially thought were correct, but later decided were wrong? I’m interested in how people make up their minds. What persuades you that a notion is true or false?

       
      • Roger

        May 7, 2015 at 11:50 PM

        > I’m interested in how people make up their minds.

        An interesting topic, to be sure. In addition, I’m interested in how people make up their minds about how to make up their minds.

        > What persuades you that a notion is true or false?

        A fair question which, by inevitable logic, leads to a follow up question:

        What notions did you use to determine the truth of the notions you use in determining whether a notion is true?

         
      • Ted D. Roofer

        May 8, 2015 at 12:51 AM

        Colin,
        @ > I’m interested in how people make up their minds. What persuades you that a notion is true or false?
        It has the “ring of truth”. It’s a “spiritual matter”. It’s not your cup tea. HOWEVER,”We” all need to keep in mind that you do speak in behalf of the vast majority who do comprise the “current legal system” and this IS what we are up against. “WE” should look at what YOU say as tho we are in your courtroom & know the POWER you have & at least TRY to respond to you in a manner that will not make you want to prove to us the “power” you do have, like in in that 3 hots & a cot thing. It does not matter if you do what you do without authority, it’s that, “Contempt power” thing.

         
      • Henry

        May 9, 2015 at 6:09 PM

        @Roger “What notions did you use to determine the truth of the notions you use in determining whether a notion is true?”

        A point quite on-point – but, as the manufactured counterculture of Patriot Babel isn’t about facts or law, neither is it about epistemology.

        It should be obvious by now that the gurus of Patriot Babel can’t possibly believe the disinformation they’re propagating. If you’re in any doubt of this, observe how they react when their flimsy propaganda gets holes blown through it. After some fancy mental gymnastics, they carry on as if nothing happened – or they simply go silent on the topic until the coast is clear, then resume the lie as if nothing happened.

        And why not? Does any marketer genuinely care about the pros and cons of the product they’re engaged to promote? Their only purpose is to sell, principally by appeals to emotion. The real world can be left out of the picture insofar as the gullibility of the target audience allows.

        The manufactured counterculture of Patriot Babel is a genre of fiction, complete with a cartoonish bad guy (“gubmint”). This counterculture is promoted by the culture-creators to misdirect and neutralize whatever legitimate movements may arise to fight corruption in government.

         
  10. palani

    May 8, 2015 at 7:42 AM

    Two concepts need to be understood. One is that you cannot possibly be ignorant of law because this is not a proper defense for “the want of knowledge of those laws which it is our duty to understand, and which every man is presumed to know”. You inherently know law because you have a duty to know law. The second concept is called conflict of laws. “Every nation possesses an exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction within its own territory. The laws of every state, therefore, affect and bind directly all property, whether real or personal, within its territory; and all persons who are resident within it, whether citizens or aliens, natives or foreigners; and also all contracts made, and acts done within it”. {Bouvier).

    Should you obey laws not established for the territory you find yourself resident in? What makes you resident? What makes you a person? What makes property you claim within the territory of another country? When an international war happens where is it written that the victor gets to claim private property as well as public? Are not public claims to private property part of the ten planks?

     
    • Colin

      May 8, 2015 at 11:05 PM

      One is that you cannot possibly be ignorant of law because this is not a proper defense for “the want of knowledge of those laws which it is our duty to understand, and which every man is presumed to know”. You inherently know law because you have a duty to know law.

      This doesn’t make sense. The principle is that ignorance of the law is not a defense, not that everyone automatically knows all the law. You can be ignorant, it’s just not a defense (because the law would be very difficult to administer otherwise). Also, as per the Cheek defense, ignorance of the law is a defense under very limited circumstances.

      The second concept is called conflict of laws. . . . .Should you obey laws not established for the territory you find yourself resident in?

      CoL is not nonsense, it’s a real thing. It’s not something that ever affects most people. Generally you’re safe obeying the laws of your own jurisdiction, plus those of jurisdictions in which you’re doing business or visiting or in which you otherwise operate.

      Typically each state has its own set of CoL rules its courts use to determine whether and when they need to apply another jurisdiction’s laws. Googling your state name and “conflict of law” or “renvoi” will probably pull up a lot of relevant information. (“Renvoi” is the term for the decision a court makes whether to apply its own rules or those of some other jurisdiction.)

       
      • palani

        May 9, 2015 at 7:50 AM

        @ Colin “The principle is that ignorance of the law is not a defense, not that everyone automatically knows all the law.”

        The entire maxim of law includes the following: “those laws which it is our duty to understand, and which every man is presumed to know”. Many laws exist and I don’t dispute that. I do dispute that I have a duty to understand ALL LAWS or that I am presumed to know ALL LAWS. This then begs the question WHICH LAWS DO I HAVE A DUTY TO UNDERSTAND OR ARE PRESUMED TO KNOW? My answer is then “Domestic laws” or laws that I know I understand. Every other law is foreign and I have no duty to understand these. Foreign laws come under the heading of facts and ignorance of a fact is never criminal.

        @ Colin “CoL is not nonsense, it’s a real thing.”

        I never claimed conflict of law is nonsense. Here is an example. My law requires I not be involved in aborting a fetus (even after it has established residency). The state however see things differently and has established an industry by which they profit from aborting fetus(s). There is an certainly a conflict of laws here. I obey my laws and the state obeys theirs but then their laws are foreign and not domestic. Where these foreign laws have some reason I really am not obeying their foreign laws but I could agree with the reason and obey that. Someone observing this behavior (of obeying reason) might suggest that once I obey one state law I am required to obey all state law. My response would be that I obey reason because it is reasonable to do so but where there is no reason there is no law to obey.

