Gold-digger IRS widow sues Joseph Stack's widow
edi...@netpath.net
AUSTIN, Texas – The widow of the Internal Revenue Service employee
killed when a Texas man crashed his plane into the agency's Austin
office is suing the pilot's widow.
Attorney Daniel Ross says the lawsuit against Sheryl Stack seeks to
determine if the pilot left behind insurance policies or other assets.
Ross represents Valerie Hunter, whose 68-year-old husband Vernon
Hunter was killed last week when authorities say Joseph Stack
deliberately crashed his single-engine plane into the IRS office.
Joseph Stack left behind a lengthy anti-government Internet posting
blaming the IRS for personal problems spanning decades.
The lawsuit filed Monday says Sheryl Stack should have warned others
about her husband.
A message seeking comment was left Tuesday with a family spokesman for
Sheryl Stack.
edi...@netpath.net
> The lawsuit filed Monday says Sheryl Stack should have warned others
> about her husband.
Notice what the gold-digging IRS widow's lawsuit is saying - that
every American owes it to the regime to snitch on their husband or
wife, their parents, their kids. That's straight out of Nazi Germany.
Fortunately, every married American knows exactly what to do if put on
the jury for this case. Vote against the IRS gold-digger widow - and
vote for Joseph Stack's widow. Vote against the regime's idea that
you owe it to the regime to snitch on your husband or wife.
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
Cole Firearms Inc.
Perhaps Joe Stacks widow should sue the irs for forcing her husband to
commit suicide and crash into a building, not to mention the irs is
committing acts of domestic terrorism against the American people.
--
�Upon considering all the possible ways to die, I would like to die in a
hale of Gunfire, John Woo style.� -- Rev. Shawn Cole
None4U
"Cole Firearms Inc." <colefir...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:BZKdnR5fAMr2aRjW...@giganews.com...>> AUSTIN, Texas � The widow of the Internal Revenue Service employee
>> killed when a Texas man crashed his plane into the agency's Austin
>> office is suing the pilot's widow.
>>
>> Attorney Daniel Ross says the lawsuit against Sheryl Stack seeks to
>> determine if the pilot left behind insurance policies or other assets.
>>
>> Ross represents Valerie Hunter, whose 68-year-old husband Vernon
>> Hunter was killed last week when authorities say Joseph Stack
>> deliberately crashed his single-engine plane into the IRS office.
>>
>> Joseph Stack left behind a lengthy anti-government Internet posting
>> blaming the IRS for personal problems spanning decades.
>>
>> The lawsuit filed Monday says Sheryl Stack should have warned others
>> about her husband.
>>
>> A message seeking comment was left Tuesday with a family spokesman for
>> Sheryl Stack.
>>
>
> Perhaps Joe Stacks widow should sue the irs for forcing her husband to
> commit suicide and crash into a building, not to mention the irs is
> committing acts of domestic terrorism against the American people.
>
>
>
>
>
> from widows.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> �Upon considering all the possible ways to die, I would like to die in a
> hale of Gunfire, John Woo style.� -- Rev. Shawn Cole
>
>
>
>
>
edi...@netpath.net
> > -- Anyone can sue anyone. It will get tossed out. Nobody gets cash
> > from widows.
Especially not by arguing that wives have any duty to snitch on their
husbands for the Internal Revenue Service.
Just imagine how that Nazi-like image - that wives and husbands have a
duty to snitch on each other for the regime - will play in the minds
of any Texas jury.
Cheney's Free Meds
news:BZKdnR5fAMr2aRjW...@giganews.com...
>> killed when a Texas man crashed his plane into the agency's Austin
>> office is suing the pilot's widow.
>>
>> Attorney Daniel Ross says the lawsuit against Sheryl Stack seeks to
>> determine if the pilot left behind insurance policies or other assets.
>>
>> Ross represents Valerie Hunter, whose 68-year-old husband Vernon
>> Hunter was killed last week when authorities say Joseph Stack
>> deliberately crashed his single-engine plane into the IRS office.
>>
>> Joseph Stack left behind a lengthy anti-government Internet posting
>> blaming the IRS for personal problems spanning decades.
>>
>> The lawsuit filed Monday says Sheryl Stack should have warned others
>> about her husband.
>>
>> A message seeking comment was left Tuesday with a family spokesman for
>> Sheryl Stack.
>>
>
> Perhaps Joe Stacks widow should sue the irs for forcing her husband to
> commit suicide and crash into a building, not to mention the irs is
> committing acts of domestic terrorism against the American people.
Everyone involved should sue Bush & Cheney.
Cole Firearms Inc.
> On Feb 24, 11:38 pm, "None4U"<nos...@nospam.none> wrote:
>>> -- Anyone can sue anyone. It will get tossed out. Nobody gets cash
>>> from widows.
>
> Especially not by arguing that wives have any duty to snitch on their
> husbands for the Internal Revenue Service.
