SkankBeat at losthorizons is still at it.....

[Famspear]

At losthorizons, user "TranscriptsDontLie" challenges SkankBeat's nonsense. "Transcripts" writes:

Putting the Secretary [the Internal Revenue Service] on notice does not seem to move us in the right direction, just the opposite (more penalties). Any wins, anyone? I just want to know ...

(bolding added).

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 5a6e#26269

Of course, SkankBeat ignores the question on "any wins." Instead, SkankBeat comes back with more idiocy:

Why do you say this?

If you notice the US Secretary of Treasury that your activity is the exercise of a right, and that exercising of rights cannot be subject to federal taxes, and that you demand return of unlawfully taken property that was obtained during the exercise of that right, and the Secretary does nothing, or even permits delegates to penalize you, then he has violated the US Constitution, and you can take him to court and force his removal from office, in addition to obtaining damages for injury caused.

(bolding added).

SkankBeat is just soooooo good at this! He continues:

I would do this under common law as you remove interference by corrupt judges from the proceedings. Indeed, maybe you folks might think about building a case to present before one of these common law grand juries that have recently been established. Some things to think about.

(bolding added).

Yeah, some "things to think about". Some things for YOU FOLKS to think about. SkankBeat has never tried this himself, and SkankBeat can't cite a case where any of his crap has actually worked. But SkankBeat is still throwing out nonsensical theories -and always suggesting that SOMEONE ELSE try out his theories.

[bmielke]

Has anyone overe there advanced teh theory that Skankbeat is a Government plant? Seriously the things he tells people to do are idiotic and could lead to big trouble.

[Quixote]

SkankBeat:

Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class.

I've found my new sig.

[Omne]

SkankBeat is just soooooo good at this! He continues:

I would do this under common law as you remove interference by corrupt judges from the proceedings. Indeed, maybe you folks might think about building a case to present before one of these common law grand juries that have recently been established. Some things to think about.

Recently? I was indicted by four different common law grand juries back the late 80s. They've been around for at least 35+ years.

I heard I was found guilty and sentenced in absentia by at least three of them.....

[bmielke]

Recently? I was indicted by four different common law grand juries back the late 80s. They've been around for at least 35+ years.

I heard I was found guilty and sentenced in absentia by at least three of them.....

Really, what were doing to piss the wackos off?

[The Observer]

Really, what were doing to piss the wackos off?

He laughed at their UCC-1 filings.

[Omne]

Really, what were doing to piss the wackos off?

He laughed at their UCC-1 filings.

Amongst other things....

I worked compliance for a state tax agency and specifically worked on tax protester and white supremacist groups and individuals. They get testy when someone takes their toys away. You can get surprisingly good money for guns at auction.

Actually, I got along with quite a few of them, they didn't take it personally and neither did I. I convinced several to return to the light, or turn to the dark side depending on your point of view. The hard core white supremacists were pretty much the only ones I really disliked.

[Thule]

The hard core white supremacists were pretty much the only ones I really disliked.

Well, I won't hold that against you:)

[Famspear]

More lunacy from SkankBeat:

From what i understand, a child is property, it has no rights under common law. This creates a question, does the mother have full title of her child, or is title shared between the mother and government, or does the government have full title?

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 6491#26491

And this:

As you can see, the federal government has no authority to tax you or your property. This would violate the common law. This is why the US Constitution mandates direct taxes on the states, not the people. It is to block the federal government from installing a feudal tribute system and destroy the sovereignty of the people.

It gets better:

The federal income tax is a de facto feudal tribute system, where money is forcefully extracted from the many and handed over to the few -a banking cartel- where the government is simply an extension of the cartel's power.

[ . . . .]

Allegedly the 16th amendment was to sever the property title from the profit-like gain associated with federal connected activity. But the US Constitution cannot contradict the common law.

(bolding added).

Wow, so now the common law is superior in rank to the Constitution?

Property law is so fundamental that i do not believe this severing of title has ever occurred. It seems that the 16th amendment is meaningless and wholly unecessary. If the government has decreed in the 1939 Public Salary Tax Act to "... hereby consents to taxation of compensation", where the government taxes itself on compensation it pays out, then the federal government could have easily consented to taxing itself on interest it pays out on bonds. So why was the 16th amendment created if not for some other purpose? Considering the legislation of that time period shows the hallmark of the banking cartel, it appears the amendment was a failed attempt to circumvent common law property rights. The banking cartel wanted to set up a feudal tribute system that would guarantee continuous payment for their "public debt shall not be questioned" debt trap.

You just can't make this stuff up. Unless you're "SkankBeat."