         
      • Colin

        May 9, 2015 at 4:40 PM

        The entire maxim of law …

        A maxim is just a saying that expresses a general rule. It’s not a rule in and of itself.

        I do dispute that I have a duty to understand ALL LAWS or that I am presumed to know ALL LAWS.

        You don’t have a duty to understand all laws. The maxim is just a saying, not an actual duty imposed on you by law. Nor does anyone think that you (or any other person) actually, factually know all the laws. The presumption is rather that you know or could find out what you may and may not do, so you can’t plead ignorance as a defense. In other words, a more concise and accurate version of the same basic principle is, “ignorance of the law is no defense.”

        Relying on maxims to know the law is dangerous, because it’s just a saying. There’s no guarantee it’s actually accurate. Look at the law itself. Here, for example, the saying is wrong in at least one context. As I understand, ignorance can be a defense under the Cheek standard. (But buyer beware–Cheek defenses rarely work, and don’t get you out of tax liability itself. Just sometimes the associated criminal charges.)

        This then begs the question WHICH LAWS DO I HAVE A DUTY TO UNDERSTAND OR ARE PRESUMED TO KNOW?

        If you want to know the answer to a question like that, you can do some research to find out. Look it up in online law guides or read a book or ask a librarian at a law library for advice on what to read or ask a lawyer or look for cases discussing this presumption or check practice guides or so on and so forth. In other words, look for actual answers rather than just making one up.

        My answer is then “Domestic laws” or laws that I know I understand. Every other law is foreign and I have no duty to understand these. Foreign laws come under the heading of facts and ignorance of a fact is never criminal.

        But instead of doing that research, you chose to make up an answer. If the point is just to amuse yourself, great—everyone needs a hobby. But if you ever need to advance such theories in court, this approach won’t work. Answers you make up for yourself don’t cut the mustard out in the real world.

        I never claimed conflict of law is nonsense.

        I know. I was making the point that you identified an actual, real thing that lawyers argue about, as opposed to the fictitious nonsense that takes up so much air online (like flag fringes and capitalized names).

        Here is an example. My law requires …

        But rather than actually leaning anything about conflict of laws, you just made up some more stuff. If it pleases you, then I suppose you’re not wasting your time. But again, out in the real world, the legal principles you make up for yourself aren’t worth much when measured against real law (like the body of law that makes up the actual doctrine of “conflict of laws”). And making up random stuff and calling it “conflict of laws” is a signal to people who know what “conflict of laws” actually means that you don’t know anything about law.

        (It’s sort of like someone telling you that according to the infield fly rule, baseball pitchers have to wear football helmets during the ninth inning. Whyever they told you that, you can assume that person doesn’t actually know much about baseball.)

         
      • palani

        May 9, 2015 at 6:11 PM

        @ Colin “A maxim is just a saying that expresses a general rule.”
        A maxim in general is an inheritance left to me by my ancestors.

        “a more concise and accurate version of the same basic principle is, “ignorance of the law is no defense.”

        There is no such thing as “the law”. There is only domestic law and foreign law. Domestic law(s) are those which duty is established or which every man is presumed to know. Foreign law is fact and not law.

        “look for cases discussing this presumption or check practice guides”

        Guild handbooks? These are for professional representers and not men.

        “if you ever need to advance such theories in court, this approach won’t work”

        What works in Oz will not fly in Kansas.

        “out in the real world”

        Your ‘real world’ is not real but rather is an illusion … just more persistent.

         
      • Ted D. Roofer

        May 9, 2015 at 8:55 PM

        cOLIn
        @ > ….”ask a librarian at a law library for advice………”
        I DID THIS !! The Librarian SAID SHE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO GIVE OUT LEGAL ADVICE AS A MATTER OF LAW. CAPICHE? WELL DO YA OR DOANCHA?

         
      • Ted D. Roofer

        May 15, 2015 at 7:23 PM

        Your Royal Majesty, COLIN, OHHhhhhhh high & lofty mighty one. You say, > “the fictitious nonsense that takes up so much air online (like flag fringes and capitalized names.)”
        Well I suppose YELLOW/GOLD FRINGES are put on Flags jus kauz dem people ain’t got nuthin A-YULSE tah due. Also, it’s desecrating the OLD GLORY FLAG, AIN’T IT? I have also noticed WHEN other Posters, e.g. palani, & Alfred, ask certain questions, &, I SEE, BINGO, you say you don’t understand the question. I have seen this MANY times, i.e., YOU say YOU don’t understand the question. Please answer Jethro’s message of May 9, 2015 at 6:54 PM. Thank you.

         
  11. Ted D. Roofer

    May 9, 2015 at 2:10 PM

    palani,
    @ > This then begs the question WHICH LAWS DO I HAVE A DUTY TO UNDERSTAND OR ARE PRESUMED TO KNOW?
    OHHhhhhhhhhhh NOoooooooooo YOU DON’T TRY TO TAKE OVER IN MY COURT !! THIRTYYYY DAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYS !!! Balif please remove the belligerent claimant.

     
  12. Ted D. Roofer

    May 10, 2015 at 12:54 PM

    @Jethro
    @May 9, 2015 at 6:54 PM
    STOP IT !!! The 12th Commandment says, Thou shalt not allow common sense to enter into ANY misunderstanding, for the purpose of, considering, evaluating, to try & resolve any differences in opinion. NOW, be nice.:-). cOLiN is here to HELP US. :-)

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s