Stija's declaration of fact in re: Quatloos

[LightinDarkness]

Again:

This is really simple. If you are correct it takes one line of text, one case citation, to prove that your arguments have any basis in law. Put up or shut up.

By the way, since you are a "medical professional" please tell us what field. With someone this crazy I want to make sure I avoid anyone in Arizona that practices in whatever you do, just to be safe. Interesting that in that wall of text you still are posting on the internet...funded by federal income taxes, as it began as a federal government research project.

[AndyK]

A medical professional? Then I guess it's safe to presume you are an alternative medicine practitioner, otherwise you would be aware of the federal benefits you (and your patients) from the research and regulatory activities of the FDA.

Despite that, let's look at other federal benefits you enjoy at the expense of others:

Do you ever travel by air? I suppose that you assume the air traffic control system and air safety regulatory system is funded by donations from public-spirited individuals like yourself.

Never travel by air? What about use of any major highway? Most of them are funded between 50% and 80% with federal money.

Only travel by foot? Do you ever listen to or watch weather forecasts? "But I get them from ... source" you might say. Where do you think your source gets their information? Does the Weather Channel have satellites monitoring the atmosphere? Do they have a network of radar from coast to coast tracking storms?

Even if you use NONE of the above federal activities, it's a safe bet that you eat some food which you do not produce on your own. Who do you think funds the inspectors who ensure -- to the best of their ability -- that commercial interests don't take shortcuts to give you adulterated, mislabeled, or tainted foods?

Face it. For all of your protestation, mis-applied legal quotations, accusations of communists under every rock; you are nothing more than a leech. You evade paying taxes yet you reap the benefit of the tax dollars payed by others.

You fall somewhere in the social scale between ticks and mosquitos -- sucking the blood of others for your own benefit. Correction: You fall well below them. They don't know any beter.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Quatloos! The views herein are not those of Financial and Tax Fraud Education Associates, Inc. -- Legal Issues Fax to 877-698-0678 and admin issues to sooltauq [at] gmail.com

Piss off to the hole you came from.

You don't have to respond until you're summoned. Then please don't respond.

But again, under what authority do you believe you can compel someone to pay attention to what amounts to be pseudo-legal gibberish?

You can't make anyone respond to nonsense. So given your oath, what can you do?

[Quixote]

After 226 posts stija still hasn't elucidated his position on the federal income tax. He says his income is not subject to it, but won't, and apparently can't, say why. It seems to have something to do with his belief that he simultaneously is and is not a US citizen. Even if that belief were not delusional, not to mention logically impossible, it doesn't work to make his income tax free because his income is earned in the US. (At least in most of his posts.)

So if you could stija, explain in a short post why your income, earned in Arizona, is not subject to the federal income tax. A citation to the exception in 26 USC that applies in your case will be, of course, a necessary part of such an explanation.

[stija]

He says his income is not subject to it, but won't, and apparently can't, say why.

I do NOT make wages, or salaries, or ANYTHING created by Title 26. If i am to say it even simpler, I do NOT play income tax games.

There, in one sentence. Was that easy or what? That does not help you right? Well i know, it can't help you because you JUST don't understand what i am saying. I've cancelled my 'service' with the IRS. lol

Even if you use NONE of the above federal activities, it's a safe bet that you eat some food which you do not produce on your own. Who do you think funds the inspectors who ensure -- to the best of their ability -- that commercial interests don't take shortcuts to give you adulterated, mislabeled, or tainted foods?

hahahahahahaahahahah you're funny

Yes, the world could not go round if we didn't all pay income taxes right? And alot more of brown people would be alive and procreated and made more brown people. Planes wouldn't fly, highways would not exist, oh boy, horse and carriages again huh? Thank god for the feds and the progress they bring.

Oh ya, and thank God for their protecting us from terrorism. Those two brothers in Boston sure could have caused some damage had FSB not told the FBI about them and had FBI not stopped them right? Thank God for feds!

All together now...

[AndyK]

Putting aside your obvious bigotry, why don't you address the issue of the varoius federal benefits you receive without paying for them?

Are you incapable of responding to a post without disparaging others and without including any verifiable, correct factual information?

Or are you just so bored with your life in the basement that you do anything to maintain a conversation with adults?

