The Legal Stylings of Skankbeat II

[The Observer]

This is the second time that someone from LH has asked Skankie for specific information and/or details on how to bring about remedy. And each time Skankie has evaded answering the question directly. Why? Because Skankie wants to leave himself an out when things go badly for his guinea pig. At that point Skankie will tell them that their letter, template, remedy package, notice, service, etc. was legally insufficient and that they used the wrong magic words. And he will point out that this wasn't the way he would have wrote up his "remedy." He will provide more teasers for the next guinea pig and wait for them to test it out for him.

[grixit]

My suggestion for now is to study a little about common law detinue.

Which is what Skanky always suggests. Study Common Law.

Specifically Detinue.

For now.

Tomorrow, Skanky's suggestion might be to study conversion. Or replevin. Or trover. Or assumpsit. Or maybe even trespass.

It's obvious that The Answer is in Common Law somewhere. It's just a matter of doing enough studying to find The Answer.

But let's not be too hard on Skanky, because he's emulating the Master. When Hendrickson is asked a question about anything, what's his response? That's right, to re-read Cracking the Code.

I just had an awful thought-- imagine a Soverweenie who manages a motel with a Honeymoon Suite. One night he decides he has Droit de Seigneur.

[Nikki]

This is the second time that someone from LH has asked Skankie for specific information and/or details on how to bring about remedy. And each time Skankie has evaded answering the question directly. Why? Because Skankie wants to leave himself an out when things go badly for his guinea pig. At that point Skankie will tell them that their letter, template, remedy package, notice, service, etc. was legally insufficient and that they used the wrong magic words. And he will point out that this wasn't the way he would have wrote up his "remedy." He will provide more teasers for the next guinea pig and wait for them to test it out for him.

Not true.

Skank isn't leaving himself an out. He just doesn't have a clue.

He, like SFBFKADMVP and Harvester, is a creature of the Internet.

Without the dialogues on LoserHeads, he would be totally lacking any adult conversation.

So, he cranks up his VanPelt-certified Acme word salad shooter and throws out terms and partial concepts which appear to be deeply meaningful. However, just like the proverbial emperor, Skank is a tad lacking in the clothes closet.

Skank probably fits perfectly onto one of the pages of the description of mental disorders manual, but it's not worth the trouble to look for it.

He is frightened. He sees his father figure in prison, his world collapsing around him, and the inexorable gears of law gradually grinding closer and closer.

He has amassed tax debts and penalties far beyond his annual income and, in all likelihood, has no financial reserves to resolve them.

So, instead of facing reality, he sits at his keyboard pathetically posturing.

[notorial dissent]

I have to agree with Nikki, Skanky is dumbern’ a box of rocks, and really hasn’t a clue about what he is parroting to the other illiteratti. The truly tragic part is that none of them are bright enough or aware enough to know or realize that Skanky is blowing out his nether port. He is using all these big special super secret magic words(well more than two syllables), so he "must" know what he is talking about. Pretty much the same as can be said of Merrill over at Sui.

If what Skanky is getting over at LH is adult conversation, I despair for the lot of them. My long dead siamese does a better job these many years gone than that lot do alive and blathering.

With Skanky, I’ll just settle for depressingly stupid and too really stupid to know it.

I think you are spot on for the most part. His world is, or maybe already has completely disintegrated around him, and is only going to collapse further thanks to all this “learning” he seems to have acquired. If half of what he has claimed at LH is true, I would suspect he is more than well on his way to following his now rejected master to prison, and is now in a complete state of delusion and denial. He is also, in the final analysis, first, last, and foremost, dumbern’ a box of rocks.

[The Observer]

Not true.

Skank isn't leaving himself an out. He just doesn't have a clue.

He, like SFBFKADMVP and Harvester, is a creature of the Internet.

I respectfully disagree. Not with the fact that he doesn't have a clue - that is a given. But he is leaving himself an out because he knows he doesn't have a clue.

If Skankie were anything like the other two distributors of downright duplicitous dimwittedness, he would be going on in great detail as to what one should exactly do to effect "remedy"; he would provide all sorts of detailed instructions, links, photos, and the like show what to do.