> Just imagine how that Nazi-like image - that wives and husbands have a
> duty to snitch on each other for the regime - will play in the minds
> of any Texas jury.
Or somehow be mind readers.
Evelyn
<edi...@netpath.net> wrote in message
news:105844b1-3c2f-4248...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> FROM ASSOCIATED PRESS TODAY:
> AUSTIN, Texas � The widow of the Internal Revenue Service employee
It surely isn't the wife's fault that her husband was crazy. As for life
insurance, most policies have a clause canceling the benefits if the person
commits suicide, which he did. As for assets, it would seem that if they
were jointly owned assets, she might have a claim against HIS half of the
joint assets. But..... I am no lawyer, and I have long since ceased to
be amazed at any lawsuit for any reason.
--
Evelyn
�The purpose of our lives is to be happy� His Holiness, the Dalai Lama
edi...@netpath.net
> It surely isn't the wife's fault that her husband was crazy. As for life
> insurance, most policies have a clause canceling the benefits if the person
> commits suicide, which he did. As for assets, it would seem that if they
> were jointly owned assets, she might have a claim against HIS half of the
> joint assets. But..... I am no lawyer, and I have long since ceased to
> be amazed at any lawsuit for any reason.
You can sue anyone for anything - for the price of a filing fee. That
hardly means you even have a chance of winning if the case goes to
trial - and some of the no-lawyer lawsuits I've seen in Small Claims
Court were remarkable for the plaintiff's idiocy. As for lawyer-
brought ones, obviously half lose too.
Lars Eighner
<105844b1-3c2f-4248...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, the
lovely and talented edi...@netpath.net broadcast on alt.true-crime:
> FROM ASSOCIATED PRESS TODAY:
> AUSTIN, Texas ? The widow of the Internal Revenue Service employee
> killed when a Texas man crashed his plane into the agency's Austin
> office is suing the pilot's widow.
Just see how many people come down on the side of the terrorists.
Homicide attackers shouldn't expect "someone" will take care of their
families.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> Warbama's Afghaninam day: 85
2053.0 hours since Warbama declared Viet Nam II.
Warbama: An LBJ for the Twenty-First century. No hope. No change.
edi...@netpath.net
> Just see how many people come down on the side of the terrorists.
> Homicide attackers shouldn't expect "someone" will take care of their
> families.
Wake up to reality; the Internal Revenue Service is so unpopular that
most adult middle-class Americans think the only thing Joseph Stack
did wrong was not own a 747.
Lookout
<colefir...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On 2/24/2010 10:42 PM, edi...@netpath.net wrote:
>> On Feb 24, 11:38 pm, "None4U"<nos...@nospam.none> wrote:
>>>> -- Anyone can sue anyone. It will get tossed out. Nobody gets cash
>>>> from widows.
>>
>> Especially not by arguing that wives have any duty to snitch on their
>> husbands for the Internal Revenue Service.
>> Just imagine how that Nazi-like image - that wives and husbands have a
>> duty to snitch on each other for the regime - will play in the minds
>> of any Texas jury.
>
>
>
>Or somehow be mind readers.
If you know someone is going to commit a crime you have a civic AND
MORAL responsibility to do something NO MATTER WHO IT IS.
Lookout
wrote:
>
><edi...@netpath.net> wrote in message
>news:105844b1-3c2f-4248...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>> FROM ASSOCIATED PRESS TODAY:
>> AUSTIN, Texas � The widow of the Internal Revenue Service employee
>> killed when a Texas man crashed his plane into the agency's Austin
>> office is suing the pilot's widow.
>>
>> Attorney Daniel Ross says the lawsuit against Sheryl Stack seeks to
>> determine if the pilot left behind insurance policies or other assets.
>>
>> Ross represents Valerie Hunter, whose 68-year-old husband Vernon
>> Hunter was killed last week when authorities say Joseph Stack
>> deliberately crashed his single-engine plane into the IRS office.
>>
>> Joseph Stack left behind a lengthy anti-government Internet posting
>> blaming the IRS for personal problems spanning decades.
>>
>> The lawsuit filed Monday says Sheryl Stack should have warned others
>> about her husband.
>>
>> A message seeking comment was left Tuesday with a family spokesman for
>> Sheryl Stack.
>
>
>It surely isn't the wife's fault that her husband was crazy. As for life
>insurance, most policies have a clause canceling the benefits if the person
>commits suicide, which he did.
Most? Really? Our's only has that for the first 2 years
>As for assets, it would seem that if they
>were jointly owned assets, she might have a claim against HIS half of the
>joint assets. But..... I am no lawyer, and I have long since ceased to
>be amazed at any lawsuit for any reason.
I hope she gets it.
edi...@netpath.net
> >On 2/24/2010 10:42 PM, edi...@netpath.net wrote:
> >> Especially not by arguing that wives have any duty to snitch on their
> >> husbands for the Internal Revenue Service.
> >> Just imagine how that Nazi-like image - that wives and husbands have a
> >> duty to snitch on each other for the regime - will play in the minds
> >> of any Texas jury.
