Agents identity
scub...@hotmail.com
You must not have much to do in Indian Head. Parhaps this would explain why
some boared ambulance driver has nothing more to do than post many thousands
of messages to newsgroups. Best thing is, he isn't even living or working in
the US.
Check out this post from another group:
Subject: Angel Martin
From: agent86 <age...@coolsite.net>
Date: 1998/04/10
Message-ID: <352DBA...@coolsite.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: SaskTel - Sympatico
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.tv.rockford-files
[Fewer Headers]
[Subscribe to alt.tv.rockford-files]
For those who care Stuart Margolin who played Angel Martin is in Indian
Head, Saskatchewan directing a movie shoot. I work ambulance there
and just got off from doing a standby during a stunt shoot.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Geoffrey Green
>You must not have much to do in Indian Head. Parhaps this would explain why
>some boared ambulance driver has nothing more to do than post many thousands
>of messages to newsgroups. Best thing is, he isn't even living or working in
>the US.
Nice going, Tom. You're skilled at using Deja News.
Now, do you care to answer some of those still-unanswered-questions that
I've posed to you in several earlier messages? Or do you concede that you
are, in fact, wrong?
- geoff
--
Geoffrey Green
NYU Law '98
http://pages.nyu.edu/~gfg0877/
scub...@hotmail.com
Look what else I found agent. You know we have something in common. We are
both EMTs. I maintain my certification to compliment my Rescue Diver
Certification. I got it back when I used to fight forest fires.
-----Original Message-----
Subject: Patches To Trade
From: agent86 <age...@coolsite.net>
Date: 1998/03/28
Message-ID: <351DE0...@coolsite.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: SaskTel - Sympatico
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.med.ems
[Fewer Headers]
[Subscribe to alt.med.ems]
I have a few Indian Head & District Ambulance shoulder patches to trade
1 for 1. email me if your'e interested.
Jim Sadlemyer
EMT
Indian Head Ambulance
-----End of Original Message-----
Hope there are no hard feelings JIM. After all, these are your own words.
scub...@hotmail.com
In article <gfg0877-0505...@e60-115.datanet.nyu.edu>#1/1,
Why should I? You do a real good job of avoiding the "whatever" jurisdiction
issue.
agen...@bigfoot.com
In article <6inhah$qlf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1,
scub...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Look what else I found agent. You know we have something in common. We are
> both EMTs. I maintain my certification to compliment my Rescue Diver
> Certification. I got it back when I used to fight forest fires.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Subject: Patches To Trade
> From: agent86 <age...@coolsite.net>
> Date: 1998/03/28
> Message-ID: <351DE0...@coolsite.net>
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Organization: SaskTel - Sympatico
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups: alt.med.ems
> [Fewer Headers]
> [Subscribe to alt.med.ems]
>
> I have a few Indian Head & District Ambulance shoulder patches to trade
> 1 for 1. email me if your'e interested.
> Jim Sadlemyer
> EMT
> Indian Head Ambulance
> -----End of Original Message-----
>
> Hope there are no hard feelings JIM. After all, these are your own words.
ROTFL, quick somebody come pick me up off the floor, my sides are hurting from
laughing so much. Go back and look at Dejanews again Tom. There are probably
20-30 people who have posted stuff under either the name of Agent 86 or had
that as part of their address. There's even one from your old stomping
grounds age...@en.com. And if you search Altavista, you will easily find
another half-dozen or so email addresses that uses agent86 in them.
This guy Jim does have a good web page on the TV show "Get Smart". Hope you
read it and figured out who Agent 86 really is.
You're always good for a good laugh, Tom.....
Say, did you ever ask your girlfriend about Martindale-Hubbell?
agen...@bigfoot.com
In article <6imtg3$qdp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1,
scub...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> You must not have much to do in Indian Head. Parhaps this would explain why
> some boared ambulance driver has nothing more to do than post many thousands
That's "bored" you advanced degree idiot.
> of messages to newsgroups. Best thing is, he isn't even living or working in
> the US.
>
> Check out this post from another group:
>
> Subject: Angel Martin
> From: agent86 <age...@coolsite.net>
> Date: 1998/04/10
Let's see, my return address is agen...@bigfoot.com. Doesn't look the same
to me. Why don't you try age...@en.com, or age...@prodigy.com, or
age...@ix.netcom.com, or even age...@aol.com. They are all valid addresses.
I can still hardly pick myself up off the floor from laughing at this pathetic
attempt....
agen...@bigfoot.com
In article <gfg0877-0505...@e60-115.datanet.nyu.edu>#1/1,
gfg...@is4.nyu.edu (Geoffrey Green) wrote:
>
>
> >You must not have much to do in Indian Head. Parhaps this would explain why
> >some boared ambulance driver has nothing more to do than post many
thousands
in
> >the US.
>
Hardly, Geoff, Hardly. A first grader could make better use of it.