But Skankie does the opposite. As I have pointed out, he has avoided answering two point-blank questions directly; instead he has given vague answers, in effect telling people to blaze their own trail after pointing them in the general direction in which he would like to go.

[Gregg]

Our hero rolls on...in his latest statement that he don't mess around, Skankbeat ells us..

As more people focus on the US Secretary of Treasury things should get interesting. Seriously, there is absolutely no reason to continue dealing with the IRS minions when you realize they are simply delegates to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who is in turn a delegate of the US Secretary of Treasury. I don't know about you folks, but when i return a defective item at a store and the cashier gives me the runaround about refunding my money, i seek out a decision-maker. The US Secretary of Treasury cuts the checks!

Of course, when he takes his car in for an oil change, I'm guessing he wants Alan Mullaly to turn wrenches for him.

[The Observer]

Of course, when he takes his car in for an oil change, I'm guessing he wants Alan Mullaly to turn wrenches for him.

I thought it would mean that Skankie would expect the Secretary of the Treasury would do his oil change.

[Quixote]

Our hero rolls on...in his latest statement that he don't mess around, Skankbeat ells us..

As more people focus on the US Secretary of Treasury things should get interesting. Seriously, there is absolutely no reason to continue dealing with the IRS minions when you realize they are simply delegates to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who is in turn a delegate of the US Secretary of Treasury. I don't know about you folks, but when i return a defective item at a store and the cashier gives me the runaround about refunding my money, i seek out a decision-maker. The US Secretary of Treasury cuts the checks!

Of course, when he takes his car in for an oil change, I'm guessing he wants Alan Mullaly to turn wrenches for him.

I think Skankie's problem is that the Secretary of the Treasury has succumbed to the pressure (political? moral? olfactory?) and is personally handling Skankie's case. His job description does not require access to anyone's tax account information, so he is prohibited by law from even looking at SB's return. Skank would be better off if he insisted on having his case assigned to one of those brave IRS employees who follow the law and have issued all the CTC refunds. Of course, the Secretary would have to find some way of doing that without alerting the IRS hit squads working to suppress CTC.

[Gregg]

Well, they had a thread called "evidence that we're winning" and I half expected to see that they had gone a whole week without anyone getting a NOD or other nasty letter from the IRS.

They no longer even talk about how to get a refund, the entire forum is "How do I deal with this letter?" or "What do I do when they take my bank account?" or "How can I avoid getting caught up in this trap?" The person pleading for Doreen to post the "recent victories" sounded downright forlorn (apologies to Idiot #2 on the current scorecard) and it would crush him to know there aren't any new victories. I've read that any use of Form 4852 now gets flagged and looked at by a real human being and has to be approved, which pretty much dooms Pete's little scam.

stand tall warriors, indeed.

[Famspear]

......I've read that any use of Form 4852 now gets flagged and looked at by a real human being and has to be approved, which pretty much dooms Pete's little scam.....

I wonder just how many 4852s are filed each year, and what percentage of those are related to some sort of scam -- whether it be the Cracking the Code scheme or some other fraud.

[LPC]

As more people focus on the US Secretary of Treasury things should get interesting.

I suspect that my understanding of "interesting" is different from SB's understanding of "interesting.

Seriously, there is absolutely no reason to continue dealing with the IRS minions when you realize they are simply delegates to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who is in turn a delegate of the US Secretary of Treasury.

Unless by "no reason" you mean that you don't expect any meaningful response.

I don't know about you folks, but when i return a defective item at a store and the cashier gives me the runaround about refunding my money, i seek out a decision-maker.

I don't know about you folks, but when i return a defective item to Wal-Mart and the cashier gives me the runaround about refunding my money, i seek out a confrontation with the CEO of Wal-Mart, William Simon.

The US Secretary of Treasury cuts the checks!

Actually, he doesn't.

I think that it's entirely possible that the Secretary of the Treasury not only has nothing to do with cutting checks, but doesn't even know who cuts the the checks.

It's like asking whether the CEO of Wal-Mart knows who approves the customer refunds. Probably not.

[Dr. Caligari]

The latest from the Guru:

The delay tactics by the US Secretary of Treasury and his delegates and agents are to no avail. There is no statute of limitations regarding unlawful detained property. If you "contract" into a statute of limitations, that is your foolish business. However, a limit of liability, which a statute of limitations represents, does not exist in common law remedy. For myself, i do not consent to lawbreakers having immunity under the law, even if that immunity occurs after a period of time.