>
> MORAL responsibility to do something NO MATTER WHO IT IS.
Bullshit. Only in totalitarian states - such as Nazi Germany or
Stalin-era Russia - has it been seen as a "civic duty" to fink on your
husband, wife, or parent.
Is that the kind of Amerika you want?
Lars Eighner
<0591143f-4596-4931...@x22g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>, the
lovely and talented edi...@netpath.net broadcast on alt.true-crime:
> On Feb 25, 7:04�pm, Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com> wrote:
So you are saying people shouldn't turn in terrorists.
> http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
Somehow I knew you were on the side of terrorism.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> Warbama's Afghaninam day: 86
2081.7 hours since Warbama declared Viet Nam II.
M
> On Feb 25, 9:04 am, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>
> > Just see how many people come down on the side of the terrorists.
> > Homicide attackers shouldn't expect "someone" will take care of their
> > families.
>
> Wake up to reality; the Internal Revenue Service is so unpopular that
> most adult middle-class Americans think the only thing Joseph Stack
> did wrong was not own a 747.
That's your fantasy.
It says something about how much you are, or are not, in touch with
reality.
Did you support David Koresh and Randy Weaver, too?
How about Tim McVeigh?
All those tea baggers?
Mick
jls
That lawsuit, take it from me, will never get past a motion to
dismiss, or at least past a motion for summary judgment. It will
never go to a jury, not because the plaintiff widow is not aggrieved
for the loss of her husband but because she is suing someone who is
just as much a victim as she is, and could never be found liable
unless she was an accessory in her husband's crimes.
The real estate of course immediately vests in the name of the Stack
widow by the entireties and is not subject to a judgment lien. The
only way the plaintiff widow might collect something is against the
estate of the husband, which apparently is insolvent. Even life
insurance proceeds in the favor of the Stack widow are not subject to
claims against the pilot Stack.
I believe the lawsuit is a disgrace and a reflection, not on the widow
plaintiff, but on the idiot lawyer who filed the lawsuit. If he had
done that in my state the bar and the judges would ride him out of
town on a rail and dump him in the local sludge pond.
(Sorry, didn't have time to read the other comments.)
Poppy
>
> - Show quoted text -
hey, the article is a little misleading. i live in the austin area on
the local news, it stated that Valerie Hunter did not want the autopsy
results to be released, therefore the lawyer had to file against Mrs.
Stack. They now will all come to an agreement that Mrs. Hunter will
get no $, that's not what she was after anyways. The autopsy results
will also be kept silent.
M
Thanks Poppy. NOW it seems to make sense. Yeah, I want the widow of
the victim to be able to see the autopsy report.
At some point it should become public as well. Was Stack on drugs?
Did he have a brain tumor or other brain lesion?
Mick
edi...@netpath.net
> In our last episode,
> <0591143f-4596-4931-b524-2e205ca3d...@x22g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>, the
> >> MORAL responsibility to do something NO MATTER WHO IT IS.
> > Bullshit. Only in totalitarian states - such as Nazi Germany or
> > Stalin-era Russia - has it been seen as a "civic duty" to fink on your
> > husband, wife, or parent.
> > Is that the kind of Amerika you want?
>
> So you are saying people shouldn't turn in terrorists.
I'm saying George Washington's wife DIDN'T have any "civic duty" to
fink on her "terrorist" husband for the Brit colonizers! And don't
kid yourself; "terrorist" - or "traitor" and "murderer" - is exactly
what George Washington would have been called by the Brits had he
lost, as the only difference between "national hero" and "terrorist"
in national-liberation warfare is victory.
Remember, legally, one spouse cannot testify against the other,
anyhow. So why then is it a civic duty, Nazi-style, for one spouse to
fink on the other?
Lars Eighner
<2609efb5-4716-4c8a...@15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, the
lovely and talented edi...@netpath.net broadcast on alt.true-crime:
> On Feb 26, 1:46�pm, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>> In our last episode,
>> <0591143f-4596-4931-b524-2e205ca3d...@x22g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>, the
>> lovely and talented edi...@netpath.net broadcast on alt.true-crime:
>> >> If you know someone is going to commit a crime you have a civic AND
>> >> MORAL responsibility to do something NO MATTER WHO IT IS.
>> > Bullshit. �Only in totalitarian states - such as Nazi Germany or
>> > Stalin-era Russia - has it been seen as a "civic duty" to fink on your
>> > husband, wife, or parent.
>> > Is that the kind of Amerika you want?
>>
>> So you are saying people shouldn't turn in terrorists.
> I'm saying George Washington's wife DIDN'T have any "civic duty" to
> fink on her "terrorist" husband for the Brit colonizers!
George Washington led regular troops against military targets. If that
makes him a terrorist then so is every US soldier who ever fired a shot in
combat.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> Warbama's Afghaninam day: 86
2087.2 hours since Warbama declared Viet Nam II.