The only things you have demonstrated, to date, are a total lack of understanding of the overall legal and governmental system in this country, a penchant for running back and correcting your posts after someone catches you in an error or a falsehood, and an extreme bigotry with respect to hispanics.

It is a great shame that you weren't born 100 years ago. you would have been a great asset to the repressive social movement in the South.

[LPC]

I made a mistake. I meant the district court under 7422 (or other sections as well) which is article I court.

No, federal district courts are Article III courts.

Any suits against United States have to authorized by statute in their Article I courts.

No, federal district courts are Article III courts.

All federal courts are "constitutional" because they are all authorized by the Constitution.

There is a distinction between what are sometimes called "Article I courts," created by Congress under its authority in Article I, section 8, of the Constitution, and "Article III courts" created by Congress under its authority in Article III, but I don't see how that distinction is relevant anything you're saying.

True again. I remember you saying that all courts are statutory, which is why i made the distinction of 'constitutional' v. 'statutory. The CORRECT distinction is Article I (taxation I:8:1) and Article III (div citizenship).

No, Article III jurisdiction is more that diversity jurisdiction.

And the distinction is not between 'constitutional' v. 'statutory' but between Article I and Article III.

That is what i meant by statutory and Constitutional, but the correct nomenclature is Article I v. Article III, so i agree 100%.

Then whenever you say "statutory" and "constitutional" I'll point out that you're wrong, and correct you.

I have no idea what you mean by a "franchise court." That phrase has no meaning in any statute or court decision I could find.

I argued, if you recall, loooong ago that IRC is contract law, ie franchise law.

You might have said that, but you were wrong.

You disagree, i know that,

I "disagree" because you are wrong.

but that is what i mean by 'franchise' courts.

And you're still wrong.

I mean courts with specific purpose such as:
1. Bankruptcy Court
2. Circuit Courts
3. Claim Courts
4. Tax Court
5. And even some territorial District Courts legislated through Article I.

It's really cute that you make up words and concepts that have nothing to do with the constitution or law, but you'll have to understand if I continue to point out every time you're wrong.

“Revenue Laws relate to taxpayers and not to non-taxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedures are prescribed for non-taxpayers and no attempt is made to annul any of their Rights or Remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of federal revenue laws.”
Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F.2d. 585 (1972)

So if you are not a franchisee (taxpayer) the courts do not deal with you and neither do the laws. Same is true of bankruptcy laws.

Except that the "quotation" you have supplied is NOT what the court actually wrote.

Try again, and this time try not to lie so much.

If you believe that there is a court in the United States in which the U.S. Constitution does not apply, you are mistaken. The U.S. Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land" (Article VI of the Constitution).

I agree. In Article I courts, the Constitutional authority pursuant to that Article exists. But there is no Bill of Rights in Article I of the U.S. Constitution.

There is also no Bill of Rights in Article III of the Constitution, but that doesn't mean that federal courts can ignore the Bill of Rights.

That is why the SCOTUS says that your Bill of Rights protections are self-executing. You invoke it straight into court, an Article III court that have jurisdiction over issues dealing with citizens and inhabitants. Where are citizens or inhabitants mentioned in Article I? I argue nowhere because Article I deals with subject matter legislative authority and not modes of redress to citizen provided by Article III.

Gibberish.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1796, with the concurring votes of two members of the Constitutional Convention then sitting as Justices on the court, that Congress could impose a tax on a citizen of Virginia for carriages held for private use. Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796).

Yes i agree and i know. Did you read the reasoning why it was an excise tax? Because he could pass the cost on the consumer, thus having pursued a 'business activity' that was regulated by Congress under the excise taxation rule.

Nonsense. The court in Hylton said nothing about "pass it on to the consumer." You're lying.

That is **LIE**, as if fabricate, bullshit, prevaricate, or talk out your ass.

I try to be polite, but the fact of the matter is that you are completely full of shit.

I am not arguing that if one as a private citizen makes what are wages under Title 26 or has corporate income, or any other income earned trough PRIVATE labor, he is not liable for tax. You are jumping the gun....slow down.

Actually, that is what you're arguing, so you're lying again.

But why should I expect anything different? You're a pathological liar.

As noted above, the phrase "franchise court" has no meaning to me, and does not appear in any statute or court decision I can find.

