Stupid questions answered

.
Pirate Purveyor of the Last Word
Posts: 1698
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:06 am

Re: Stupid questions answered

Post by . »

This employer must be a very patient sort.

I've employed perhaps a hundred people over the years in various businesses. If any one of them had come to me and said "You need to stop withholding from my paycheck because I don't owe any income tax," I would have said something like "Really? Why is that?"

After about 30 seconds of gibberish, I would have interrupted and said "No problem at all. We won't be withholding anything further from you in the future because you're fired. Your final check will have the usual withholding. Now get off my premises."

When a nut-job is busy essentially jumping up and down and screaming "I'm a totally moronic blithering idiot and nut-job," regardless of the subject of the inanity, I've always found that it's best to take them at their word, immediately.
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.
Thule
Tragedian of Sovereign Mythology
Posts: 695
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 6:57 am
Location: 71 degrees north

Re: Stupid questions answered

Post by Thule »

And then SkankBeat wants to know how bossing around cops worked.
I assume you are being assisted by local peace officers. What information did you provide them and how did they respond?
You know, I have this strange feeling that SB has never tried his own method of ordering "peace officers" to do his whim and bidding. But he has no reservations against pushing others over the edge;
I think you only need to establish two things for trover and conversion: 1) the property that was taken; 2) that the property was taken without consent. The pay stubs document what was taken. I assume one of your letters establishes non-consent. The more explicit non-consent is stated, the better, such as "I do not consent to the taking of my property." Since you are acting in sovereign capacity, the only other way the payer can take your property is via valid court order. Keep in mind that the police do not understand USC 26, but they do understand theft. Stay with common law remedy.
I hope JHV follows Skankys advice, just to see what happens. Best case; the cops laugh at him and tell the story to all his friends. Worse case; JHV gets testy and starts interfering with the cops' duties. Worst case; well, with the hormone-laden stupidity getting passed around at LH, a mere human/reptilian hybrid brain can not predict how far this might go.
Survivor of the Dark Agenda Whistleblower Award, August 2012.
User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 7521
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:48 pm
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Stupid questions answered

Post by The Observer »

Thule wrote:You know, I have this strange feeling that SB has never tried his own method of ordering "peace officers" to do his whim and bidding. But he has no reservations against pushing others over the edge;...
I have had that same feeling as well. But SB isn't the first person I have seen offering this type of advice to others. They all have one thing in common: they never have any first-hand experience to report of using their "remedy" for their own situation. As such, they are not unlike the mad scientists in B-movies urging their lab assistants to drink the potion they just concocted.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
Joey Smith
Infidel Enslaver
Posts: 895
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:57 pm

Re: Stupid questions answered

Post by Joey Smith »

Wish I were there to see it in person:

LostHead: "I'm placing you under arrest for trover!"

Employer: "You're fired!"

LostHead: "Huh?"

Employer: "That's right, get the hell out."
- - - - - - - - - - -
"The real George Washington was shot dead fairly early in the Revolution." ~ David Merrill, 9-17-2004 --- "This is where I belong" ~ Heidi Guedel, 7-1-2006 (referring to suijuris.net)
- - - - - - - - - - -
Cathulhu
Order of the Quatloos, Brevet First Class
Posts: 1258
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 3:51 pm

Re: Stupid questions answered

Post by Cathulhu »

SB is the troll's own troll--he has no compunctions about telling all the sovruns what to do, but pretty obviously doesn't try this himself. Or answer Pete's plaintive cries to make him some magic paperwork that could magically get him out. Maybe he's 14 years old and doing a pretty creditable job of making it up as he goes.
Goodness is about what you do. Not what you pray to. T. Pratchett
Always be a moving target. L.M. Bujold
bmielke

Re: Stupid questions answered

Post by bmielke »

Cathulhu wrote:SB is the troll's own troll--he has no compunctions about telling all the sovruns what to do, but pretty obviously doesn't try this himself. Or answer Pete's plaintive cries to make him some magic paperwork that could magically get him out. Maybe he's 14 years old and doing a pretty creditable job of making it up as he goes.
nah a 14 year old would not use the phrase "peace officer" he would tell them they needed the US Marshals or FBI or something. I think Skanky is an angry 50-55 yo unemployed construction worker collecting unemployment.
User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 5631
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker

