The Legal Stylings of Skankbeat II

[Las]

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.

Thanks. Funny thing is I used to work on boats when I was younger. My bunk was in the fo'c'sle. Since we weren't allowed to drink, we would sneak bottles onto the boat while at port and drink them in the fo'c'sle (because nobody else, except for us, would ever come down there.)

Anyway, what worries me is that innocent people come along and read that garbage. Then get themselves in a lot of trouble. Actually, maybe Skank is a good thing. After a statement like "hold a judge in contempt" (I mean, c'mon, that's absurd...even for Lost Horizons) potential followers will realize the scam for what it is: a scam.

[Cpt Banjo]

After a statement like "hold a judge in contempt" (I mean, c'mon, that's absurd...even for Lost Horizons) potential followers will realize the scam for what it is: a scam.

Never underestimate the stupidity at Lost Horizons, Las; some of them swallow bilge like that by the gallon. Anyway, welcome.

[LPC]

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 seems like an anti-troll, or perhaps a better term would be posi-troll.

By which I mean that, like a troll, he throws out a lot of BS hoping to get a reaction, but the reaction he wants is positive (e.g., respect) and not negative (e.g., anger).

All trolls suck energy; Skanky is just sucking a different kind of energy.

[LPC]

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.

I agree. (And welcome to The Light of non-lurkerdom.)

And I believe it can apply to both personal property and real property, although the period may be shorter for personal property.

...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).

Laches? I'm impressed.

But I believe that laches is almost purely an equitable defense, and does not apply to actions "at law" or to statutory causes of action. So it should not apply to detinue, which is an action "at law" rather than an action "in equity."

Laches often comes up in my area of practice, because in Pennsylvania there is no statute of limitations on an action against an executor or trustee for breach of a fiduciary duty, and there is no statute of limitations for assessment of inheritance tax. In both cases, the Orphans' Court (which has jurisdiction over those issues, and considers itself to be a court of equity even though equity practice has been abolished in Pennsylvania--the Orphans' Court procedural rules committee of the Supreme Court is currently wrestling with that issue) will apply the doctrine of laches. (Although one judge recently ordered an executor--actually the executor of the executor's estate because the executor himself had died--to account for the administration of an estate more than 35 years after the estate had supposedly been distributed, finding that laches should not apply.)

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.

In order to ignore it they would first have to be aware of it, however dimly. You're giving them too much credit.

[Las]

...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).

Laches? I'm impressed.

But I believe that laches is almost purely an equitable defense, and does not apply to actions "at law" or to statutory causes of action. So it should not apply to detinue, which is an action "at law" rather than an action "in equity."

Yeah, I tried to phrase this carefully as in "within the Anglo-American Common Law system," rather than an action at law or equity. I also wasn't really referring to detinue specifically, but to refute the claim that our legal heritage doesn't provide for "a limit of liability." My basic point was that, despite the LH rhetoric, our "grandfathers" (and well before that) modeled a judicial system which recognized the inherent injustice in allowing a claim to sit dormant for 50 years and then springing it on an unsuspecting defendant.

I think you're right that laches is mostly an equitable remedy. Actually, I remember how I heard of laches. It was part of a Civil Procedure class about removal (or something like that...it was removal or diversity, or one of those basic concepts.) The case, which I don't remember specifically, was about a conflict between the local jurisdiction's statute of limitations and laches as used in the Federal Rules. Under one, the case could not have been heard; under the other, it could have. We read the case because one party was trying to get in front of a federal court (or vice versa...but the idea is the same...)

I was trying to drive that our legal heritage (as a Common Law legal system) does provide limits to liability. I don't think I really phrased that well, though.

Laches often comes up in my area of practice, because in Pennsylvania there is no statute of limitations on an action against an executor or trustee for breach of a fiduciary duty, and there is no statute of limitations for assessment of inheritance tax.

Pennsylvania here too! xD

EDIT: quote formatting.

[LPC]

I was trying to drive that our legal heritage (as a Common Law legal system) does provide limits to liability. I don't think I really phrased that well, though.

And what you wrote was good enough.

[Duke2Earl]

I ran into a tax denier some years ago who insisted that the magic key was the Roman law concept of usufruct.

[Pottapaug1938]

I love the ones who wave the Magna Carta as the source of their rights, as if it were some mystical grant of unbounded liberty -- quite forgetting that the only provision in force today and arguably relevant to us is Clause 29, which is essentially a due process clause.

[Dr. Caligari]

Skanky is currently engaged in a debate on Lost Hopes with our own beloved Harvey (posting there as "Libre") on a thread called "Secret war, people waking, and conclusion imminent." What is really scary is that Skanky actually is making more sense than Harvey.

[Gregg]

Skanky is currently engaged in a debate on Lost Hopes with our own beloved Harvey (posting there as "Libre") on a thread called "Secret war, people waking, and conclusion imminent." What is really scary is that Skanky actually is making more sense than Harvey.

Has anyone but the two of them made any posts since the weekend? All the rats deserted that ship weeks ago.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I ran into a tax denier some years ago who insisted that the magic key was the Roman law concept of usufruct.

There was a case pending trial at one time in Maryland that involved a usufruct condition on an easement but I can't fathom how one could construe a property issue into an income tax argument.