Hmm....franchise courts are created through legislative action, or Article I. Article III courts need not be legislated, that is why i refer to them as 'constitutional.' The constitution legislated them so to speak.

More evidence that you are a moron.

Article III of the Constitution states that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

The "inferior courts" are what we know call federal district courts and federal circuit courts of appeal. And the "ordain and establish" are what we call "legislation."

Really, I try to be polite, but you are a damn freaking ignorant moron.

[LPC]

I do NOT make wages, or salaries, or ANYTHING created by Title 26. If i am to say it even simpler, I do NOT play income tax games.

Quoting from an earlier posting:

You guys do not get that somehow and i cannot understand why. I am trying to find the DISCONNECT, so can you answer my question now.

That's easy. Everyone else in the United States who earns income is required to pay federal income tax on that income. You claim you're not, and you keep offering up gibberish and bullshit when asked why.

[LPC]

Here is a perfect example of a legislative court under Article I, or other power EXCLUSIVELY vested into Congress:

As the only judicial power vested in Congress is to create courts whose judges shall hold their offices during good behavior, it necessarily follows that if Congress authorizes the creation of courts and the appointment of judges for a limited time, it must act independently of the Constitution and upon territory which is not part of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution. In delivering his opinion in this
Page 182 U. S. 267
case Mr. Chief Justice Marshall made no reference whatever to the prior case of Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheat. 317, in which he had intimated that the territories were part of the United States. But if they be a part of the United States, it is difficult to see how Congress could create courts in such territories except under the judicial clause of the Constitution[ARTICLE III]. The power to make needful rules and regulations[ARTICLE I]would certainly not authorize anything inconsistent with the Constitution if it applied to the territories. Certainly no such court could be created within a state except under the restrictions of the judicial clause. It is sufficient to say that this case has ever since been accepted as authority for the proposition that the judicial clause of the Constitution has no application to courts created in the territories, and that, with respect to them, Congress has a power wholly unrestricted by it. We must assume as a logical inference from this case that the other powers vested in Congress by the Constitution have no application to these territories, or that the judicial clause is exceptional in that particular.

This case was followed in Benner v. Porter, 9 How. 235, in which it was held that the jurisdiction of these territorial courts ceased upon the admission of Florida into the Union, Mr. Justice Nelson remarking of them (p. 50 U. S. 242), that
"they are not organized under the Constitution nor subject to its complex distribution of the powers of government as the organic law, but are the creations exclusively of the legislative department, and subject to its supervision and control. Whether or not there are provisions in that instrument which extend to and act upon these territorial governments it is not now material to examine. We are speaking here of those provisions that refer particularly to the distinction between federal and state jurisdiction. . . . (p. 50 U. S. 244). Neither were they organized by Congress under the Constitution, as they were invested with powers and jurisdiction which that body were incapable of conferring upon a court within the limits of a state."

Downes v. Bidwell
There, one example.

1. Notice that the court makes a clear distinction between constitutional and legislative courts.

No, because the court never said anything about "constitutional courts" or "legislative courts."

The fact that you insist on using words that the Supreme Court didn't use shows you're lying again.

[JamesVincent]

Really, I try to be polite, but you are a damn freaking ignorant moron.

Stop beating around the bush Dan and tell us how you really feel.

[LPC]

There is no theory involved here. The only theory is that a man can't earn a living without incurring taxable income. That can be only true in a Communist country where every man is public property.

“The power of legislation, and consequently of taxation, operates on all the persons and property belonging to the body politic. This is an original principle, which has its foundation in society itself. It is granted by all, for the benefit of all. It resides in government as a part of itself, and need not be reserved when property of any description, or the right to use it in any manner, is granted to individuals or corporate bodies. However absolute the right of an individual may be, it is still in the nature of that right, that it must bear a portion of the public burthens; and that portion must be determined by the legislature.”

Providence Bank v. Billings, 29 U.S. 514, 563 (1830), (Chief Justice John Marshall).

Good God, John Marshall was a communist. And in 1830. Who would have guessed?

