Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Westlaw

Expand Messages
  • andrewswayne31
    Hi everyone, I need some info on how to navigate Westlaw. I have never used it before and don’t know it it will give me the information I want. In
    Message 1 of 10 , Jun 30, 2014
    • 0 Attachment

      Hi everyone, I need some info on how to navigate Westlaw.  I have never used it before and don’t know it it will give me the information I want.  In sheepherding a case, do I just enter the case and read everything that follows or is there someway to limit the search?  In the Brushaber case, Justice White states that the 16th amendment applies to excise tax or it would conflict with Constitution’s prohibition about taxing without apportionment.  Will that information alone give me any subsequent decisions that might conflict with that opinion? 


      Can I use it to find out if/how the Continuous Violations Doctrine applies to the Federal Tort Claims Act?


       Lastly, will I be able to find research, Supreme Court decisions (such as those listed) could be applicable to the State if it is sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983?  That is, what decisions would apply in Federal Court if the State used fraudulent info from the IRS in order to levy a citizen.  



       "There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments”, United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 64-66 (1878). 


      “When government if pursuing a tax allegation, due process requires the government to prove the existence of a valid tax.”, Unitarian Church v Los Angeles, 357 U.S. 545 (1958).


      “If a government agency contends there is a tax imposed upon a citizen it must carry the burden of proof of the tax obligation.”, Speiser v Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 529 (1958).


      “It is the responsibility of government to prove the existence of a tax; a citizen is not required to prove the nonexistence of a tax.”. Spreckles Sugar v McClain, 192 U.S. 397 (1904).


      Thatcher v. Powell, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 119 (1821) stated that no officer can take any action affecting property “...unless authorized so to do by express law,  ...and that the person invested with such a power, must pursue with precision the course prescribed by law, or his act is invalid…”.


      And especially does this case apply to all government statues (Federal and state) or just Federal


      "Persons dealing with government are charged with knowing government statutes and regulations, and they assume the risk that government agents may exceed their authority and provide misinformation".  Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 384-85, 68 S.Ct. 1, 3-4, 92 L.Ed. 10 (1947).  


      Thanks for the help.  W


    • jai mann
      Get a librarian to help you out with that. It takes 10 minutes to get used to. Furthermore, Westlaw should provide you with cases and case law, but I don t
      Message 2 of 10 , Jul 2, 2014
      • 0 Attachment
        Get a librarian to help you out with that. It takes 10 minutes to get used to. Furthermore, Westlaw should provide you with cases and case law, but I don't know about sheparidizing via it. I know my county law library has a subscription to Lexis Nexus which has a shepardizing feature. I've used it a few times along with the hardback Shepard's cites. The librarians generally love to help people out especially if you have good manners and are gracious.


        On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 11:41 PM, "wayne@... [tips_and_tricks]" wrote:


        Hi everyone, I need some info on how to navigate Westlaw.  I have never used it before and don’t know it it will give me the information I want.  In sheepherding a case, do I just enter the case and read everything that follows or is there someway to limit the search?  In the Brushaber case, Justice White states that the 16th amendment applies to excise tax or it would conflict with Constitution’s prohibition about taxing without apportionment.  Will that information alone give me any subsequent decisions that might conflict with that opinion? 



      • Jane
        Check out Google Scholar....you will get all the case law and articles you will ever need. http://scholar.google.com/ From:
        Message 3 of 10 , Jul 2, 2014
        • 0 Attachment
          Check out Google Scholar....you will get all the case law and articles you will ever need.
           
          Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 7:37 AM
          Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Westlaw
           
           

          Get a librarian to help you out with that. It takes 10 minutes to get used to. Furthermore, Westlaw should provide you with cases and case law, but I don't know about sheparidizing via it. I know my county law library has a subscription to Lexis Nexus which has a shepardizing feature. I've used it a few times along with the hardback Shepard's cites. The librarians generally love to help people out especially if you have good manners and are gracious.


