Skankbeat thinks the CIR processed his tax return

[Quixote]

Skankbeat:

Who at the IRS processed your tax return? I suspect a small group of people are delegated to handle CTC returns, but who are these people? By listing names, we can see which names are reoccurring. Once we know who these bad apples are, we can take steps to get them removed from their positions. Please record the individual's name and title.

Below are the individuals at the IRS who have processed my returns.

Douglas Shulman
Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Dennis Kidd
Operations Manager, Examination

.
.
.

And I was baptized by the Pope.

[Imalawman]

Skankbeat:

Who at the IRS processed your tax return? I suspect a small group of people are delegated to handle CTC returns, but who are these people? By listing names, we can see which names are reoccurring. Once we know who these bad apples are, we can take steps to get them removed from their positions. Please record the individual's name and title.

Below are the individuals at the IRS who have processed my returns.

Douglas Shulman
Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Dennis Kidd
Operations Manager, Examination

.
.
.

And I was baptized by the Pope.

[wserra]

And I was baptized by the Pope.

Mazel tov.

[LPC]

I suspect a small group of people are delegated to handle CTC returns, but who are these people? By listing names, we can see which names are reoccurring. Once we know who these bad apples are, we can take steps to get them removed from their positions.

You say "bad apples," but we say "people who aren't paid enough to have to deal with jerks like you, or suffer harassment for trying to do their jobs."

[grixit]

Skankbeat:

Who at the IRS processed your tax return? I suspect a small group of people are delegated to handle CTC returns, but who are these people? By listing names, we can see which names are reoccurring. Once we know who these bad apples are, we can take steps to get them removed from their positions. Please record the individual's name and title.

Below are the individuals at the IRS who have processed my returns.

Douglas Shulman
Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Dennis Kidd
Operations Manager, Examination

.
.
.

And I was baptized by the Pope.

My souvenir Doctor Who scarf was knitted by Terrance Dicks. My aspirin bottle was filled by Johnson, and Johnson put the cotton in.

[The Observer]

I have quite a few sweater vests that Geoffrey Beane must have knitted by hand for me.

[Cathulhu]

Gosh! P. Diddy, or whatever he's calling himself today, must have sewn those jeans I used to have himself! Pity I got rid of them after the cast came off my leg...

[bmielke]

Here's my question, can one actually tell who reviewed their tax return?

I'm sure for millions of people it would be like computer 9280 or something, but if an actual human looks at you tax return can you find out who it is?

[Cathulhu]

All returns are processed by being converted to data first. If you file on paper, as I expect CTC must, since their wackiness is not covered in efile capabilities, the first time a human touches it would be the keypunch operator (unless there's a conversion to scanners since I retired), since the mail is opened by machines, which then staple the envelope behind the return to save the postmark. Once it's punched in or fed in by efile, processing is all computerized. When a scam (like CTC, or even a Porth return back long ago) is identified, programming is done to kick those returns out of the system and be processed by special units, primarily in Exam. That would be why SB thinks this; the sigs on the letter he's gotten would be those.

Outside of identifying the keypunch op (which only IRS could do, from the employee number) and the auditor assigned to the batch when it's kicked out (same answer, except there's a name on the questionaire sent out when the auditor thinks there might actually be an issue worth discussion, but it can be a pseudonym), there isn't a person to identify. Any action taken on an account always has an employee number on it--and eager-eyed paranoid individuals in TIGTA to keep 'em honest.

And it's possible to find out the employee numbers from a printout--but you'd need the IRS database to track the employee down. I worked as a troubleshooter there for a bit, and did track employees down from the database, which is perpetually somewhat outdated.

[bmielke]

Ah, I figured it would be hard, I also figured someone really looked at paper returns, not just entered them in. Thanks for the info.

[ASITStands]

All returns are processed by being converted to data first. If you file on paper, as I expect CTC must, since their wackiness is not covered in efile capabilities, the first time a human touches it would be the keypunch operator (unless there's a conversion to scanners since I retired), since the mail is opened by machines, which then staple the envelope behind the return to save the postmark. Once it's punched in or fed in by efile, processing is all computerized. When a scam (like CTC, or even a Porth return back long ago) is identified, programming is done to kick those returns out of the system and be processed by special units, primarily in Exam. That would be why SB thinks this; the sigs on the letter he's gotten would be those.