> Now, do you care to answer some of those still-unanswered-questions that
> I've posed to you in several earlier messages? Or do you concede that you
> are, in fact, wrong?
He has no answers. They aren't in his tax-protestor handbook. And he is
certainly incapable of thinking for himself except to be delusional about his
advanced genetics degree and attorney girlfriend.
agen...@bigfoot.com
In article <6inmjp$336$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1,
scub...@hotmail.com wrote:
<snip>
>
> Why should I? You do a real good job of avoiding the "whatever" jurisdiction
> issue.
Hey, you do a good job of avoiding answering questions....
BTW, the title of this thread should be "Agent's identity", about which of
course you don't have a clue.
Geoffrey Green
>In article <gfg0877-0505...@e60-115.datanet.nyu.edu>#1/1,
> gfg...@is4.nyu.edu (Geoffrey Green) wrote:
>> Nice going, Tom. You're skilled at using Deja News.
>>
>> Now, do you care to answer some of those still-unanswered-questions that
>> I've posed to you in several earlier messages? Or do you concede that you
>> are, in fact, wrong?
>Why should I? You do a real good job of avoiding the "whatever" jurisdiction
>issue.
I answered it, Tom. First of all, it's not a jurisdictional issue; the
use of the term "whatever" in section 61 of the IRC has nothing to do with
the district court's jurisdiction over the case.
"From whatever source derived" means "from any source."
See James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213, 218-19 (1961)
The starting point in all cases dealing with the question
of the scope of what is included in "gross income" begins with
the basic premise that the purpose of Congress was "to use the
full measure of its taxing power." Helvering v. Clifford,
309 U.S. 331, 334. And the Court has given a liberal construction
to the broad phraseology of the "gross income" definition
statutes in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all
gains except those specifically exempted. . . . The language of
sec. 22(a) of the 1939 Code, "gains or profits and income derived
from any source whatever," and the more simplified language of
sec. 61(a) of the 1954 Code, "all income from whatever source
derived, " have been held to encompass all "accessions to wealth,
clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete
dominion." Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co.,348 U.S. 426, 431.
It is one of the most fundamental concepts in tax law. I don't think I'm
avoiding the question; if you're not satisfied, you have to be more
specific in your questions.
Ready to answer those questions yet, Tom?
scub...@hotmail.com
In article <6ioe3m$bsq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1,
agen...@bigfoot.com wrote:
>
> In article <6imtg3$qdp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1,
> scub...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > You must not have much to do in Indian Head. Parhaps this would explain why
> > some boared ambulance driver has nothing more to do than post many thousands
>
>
> > the US.
> >
> >
> > Subject: Angel Martin
> > From: agent86 <age...@coolsite.net>
> > Date: 1998/04/10
>
> Let's see, my return address is agen...@bigfoot.com. Doesn't look the same
> to me. Why don't you try age...@en.com, or age...@prodigy.com, or
> age...@ix.netcom.com, or even age...@aol.com. They are all valid addresses.
>
> I can still hardly pick myself up off the floor from laughing at this pathetic
> attempt....
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
>
So you are claiming that agent86@coolsite is not the identity you were trying
to hide behind tha last time I was here?
scub...@hotmail.com
We all know that there is no consistancy in Case Law. So you can find some
case that supports your twisted thinking. But guess what? What you are posting
is just something out of some other product of the system of education you are
a part of. You really said nothing other than you have some other attorny (or
ex-attorny, attorny-to-be) that thinks like you. Gee, what a surprise.
scub...@hotmail.com
We all know that there is no consistency in Case Law. So you can find some
case that supports your twisted thinking. But guess what? What you are posting
is just something out of some other product of the system of education you are
a part of. You really said nothing other than you have some other attorney (or
ex-attorney, attorney-to-be, not much difference) that thinks like you. Gee,
Gwailo
scub...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Scubie: Why should I? You do a real good job of avoiding the "whatever"
> jurisdiction
> > >issue.
> >
> Geoff: I answered it, Tom. First of all, it's not a jurisdictional issue; the
> > use of the term "whatever" in section 61 of the IRC has nothing to do with
> > the district court's jurisdiction over the case.
> >
> > "From whatever source derived" means "from any source."
> >
> > See James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213, 218-19 (1961)
> >
> > The starting point in all cases dealing with the question
> > of the scope of what is included in "gross income" begins with
> > the basic premise that the purpose of Congress was "to use the
> > full measure of its taxing power." Helvering v. Clifford,
> > 309 U.S. 331, 334. And the Court has given a liberal construction
> > to the broad phraseology of the "gross income" definition
> > statutes in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all
> > gains except those specifically exempted. . . . The language of
> > sec. 22(a) of the 1939 Code, "gains or profits and income derived
> > from any source whatever," and the more simplified language of
> > sec. 61(a) of the 1954 Code, "all income from whatever source
> > derived, " have been held to encompass all "accessions to wealth,
> > clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete
> > dominion." Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co.,348 U.S. 426, 431.