[LPC]

As you can see, the federal government has no authority to tax you or your property. This would violate the common law. This is why the US Constitution mandates direct taxes on the states, not the people.

Tax deniers seem to fall into two categories: (1) Those who believe that a "direct tax" is any tax collected directly from a citizen of the United States, and (2) Those who believe that a "direct tax" is collected from the *States* of the United States, and not from the people.

That these two groups have not met and spontaneously exploded, in the same way that matter and anti-matter explode when they collide, is a great mystery.

As an historical matter, the Articles of Confederation gave the Congress no power to tax anything, but only allowed Congress to "requisition" money from the states (which requisitions were apportioned among the states in proportion to the value of the lands of the different states) and it was up to the states to collect taxes and pay the requisitions to Congress.

Which didn't work.

Madison's "Notes" of the constitutional convention, the Federalist Papers, and the notes of the conventions ratifying the Constitution, are clear that one of the purposes of the new Constitution was to give Congress the power to raise money through direct taxes on the people, but that apportionment was still required for these pseudo-requisitions, based on the populations of the states rather than the values of the lands in the states.

Given this historical evidence, as well as the literal language of the Constitution, it is clear that Snankbeat is talking out of his a**, and is full of s**t.

Allegedly the 16th amendment was to sever the property title from the profit-like gain associated with federal connected activity. But the US Constitution cannot contradict the common law.

(bolding added).

Wow, so now the common law is superior in rank to the Constitution?

Yeah, the so-called "Supremacy Clause" of Article VI was just for show, and was never intended to mean anything.

[The Operative]

Skanky, and others like him, always remind me of the following Albert Einstein quote.

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.

[Famspear]

SkankBeat's co-nutjobs at losthorizons have been plodding along with his nonsense for months. He has even (gasp) made at least one statement contrary to Blowhard Hendrickson's Cracking the Code method (oops, I mean "non-method"). So, at this point, it's hard to imagine just what it would take in term of outlandish statements from SkankBeat before one of the other cuckoos over there would say "Hey, wait a minute, SkankBeat...."

[.]

What is it with these idiots who can't get anything right?

The federal income tax is a de facto feudal tribute system, where money is forcefully extracted from the many and handed over to the few

Never mind his goofy legal gibberish, his entire premise about federal income taxation is exactly bassackwards. In round numbers, the top 1% of taxpayers pay about 40% of the total collected, the top 25% pay over 85%. The bottom 50% collectively pay a slightly net negative tax rate due to EITC and other refundable credits. "The few" pay almost the entire tab, "the many" little or nothing.

He then ignores the fact that the money gets "handed over to" not the few, but the many. About a half trillion dollars a year (about half of FIT receipts) gets spent on Medicaid, food stamps, Section 8 housing, LIHEAP, WIC, SCHIP and hundreds of other federal low-income programs.

Of course, he'll never admit that his premise is wrong because that would mean that he wouldn't need to waste any more time concocting ridiculous legal theories about why he doesn't have to pay a tax he probably doesn't even owe.

[notorial dissent]

I'd make some remark that good ole Skanky had taken leave of his senses, but that would imply a that he ever had any, and there is certainly no evidence of that ever being the case.

[Nikki]

The following intentionally specifically excludes people (be they real or artificial) who are doing so just for the money -- those who are neither spending years "researching" the law nor spending thousands of dollars buying silver bullets from the paytriot snake-oil salesmen.

The LoserHeads, like all other non-excluded illegal tax protestors, tax evaders, and compliance-challenged freemen, sovereignoramuses, etc ALL cling to one core belief: there is a pony in there somewhere.

Despite the injunctions against promoters, prison sentences of their gurus, adverse administrative and court decisions against themselves, and loss of their property, businesses, friends, and family; they plod onward.

Somewhere, there's that magical piece of pasta which will finally stick to the wall. Someday, all the other like-minded people will arise and oust the illegal government which has been terrorizing them.

The one thing which will NOT happen ever is that they wake up, realize that they've been duped, and try to reassemble the remaining shards of their existence into something which actually resembles a life.

[Famspear]

The following intentionally specifically excludes people (be they real or artificial) who are doing so just for the money -- those who are neither spending years "researching" the law nor spending thousands of dollars buying silver bullets from the paytriot snake-oil salesmen.

The LoserHeads, like all other non-excluded illegal tax protestors, tax evaders, and compliance-challenged freemen, sovereignoramuses, etc ALL cling to one core belief: there is a pony in there somewhere.

Despite the injunctions against promoters, prison sentences of their gurus, adverse administrative and court decisions against themselves, and loss of their property, businesses, friends, and family; they plod onward.

