The legal stylings of skankbeat

[notorial dissent]

As memory serves, I am pretty sure he was getting it from some state statute, CA I think, but really don't remember at the moment, but I have seen the reference a long while back. Not that it really matters, since it is all part of his ongoing delusion and has no basis in reality, but he does have a legitimate, at least semi, basis for the derivation of it-not that it actually or ever applied to him. Rather like a TP claiming that some narrow definition in an unrelated statute supercedes what is written in the actual tax statute.

[.]

Well, there are private attorneys general and there are pirate attorneys general.

Clearly, someone is confused. Pirate is better.

[ashlynne39]

I'm curious about the federal witness designation. He's using it as a catch-all it appears. He was once a federal witness so now no one can touch him for any reason, ever, at any time or it's retaliation against a federal witness. I have to assume the statute doesn't work that way but it seems to be how he's using it. In any case, when was he a federal witness, if ever? I read some of his court filings in the case of the citizen's arrest and there were some accusations by other parties that he was a federal informant, which he denies and keeps going back to the witness designation. His filings are mostly gibberish though somewhat entertaining.

[LPC]

His filings are mostly gibberish though somewhat entertaining.

I'm sure that if you're on the receiving end of his filings it can get real tired real fast.

It's like the guy screaming about the second coming of Jesus on a street corner. It's sort of amusing until he's screaming in front of your home at 3 am.

I consider myself lucky that most of my dealings with these clowns have been on the Internet where I can log off and walk away when I want. But I don't underestimate the power of these clowns to burst through the "somewhat entertaining" label when it gets close and personal.

Like I said, I think I've been fortunate. But I'm sensitive to those who haven't.

[ashlynne39]

His filings are mostly gibberish though somewhat entertaining.

I'm sure that if you're on the receiving end of his filings it can get real tired real fast.

It's like the guy screaming about the second coming of Jesus on a street corner. It's sort of amusing until he's screaming in front of your home at 3 am.

I consider myself lucky that most of my dealings with these clowns have been on the Internet where I can log off and walk away when I want. But I don't underestimate the power of these clowns to burst through the "somewhat entertaining" label when it gets close and personal.

Like I said, I think I've been fortunate. But I'm sensitive to those who haven't.

Oh, I'm sure. I've defended a couple of clients on the receiving end of frivolous filers. Several years ago I had a client who was the most recent target of some folks who had been barred from filing federal lawsuits without court permission and were working their way through the state court system, suing judges and lawyers along the way. When I managed to get their case against my client dismissed, the judge warned me that both he and I could probably expect a lawsuit to be filed against us. Luckily that never happened but it wouldn't have surprised me if it had. For some perverse reason, I just find these nuts funny. Their filings make no sense, despite their attempts at using legal jargon and the stuff they include in their filings most often has nothing to do with anything. I just get a kick out of reading it.

[Joey Smith]

The real trick is going to court and arguing against them with a straight face. I once had a hearing before a federal magistrate judge where the (frivolous) plaintiff walked in wearing a gas mask, and carrying a sign that said "victim of Gulf War syndrome", although on subsequent querying by the Court he admitted to never having serve in the military or been overseas.

[ashlynne39]

The real trick is going to court and arguing against them with a straight face. I once had a hearing before a federal magistrate judge where the (frivolous) plaintiff walked in wearing a gas mask, and carrying a sign that said "victim of Gulf War syndrome", although on subsequent querying by the Court he admitted to never having serve in the military or been overseas.

I had another case in federal court that never made it to trial, but the frivolous plaintiff sued for millions of dollars over what I think was a $50 car part. His pleadings were mostly unreadable grammatically speaking but were full of tidbits of war trivia, conspiracy theories about who had killed those brother wrestlers (as I remember he thought they were fed drugs by the government), he validated his pleadings by listing his family's genealogy back to the Revolutionary War. When I searched on Pacer for his other cases, they were all very similar.

[Nikki]

I'm curious about the federal witness designation. He's using it as a catch-all it appears. He was once a federal witness so now no one can touch him for any reason, ever, at any time or it's retaliation against a federal witness. I have to assume the statute doesn't work that way but it seems to be how he's using it. In any case, when was he a federal witness, if ever? I read some of his court filings in the case of the citizen's arrest and there were some accusations by other parties that he was a federal informant, which he denies and keeps going back to the witness designation. His filings are mostly gibberish though somewhat entertaining.

Logic according to PAM:

He, once, was a witness in a federal trial.

He is, therefor, forevermore a Federal Witle<<<ness.

[Cathulhu]

I was an expert witness in a Fed trial exactly once, and had no idea of the legal importance according to the expertise shown by SB. I felt pretty good about the fact that the US Attorney I worked with literally offered me his blood (I was headed for major surgery at the time). I actually didn't need it and got through the operation without a transfusion, but I could never, ever forget his kindness in the offer, which blew me away. I'll take that against any imaginary magic Sovrun powers.

[Famspear]

Over at losthorizons, "SkankBeat" has pushed on into Full Wackadooster Mode:

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.

Sovereign porn??


The Wackadooster continues:

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. This is because a native born of the 50 states is sovereign to the federal government. The first three words of the US Constitution clearly establish who is in control, "We the People". The creation cannot assert independence from its creator.

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. 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. This "citizen" is better than a slave, but certainly no freeman.

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!", the king's decree. 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 huge you would swear it was going to rain!

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 5560#25560

(bolding added)

EDIT: The SkankMeister is feeling pretty good, now that Blowhard Hendrickson is in prison and unable to monitor the posts at lost horizons. Perhaps Doreen Hendrickson is too busy with real life to bother hitting the "ban" button on the Skank Man.

