Stija's declaration of fact in re: Quatloos

[arresw]

Wow, that guy sure was annoying.

I registered just to post that. I am glad you banned him.

[wserra]

Guess who that was. Bounced the post off a server in the Netherlands.

Oh, and I got a PM from him:

Delete all my posts you communist motherfucker.

And delete my accounts forever.

Thanks loser.

Articulate, too.

[LightinDarkness]

You know its really astonishing when you thank about - stija wrote probably over 150 pages of text in a handful of days on this forum. That amount of time and effort is astonishing when you consider that he believes in theories which are completely made up and have no basis in actual law.

But true believers like stija are probably the most dangerous. Many people who flirt with tax protesting would fall easily for his gibberish. I find most tax protestors seem to take this approach that the law is almost mystical - what it says on its face is not real, and its true meaning can only be discovered through an in-depth analysis of outdated, out of context, or completely irrelevant case law and legal dictionaries. Stija is very good at trying to argue by overwhelming you with text, quotes, and legal citations - and that method works very well with tax deniers because of how they perceive the law. We could very well have our own tax denier guru in the making here, if he doesn't have a website/youtube chnanel to post these screeds already he will soon.

I just find it hilarious at how he kept ignoring a request for one cite that shows his theories have been tested and prevailed in reality. For all the 150+ pages worth of text, that was all that was required - one case cite. Of course none exists and will never exist, but its still amusing.

[AndyK]

As I posted in the "M" forum "Should that happen, I recommend leaving every one of his posts intact -- with the slight addition of his banned status and the reason(s) to his signature line."

Based on his PM to WSerra, I'm restating it here.

If he were just the garden variety (weed) of troll, I wouldn't go so far.

But, he's been rude, obscene, and racist (both his 'brown people' remark and his obsession with illegals in Nevada). Also, he dances around facts faster than some of the earlier no-longer-members did -- to the extent of retro-editing his posts so he could say "I never said that."

Leave his posts, and the refutations, as is.

[LPC]

Stija is very good at trying to argue by overwhelming you with text, quotes, and legal citations -

Actually, what I found most maddening is that he insisted on making bald assertions without any citation of any authority whatsoever.

That, and the fact that his assertions were often word salad without any identifiable meaning.

And that he kept changing his position.

Okay, the THREE things that I found most maddening...

[LightinDarkness]

Stija is very good at trying to argue by overwhelming you with text, quotes, and legal citations -

Actually, what I found most maddening is that he insisted on making bald assertions without any citation of any authority whatsoever.

That, and the fact that his assertions were often word salad without any identifiable meaning.

And that he kept changing his position.

Okay, the THREE things that I found most maddening...

Right, well I mean I'm not saying the citations actually supported his arguments. What he seems to love doing is finding narrowly tailored federal opinions and then acting as if the opinion is supposed to be taken as a broadly tailored opinion. I'm not a lawyer, but isn't it true that unless a court opinion states it applicability is to be broadly interpreted, the reasoning of the ruling only applies to cases with a similar context?

IE, Marbury v Madison was a narrow issue about whether to issue a writ of mandamus, but in the opinion itself the court enlarged the impact to essentially create judicial review as we now know it.

[Pottapaug1938]

As I posted in the "M" forum "Should that happen, I recommend leaving every one of his posts intact -- with the slight addition of his banned status and the reason(s) to his signature line."

Based on his PM to WSerra, I'm restating it here.

If he were just the garden variety (weed) of troll, I wouldn't go so far.

But, he's been rude, obscene, and racist (both his 'brown people' remark and his obsession with illegals in Nevada). Also, he dances around facts faster than some of the earlier no-longer-members did -- to the extent of retro-editing his posts so he could say "I never said that."

Leave his posts, and the refutations, as is.

I like that idea. No doubt, stija is now prancing around Sovrun World, bragging about how he went onto Quatloos and tried to tell us Commie Shills the truth about sovrunty, but that despite being shown the facts we just didn't want to listen, and finally had to ban him because we were so scared of him. I would imagine that more than a few of his acolytes will come over here and check us out; but after reading his posts, even your garden-variety sovrun will conclude that stija has come completely unhinged and should be paid no further attention.

