Bachmann appears to have represented the IRS only twice in cases tried in U.S. Tax Court -- both small cases -- according to a search of judicial records by attorney Melissa Wexler, a research expert at Westlaw, a major provider of computerized records.One was a win against a White Earth Indian Reservation resident named Marvin Manypenny, who contended that part of his modest income was not taxable under treaty rights.
Mary Streitz, the Minneapolis lawyer who represented Manypenny in that 1992 case, said she remembers Bachmann as "well dressed and professionally mannered.'' She said the case was "very, very small'' but had the twist of involving federal Indian law. Manypenny, she said, was sworn in with a peace pipe.The other court case Bachmann litigated, according to Wexler's records search, was a 1990 IRS win against a blue-collar Gateway Foods worker from La Crosse, Wis., who didn't file a tax return for several years. The most he ever made during those years was $23,470 and his six-year tax deficiency was estimated by the IRS at $13,500, records show. The taxpayer, who lived with his parents for lack of money after a divorce, represented himself in court.
See Michele Bachmann's low-key IRS role belied ambitions
A current search of Docket information shows I have five active cases, one VOP, and two miscellaneous dates.
Why would I care how much time Bachmann has spent in court?
ReplyDeleteNo, you only make baseless challenges to the legal qualifications of people who disagree with you.
ReplyDeleteMichelle Bachmann is a total fuckit like yourself, Jim, but she's you're type of fuckwit.
So, she can say the moon is made of green cheese and you swallow it whole.
You are a truly pathetic waste of time, Jim,
how was my challenge baseless? Did you post your law degree somewhere on this site? A search for "Laci the dog" does not turn up any lawyers going by that name, and I assume that is not your real name (or maybe your parents weren't happy with your looks?)
ReplyDeleteAnyway, again why would I care how much time you spend in court vs. Bachmann? That was the point of your opening sentence right? To thump your chest in pride and proclaim your superior intellect to me? But then you do follow up with the brilliant arguement of calling me a "fuckit" or maybe you meant "fuckwit" as in the second reference. Wow hard to see how you can lose with such strong legal arguements as that! Does that work for you in court - calling the oppossition "fuckwits"? I bet judges just eat that shit up huh?
Hey there Dim Jim, the reason anyone should care how much time Bachmann spent in court is that Bachmann is hyping her career as a litigating attorney in her stump speeches.
ReplyDeleteI gave Laci the info on the STrib article, and I pointed out that Laci, under his real/ professional name, was in court more times in one week than Bachmann was in her so-called litigating attorney career.
In simple words, for you Dim Jim, Bachmann is a serial liar, a chronic prevariator, a woman who misrepresents herself to the public over and over and over.
You know those 23 foster kids she claims to have RAISED? The reality is that none of them were with her and her husband for more than a week, two at the most. The few who have come forward don't even remember much about them, other than they were kind of extremely religious.
Bachann's husband Marcus claims to have a PhD in clinical Psychology....from a school which has been periodically suspended from being active, and which is largely a correspondence school, and...WHICH HAS NEVER AWARDED ANYONE A PHD IN CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, MUCH LESS AT THE TIME MARCUS BACHMANN SUPPOSEDLY GRADUATED.
It is a pattern of chronic and consistent distortion.
Laci, if anything, understates his credentials. I know his law degrees, and he has kindly allowed me access to his PACER account, I know his law licenses numbers, and I can access his court dockets, so, yes, UNLIKE Bachmann, really IS a litigating attorney, and a dmaned good one, who is equally at home in state and federal jurisdictions.
And has practised in the UK and EU as well.
ReplyDeleteFar more interesting is Marcus Bachmann's PhD. Apparently, getting a PhD where he got his is just slightly more difficult than getting a beer out of your fridge.
ReplyDeleteFortunately, my law schools are highly rated academically.
ReplyDeleteLaci, I think Jim is just trying to press your buttons by asking to see your law degree. It's a witty reference to a big kerfuffle we had around her a couple weeks ago, you remember.
ReplyDeleteDon't let it get to you.
I think pointing out Michele's do-nothing legal career is fair business these days. The fact that she has some popularity is frightening.
MikeB, the gunloons say a lot of stupid things that have no basis in reality--this is another case of that.
ReplyDeleteIf Jim is too ignorant to know how to verify my professional information that's his problem.
He has also shown that he is too ignorant to verify what I have said.
So, he has to attack me rather than admit he is WRONG in his assertions.
The Civic right interpretation has a much better basis in history and constitutional law than the personal right.
If he can't refute my argument, that's his problem.
I know I am correct and I don't need to prove anything to someone who is too dumb to be able to look it up for himself.
I doubt Jim knows what a VOP court appearance is.
ReplyDeleteMaybe he confused it with a VIP court appearance by you, Laci?
A bien tot, mon ami.
I will admit that I have no idea how to verify the law credentials of one "Laci the Dog." If I am somehow supposed to mystically know another name for you, then I guess my pyschic powers are just not up to snuff.
ReplyDeleteI was just curious why you felt the need to single me out when crowing about your court appearances vs. those of Bachmann. Why did you feel I would need to know that information? Were you trying to impress me?
Jim:
ReplyDeleteTry addressing the meat of the argument. You think you have the same degree of legal expertise as Laci The Dog? Or do you think that Missy Bachmann does? You're most likely wrong in either case.
I don't claim any legal expertise. I claim that the Supreme Court has more say in what the law of the United States is than Laci (or Bachmann for that matter).