          On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 11:41 PM, "wayne@... [tips_and_tricks]" wrote:
           
           
          Hi everyone, I need some info on how to navigate Westlaw.  I have never used it before and don’t know it it will give me the information I want.  In sheepherding a case, do I just enter the case and read everything that follows or is there someway to limit the search?  In the Brushaber case, Justice White states that the 16th amendment applies to excise tax or it would conflict with Constitution’s prohibition about taxing without apportionment.  Will that information alone give me any subsequent decisions that might conflict with that opinion?

           
           
        • andrewswayne31
          Thanks to everyone for the help. Other than not knowing how to spell Shepard, I should be able to find the info I want. W Get a librarian to help you out
          Message 4 of 10 , Jul 3, 2014
          • 0 Attachment
            Thanks to everyone for the help.  Other than not knowing how to spell Shepard, I should be able to find the info I want.  W



             
            Get a librarian to help you out with that. It takes 10 minutes to get used to. Furthermore, Westlaw should provide you with cases and case law, but I don't know about sheparidizing via it. I know my county law library has a subscription to Lexis Nexus which has a shepardizing feature. I've used it a few times along with the hardback Shepard's cites. The librarians generally love to help people out especially if you have good manners and are gracious.

          • Frog Farmer
            On Mon, June 30, 2014 10:34 am, wayne@focus2excel.com [tips_and_tricks] ... I love that one. I mentioned that and asked a few questions designed to home in on
            Message 5 of 10 , Aug 17 7:14 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              On Mon, June 30, 2014 10:34 am, wayne@... [tips_and_tricks]
              wrote:


              > "There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the
              > most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments, United States v.
              > Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 64-66 (1878).


              I love that one. I mentioned that and asked a few questions designed to
              home in on the fraud, and the conversation broke right down, which is my
              preferred outcome. Don't look now, but all games are over, Watch out for
              rambunctuous fans pretending they're in the game. They run all over the
              field helter-skelter and can take their play quite seriously.


              > Thatcher v. Powell, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 119 (1821) stated that no officer
              > can take any action affecting property ...unless authorized so to do
              > by express law, ...and that the person invested with such a power, must
              > pursue with precision the course prescribed by law, or his act is
              > invalid.


              This is like a case saying that when it rains, stuff gets wet. It is pure
              common sense. And I rely upon its reasoning without having to rely upon
              its citation. How about a person not yet invested with such power? Must
              such a person "pursue with precision the course prescribed by law" such as
              taking the required oath of office and making sure his indemnity bond is
              in order, or else his supposedly official act is invalid? I think so, but
              one affected must challenge it in a timely manner, i.e. immediately in the
              IMOC (Initial Moment Of Confrontation). Do you know what impersonators say
              when I reveal to them their criminal status? "Nobody ever told me!" which
              is just another way of admitting they've never read the constitution.


              > "Persons dealing with government are charged with knowing government
              > statutes and regulations, and they assume the risk that government agents
              > may exceed their authority and provide misinformation". Federal Crop
              > Insurance Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 384-85, 68 S.Ct. 1, 3-4, 92
              > L.Ed. 10 (1947).


              No kidding. We have to know the law, but they only know what they've been
              told. Don't risk anything - assume that when their lips move, they are
              lying. Don't make the mistake of assuming that they have any authority to
              exceed! Make them prove it! The lawfully vacant offices are filled with
              impersonators taking advantage of the situation for their own benefit, and
              won't stop until they are forced to stop by an awakening public. Soon
              they will run out of believers. Be patient. The house of cards is
              wobbling.


              Regards,


              FF
            • al danesh
              In regards to FF Westlaw, and his last paragraph copied below, I would like to ask this group how to deal with cops on the side of the road, for challenging
              Message 6 of 10 , Aug 18 3:17 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                In regards to FF Westlaw, and his last paragraph copied below, I would like to ask this group how to deal with cops on the side of the road, for challenging their authority when stopped can lead to a physical alteration even though it is physically unprovoked.