Excellent explanation!

"All returns are processed by being converted to data first."
"[T]he first time a human touches it would be the keypunch operator."
"Once it's punched in or fed in by efile, processing is all computerized."
"When a scam is identified, programming is done to kick those returns out of the system."
"... and be processed by special units, primarily in Exam."

THAT's exactly why it took so long for the computer to identify CtC returns. It was simply being entered by a keypunch operator and NOT identified by the computer as a scam.

THAT's exactly why so many received initial refunds and why so many are being pursued today for return of erroneous refunds and examination and assessment of taxes owed.

[Cathulhu]

Yup. One reason the Integrated Data Retrieval System is being replaced by the Customer Account Data Engine is that IDRS is very elderly (does anyone recall 1978 when the SCURS replacement of hardware went online and everybody's refund was up to six months late?) and this time the Service is replacing one segment at a time rather than overall. The new CADE system is closer to state of the art, but the overall slowness of the system is why the Sovruns think they're winning. Until later.

p.s. thanks for the kind words ASITStands, now you know why I've turned down job offers so often since I retired. I'm not playing hard to get, I just don't want to unretire.

[Brandybuck]

And I was baptized by the Pope.

The governor himself educated me. He thought I was so smart he even signed my degree!

[Gregg]

Skankbeat is losing his always shaky grip on reality. In several posts today he brings up again the citizens arrest stuff, how Pete's conviction by a Federal Court in Michigan is invalid because of a state statute from Iowa about oath of office, a further piece about a clause in the Constitution that is more or less a grandfather clause from the Articles of Confederation and finally he again brags about his "taking it to the top" with notices to the Sec of the Treasury etc... and how

I will only deal with the Secretary one-on-one going forward. I am acting in my sovereign capacity and the issue is trover and conversion. This has nothing to do with federal income taxes. If this creates common law liability for the Secretary, he can always remedy and put this behind him. It is his fault for delegating authority to the wrong people.

I have an idea. I want a quick clean resolution to ole Skank's problems once and for all and to further this I suggest we raise money and buy him a bus ticket to DC to go see the Secretary in person....

It's time to quit fooling around!

[Cathulhu]

Gregg, I'm all for sending the bus ticket. But I'm morally certain Skanky would chicken out, just like Harvey always does.

[grixit]

Scene: interior of a prison cellblock. A new inmate is being escorted by two guards.

Prisoner: what's that cackling sound?

Guard1: Oh that's just Skankbeat, he does that all day.

Guard2: But you'll soon get used to it.

Prisoner: Poor guy, he must be doing a long sentence to get like that.

Guard1: Actually he's been like that from the beginning.

Prisoner: What's he in for, bad chicken impersonations?

Guard1: Nope. Tax evasion and fraud.

(They are now passing a cell. The bed and most of the floor are in the usual slightly grimy state one expects. But one corner is pristine. There's a wooden table there, with two chairs. On the table is a little stand with two crossed flags, one of the US and one of Frickentardistan.)

(Sitting on the bed is what looks like a giant hairball. Only when his mouth opens to emit some more cackling can the audience see that it's actually a man, his hair and beard growing out in all directions.)

Guard1: Hey Skankbeat, what's new?

Skankbeat: The secretary is coming! Heeheehee! We're going to have an international summit meeting so i can explain the truth to him! Heeheehee! And then he's going to apologize for this miscarriage of justice and let me go! And give me a unicorn! Heeheehee!"

Prisoner: Is it too late to ask for a cell in one of the gang controlled wings?

[Joey Smith]

Skankbeat has clearly gone "off the reservation" and it appears that the few remaining Lostheads even see that themselves.

Oh, how quickly the CtC forum has devolved without Pete being able to administrate .....

[notorial dissent]

My biggest problem with this topic, is the combination of "Skankbeat" and "thinks" in the same sentence. Since the one automatically precludes the other.

[Gregg]

Skankbeat has clearly gone "off the reservation" and it appears that the few remaining Lostheads even see that themselves.