[Joey Smith]

Nah, if Doreen got rid of Skanky that would leave only one other active poster over there.

Not too amazing how quickly the CtC crowd has died off. So much for "getting the word out", eh?

[notorial dissent]

I think that is the problem, the word did get out, and it wasn't encouraging. And all of the rats have deserted, although maybe a little too late, since the ship already done sunk.

[Thule]

Skanky is taking LH to straaaaaange new places. Apparently, he expects every State Constitution to acknowledge how swell common law is. Or rather, the semi-anarchist sovrun style "common law", as defined by his eminence SkankBeat

And if the Constitution of Virginia don't conform to this, why, there must be some sort of trickery.

The common law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth, shall continue in full force within the same, and be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General Assembly.

Looks like the Virginia legislators are using "word art" to misguide you, to imply that the only common law is what was imported from english common law, and that legislators have authority to disregard it. In truth, the imported english common law is only part of the common law in this republic. So there is common law outside the "common law of England" that is "in full force" in Virgina, just legislators don't want you know that. There are 200+ million sovereigns walking around emanating law. The last part about "rule of decision", the legislators simply are telling you that they may not use common law when they make decisions in their statutory la-la land. So what? As long as they act in congruence with common law, they can do this.

I would like to hear from folks in other states. Where does your state code acknowledge the supremacy of common law?

[.]

walking around emanating law

I think there's a remedy for that. Perhaps a couple of squirts of Febreze.

[Paul]

My state's statutes acknowledge that the acts of Parliament and the General Assembly are superior to the common law. 5 ILCS 50/5:

"That the common law of England, so far as the same is applicable and of a general nature, and all statutes or acts of the British parliament made in aid of, and to supply the defects of the common law, prior to the fourth year of James the First, excepting the second section of the sixth chapter of 43d Elizabeth, the eighth chapter of 13th Elizabeth, and ninth chapter of 37th Henry Eighth, and which are of a general nature and not local to that kingdom, shall be the rule of decision, and shall be considered as of full force until repealed by legislative authority."

My favorite trivia question is: What do the 3 exceptions to the adoption of acts of Parliament show about who really runs the State of Illinois?

[Gregg]

My state's statutes acknowledge that the acts of Parliament and the General Assembly are superior to the common law. 5 ILCS 50/5:

"That the common law of England, so far as the same is applicable and of a general nature, and all statutes or acts of the British parliament made in aid of, and to supply the defects of the common law, prior to the fourth year of James the First, excepting the second section of the sixth chapter of 43d Elizabeth, the eighth chapter of 13th Elizabeth, and ninth chapter of 37th Henry Eighth, and which are of a general nature and not local to that kingdom, shall be the rule of decision, and shall be considered as of full force until repealed by legislative authority."

My favorite trivia question is: What do the 3 exceptions to the adoption of acts of Parliament show about who really runs the State of Illinois?

Is it a catholic thing?

[Paul]

Is it a catholic thing?

Your average tp or sovrun would be more likely to say it's a jewish thing.

[Gregg]

It's almost, but not quite, time to rename Lost Horizons to "Skankbeat's Crazy School of Sovereign Gibberish Common Law"

He is now accounting for fully half the posts, he posts some version of "You're a fool, establish you are the sovereign and start using common law the way I say to" to every question and is well on the way to dividing the dozen or so lemmings who still post there into camps of Pro or Anti Skankism. If Pete was still a freeman on the land instead of an Inmate I'm sure he would have banned him long ago. A lot of the "You're wasting your time, you have to go common law" isn't compatible with "Everything you need to know about taxes you can learn from Pete, if Pete didn't say it or bring it up it doesn't matter or is just wrong". Either way, he never would have lasted this long in the good old days.

[Thule]

IIRC, we had some speculation on whether Doreen had been groomed by Petey to maintain the proper order on LH while he was away. Apparantly not. I don't know if it's because he refused to believe that he would go to jail, or because he can't stand to see others elevated to the status of resident guru. Maybe a combination. Anyway, looks like Doreen is not likely to step in and discipline the heretics.

Meanwhile, Skanky seems to flood the forum with his own brand of research. And he has found a new authorative source; "Hand-Book of Common-Law Pleading" by Benjamin Shipman (1895).

Edit; Come to think of it, I remembered this attempt to "migrat[e] away from statutory remedy to common law remedy.";

"I claim my right to common law jurisdiction, and refuse statutory jurisdiction."

Results were ... not good. I guess he forgot to establish his "sovereign capacity".

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5615&p=90212&hilit= ... ltz#p90212

[Imalawman]

IIRC, we had some speculation on whether Doreen had been groomed by Petey to maintain the proper order on LH while he was away. Apparantly not. I don't know if it's because he refused to believe that he would go to jail, or because he can't stand to see others elevated to the status of resident guru. Maybe a combination. Anyway, looks like Doreen is not likely to step in and discipline the heretics.

Meanwhile, Skanky seems to flood the forum with his own brand of research. And he has found a new authorative source; "Hand-Book of Common-Law Pleading" by Benjamin Shipman (1895).

Edit; Come to think of it, I remembered this attempt to "migrat[e] away from statutory remedy to common law remedy.";

"I claim my right to common law jurisdiction, and refuse statutory jurisdiction."

Results were ... not good. I guess he forgot to establish his "sovereign capacity".

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5615&p=90212&hilit= ... ltz#p90212

A more likely answer may be that Doreen has bigger fish to fry with raising kids by herself while her husband is in jail for a long period of time - his source of income drying up quickly every day and legal and tax bills mounting. If I were her, I wouldn't give a rat's ass about an internet forum.