                 No kidding. We have to know the law, but they only know what they've been told. Don't risk anything - assume that when their lips move, they are lying. Don't make the mistake of assuming that they have any authority to exceed! Make them prove it! The lawfully vacant offices are filled with impersonators taking advantage of the situation for their own benefit


                On Monday, August 18, 2014 12:41 AM, "'Frog Farmer' frogfrmr@... [tips_and_tricks]" wrote:


                 
                On Mon, June 30, 2014 10:34 am, wayne@... [tips_and_tricks]
                wrote:

                > "There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the
                > most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments, United States v.
                > Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 64-66 (1878).

                I love that one. I mentioned that and asked a few questions designed to
                home in on the fraud, and the conversation broke right down, which is my
                preferred outcome. Don't look now, but all games are over, Watch out for
                rambunctuous fans pretending they're in the game. They run all over the
                field helter-skelter and can take their play quite seriously.


              • jai mann
                The trick is to learn how to start asking the right questions. How do you deal with them by the road side? Well, be polite and assess their character as they
                Message 7 of 10 , Aug 19 12:37 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  The trick is to learn how to start asking the right questions. How do you deal with them by the road side? Well, be polite and assess their character as they communicate. Assess their facial expressions and body language. Are they nice and decent people or are they power freaks? Experimenting with the latter could get you hurt.

                  What does your State penal/vehicle code say about arrests? Read it. Learn it. Know it better than the cops. You'll answer your own question if you do. Use your knowledge with confidence or they will see a meek confrontation that they can use body image and language to dominate.



                  On Tuesday, August 19, 2014 12:08 AM, "al danesh reachmeal@... [tips_and_tricks]" <tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com> wrote:




                  In regards to FF Westlaw, and his last paragraph copied below, I would like to ask this group how to deal with cops on the side of the road, for challenging their authority when stopped can lead to a physical alteration even though it is physically unprovoked.



                   No kidding. We have to know the law, but they only know what they've been told. Don't risk anything - assume that when their lips move, they are lying. Don't make the mistake of assuming that they have any authority to exceed! Make them prove it! The lawfully vacant offices are filled with impersonators taking advantage of the situation for their own benefit


                • patrick
                  i ve never contributed to this group i do not believe, but with my father as a peace officer, retired and me with as much experience that i ve had (read a few
                  Message 8 of 10 , Aug 19 4:23 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    i've never contributed to this group i do not believe, but with my father as a peace officer, retired and me with as much experience that i've had (read a few BAD ones), i feel slightly duty bound to share this.

                    Can you not see the belligerence in your words alone? their lips move so they are lying? PROJECTION PROJECTION PROJECTION is all i hear/read...

                    CHALLENGE them? strike 1...dude has a gun, and a taser and mace (they used to but i think tasers replaced mostly).

                    first off s/he's a wo/man - respect them for that first and authenticate their credentials, ie badge/uniform (they are supposed to have THREE FORMS of ID to be "in uniform" 1 - badge w/#, 2 - PICTURE ID (police issued, its in his pocket), 3 (my fav) - BUSINESS CARD!) no joke...

                    maybe the first step might be, to ask for these to make sure they are in proper uniform today. with that, the next bridge...are you here in the capacity of a police officer or a peace officer? (maybe even ask if s/he knows the difference as you recognize one).

                    if/when s/he claims a peace officer then I'd consider a statement like, please articulate your suspicions of probable cause that leads you to believe i breached the peace?

                    did you witness me harm of injure someone?

                    keep in mind, the attitude of the questioner produces 80% of the results of these honest questions. sincerely ask, you will be sincerely rewarded...be a smart a$$ about it, and take what comes, meanwhile, stop casting stones.

                    further - i've never had a chance to run this by a peace officer in the field, but i have my dad and he just smiles (and says he'd walk away but he's my dad so i dont buy that)...three questions (have u noticed the power of three yet?)...

                    Q - who do you get your authority from to do this to me?

                    A - The city and or state government.

                    Q - and who do they get their authority from?

                    A - the People.