Somewhere, there's that magical piece of pasta which will finally stick to the wall. Someday, all the other like-minded people will arise and oust the illegal government which has been terrorizing them.

The one thing which will NOT happen ever is that they wake up, realize that they've been duped, and try to reassemble the remaining shards of their existence into something which actually resembles a life.

That was well stated, Nikki. I particularly like your encapsulation of the tax protester's delusion: "there is a pony in there somewhere."

[Imalawman]

More lunacy from SkankBeat:

From what i understand, a child is property, it has no rights under common law. This creates a question, does the mother have full title of her child, or is title shared between the mother and government, or does the government have full title?

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 6491#26491

And this:

As you can see, the federal government has no authority to tax you or your property. This would violate the common law. This is why the US Constitution mandates direct taxes on the states, not the people. It is to block the federal government from installing a feudal tribute system and destroy the sovereignty of the people.

It gets better:

The federal income tax is a de facto feudal tribute system, where money is forcefully extracted from the many and handed over to the few -a banking cartel- where the government is simply an extension of the cartel's power.

[ . . . .]

Allegedly the 16th amendment was to sever the property title from the profit-like gain associated with federal connected activity. But the US Constitution cannot contradict the common law.

(bolding added).

Wow, so now the common law is superior in rank to the Constitution?

Property law is so fundamental that i do not believe this severing of title has ever occurred. It seems that the 16th amendment is meaningless and wholly unecessary. If the government has decreed in the 1939 Public Salary Tax Act to "... hereby consents to taxation of compensation", where the government taxes itself on compensation it pays out, then the federal government could have easily consented to taxing itself on interest it pays out on bonds. So why was the 16th amendment created if not for some other purpose? Considering the legislation of that time period shows the hallmark of the banking cartel, it appears the amendment was a failed attempt to circumvent common law property rights. The banking cartel wanted to set up a feudal tribute system that would guarantee continuous payment for their "public debt shall not be questioned" debt trap.

You just can't make this stuff up. Unless you're "SkankBeat."

I could refute, but I think I'll save the time and just say, "BOOOOOOOOGGGGGGUUUUUSSSSS!".

[notorial dissent]

That was well stated, Nikki. I particularly like your encapsulation of the tax protester's delusion: "there is a pony in there somewhere."

Well, there certainly is a lot of what the pony leaves behind, so by their thinking-and I use the term very loosely, therefore, there must be a pony there somewhere.

[Nikki]

I apologize for unintentionally receiving so much credit for plaigerizing someone else's statement which was to the effect of "If there's that big a pile of horse sh*t, the person totally detatched from reality immediately assumes there's a pony somewhere."

I didn't invent it. I just used it because I thought most people here had seen it before and would get it.

[LPC]

I apologize for unintentionally receiving so much credit for plaigerizing someone else's statement which was to the effect of "If there's that big a pile of horse sh*t, the person totally detatched from reality immediately assumes there's a pony somewhere."

I didn't invent it. I just used it because I thought most people here had seen it before and would get it.

I always associate the joke with Ronald Reagan.

An excerpt from "How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life" by Peter Robinson, Chapter One, "The Pony In the Dung Heap; When Life Buries You, Dig"

Over lunch today I asked Ed Meese about one of Reagan's favorite jokes. "The pony joke?" Meese replied. "Sure I remember it. If I heard him tell it once, I heard him tell it a thousand times."

The joke concerns twin boys of five or six. Worried that the boys had developed extreme personalities -- one was a total pessimist, the other a total optimist -- their parents took them to a psychiatrist.

First the psychiatrist treated the pessimist. Trying to brighten his outlook, the psychiatrist took him to a room piled to the ceiling with brand-new toys. But instead of yelping with delight, the little boy burst into tears. "What's the matter?" the psychiatrist asked, baffled. "Don't you want to play with any of the toys?" "Yes," the little boy bawled, "but if I did I'd only break them."

Next the psychiatrist treated the optimist. Trying to dampen his out look, the psychiatrist took him to a room piled to the ceiling with horse manure. But instead of wrinkling his nose in disgust, the optimist emitted just the yelp of delight the psychiatrist had been hoping to hear from his brother, the pessimist. Then he clambered to the top of the pile, dropped to his knees, and began gleefully digging out scoop after scoop with his bare hands. "What do you think you're doing?" the psychiatrist asked, just as baffled by the optimist as he had been by the pessimist. "With all this manure," the little boy replied, beaming, "there must be a pony in here somewhere!"

"Reagan told the joke so often," Meese said, chuckling, "that it got to be kind of a joke with the rest of us. Whenever something would go wrong, somebody on the staff would be sure to say, "There must be a pony in here somewhere."