On Monday 16 July 2001 23:10, you wrote:
> [The list distribution is lagging greatly -- My post at 22:18
> just appeared at 22:50 -- Smitty's took 53 minutes to deliver
> on the outbound hop]
>
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Smitty wrote:
> > > I'll start a service -- Ask offlist where to send cash
> > > subscription fees. I enjoy running down the primary
> > > sources.
> >
> > You have not presented any evidence to refute the posting.
>
> Smitty, even stipulating that the author believed every word,
> unlike your last 'lunatic state of California' thread starter,
> this does not imply a lack of observance of the legal
> formalities -- 'Due Process', if you will, as required of the
> states by the federal 14th Amdt. -- by the California state
> employees.
>
> I see no recitation of the filing of a lawsuit asserting such
> improper conduct; no neutral reporter's conclusion of
> impropriety; indeed, no provision by you of a source link for
> your quoted material. What 'evidence' has been presented
> beyond some hear-say, and unverified assertions?
>
> I _hope_ that the entry was completed without serious bodily
> harm to anyone. But to remain in a society of Ordered
> Liberty, the author has to choose -- Observe the results of
> Law -- starting at the federal Constitution and flowing on
> down to the delegation of governmental authority down to say,
> regulation of the hieght of decorative fences in a local
> suburb -- or -- Assert that the author is outside the law --
> an "Out-law" one might say. But an Outlaw cannot expect
> anything but rough justice at the whim of a stronger force.
>
> This is one danger of an 'a la carte' approach to 'choosing'
> what laws one will subject oneself to. With no third-party
> referee to 'call the fouls', the 'a la carte' "Free Citizen"
> is really asserting that NO laws apply to him- or her-self.
>
> The California taxing agents, the Golden State Assembly which
> passed them, the Court system which is available to review the
> actions of each, and ultimately the federal Supreme Court make
> up that system of 'referees.'
>
> > > -- There is no denying it. It's entertaining. Kooky sounding
> > > stuff always is ... but real people get hurt believing and
> > > acting on these fantasies
> >
> > The fantasies are your own. "Kooky sounding" is an opinion, not an
> > expression of fact.
>
> .... ahhh, but I do not purport that I am doing anything but
> acting as a 'Devil's Advocate,' selling smoke and mirrors --
> The PETA folk were in Columbus today -- they were able to
> muster 4 people in all of Ohio and Pennsylvania to show up and
> demonstrate at the 'Wendy's # 1' Original store. I was
> thinking of assembling a anti-vegan tract.
>
> This is, after all, the "All fight, no rules" list -- although
> I hope you'll drink a virtual beer ad the end of the evening
> with me.
>
> > > A deer hunting buddy of mine ended up in Bankruptcy
> > > Court, his 16 employees [an independent oil well drilling
> > > company] thrown out of work after an IRS levy (wholly
> > > justified), after he relied on these 'no 16th Amdt' snake oil
> > > sellers.
> >
> > The IRS has broken the law and still breaks the law. They use the force
> > of violence to do it. Nothing they do is "wholly justified".
>
> "Nothing" ? There must have been a sale on superlatives and
> absolutes today. There is the old saw: "No generalization is
> worth a d*mn, including this one."
>
> Are you asserting that the collection of, say, the $200 Class
> III weapons transfer tax, or the former federal $1 per $1000
> Real Estate conveyancing tax, each an excise type tax, is
> somehow unlawful?
No, but that you bring it up. An onerous tax and paperwork procedure
to purchase a firearm interferes with a right. So in that case, it would be
unconstitutional. I don't know about the real estate conveyance tax.
Smitty
>
> -- Russ
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:24:01 EDT