                    Q - well since I am the People and I'm traveling peacefully I'd like you to explain how my own power can be used against me by you? unless you're making a claim in your own name, personally? :)

                    i wish you good fortunes!

                    patrick


                    On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 5:17 AM, al danesh reachmeal@... [tips_and_tricks] <tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                     

                    In regards to FF Westlaw, and his last paragraph copied below, I would like to ask this group how to deal with cops on the side of the road, for challenging their authority when stopped can lead to a physical alteration even though it is physically unprovoked.
                    --

                    ~ private communication...A.R.R.~
                  • Linda Moriarity
                    It is very tricky. what works for one person in one specific area with a specific officer is likely not to work with with another and/or elsewhere. That is
                    Message 9 of 10 , Aug 19 7:23 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      It is very tricky. what works for one person in one specific area with a specific officer is likely not to work with with another and/or elsewhere. That is correct, the officer only know what they are told to learn, they do NOT know all the laws or the limits to their authorities. They are told they have full authority and that anyone that challenges that is a crack pot and needs to spend some time in jail or 'other' attitude adjustment. On the otherhand, some know it is bs or figured it out, but it is a job and they need to feed their families, I spent 17 yrs with Ca Highway Patrol and was confused when on officer stated "its all just a big game'. Now a couple decades later, I fully 'understand' what he was saying. The majority of the time, you are better off just taking the ticket and trying to convince the court of the unlawful issues. However the cop and the court are accustomed to getting their way and not having their presumed authority questioned. But the response you will likely get at the time the ticket is issued, is 'take it up with the judge'. So look to your own state codes that 'authorize' an 'arrest'. In Calif the minute the officer initiates the 'stop' you ARE "arrested' which is totally different from 'in custody', but never the less 'arrested' and that may only occur with 'probable cause ' being the commission or suspecion of a crime about to be committed.. So the initial question when approached would be "Sir, what CRIME was observed or suspected ".. They will say you broke the LAW by speeding or failing to stop at red light, or ???. Your response would be, BUT IS that a CRIME or simply an INFRACTION, and depending on your state may or may not be deemed a CRIME. They ASK if you are 'arrested'? If he says NO, then say "ok, then I am free to go ?" he will say NO, meaning which you can clarify, IF I am NOT free to go then I MUST be ARRESTED, which by section ???? means I must have committed a crime, so again "please advise of the CRIME I am being arrested for." Above all, keep it pleasant and calm. Half will let you go, some will call their supervisor, which is GREAT. And for those who believe the 4th amendment prevents stops, you are wrong. It DOES allow for brief encounters of say 10 minutes to address 'infractions', yes there IS case law to support this. All is on my crashed computer in the shop, but it exists. linda -------------------------------------------- On Mon, 8/18/14, al danesh reachmeal@... [tips_and_tricks] <tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Westlaw To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, August 18, 2014, 3:17 AM In regards to FF Westlaw, and his last paragraph copied below, I would like to ask this group how to deal with cops on the side of the road, for challenging their authority when stopped can lead to a physical alteration even though it is physically unprovoked.
                    • Frog Farmer
                      On Tue, August 19, 2014 9:23 am, Linda Moriarity buffalogirl93561@att.net ... When I used to look for trouble with my homemade plates and no license or
                      Message 10 of 10 , Aug 26 2:48 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Tue, August 19, 2014 9:23 am, Linda Moriarity buffalogirl93561@...
                        [tips_and_tricks] wrote:
                        > It is very tricky. what works for one person in one specific area with a
                        > specific officer is likely not to work with with another and/or
                        > elsewhere. That is correct, the officer only know what they are told to
                        > learn, they do NOT know all the laws or the limits to their authorities.


                        When I used to look for trouble with my homemade plates and no license or
                        insurance (I had a stroke since then and now can barely walk or see
                        straight) I used to carry a big salesman's case full of books and
                        exhibits. First was an 8th grade English grammar book. It's purpose was
                        to explain the concept of "statement".


                        Then there were all the codes I'd rely upon. Several times I held
                        "curbstone court" and covered the cop's hood with papers. I never was
                        arrested and taken in. My room-mate was, but was always released without
                        a signature.