ReplyDeleteI don't have any idea of what Bachmann claims as it over 1 year out before the presidential election and it is pointless to listen to any campaigning at this point. I wish they would all just shut up and go home until at least September of next year. How long do they need to blather about what they can do with the government?
I would point out Jim that the supreme court is reactive rather than proactive. They can only respond to the cases brought before them by attorneys; they don't pronounce from on high randomly, although sometimes the pattern of their decisions seems a bit random.
ReplyDeleteLaci is licensed for both state and federal jurisdictions; he appears in federal court cases, like those argued in front of SCOTUS. Therefore his expertise is pertinent.
I do agree with you however that the campaigning goes on way too long; in that respect, I wish we emulated the far shorter period of campaigning typical of the UK and a number of other countries that are democracies.
Jim, if you have never studied law, practised law, or any form of Constitutional structure, then you really have no basis for giving opinions.
ReplyDeleteYou have already stated that you have not bothered reading my referenced material--that in and of itself preculdes you from making any comments other than those without a basis.
Prior to Emerson, this recent fabrication that passes itself of as legal scholarship on the Second Amendment was opinion like mine. Mine, however, has a much stronger basis in fact.
If you did read my posts, you would know that I am not the only one who holds my beliefs.
Jim, in short, your comments as well as those who share similar opinions are not grounded in any factual basis.
Perhaps if you would exert what little brain power you possess in trying to understand what I have written, it would be worth my time trying to have a discussion with you.
But I am unable to educate you since you really do not demonstrate the aptitude to learn.
Laci - in regards to Supreme Court decisions, whose opinion has more bearing on their outcome - 5 supreme court justices or you?
ReplyDeleteAgain, I do not argue that your opinion is necessarily wrong, it just doesn't matter. Unless of course you convince 5 supreme court justices (or more) to agree with you during their deliberations on a court case. Come back with your results once you have.
Jim, I don't know what's between your ears, but you really need to shut up since you aren't saying anything worth hearing.
ReplyDeleteIs it hard for you to hear that your opinion does not count as much as a Supreme Court Justice's opinion? Sorry to burst your bubble Laci.
ReplyDeleteNo Dim Jim, I don't think you have burst any bubble of Laci's.
ReplyDeleteRather I think you are too dim to understand the finer points discussed here, they go over your head, they are wasted on you.
I think Laci grasps the significance of his opinion and the SCOTUS perfectly. Rather it is you who can't seem to appreciate the finer points of a discussion of jurisprudence.
Jim, My opinion is as valid if not more valid than that of the five supreme court justices.
ReplyDeleteNo matter what you say.
And you can keep repeating that it is not a valid opinion until you have a heart attack,you will not change the validity of my opinion.
You have yet to refute my opinion with any facts.
If anyone has an opinion that is not valid, Jim, it's yours.
So, go off and have your little temper tantrum.
"You have yet to refute my opinion with any facts."
ReplyDeleteI say that the ruling by Heller is the current decision of the Supreme Court in regards to the 2nd Amendment granting an individual right. I think this is so because the majority opinion as decided by 5 supreme court justices stated so.
You say the ruling is invalid.
Now as of today August 23, 2011, who is right as to whether this is currently a legally valid decision by the U.S. Supreme Court?
Has it been challenged in court yet? Has the Supreme Court overruled its findings in Heller?
Will a future court rule the way you think? Maybe. Does that have any bearing on the current existence of the Heller decision? No.
"My opinion is as valid if not more valid than that of the five supreme court justices."
Wow - there is that ego again. Well let Obama know that you are available for his next appointment to the court and maybe you can one day prove that statement above.
"So, go off and have your little temper tantrum."
ReplyDeleteI would have to say that you seem to be more upset about the current Supreme Court findings than I do. You constantly resort to calling people vulgar names when you fail to convince them that the Heller ruling is not the current decision by the Supreme Court regarding the 2nd Amendment and its finding of an individual right.
But go ahead and call me some more names if that makes you feel better.
I can understand Jim's putting so much stock in the Heller decision and the value of Supreme Court decisions in general. But, I tend to be more critical. I question authority. It seems to me history has shown us how wrong these guys can be.
ReplyDeleteLaci has a qualified opinion in these matters, I see no reason to question that.
Of course Jim's siding with the Supremes is self-serving as far as the gun debate goes, but so is my siding with Laci.
We're just where we've always been. No need to get upset.
The problem is, Jim, that the Supreme Court's opinion is not the Supreme Law of the Land--that's the Constitution (Article VI.ii).
ReplyDeleteTheir assumed position is to review the constitutionality of the law, but that is not a power granted by the Constitution, but comes from Marbury v. Madison.
The Supreme Court cannot write or change laws and are only limited to interpretation based upon the law as written and previous precedent.
Unless there has been a change in the law, or there is new information or evidence that was not available before--neither of which is applicable in the Case of the Second Amendment or US v. Miller--their hands are tied.
No, this is not my opinion, but how the law has been interpreted prior to Heller. And I am not the only person who is upset by Heller-McDonald.
Let's just say, if this had been something done by liberals about something along the lines of abortion, you would all be screaming to high heaven.
"Let's just say, if this had been something done by liberals about something along the lines of abortion, you would all be screaming to high heaven."
ReplyDeleteBut would our screaming have any effect on the actual interpretation of the Supreme Court? I doubt it. Just like your screaming now has no effect on the Heller decision.
Once again, Jim, you demonstrate that you miss the point.
ReplyDelete