[Dr. Caligari]

And the hits just keep on coming!

Patrick, why don't you research common law and learn how to submit your own judgment and court order into the court record against the IRS? If you get obstruction from the court clerk then file "on demand". If you get obstruction from the judge then issue writ of error reversing his acts and then hold him for contempt of court.

[Pottapaug1938]

And the hits just keep on coming!

Patrick, why don't you research common law and learn how to submit your own judgment and court order into the court record against the IRS? If you get obstruction from the court clerk then file "on demand". If you get obstruction from the judge then issue writ of error reversing his acts and then hold him for contempt of court.

Boy, would I love to be in the same room on the day that someone tries a maneuver like this -- or, even better, if someone actually gets face to face with a judge and tries this!

[Las]

I have lurked on the Quatloos boards for about one year.

This made me come out of lurker-dom:

There is no statute of limitations regarding unlawful detained property...a limit of liability...does not exist in common law remedy.

Wow. Actually, I think there *is* a restriction on otherwise unlawfully possessed property: adverse possession. After a certain, jurisdiction-dependent period of adverse, open, hostile, notorious, exclusive, and continuous possession the disseisor can assert title against the former holder. I'm fairly certain it applies mainly to real property. Regardless, there DOES exist a limit for judicial relief from "detained" property. (I'm not arguing here that the gov't could adversely possess, but merely pointing out that a Common Law limit did/does exist for claiming relief.)

Anyway, that IS a common law remedy (although the the length of time of possession required to quiet title has been statutorily mandated since...I dunno...one of the Henry's?)

...a limit of liability...does not exist in common law remedy.

Laches has existed within the Anglo-American Common Law system for...well...a long time (especially in courts of equity before merging). There are other limits of liability that exist at Common Law. Duty to mitigate, assumption of risk, contributory negligence, res judicata, and a crap-ton of other things can all limit - or preclude completely - a particular defendant's liability. And many exist in the Common Law, however some are now codified...in places like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Further, in ALL Common Law jurisdictions the legislature is free to amend, add, remove, delete, or expand any "statute-of-limitations" it wants. This is a central facet to the Common Law legal system that many of these guys seem to ignore.

If you get obstruction from the judge then issue writ of error reversing his acts and then hold him for contempt of court.

But, this is amazing. And this is why I've finally stopped lurking and started posting.

That would be INCREDIBLE. I would *love* to see someone try that.

[notorial dissent]

Well, we know for certain ole Skanky isn’t going to be the test case here, that is about as certain as Pete staying right where he is for the foreseeable and the not so foreseeable future.

Prattlin’ Patty on the other hand is just dumb enough and more than deluded enough to try and do something like that, since after all, he has already had so many wins against the IRS, struck them silent so he claims, and thinks he is so clever and all.

I really would pay money to see that effort. It would truly be humorous right, up to and past the point where the bailiffs haul him off screaming to detention, all the while screaming that they are violating his common law court orders and that they can’t do that. I think it would be an instant hit on Utube as well.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Of course, when he takes his car in for an oil change, I'm guessing he wants Alan Mullaly to turn wrenches for him.

I thought it would mean that Skankie would expect the Secretary of the Treasury would do his oil change.

More like wanting Danika Patrick to get his web site up.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I have lurked on the Quatloos boards for about one year.
...
But, this is amazing. And this is why I've finally stopped lurking and started posting.

That would be INCREDIBLE. I would *love* to see someone try that.

Welcome to Quatloos, Las!

Regarding nutballs and threats, that's what I keep one of these around for:

[Dr. Caligari]

I have lurked on the Quatloos boards for about one year.

This made me come out of lurker-dom:

Welcome to Quatloos, las!

The grog ration is distributed in the fo'c'sle at 16:30 daily.

[Gregg]

Of course, when he takes his car in for an oil change, I'm guessing he wants Alan Mullaly to turn wrenches for him.

I thought it would mean that Skankie would expect the Secretary of the Treasury would do his oil change.

More like wanting Danika Patrick to get his web site up.

Are you sure his web site is what he's having a problem with?