[Harvester]

If it helps Famspire, I've never filed Form 4852. The anecdotal evidence suggests use of this form now serves as an identifier - oh, you're one of them - and that usually begins the full Odgen UT frivolous treatment. And given the retaliatory nature of the evil men operating this scheme, that's no surprise. Not to say that battle can't be won, but boy howdy, I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Posi-troll. HA! In defense of Skank I can say this: my foray into traffic court with a pro se common law defense (ala ticketslayer.com) was successful. Law enforcement did not show, every traffic appealer was a winner that session due to lack of prosecution. It appears common law is alive & well but the administrative courts absolutely do not want to admit it, will never say "yep, you're right, you win on the merits of the case." NOT. They short circuit or allow you to win via another route so no one can say "yes common law works, Here's the proof." It worked for me but the proof is inconclusive. However it does seem odd that they couldn't muster the oldest lamest desk cop to show up and help collect thousand$ in ticket revenue that day. I say the cops were instructed not to show on the odd chance of a sovereign revealing their game. Courts are bad juju; make every effort to stay out.

Anyway, what worries me is that innocent people come along and read that garbage.

I'm innocent and I've read that garbage Las and found it some of it very enlightening. I particularly enjoy the posts by TDL (TranscriptsDontLie). Also, LostHorizons has saved me thousands in taxes I now realize were never owed to the IRS to begin with. And I have no issues or nasty IRS letters. The real scam is operated by the Federal Reserve/IRS and the sooner you come to that realization, the better off you'll be.

[LPC]

I ran into a tax denier some years ago who insisted that the magic key was the Roman law concept of usufruct.

There was a case pending trial at one time in Maryland that involved a usufruct condition on an easement but I can't fathom how one could construe a property issue into an income tax argument.

That's weird, because I had thought that usufruct was only recognized in Louisiana (which follows French civil law and not English common law).

However, I also have to admit that I don't really know what "usufruct" means. It's one of those legal concepts that I have been hoping I could spend my career without having to deal with.

[Famspear]

I ran into a tax denier some years ago who insisted that the magic key was the Roman law concept of usufruct.

There was a case pending trial at one time in Maryland that involved a usufruct condition on an easement but I can't fathom how one could construe a property issue into an income tax argument.

That's weird, because I had thought that usufruct was only recognized in Louisiana (which follows French civil law and not English common law).

However, I also have to admit that I don't really know what "usufruct" means. It's one of those legal concepts that I have been hoping I could spend my career without having to deal with.

The concept of the usufruct,
I think, we find
Is neatly tucked
Somewhere within the Civil Law.
Louisiana stands in awe!
If Cajun Country's your abode,
You'll find Napoleonic Code--
Unlike the folks who live in Texas.
Over here, the only nexus
With the French that we can find
Is Cajun seafood -- we don't mind!
The English law, it works for me.
We can compare, and we may see
A little similarity
To usufruct
With equity.

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.....

EDIT: Or, maybe, the last part should be:

The English law, it works for me.
We can compare, and we may see
A little similarity
With usufruct
And equity.

EDIT 2 - Revised version:

The concept of the usufruct,
I think, we find
Is neatly tucked
Somewhere within the Civil Law.
Louisiana stands in awe!
If Cajun Country's your abode,
You'll find Napoleonic Code--
Unlike the folks who live in Texas.
Over here, the only nexus
With the French that we can find
Is Cajun seafood -- we don't mind!
The English law, it works for me.
Compare the two, and you may see
A little similarity
In usufruct
And equity.

This is a work in progress.

[Famspear]

For the non-lawyers here, I note the obvious: that the term "usufruct" -- the "use" of the "fruits" -- is cognate with the English word "use."

We recall that in the Civil Law of France and Louisiana, a "usufruct" is generally the right of one person to "use" and enjoy property, the ownership of which is vested in another person, and to draw from that property the profit, utility and advantage which it may produce, without altering the substance of the thing.

Compare to "beneficial USE," as in a beneficiary of a trust under English Law.

And, I remember the Statute of "Uses".....

[Pottapaug1938]

According to online resources, two good examples are aboriginal hunting rights, and the rights of "gleaners" to go into the "rounded corners" of harvested fields, in ancient Israel, and take what was there for the benefit of the poor.

[wserra]

This is a work in progress.

If you don't work in the obvious rhyme, you're a pussy.

[LPC]

We recall that in the Civil Law of France and Louisiana, a "usufruct" is generally the right of one person to "use" and enjoy property, the ownership of which is vested in another person, and to draw from that property the profit, utility and advantage which it may produce, without altering the substance of the thing.

Actually, I had kind of guessed that from the context of IRC section 2056(b)(7)(B)(ii)(I).

[Famspear]

This is a work in progress.

If you don't work in the obvious rhyme, you're a pussy.

This is a "family" web site. Rated G, for general audiences.

OK, you're right. I'm a pussy.

We recall that in the Civil Law of France and Louisiana, a "usufruct" is generally the right of one person to "use" and enjoy property, the ownership of which is vested in another person, and to draw from that property the profit, utility and advantage which it may produce, without altering the substance of the thing.

Actually, I had kind of guessed that from the context of IRC section 2056(b)(7)(B)(ii)(I).

Cool..... I didn't even remember that the term was found there.

My experience with the Federal estate tax was many years ago, when I practiced law. I found federal estate and gift taxation to be a scary minefield. Fortunately, neither I (nor, as far as I know, any client) was injured during my brief foray therein.

[Imalawman]

This is a work in progress.

If you don't work in the obvious rhyme, you're a pussy.

There once was a man who asserted usufruct,
he found the term in Roman Law, neatly tucked;
plotting his win, he said with a grin,
"If I claim this, Quatloos is f---ed"!

Better, Wes?