[rogfulton]

I would imagine that more than a few of his acolytes will come over here and check us out; but after reading his posts, even your garden-variety sovrun will conclude that stija has come completely unhinged and should be paid no further attention.

Want to bet?

[Duke2Earl]

One point here... for the first couple of days he was here, all that happened was the dumb question game. You know the one where he asks dumb, irrelevant questions and doesn't accept any answers. After a couple of days, after much prodding he finally came forth with what he was trying to say, in all its gibberish and ignorance. Then we could deal with it. Then we could specifically say what was wrong and why it was wrong. And that's when he began to lose it. I continue to maintain that once we know that the questions are not an honest request for information but rather a game to deceive, we should not play that game.

Perhaps one of you knows why they all want to play the stupid question game. Me, I think its about power and making us play by their rules and attempting to embarrass us. But I refuse to play and it is almost always easy to tell within the first couple of questions. One dead giveaway is when you ask why they want to know the answer to some particular non secquitor type question, they refuse to answer.

[AndyK]

Although the poster du jour plays the stupid QandA game and ignores all rational responses, there's a faint glimmer of hope that a casual reader MIGHT learn that the various soverignoramus, TD, etc theories are easily rebutted via reference to law.

One starfish at a time.

[Pottapaug1938]

I would imagine that more than a few of his acolytes will come over here and check us out; but after reading his posts, even your garden-variety sovrun will conclude that stija has come completely unhinged and should be paid no further attention.

Want to bet?

Well, the garden-variety sovrun, who hasn't sucked down too much of the kool-aid, might conclude that the path to winning the battle over sovrunty won't be to follow stija's example. The ones who chug the kool-aid in gallon batches might think that stija is the greatest legal mind since Blackstone -- or at least could be, if he could come up with a coherent narrative.

[Pottapaug1938]

Perhaps one of you knows why they all want to play the stupid question game.

As I say elsewhere, I think that it's a way for them to be able to brag about how they asked us all a bunch of tough questions and that we were unable or afraid to answer them. Yeah, they leave out a few details... but when one's mind is made up, the facts only interfere with the fantasy.

[AndyK]

Then there were those like Stevesy and David Merrill who posited specific positions and refused to accept any law- or court-based rebuttals -- constantly maintaining that their positions were correct.

And then moving their goalposts as they were painted into corners.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...

Perhaps one of you knows why they all want to play the stupid question game. ...

It's a common web-forum tactic used in an attempt to control the audience's perception of the engagement - and it's intellectually simple to execute when you have access to hundreds of pages of ready-to-cut-and-paste dogma (even if it's second, third, fourth or fifth generation contaminated nonsense).

Don't forget that the real purpose of web-forum participation by people like stija is to lure the ignorant into their "cause." They cannot prevail in the real world so they are forced to play in the fantasy world of the 'net in order to validate their existence and prey on the gullible.

Without a judge to enforce rules, all manner of leading and incompetent questions are allowed and utterly specious arguments are presented to the lay-public "jury" the 'net is comprised of.

But when they butt heads against actual experts on a forum like Quatloos, things soon unravel when someone actually challenges them.

That doesn't seem to stop them; my bet is we'll see another one at some point in the future.

[Dr. Caligari]

That doesn't seem to stop them; my bet is we'll see another one at some point in the future.

You can bet on that, your Honor.

[aitchel]

I sometimes wonder if someone is using the forum as a Turing Test. Stija made a lot of posts. 231 in 8 days. I don't know if I would have kept at it as hard even if I were passionate about the subject.