“We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 (Doyle, Collector, v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 38 Sup. Ct. 467, 62 L. Ed.--), the broad contention submitted on behalf of the government that all receipts—everything that comes in-are income within the proper definition of the term ‘gross income,’ and that the entire proceeds of a conversion of capital assets, in whatever form and under whatever circumstances accomplished, should be treated as gross income. Certainly the term “income’ has no broader meaning in the 1913 act than in that of 1909 (see Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 416, 417 S., 34 Sup. Ct. 136), and for the present purpose we assume there is not difference in its meaning as used in the two acts.”

Southern Pacific Co., v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335, 38 S.Ct. 540 (1918)

The court was dealing with a variation of an issue that had come up before, which is that a return of capital is not income. When you sell an asset, the “income” is not the gross purchase price, but the gain, which is the difference between what you bought it for and what you’re selling it for.

The exact issue before the court was whether a dividend that was paid out of profits earned before March 1, 1913 (which was the effective date of the Revenue Act of 1913), was income when the dividend was received later in 1913. The court held that the profits earned before that date were not subject to tax and had become a form of capital, and that a distribution of capital is not income even if the distribution takes the form of a dividend.

And that is still the law today. Section 316(a) of the Internal Revenue Code defines a “dividend” that is subject to income tax as a distribution by a corporation to its shareholders out of its earnings and profits earned during the year or out of earnings and profits accumulated after February 28, 1913. Corporations sometimes pay out amounts that are dividends under state law but that exceed earnings and profits and are considered a return of capital and not taxable as dividends under the Internal Revenue Code.

Which means that you're a moron.

Title 26 wages by definition include gain. I don't make Title 26 wages. It's that simple. If one makes Title 26 wages, one has a gain and therefore income.

Quoting from an earlier posting:

You guys do not get that somehow and i cannot understand why. I am trying to find the DISCONNECT, so can you answer my question now.

That's easy. Everyone else in the United States who earns income is required to pay federal income tax on that income. You claim you're not, and you keep offering up gibberish and bullshit when asked why.

[stija]

“The power of legislation, and consequently of taxation, operates on all the persons [Title 26 citizen, resident, taxpayer] and property[wages, salaries, dividends] belonging to the body politic. This is an original principle, which has its foundation in society itself. It is granted by all, for the benefit of all. It resides in government as a part of itself, and need not be reserved when property of any description, or the right to use it in any manner, is granted[Congress grants you wages] to individuals or corporate bodies. However absolute the right of an individual may be, it is still in the nature of that right, that it must bear a portion of the public burthens; and that portion must be determined by the legislature.”

If you use Title 26 wages which is public property, you will pay a fee for usage. You are missing what he is saying. WAGES BELONG TO CONGRESS!!!! DO YOU GET THAT??? BY DEFINITION THEY ARE PUBLIC PROPERTY INCLUDING GAINS AND PROFITS WHICH ARE TAXABLE. Stop playing with their property which they GRANTED you, you idiot! Stop declaring what should be your property to be treated "as if" it were wages under Title 26 on a W-4. See 26 U.S.C. § 3402(p)(3), 26 C.F.R. § 31.3401(a)-3, 26 C.F.R. § 31.3402(p)-1.

Are you a person or property belonging to the body politic (public property) from your QUOTE?? I KNOW i am not and so does the IRS because I MADE SURE THEY KNOW IT! I can be very persistent And I grew some balls after i've seen the truth - Truth can stand on its own trust me.

You misquoted the Justice from above and called him a communist when a man explained to you that when your gov't 'grants you the right to use something, there is strings attached.'

Private property does not belong to the body politic but it belongs to the individual, or me in this instance.

That's easy. Everyone else in the United States who earns income is required to pay federal income tax on that income. You claim you're not, and you keep offering up gibberish and bullshit when asked why.

I NEVER said to have taxable income and not being subject to Income taxes on such income. I said i earned private income as recognized in 7701(a)(31)(A) which is NOT taxable. IRC recognizes taxable income and non taxable income. I just declare my nontaxable, i don't know how differently to explain it. I challenge IRS to sue me and collect if I am wrong. They don't. Gee i wonder why. You find it hard to believe, but i dont care.

I do NOT accept, use, receive, or play with public rights granted by Congress. Period. I do not sign federal forms for private employment, you do.