Lookout
wrote:
>On Feb 24, 10:48�pm, "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>> FROM ASSOCIATED PRESS TODAY:
>> AUSTIN, Texas � The widow of the Internal Revenue Service employee
>> killed when a Texas man crashed his plane into the agency's Austin
>> office is suing the pilot's widow.
>>
>> Attorney Daniel Ross says the lawsuit against Sheryl Stack seeks to
>> determine if the pilot left behind insurance policies or other assets.
>>
>> Ross represents Valerie Hunter, whose 68-year-old husband Vernon
>> Hunter was killed last week when authorities say Joseph Stack
>> deliberately crashed his single-engine plane into the IRS office.
>>
>> Joseph Stack left behind a lengthy anti-government Internet posting
>> blaming the IRS for personal problems spanning decades.
>>
>> The lawsuit filed Monday says Sheryl Stack should have warned others
>> about her husband.
>>
>> A message seeking comment was left Tuesday with a family spokesman for
>> Sheryl Stack.
>
>That lawsuit, take it from me, will never get past a motion to
>dismiss, or at least past a motion for summary judgment. It will
>never go to a jury, not because the plaintiff widow is not aggrieved
>for the loss of her husband but because she is suing someone who is
>just as much a victim as she is, and could never be found liable
>unless she was an accessory in her husband's crimes.
Bullshit. His estate IS liable.
edi...@netpath.net
> Bullshit. His estate IS liable.-
Dream on; Joseph Stack's "estate" obviously has negative net worth.
Whatever tax liens drove him to kamikaze the Internal Revenue Service
are going to have first priority, whatever mortgage(s) on the house
and land will be worth more than the burned-out house and the lot it's
on. Need I say his airplane is now worthless?
Why do you think that the lawyer is suing Stack's wife? Because he
knows there's nothing in the estate to get anything out of!
Seon Ferguson
<edi...@netpath.net> wrote in message
news:426c09c1-d984-4c44...@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 26, 9:09 pm, Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Bullshit. His estate IS liable.-
>
The IRS and the income tax are unconstitutional.
Lookout
wrote:
You're wasting your time.
RD (The Sandman)
news:r6udnSRcm556AxXW...@westnet.com.au:
That hasn't been determined in a court of law although some have tried. ;)
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
"Expecting a carjacker, rapist or drug pusher to care that his
possession or use of a gun is unlawful is like expecting a terrorist
to care that his car bomb is taking up two parking spaces."
--Joseph T. Chew
Seon Ferguson
"Lookout" <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:augio59vcq5mk58e5...@4ax.com...
Yep and even though it is unconstitutional I will still be thrown in jail if
i lived in America and didn't pay my tax. Unless of course I was in the
Obama administration.
Seon Ferguson
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9D2C8A1C...@216.196.97.130...
> "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:r6udnSRcm556AxXW...@westnet.com.au:
>
>>
>>
>> <edi...@netpath.net> wrote in message
>> news:426c09c1-d984-4c44...@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Feb 26, 9:09 pm, Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Bullshit. His estate IS liable.-
>>>
>> The IRS and the income tax are unconstitutional.
>
> That hasn't been determined in a court of law although some have tried. ;)
>
I thought I heard of cases but I can't find the cite so I will back out by
saying you can try but you will probably be thrown in jail.
RD (The Sandman)
>
>
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9D2C8A1C...@216.196.97.130...
>> "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:r6udnSRcm556AxXW...@westnet.com.au:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <edi...@netpath.net> wrote in message
>>> news:426c09c1-d984-4c44...@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.co
>>> m...
>>>> On Feb 26, 9:09 pm, Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Bullshit. His estate IS liable.-
>>>>
>>> The IRS and the income tax are unconstitutional.
>>
>> That hasn't been determined in a court of law although some have
>> tried. ;)
>>
> I thought I heard of cases but I can't find the cite so I will back
> out by saying you can try but you will probably be thrown in jail.
There have been several. There used to be a site out there put up by a
law student on those cases and others but I don't know where that site
went. I will have to do and look for it.
If you are looking for some cases on it, you should start with Pollock v
Farmers' Loan - 1895. It was the case that started it all by declaring
the 1894 Federal Income Tax Law unconstitutional. You may also try South
Carolina v Baker - 1988 wgucg stated that income from state and municipal
bonds may be taxed althought Congress (so far) has not seen fit to do so.
Other USSC cases which are directly on income tax were:
Springer v US - 1881
Hylton v US - 1796
Flint v Stone - 1911
Eisner v Macomber - 1920
Helvering v National Grocery - 1938
Helvering v NW Steel Rolling Mills - 1940
Taft v Bowers - 1929
and about 4 or 5 others.
After all the dry stuff, you might wish to clean out your mind with this
wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments
Interesting reading..... ;)
edi...@netpath.net
You really do miss the point. A few more Joseph Stacks, and the
regime won't be able to find bureaucrats to run any tax program in
vast contiguous Red Nation - whether or not that tax program is
constitutional.