[stija]

1. Northern pipe line v. Marathon Pipe Line explains the difference between legislative courts and constitutional Art. III courts. LPC disagrees, but I don't give a flying F of what he thinks, because quite frankly he is a liar and an idiot.
2. Choice of laws rules, as explained in Erie v. Tompkins, and Rules of Decisions Act, call for laws of your domicile, or that of the contract and contractual rights, to be rules of decisions. Restatement (Second) of Conflicts 145 explains that domicile of the performance is the proper forum and laws to be applied to the contractual rights.
3. If you enter under Title 26 in a legislatively empowered Art. III court, you lost automatically, because your contract will be interpreted under the same Title, which by definition makes your wages taxable.
4. Income Taxes are voluntary, as they testified in the Congressional hearings. By submitting a w4 you volunteered to participate for federal benefits. See 3402(p)(3).
5. IRS provides service no different than any other third party, such as Verizon, APS, Cox, or TD Waterhouse. Their services cost money, as all other services.
6. Let's play a game, it's called "You Lose Game". Rule 1: if you play they game, you are a player, and player is subject to all You Lose Game rules. Rule 2: Player of You Lose Game has no private property of his own and all of player's property is You Lose Game property and is taxable. Rule 3: If player disagrees with any of the 3 rules, player can only challenge them in "You Lose Game Court."
7. I never changed my position - IRC is a voluntary contract law - which has been my position from beginning. You just have NO CLUE what I am saying. You think you function through IRC, as though it created you or granted you the right to contract.

Does anyone want play the game? If so, sign You Lose Game W-4 to start and sign at bottom next to player.
What happens if player enters You Lose Game Court to claim that his private car is not taxable?
Or that his private wages are not taxable?
Or how about this one, what happens if player claims to exist as a private entity? Do rules allow that?
Is there a rule that would support his arguments in the You Lose Game rules?


That's the income tax games in its simplest form. That's also why courts call their arguments patently frivolous and without any merit. There is no merit because there is no rule that allows or supports their claims.

Roy Bean said:

But when they butt heads against actual experts on a forum like Quatloos, things soon unravel when someone actually challenges them.

Challenge who? With what? Your challenges are meaningless and idiotic, you just don't see it.

Challenge hahahahahha
Experts hahahahahahaha

You guys are pathetic, and sad. And a source of misinformation to other less sad people who ask you for advice, and get sold shit that couldn't be farther from the truth. You 'experts' can't even read the law you quote.

For example.....LPC quotes Justice Marshall telling him that when a man is public property he is taxable (just like player in You Lose Game) and LPC, without understanding what the man is telling him, calls him a communist. Sad, really sad.

[stija]

These two principles assist us in evaluating the "adjunct" scheme presented in these cases. Appellants assume that Congress' power to create "adjuncts" to consider all cases related to those arising under Title 11 is as great as it was in the circumstances of Crowell. But while Crowell certainly endorsed the proposition that Congress possesses broad discretion to assign factfinding functions to an adjunct created to aid in the adjudication of congressionally created statutory rights, Crowell does not support the further proposition necessary to appellants' argument -- that Congress possesses the same degree of discretion in assigning traditionally judicial power to adjuncts engaged in the adjudication of rights not

Page 458 U. S. 82

created by Congress. Indeed, the validity of this proposition was expressly denied in Crowell when the Court rejected

"the untenable assumption that the constitutional courts may be deprived in all cases of the determination of facts upon evidence, even though a constitutional right may be involved,"

1. I don't HAVE nor do I WANT any IRC rights.
2. I have constitutionally PROTECTED (not granted) PRIVATE rights.

You enter the statutory You Lose Court under You Lose Game, and you are playing with congressionally created rights that make you a taxpayer ALL of whose property is United States property and taxable.

Good luck to you idiots. I've given you all the crumbs you need to understand what is going on.....sadly you think I don't know what I am talking about.

The bankruptcy courts do not lie exclusively outside the States, like the courts of the Territories or of the District of Columbia, or bear any resemblance to courts-martial, nor can the substantive legal rights at issue in the present action -- the right to recover contract damages to augment Northern's estate -- be deemed "public rights." There is no persuasive reason in logic, history, or the Constitution, why bankruptcy courts lie beyond the reach of Art.III. Pp. 458 U. S. 63-76.