I do not sign federal U.S. property title transfer forms because i am usually transferring private property, or what would be 'Stija's property' and not 'U.S. property', thus I keep it private. Most people, like you, do NOT! There are 3 sovereigns at work here: the People, Arizona, and the United States. Which do you think was the original sovereign, or the grantor of all powers to the others? Also three distinct CHARACTERS of property:
1. Private (the People)----> this is where i sit
2. Arizona public (Arizona body politic)
3. United States public (United States body politic)--> this is where you think you belong

Here's some more stuff on citizenship, because i believe you find that pill hardest to swallow:

"The term ‘citizen‘, as used in the Judiciary Act with reference to the jurisdiction of the federal courts, is substantially synonymous with the term ‘domicile.’” Delaware, L. & W.R. Co. v. Petrowsky, 2 Cir., 250 F. 554, 557; and also Earley v. Hershey Transit Co., 55 F.Supp. 981, D.C.PA. (1944). “There is a recognized distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a particular State, and a person may be the former without being the latter. Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394. In order to constitute 825*825 a person a citizen of a State, so as to sue or be sued in the courts of the United States, that person must have domicile in such State.” Alla v. Kornfeld, 84 F.Supp. 823, at 824-825 (1949).

Dude, i am GENUINELY trying to show you but you just don't see it. RE-READ the QUOTE at the top and pay attention to where he says that "persons and property of body politic".....do you consider yourself to be property of the public? Body politic refers to 'a corporate gov't body' which i am not property of. I am not property and neither are you so stop acting like it.

I am no one's property. I am a sovereign individual - free and independent except insofar ceded to my body politic through the U.S. Constitution created through that document. Think of it as a corporate charter that I CHARTERED (the People really, me being a member of that class).

As i've said before, you quatloos guys are REALLY GOOD at quoting case law that YOU THINK says one thing, but it DOESN'T.

[stija]

Do you think the U.S. Constitution is a joke?
I guarantee you that it is not, and that it is well respected by DHS, FBI, DOJ, IRS, DOD, SSA.
I know first hand because I've MADE MYSELF KNOWN, or introduced myself, if you will, to these fuckers.
Literally, i've written to all of them and DECLARED WHO AND WHAT I AM and challenged them to prove me wrong, in court or on the street.
I am still here.
And freer than ever.
Not scared.
But proud to be an American citizen.
Rights are not for the weak or timid.
I fight for my rights at home.
I fight for them daily.
Do you think it is easy working without federal numbers or federal forms?
Do you think it is easy opening a bank account?
Or getting cable hooked up without a SSN?
Try it.
This is what a member of a federal judiciary says on the subject of who has rights and who does not:

"The privilege against self-incrimination [Fifth Amendment in this case] is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of their rights, nor to one who is indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It cannot be claimed by an attorney or solicitor. It is only valid when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person."
U.S. v Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538 (1947)

The above is in re: to the 5th Amendment, but same principles apply to all of them.

Start fighting for your right to be free man. You and only you can do it. I wish i could fight for you and others, because by letting them take your rights away they are also taking mine. But ultimately it is only your fault and i have no standing.

[stija]

No fortifying authority is necessary to sustain the proposition that in the United States a double citizenship exists. A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the Federal Government and at the same time a citizen of the State in which he resides. Determination of what is qualified residence within a State is not here necessary. Suffice it to say that one possessing such double citizenship owes allegiance and is entitled to protection from each sovereign to whose jurisdiction he is subject.

Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F. Supp. 383 - Dist. Court, WD Missouri 1953

Two different sovereigns.
There's a third one - that's you....

"There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States .... In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld."

Julliard v. Greenman: 110 U.S. 421, (1884)

Stand up and introduce yourself.
Tell them about you and what you are.
Tell them you're equal, even though you're not, and you're the master or their creator or grantor of the 'corporate body politic' chief Justice was telling you about.
You CREATED them.
You OWN them, or control them.
If you don't they won't recognize you on their own.
It's like school, you have to stand up to the bully.

“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.”

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356; 6 S.Ct. 1064 (1886)

You guys make fun of sovereign people.
You are sovereign.
I know i am.
I told them.
They know.
I am not subject to their laws.
I legislate their laws for THEM.
When i write to them i tell THEM what THEIR laws REQUIRE of THEM and NOT me.
I MAKE THEM follow their own law.
I am the source of law, and so are you, you just don't know it.
I don't need no stinking statute to function or sue or do anything.
The purpose of gov't was to protect private rights and provide modes of redress.
Through public school indoctrination and SSA, they've slowly perverted the order of things.