Seon Ferguson
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9D2C98139...@216.196.97.130...
You bet if only more Americans protested. If everyone stopped paying their
tax then there would be no more room in jail cells.
Lookout
wrote:
>
>
>"Lookout" <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:augio59vcq5mk58e5...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:26:10 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>><edi...@netpath.net> wrote in message
>>>news:426c09c1-d984-4c44...@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Feb 26, 9:09 pm, Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Bullshit. His estate IS liable.-
>>>>
>>>The IRS and the income tax are unconstitutional.
>>>
>> You're wasting your time.
>
>Yep and even though it is unconstitutional I will still be thrown in jail if
>i lived in America and didn't pay my tax. Unless of course I was in the
>Obama administration.
>
So no conservative or republican has ever been charged with tax
evasion? Really?
Dumbass
pyjamarama
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:57:02 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> >> out by saying you can try but you will probably be thrown in jail.
>
> >There have been several. There used to be a site out there put up by a
> >law student on those cases and others but I don't know where that site
> >went. I will have to do and look for it.
>
> >If you are looking for some cases on it, you should start with Pollock v
> >Farmers' Loan - 1895. It was the case that started it all by declaring
> >the 1894 Federal Income Tax Law unconstitutional. You may also try South
> >Carolina v Baker - 1988 wgucg stated that income from state and municipal
> >bonds may be taxed althought Congress (so far) has not seen fit to do so.
>
> >Other USSC cases which are directly on income tax were:
>
> >Springer v US - 1881
> >Hylton v US - 1796
> >Flint v Stone - 1911
> >Eisner v Macomber - 1920
> >Helvering v National Grocery - 1938
> >Helvering v NW Steel Rolling Mills - 1940
> >Taft v Bowers - 1929
> >and about 4 or 5 others.
>
> >After all the dry stuff, you might wish to clean out your mind with this
> >wiki page:
>
> list a ass-wipe list of law suits and not find one that "found" the
> income tax unconstitutional
>
> Over the generations and years---why do you think that is?
>
> THink hard now------
Damn them pesky archives, eh, smorgy?
GARY ROSELLES (aka "smor…@board") left-wing sociopath and author of
the following “views” on race, homosexuality, death-threats and, lest
we forget, killing govt. officials and teenage girls:
"Who Dat? MOCKS BLACK SPEECH", “Mocking Black Eubonics” by
smor...@board.ne -- Roselles moronically restates his racist concept
that African-Americans talk in “BLACK SPEECH” and “Black Eubonics[sic]
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/9e7e19b978af9a2d?hl=en&dmode=source
"She (Katherine Harris) should be at least shot" -- Gary Roselles
"I call Kathering[sic] Harris a nazi/fascist right wing ideologue
whore.
What did we do to German nazis right wing whores?" -- Gary
Roselles
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.clinton/msg/9431827dde9eb727?dmode=source
“May a real american someday have the honor of putting a bullet
between her eyes." -- Gary Roselles on B. Robertson's teenage
daughter.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.bush/msg/346a12114c9884ee?hl=en&dmode=source
What the fuck would a dumb cocksucker like (Distinguished African-
American Scholar, Thomas) Sowell, who sits out at Stanford, never
having
worked a day in his Uncle Tom life, know anything?" -- Gary
Roselles
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/652f875e53203e8e?hl=en&
"Both are traitors to their race" -- Race Purist Gary Roselles on the
importance
of Race Loyalty
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/90646e9b4da37793
"You actually think that placing blackskinned, white thinking people
is going to gain anything with real minorities?" -- Gary Roselles,
Racist
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater/msg/1b116fa0999182fb
(see header)
"Them brown niggers need to be taken out" -- Gary Roselles, Racist
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.republicans/msg/421a0f9263435ca4
"He (African-American scholar Thomas Sowell) goes against his own
kind." Race loyalist Gary Roselles, insisting once again that “them
blacks” should "stick
to their own kind"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/17fcf97abe2e4ee2?dmode=source
"His appointment will bridge nothing. It's apparant he's being an
uncle tom to appease voters." -- White trash, racist asshole Gary
Roselles
slurs African-American Hero General Colin Powell
"Group Negro Poster Pyjamarma admits to being a coconut headed coon"
-- Gary Roselles, pathetic racist
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/d9ccfefc35328516?dmode=source
"Say "yes Massa", Uncle Tom." – Vile racist Gary Roselles pathetically
mocks and
slurs prominent African-American man-of-the-cloth Jesse Lee
Peterson
"How does a pampered, Stanford based, Scaife funded, Uncle Tom make
judgements on "the bottom", McFly?" -- Another day, another racial
slur on an educated, successful, independent black man from Gary
Roselles
"I consider hating RIGHT WING nazi/fascist fucks like you a God
inspired emotion."