> >
> > It is one of the most fundamental concepts in tax law. I don't think I'm
> > avoiding the question; if you're not satisfied, you have to be more
> > specific in your questions.
> >
> > Ready to answer those questions yet, Tom?
>
> Tom Scoobie: We all know that there is no consistancy in Case Law.
False. The whole concept of precedent and stare decisis aims at consistency. Only
thing here lacking it is Tom's spelling.
> So you can find some case that supports your twisted thinking.
Two controlling Supreme Court opinions ... a little more than "some case"
> But guess what? What you are posting is just something out of some other product
> of the system of education you are a part of. You really said nothing other than
> you have some other attorny (or ex-attorny, attorny-to-be) that thinks like you.
Would you believe the Supreme Court? Twice. Face it, Tom, your ideas are so far out
of the mainstream of human thought that they are "frivolous", i.e. silly and
laughable.
'Gwailo
agen...@bigfoot.com
In article <6ipjcl$dn6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1,
scub...@hotmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> >
>
> We all know that there is no consistency in Case Law. So you can find some
> case that supports your twisted thinking. But guess what? What you are
posting
> is just something out of some other product of the system of education you
are
> a part of. You really said nothing other than you have some other attorney
(or
> ex-attorney, attorney-to-be, not much difference) that thinks like you. Gee,
> what a surprise.
Gee, you had to only post this twice to get attorney spelled correctly.....
agen...@bigfoot.com
In article <6ioppv$10v$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1,
scub...@hotmail.com wrote:
<snip>
>
> So you are claiming that agent86@coolsite is not the identity you were
trying
> to hide behind tha last time I was here?
The last time I was here? I don't know what you mean. Looking back through
Dejanews, I see you had a rather torrid exchange with an age...@control.gov
in the past, at least before you ran away with your tail between your legs.
Somehow, the words "@coolsite.net" don't resemble "@control.gov" to me. Maybe
we've discovered the root of your comprehension problem.
I know you don't have a very logical mind, but think a minute. If I wanted to
disguise my identity, why would I sign my name to other postings? Why would I
write anything personal in a post? Why would I leave a trail back to myself
so obvious a blind man could follow it? Oh, I forget, that's what you did....
If you do a little research in Dejanews (at least a little more than you did)
you find loads of agent86's. You even find some agent99's. Here's a list I
compiled in just a few minutes looking:
agen...@seatac.net
age...@iland.net
age...@control.gov
age...@mindspring.com
agent...@earthlink.net
age...@cats.ucsc.edu
age...@envision-inc.net
age...@sd.znet.com
age...@gstandd.com
age...@control.com
age...@prodigy.net
agen...@aol.com
(which probably means there is an age...@aol.com and an agen...@aol.com)
age...@ctl.org
agen...@kgb.kremlin.com
age...@tea-house.com
age...@netcom.com
age...@ct2.nai.net
age...@coolsite.net
(this fellow, who for some reason you have picked on does have a good
website
devoted to "Get Smart" at www3.sk.sympatico.ca/agent86/web2.htm)
age...@en.com
(this fellow must be from Cleveland too)
age...@jps.net
age...@sk.sympatico.ca
age...@control.net
age...@byoc.com
age...@netcom.ca
age...@io.com
age...@iconn.net
(There's a picture of this fellow available on the net.)
age...@netaxs.com
agen...@ix.netcom.com
(wonder if this means there is a 1-5)
Then you have some variations:
maxwel...@usa.net
ag...@control.com
Then you have people who sign themselves as agent 86, but use other addresses:
fi...@znet.com
s...@netspace.net.au
rgas...@swbell.net
jh...@genesisnetwork.net
jh...@linkline.net
There is also a porno agent86 at sup...@wadloader.com
A little more looking in Altavista turns up additional addresses:
age...@pld.com
age...@cybernex.net
age...@sisna.com
age...@eletricati.com
age...@ntplx.net
age...@bigfoot.com
age...@hotmail.com
Now, Tom, which one do you suppose I am, if any of these? And then what does
that tell you? You might want to be careful about your accusations, you might
violate your hotmail users agreement and get yourself thrown off....
Geoffrey Green
In article <6ipj02$d4h$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, scub...@hotmail.com wrote:
>We all know that there is no consistancy in Case Law. So you can find some
>case that supports your twisted thinking. But guess what? What you are posting
>is just something out of some other product of the system of education you are
>a part of. You really said nothing other than you have some other attorny (or
>ex-attorny, attorny-to-be) that thinks like you. Gee, what a surprise.
No, I can find hundreds of cases that support my thinking. And you can
find none that support your thinking.
You can go on thinking everyone else in the world is wrong. Go ahead.
But why should we trust *you*, given that no court has ever accepted the
arguments you've made?