Liberty requires eternal vigilance of your servants.


You have to change the perspective, or point of view.
Start seeing IRS as Cox, ABC, or any other service provider.
EXCEPT that IRS is a 'corporate body politic' agency and bound by the constitutional restrictions and Cox and ABC are not.
So it is weaker if you will.
At one point i was scared of those 3 letters.
Not no' more.
IRS has got no clothes - emperor's got no clothes.
And Stija loves pointing it out and laughing!!

[ArthurWankspittle]

You guys make fun of sovereign people.

Well, maybe we do, but from my point of view sovereigns are like conspiracy theorists. They are like children in kindergarten saying "I know something you don't know". Because of some minor mental defect, they seek the attention. They want to be the hero, the exception to the rule, the little guy who changes the system. Additionally, they seek a method of avoiding a real or imaginary problem and, combined with the preceding ideology, they are willing to believe nonsense to solve their problem and become "the man" who stands up for himself and thwarts the system. Problem is, they are wrong. They believe the delusions. Not as bad as NESARA or the Dinar RV stories, but someone, somewhere out there, sold someone something at one point. So it all comes back to getting suckers to believe in something and taking money off them. This has always gone on in the world but the internet makes it so much easier. And the internet makes it so much easier to compound the misinformation into complete mountains of interlinked misinformation from the molehill of a scam from decades ago.

[stija]

1. Sovereignty is a real concept.
2. It ain't no joke.
3. But you can't be a sovereign in Title 26 court.
4. You can't be a sovereign in Civil Rights Actions.
5. You can't be a sovereign citizen.
6. You can be a sovereign citizen of Utah however.
7. You can be a sovereign individual appearing in your own capacity too.
8. You can do 6 and 7 ONLY in Article III courts, which you created for yoursel
9. You cannot enter a court as a sovereign to claim that it doesn't have authority over you.
10. Most 'sovereigns' do not understand the concept fully, but they want to be 'sovereign' anyway.
11. Most tax protesters don't understand the IRC but they protest it anyway.
12. Most lose.

"The rights of sovereignty extend to all persons and things not privileged, that are within the territory. They extend to all strangers resident therein; not only to those who are naturalized, and to those who are domiciled therein, having taken up their abode with the intention of permanent residence, but also to those whose residence is transitory. All strangers are under the protection of the sovereign while they are within his territory and owe a temporary allegiance in return for that protection."

Carlisle v. United States, 83 U.S. 147, 154 (1873)

Sovereignty is inherent.
By availing yourself or resident, driver, accountant, and similar legal statuses, you are are slowly etching away at your sovereignty.
Illegals in Arizona are legally the most sovereign of all.
They don't even know it.
They won in the ninth recently.
The court ruled that they have 1st amendment protected right to commercially contract for work and labor.
Courts know this, you just have to twist their hand with accurate pleadings.
There is no such thing as a free sandwich from the 'corporate body politic.'

[webhick]

And alot more of brown people would be alive and procreated and made more brown people.

We don't tolerate racist bullshit, stija. I'm tapping you with the ban-hammer for 48 hours.

[Pottapaug1938]

"My brother?" I call BS; and I also call for an application of the banhammer until such time as stija, or any of his alter-egos, straightens up and plays by the rules here.

[wserra]

After webhick imposed a 48-hour ban on stija, he reregistered under a different name ("stija2") and kept posting. I deleted that user, erased the posts and salted the ground in a couple of ways to make reregistration more difficult. I also increased the ban on "stija" to a week, so we can figure out what to do with this guy.

For someone who thinks so much of "private property", the only "private property" he appears to respect is what he claims as his own.

[Kestrel]

Thank you, Wes and Webhick.

Stija reminds me of the ugly tourist who, upon not finding anyone who speaks his language, thinks that shouting will improve the situation.

It's easy to put him on "ignore," but impossible to completely ignore him when people I respect keep quoting him in lengthy replies. I appreciate the sincere attempts to deal rationally with stija. However I think he has proven that he is neither rational nor sane, and is therefore oblivious to rational treatment.