"Hating RIGHT WINGERS is doing God's work, Dumbapropyl" -- Pure,
venomous hate-speech from "god-inspired" whackjob Gary Roselles
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.clinton/msg/9431827dde9eb727?dmode=source
Yeah, there's a real fucking credible authority----Hitchens a faggot
socialist." -- Gary Roselles, “f”-bomb droppin’ rabid homophobe
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.conservatism/msg/d2ab5e412f7ed8e7?dmode=source
"You're like that kid that has just been told that's not a hot-dog
he's sucking on" -- Gary Roselles, Pedophile, admits forcing oral
copulation on a child
http://groups.google.com/group/seattle.politics/msg/fcf8198215ac03f2?as_ums
GARYLOON (smor…@board) agrees with AND defends his racist prick buddy
EVERLOON, thusly...
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:58:07 -0800 (PST) everonlyn...@yahoo.com wrote
and on Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:12:58 -0800 (PST), knicklas@click (Gary
Roselles) DEFENDED:
"Yeah, they sold out their own in an attempt to be a minority in the
GOP so they could achieve to places they never would have elsewhere.
Ironically, Ward Connerly and Thomas Sowell say they are against race
quotas, and they also say they are against political correctness.
Since they are liars and scandals, and don't like political
correctness, I will call them niggers right here and now.
NIGGERS,
NIGGERS, NIGGERS."
As if they shared the same racist brain, Gary concurred, thusly:
What the fuck would a dumb cocksucker like (Distinguished African-
American Scholar, Thomas) Sowell, who sits out at Stanford, never
having
worked a day in his Uncle Tom life, know anything?" -- Gary
Roselles
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/652f875e53203e8e?hl=en&
"Both are traitors to their race" -- White Supremacist, Race Loyalist
Gary Roselles slurs the acclaimed, distinguished African-American
scholars Dr. Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/90646e9b4da37793
"You actually think that placing blackskinned, white thinking people
is going to gain anything with real minorities?" -- Gary Roselles,
Racist
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater/msg/1b116fa0999182fb
(see header)
"Them brown niggers need to be taken out" -- Gary Roselles, Racist
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.republicans/msg/421a0f9263435ca4
"He (African-American scholar Thomas Sowell) goes against his own
kind." Race loyalist Gary Roselles, insisting once again that “them
blacks” should "stick
to their own kind"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/17fcf97abe2e4ee2?dmode=source
Seon Ferguson
"Lookout" <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:94njo5ha5mnvvpee6...@4ax.com...
At least they were charged! Pinhead.
Seon Ferguson
<smo...@board.net> wrote in message
news:oltjo55bjcppfm3p4...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 08:17:51 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Lookout" <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>>>>The IRS and the income tax are unconstitutional.
>>>>
>>> You're wasting your time.
>>
>>Yep and even though it is unconstitutional
>
> It isn't unconstitutional
>
> No one has a legal basis to sue for any reason---testing it's
> validity.
>
> That's why no one can successfully launch a suit.
>
You really need to watch America: from freedom to fascism. Do you even know
the federal reserve bank is run by a group of private offshore bankers?
Lookout
wrote:
>
>
>"Lookout" <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:94njo5ha5mnvvpee6...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 08:17:51 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Lookout" <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:augio59vcq5mk58e5...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:26:10 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><edi...@netpath.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:426c09c1-d984-4c44...@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> On Feb 26, 9:09 pm, Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Bullshit. His estate IS liable.-
>>>>>>
>>>>>The IRS and the income tax are unconstitutional.
>>>>>
>>>> You're wasting your time.
>>>
>>>Yep and even though it is unconstitutional I will still be thrown in jail
>>>if
>>>i lived in America and didn't pay my tax. Unless of course I was in the
>>>Obama administration.
>>>
>> So no conservative or republican has ever been charged with tax
>> evasion? Really?
>>
>> Dumbass
>
>At least they were charged! Pinhead.
>
AND convicted.
edi...@netpath.net
> You really need to watch America: from freedom to fascism. Do you even know
Anyone doubting that this regime represents Wall Street - NOT "of, by,
and for the people" - need only look at how the middle class and
working class are being taxed more so bailed-out investment bankers
can give themselves huge bonuses.
RD (The Sandman)
>
>
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9D2C98139...@216.196.97.130...
>> "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:XKmdnQzKjaNLERTW...@westnet.com.au:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>> message news:Xns9D2C8A1C...@216.196.97.130...
>>>> "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:r6udnSRcm556AxXW...@westnet.com.au:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <edi...@netpath.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:426c09c1-d984-4c44...@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.
>>>>> co m...
But then we would all be on socialized medicine. ;)
RD (The Sandman)
news:gptjo59ep35e7u5tn...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:57:02 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
>>> I thought I heard of cases but I can't find the cite so I will back
>>> out by saying you can try but you will probably be thrown in jail.
>>
>>There have been several. There used to be a site out there put up by
>>a law student on those cases and others but I don't know where that
>>site went. I will have to do and look for it.