                        > The majority of the time, you are better off just taking
                        > the ticket and trying to convince the court of the unlawful issues.


                        Here in California that would be a mistake. The way I'd do it is, refuse
                        to self-identify, that helps them when you then demand an immediate visit
                        to a magistrate. If you give ID, they can then DELAY that appearance up
                        to 72 hours. However, if one was to go immediately one could challenge
                        both the officer's and the magistrate's oaths and bonds and find them
                        lacking. That would establish a kidnapping. If you inform them of your
                        agenda, odds are they'll decide they don't want to play anymore and let
                        you go.


                        > However the cop and the court are accustomed to getting their way and not
                        > having their presumed authority questioned. But the response you will
                        > likely get at the time the ticket is issued, is 'take it up with the
                        > judge'.


                        "Exactly, so let's go right now."


                        > So look to your own state codes that 'authorize' an 'arrest'. In
                        > Calif the minute the officer initiates the 'stop' you ARE "arrested'
                        > which is totally different from 'in custody', but never the less
                        > 'arrested' and that may only occur with 'probable cause ' being the
                        > commission or suspecion of a crime about to be committed.. So the initial
                        > question when approached would be "Sir, what CRIME was observed or
                        > suspected ".. They will say you broke the LAW by speeding or failing to
                        > stop at red light, or ???. Your response would be, BUT IS that a CRIME or
                        > simply an INFRACTION, and depending on your state may or may not be
                        > deemed a CRIME. They ASK if you are 'arrested'? If he says NO, then say
                        > "ok, then I am free to go ?" he will say NO, meaning which you can
                        > clarify, IF I am NOT free to go then I MUST be ARRESTED, which by section
                        > ???? means I must have committed a crime, so again "please advise of the
                        > CRIME I am being arrested for." Above all, keep it pleasant and calm.
                        > Half will let you go, some will call their supervisor, which is GREAT.
                        > And for those who believe the 4th amendment prevents stops, you are
                        > wrong. It DOES allow for brief encounters of say 10 minutes to address
                        > 'infractions', yes there IS case law to support this. All is on my
                        > crashed computer in the shop, but it exists. linda


                        In California, an infraction is a way for people to waive their rights and
                        waive jurisdiction, which makes it easier for the prosecution. It is
                        better to elect to have the infraction prosecuted as a misdemeanor as the
                        penal code provides for. This ups the cost for them and helps expose more
                        fraud. Accepting any ticket is a big mistake, but people will do it
                        because the pizza is getting cold.


                        > -------------------------------------------- On Mon, 8/18/14, al danesh
                        > reachmeal@... [tips_and_tricks] <tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com>
                        > wrote: Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Westlaw To:
                        > tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, August 18, 2014, 3:17 AM
                        > In regards to FF Westlaw, and his last paragraph copied below, I would
                        > like to ask this group how to deal with cops on the side of the road, for
                        > challenging their authority when stopped can lead to a physical
                        > alteration even though it is physically unprovoked.


                        I quit pulling over for them, If they then wanted to stop me, they have
                        those ramming bars on the front of their cars. I guess they never really
                        wanted to stop me. They never rammed me or set up a roadblock. The right
                        way is to travel to a private property destination, get out and lock the
                        car. Then hold court and if necessary go immediately to a magistrate. If
                        you communicate the full 110-line agenda I've developed (versus the usual
                        4 line agenda of most folks) odds are you'll be asked to "have a nice
                        day".


                        The only way you can be jailed in California is with your consent. Most
                        people can be easily tricked into giving it. Most people give it over and
                        over again by:


                        1. getting a license and registration and insurance.
                        2. pulling over
                        3. Calling an impersonator "officer"
                        4, Giving ID
                        5. consenting to in-custody interrogation without counsel present
                        6. signing a ticket and waiving the immediate trip to a magistrate.
                        7. appearing without disqualifying anyone....etc. etc.


                        Regards,


                        FF
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.