(holding) in Northern.

The distinction between public rights and private rights has not been definitively explained in our precedents. [Footnote 22] Nor is it necessary to do so in the present cases, for it suffices to observe that a matter of public rights must, at a minimum, arise "between the government and others." Ex parte Bakelite Corp., supra, at 279 U. S. 451. [Footnote 23] In contrast, "the liability of

Page 458 U. S. 70

one individual to another under the law as defined," Crowell v. Benson, supra, at 285 U. S. 51, is a matter of private rights. Our precedents clearly establish that only controversies in the former category may be removed from Art. III courts and delegated to legislative courts or administrative agencies for their determination. See Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm'n, 430 U. S. 442, 430 U. S. 450, n. 7 (1977); Crowell v. Benson, supra, at 285 U. S. 501. See also Katz, Federal Legislative Courts, 43 Harv.L.Rev. 894, 917-918 (1930). [Footnote 24] Private rights disputes, on the other hand, lie at the core of the historically recognized judicial power.

YOU fools would need a miracle to understand what the court is telling you. Bottom line is taxpayer is a public man, I am a private man; taxpayer exists only in Title 26 empowered court, I exist only outside Title 26 empowered court. We are mutually exclusive and opposite.

[Duke2Earl]

The only way you were allowed to post the latest nonsense is because some of us thought it just might be possible that a time-out might teach you to at least be civil here. We were obviously wrong. In your first reappearance you called us fools, idiots and liars. It is also obvious that the one who is actually described by those adjectives is you. I expect your time here is going to be very short if it hasn't ended already.

As to the nonsense blather, your bull manure is childish and simply wrong. The facts are there is no distinction between public and private persons. You cannot simply opt out of the income tax. If the government decides to take you down your complete crap will no more save you than the crap spouted by Schiff, Henderson, or countless others.

Enjoy your life of crime while it lasts.

[stija]

As to the nonsense blather, your bull manure is childish and simply wrong. The facts are there is no distinction between public and private persons. You cannot simply opt out of the income tax. If the government decides to take you down your complete crap will no more save you than the crap spouted by Schiff, Henderson, or countless others.

1. There is no distinction between public and private in USSR and USSA, I guess, according to you.
2. I am not Schiff, Henderson, or any other fool - those fools played You Lose Court.
3. I am me, and I've made myself known to Shulman, and his other cronies, including 'Bill' Wilkins.
4. Can't wait for them to take me down - waiting since 2007, very impatiently
5. Right after they deal with their possible criminal indictments.
6. Lol.
7. You must have selectively skipped over the 1985 SCOTUS opinion in Northern v. Marathon, supra, that recognizes a distinction between public and private rights - EXPLICITLY.

The distinction between public rights and private rights has not been definitively explained in our precedents. [Footnote 22] Nor is it necessary to do so in the present cases, for it suffices to observe that a matter of public rights must, at a minimum, arise "between the government and others." Ex parte Bakelite Corp., supra, at 279 U. S. 451. [Footnote 23] In contrast, "the liability of [Page 458 U. S. 70] one individual to another under the law as defined," Crowell v. Benson, supra, at 285 U. S. 51, is a matter of private rights. Our precedents clearly establish that only controversies in the former category may be removed from Art. III courts and delegated to legislative courts or administrative agencies for their determination. See Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm'n, 430 U. S. 442, 430 U. S. 450, n. 7 (1977); Crowell v. Benson, supra, at 285 U. S. 501. See also Katz, Federal Legislative Courts, 43 Harv.L.Rev. 894, 917-918 (1930). [Footnote 24] Private rights disputes, on the other hand, lie at the core of the historically recognized judicial power.

What fools those Justices must be to think there is a difference between public and private. You tell them there is no difference. You can do it buddy!



Now, you enjoy your life of stupidity and idiocracy. That's a more accurate assessment of things at hand here. Sheep do tend to move in crowds, I've seen em!