>>
>>If you are looking for some cases on it, you should start with Pollock
>>v Farmers' Loan - 1895. It was the case that started it all by
>>declaring the 1894 Federal Income Tax Law unconstitutional. You may
>>also try South Carolina v Baker - 1988 wgucg stated that income from
>>state and municipal bonds may be taxed althought Congress (so far) has
>>not seen fit to do so.
>>
>>Other USSC cases which are directly on income tax were:
>>
>>Springer v US - 1881
>>Hylton v US - 1796
>>Flint v Stone - 1911
>>Eisner v Macomber - 1920
>>Helvering v National Grocery - 1938
>>Helvering v NW Steel Rolling Mills - 1940
>>Taft v Bowers - 1929
>>and about 4 or 5 others.
>>
>>After all the dry stuff, you might wish to clean out your mind with
>>this wiki page:
>
> And so---even you, Sandloon---would have to conclude that you could
> list a ass-wipe list of law suits and not find one that "found" the
> income tax unconstitutional
I haven't ever claimed different.
why do you think that is?
THink hard now------
RD (The Sandman)
8bd1-267...@a18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
> On Feb 27, 11:09�am, Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:26:10 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >The IRS and the income tax are unconstitutional.
>>
>> You're wasting your time.
>
> You really do miss the point. A few more Joseph Stacks, and the
> regime won't be able to find bureaucrats to run any tax program in
> vast contiguous Red Nation - whether or not that tax program is
> constitutional.
Are you volunteering?
RD (The Sandman)
news:5itjo5t438lcgrin8...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 14:34:40 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> The IRS and the income tax are unconstitutional.
>>
>>That hasn't been determined in a court of law although some have
>>tried. ;)
>
> There's no basis in fact for that nonsense belief, Sandloon
Excuse me? Some have felt that income taxes are unconstitutional. Some
have even had a day in court to make their case. None have won. What's
your problem?
> There's no basis for anyone suing that's why.
>
> Gotta have some fundamental grievance to base a lawsuit on.
RD (The Sandman)
4ax.com:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 08:17:51 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Lookout" <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>>>>The IRS and the income tax are unconstitutional.
>>>>
>>> You're wasting your time.
>>
>>Yep and even though it is unconstitutional
>
> It isn't unconstitutional
He is as entitled to his opinion as you are to yours.
> No one has a legal basis to sue for any reason---testing it's
> validity.
>
> That's why no one can successfully launch a suit.
Don't show yourself to be such a moron unless it comes naturally to you.
Here is a cite of several who have successfully launched suits. They
didn't win them but they successfully launched them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_(United_States)
Here are some additional sites:
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Tax_protester_arguments
You can find many more on your own.
edi...@netpath.net
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
> "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote in news:4ccd241c-39aa-4751-
> > regime won't be able to find bureaucrats to run any tax program in
> > vast contiguous Red Nation - whether or not that tax program is
> > constitutional.
>
> Are you volunteering?
Will it matter who the next two Joseph Stacks are - or where they
attack or even whether they attack survivably instead of as
kamikazes? Because you can bet the Asian lenders now propping up the
regime's huge deficit spending will quit lending to it the moment it
looks like any kind of insurgency is under way in half its tax base -
and thus the regime won't be able to repay the loans.
M
> On Feb 28, 2:22 pm, "RD (The Sandman)"
>
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
> > "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote in news:4ccd241c-39aa-4751-
> > > You really do miss the point. A few more Joseph Stacks, and the
> > > regime won't be able to find bureaucrats to run any tax program in
> > > vast contiguous Red Nation - whether or not that tax program is
> > > constitutional.
>
> > Are you volunteering?
>
> Will it matter who the next two Joseph Stacks are - or where they
> attack or even whether they attack survivably instead of as
> kamikazes? Because you can bet the Asian lenders now propping up the
> regime's huge deficit spending will quit lending to it the moment it
> looks like any kind of insurgency is under way in half its tax base -
If you listen to the far right-wing mainstream media (Fox, Limbaugh,
Coulter, and the other extremists), you might get the impression that
half of the US supports this treason.
You also, somehow, oddly, get the impression that anyone who opposes
corporate power is treasonous - as though the original intent of the
founders was for the US to be ruled by multi-national corporations.
That doesn't make it true.
Mick
SaPeIsMa
"M" <mc...@pitt.edu> wrote in message
news:5642d666-6a0a-4f8d...@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 28, 3:05 pm, "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 2:22 pm, "RD (The Sandman)"
>
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
> > "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote in
> > news:4ccd241c-39aa-4751-
> > > You really do miss the point. A few more Joseph Stacks, and the
> > > regime won't be able to find bureaucrats to run any tax program in
> > > vast contiguous Red Nation - whether or not that tax program is
> > > constitutional.
>
> > Are you volunteering?