Oh, how quickly the CtC forum has devolved without Pete being able to administrate .....

Yep, LH has become a collection of things I'd pay to see on U Tube instead of a serious crazy people place like it used to be...

[ashlynne39]

All systems are go at LH for Skankbeat to go after the treasury secretary

spliberty writes:

I agree with SB, go after the boss if dealing with the minions doesn't work. I plan doing just that very soon.

transcriptsdon'tlie comes forward with this bit of legal wisdom

In the event you do go forward with this, the following remedy is available to you, and should be the exclusive legal foundation (to avoid the IRC's anti-injunction provisions that typically are used by the DOJesters to kill -- dismiss -- 99.99% of all such suits):

TITLE 5 > PART I > CHAPTER 7 > § 702
§ 702. Right of review
A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof. An action in a court of the United States seeking relief other than money damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority shall not be dismissed nor relief therein be denied on the ground that it is against the United States or that the United States is an indispensable party. The United States may be named as a defendant in any such action, and a judgment or decree may be entered against the United States: Provided, That any mandatory or injunctive decree shall specify the Federal officer or officers (by name or by title), and their successors in office, personally responsible for compliance. Nothing herein
(1) affects other limitations on judicial review or the power or duty of the court to dismiss any action or deny relief on any other appropriate legal or equitable ground; or
(2) confers authority to grant relief if any other statute that grants consent to suit expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought.

I wish you The Best, and Godspeed!

to which Skankbeat responds with his superior legal knowledge and his newly found kingly position as his own sovereign

TranscriptsDontLie, i commend you for your knowledge of statute, but i think you are stepping out of your league on this one. I encourage you to research this "elephant in the room" called common law. In this republic it might be better to call it "sovereign common law" because we have 200+ million kings walking around, each emanating their own law, and so there must be a compromise, a nexus between all these kings laws.

The anti-injunction act, even a claim of "sovereign immunity", is no defense for a common law action brought against the US Secretary of the Treasury in his individual capacity for common law crime such as conversion and trespass against a sovereign. That is the direction the evidence trail should be going in- remove the plausible deniability. When it is established that the US Secretary of Treasury has violated sovereign common law, the Secretary stands naked.

Although the federal govermment can claim "sovereign immunity" from its creations, such as this inferior status 14th amendment "citizen" (likely the referenced "person" in the above Title 5 citation), it cannot do the same to one acting in their common law sovereign capacity. Law emanates from the sovereign. The federal government may be the sovereign to this 14th amendment "citizen" (as examplified by the recent US Supreme Court ruling regarding "extending" 2nd amendment "rights" to this "citizen"), but the native born of the 50 states are sovereign to the federal government. Need proof? The first three words of the US Constitution- the "law of the land"- clearly establish who is in control, "We the People".

Yes, this sounds like overhyped patriotism, but THIS IS THE LAW. Nothing else matters. Fully comprehending that you are a "king" is heavy-duty stuff, folks. When you feel the full gravity of the implications, you are going to have some sleepless nights. The law of this republic is the man is sovereign. The reason you have been treated like dog poop is that you and your family have been conditioned not to assert your sovereign status, and you have allowed yourself to be treated as an inferior status 14th amendment "citizen" who only has privileges and immunities, but no sovereign rights. Oops, i mistakenly used "who"- the 14th amendment "citizen" is actually an "it". Very inferior.

Unlike Canada, Britain, Australia, and elsewhere, because this republic's core law is premised upon the man is sovereign, there is nothing complicated we have to do to assert sovereign status. We merely assert it and it is done! "I am a sovereign!" Of course, only those natively born in the 50 states can do this, but that is a heck of a lot of us.

I am still researching this, but everything i find is pointing to these truths. Common law, constitution law, history, even CTC in select chapters, it is all pointing to this. Do your own research and you will come to the same conclusion. The "elephant" in this room is so large you would swear it was going to rain!

It's sort of interesting how skankbeat can recognize that transcriptsdon'tlie is stepping out of his legal knowledge and yet fails to see he too has stepped beyond his knowledge also. Oh well, another day, another bit of inferior legal analysis from Skankbeat