>
> Will it matter who the next two Joseph Stacks are - or where they
> attack or even whether they attack survivably instead of as
> kamikazes? Because you can bet the Asian lenders now propping up the
> regime's huge deficit spending will quit lending to it the moment it
> looks like any kind of insurgency is under way in half its tax base -
# If you listen to the far right-wing mainstream media (Fox, Limbaugh,
# Coulter, and the other extremists), you might get the impression that
# half of the US supports this treason.
#
# You also, somehow, oddly, get the impression that anyone who opposes
# corporate power is treasonous - as though the original intent of the
# founders was for the US to be ruled by multi-national corporations.
#
# That doesn't make it true.
#
One has to wonder how stupid the left actually is
THe above is nothing but a demonstration of the failure of the "educational"
system as it exists under the control of the left for the last 40+ years
M
> "M" <m...@pitt.edu> wrote in message
The left? The Texas Board of Education is "the left" now?
I have to admit the left is pretty stupid. Not very many of them -
the dems are right wing and the 'pubs extreme right wing. The only
people out there dumber than the left wing is the right wing.
Mick
jls
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Feb 24, 10:48 pm, "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
> >> FROM ASSOCIATED PRESS TODAY:
> >> AUSTIN, Texas – The widow of the Internal Revenue Service employee
> >> killed when a Texas man crashed his plane into the agency's Austin
> >> office is suing the pilot's widow.
>
> >> Attorney Daniel Ross says the lawsuit against Sheryl Stack seeks to
> >> determine if the pilot left behind insurance policies or other assets.
>
> >> Ross represents Valerie Hunter, whose 68-year-old husband Vernon
> >> Hunter was killed last week when authorities say Joseph Stack
> >> deliberately crashed his single-engine plane into the IRS office.
>
> >> Joseph Stack left behind a lengthy anti-government Internet posting
> >> blaming the IRS for personal problems spanning decades.
>
> >> The lawsuit filed Monday says Sheryl Stack should have warned others
> >> about her husband.
>
> >> A message seeking comment was left Tuesday with a family spokesman for
> >> Sheryl Stack.
>
> >That lawsuit, take it from me, will never get past a motion to
> >dismiss, or at least past a motion for summary judgment. It will
> >never go to a jury, not because the plaintiff widow is not aggrieved
> >for the loss of her husband but because she is suing someone who is
> >just as much a victim as she is, and could never be found liable
> >unless she was an accessory in her husband's crimes.
>
> Bullshit. His estate IS liable.
You have a problem comprehending the English language. I clearly
indicated that HIS estate is liable but that it is likely insolvent,
i. e., broke (so that a simpleton like you can understand). Therefore
the widow of the IRS employee will be unable to collect anything from
the estate of the dead pilot.
Gee, so many drooling idiots in the world.
No-bammer
> In our last episode,
> <2609efb5-4716-4c8a...@15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, the
> lovely and talented edi...@netpath.net broadcast on alt.true-crime:
>
>
>>On Feb 26, 1:46 pm, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In our last episode,
>>><0591143f-4596-4931-b524-2e205ca3d...@x22g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>, the
>>>lovely and talented edi...@netpath.net broadcast on alt.true-crime:
>>>
>>>>>If you know someone is going to commit a crime you have a civic AND
>>>>>MORAL responsibility to do something NO MATTER WHO IT IS.
>>>>
>>>>Bullshit. Only in totalitarian states - such as Nazi Germany or
>>>>Stalin-era Russia - has it been seen as a "civic duty" to fink on your
>>>>husband, wife, or parent.
>>>>Is that the kind of Amerika you want?
>>>
>>>So you are saying people shouldn't turn in terrorists.
>
>
>>I'm saying George Washington's wife DIDN'T have any "civic duty" to
>>fink on her "terrorist" husband for the Brit colonizers!
>
>
> George Washington led regular troops against military targets. If that
> makes him a terrorist then so is every US soldier who ever fired a shot in
> combat.
Only if they lose.
Lookout
You mean like Medicare and the military medical system?
M
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 13:20:26 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>
>
>
>
>
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
> >"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >news:EbadnbEBJuk4RhTW...@westnet.com.au:
>
> >> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>news:Xns9D2C98139...@216.196.97.130...
> >>> "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>news:XKmdnQzKjaNLERTW...@westnet.com.au:
>
> >>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
When a person opposes socialism do they oppose the socialist systems
the US has already? Like public roads, publics schools, public
airports, social security, and medicare?
Or do they have some sort of rationale for claiming that those things
are not socialistic? It's hArd to imagine an argument for that making
sense.
On the other hand, there are claims that a tea bagger's sign said
"KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY SOCIAL SECURITY!" So, delusional
as that kind of thinking may be, it apparently does happen.
Mick
edi...@netpath.net
> When a person opposes socialism do they oppose the socialist systems
> the US has already? Like public roads, publics schools, public
> airports, social security, and medicare?
Wake the fuck up. Don't you see that - in the massive growth of
tutoring companies like Sylvan Learning, in the massive growth of
private-school enrollments and homeschooling - that the peasant masses
really ARE rejecting socialized government schools? (Just like the
Obamas have their precious kids in private school.)