Re: Stupid questions answered

Post by Gregg »

Skankbeat is the ultimate "Go get 'em boys" warrior, he'll be behind them all the way. He first drew my attention when he told the flock how all the needed to do was go in the courtroom, start screaming "fraud on the court" and citizens arrest the judge if he didn't agree to set Pete free right away.
If he keeps cowering behind a keyboard he'll be fine but if he ever has the guts to grow a pair and show the courage of his convictions I see a lot of Tasers in his future....
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
Nikki

Re: Stupid questions answered

Post by Nikki »

Sounds a lot like SFBFKADMVP or a number of other losers on Sooey.
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Stupid questions answered

Post by LPC »

Skankbeat wrote:I think you only need to establish two things for trover and conversion: 1) the property that was taken; 2) that the property was taken without consent.
He "thinks"?

These clowns can't understand simple concepts like "income," and they want to get involved in the arcane details of common law forms of action?

I don't remember much about trover, but my recollection of conversion is that no "taking" was required. The essence of the tort (both trover and conversion are torts, or civil wrongs, and not crimes) was the appropriation of property for the use or benefit of someone who was not the owner. So, for example, if I hand money to a servant to use to buy groceries, and the servant uses the money to pay a debt of the servant, that might be a conversion even though no property was ever "taken" in the usual sense of the word.

Meanwhile, improperly deducting or withholding money from an employee's paycheck might be a civil wrong in some legal system is some parallel dimension (not our own), but it wouldn't be "conversion" in common law pleading because the money that was withheld was never the property of the employee. The employee might have an action for breach of contract for failing to pay the full amount of wages owed, but there would be no conversion because the employee never had ownership or title to the money that was not paid to him.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Imalawman
Enchanted Consultant of the Red Stapler
Posts: 1808
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Formerly in a cubicle by the window where I could see the squirrels, and they were married.

Re: Stupid questions answered

Post by Imalawman »

LPC wrote:
Skankbeat wrote:I think you only need to establish two things for trover and conversion: 1) the property that was taken; 2) that the property was taken without consent.
He "thinks"?

These clowns can't understand simple concepts like "income," and they want to get involved in the arcane details of common law forms of action?

I don't remember much about trover, but my recollection of conversion is that no "taking" was required. The essence of the tort (both trover and conversion are torts, or civil wrongs, and not crimes) was the appropriation of property for the use or benefit of someone who was not the owner. So, for example, if I hand money to a servant to use to buy groceries, and the servant uses the money to pay a debt of the servant, that might be a conversion even though no property was ever "taken" in the usual sense of the word.

Meanwhile, improperly deducting or withholding money from an employee's paycheck might be a civil wrong in some legal system is some parallel dimension (not our own), but it wouldn't be "conversion" in common law pleading because the money that was withheld was never the property of the employee. The employee might have an action for breach of contract for failing to pay the full amount of wages owed, but there would be no conversion because the employee never had ownership or title to the money that was not paid to him.
Right, that's a good point. Its not the employee's money until its paid over to him. So, at best you have a failure to pay according to the agreed terms of service.

As for the arcane legal actions...I thought that Conversion was a tort, while Trover was the action used to enforce the tort of conversions. For instance, if you take $5 from me, I would institute an action of Trover in order to get back the value which you converted. In my Trover action I would plead the elements of conversion.

But...I'm not a scholar on arcane common law pleadings.
"Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs" - Unknown
Dr. Caligari
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Crickets
Posts: 1812
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Stupid questions answered

Post by Dr. Caligari »

As for the arcane legal actions...I thought that Conversion was a tort, while Trover was the action used to enforce the tort of conversions. For instance, if you take $5 from me, I would institute an action of Trover in order to get back the value which you converted. In my Trover action I would plead the elements of conversion.
I deal with claims of conversion fairly often in my commercial litigation practice. Conversion probably doesn't lie here, because it requires a taking of a specific, identifiable chattel, not a claim for fungible money. If I steal your wallet, you can sue me for conversion, but if I fail to pay you money that I owe you, the claim is for breach of contract, not conversion. (In most states, there are also statutory actions you can bring against an employer for not paying employees their wages, but those are of course pre-empted in these cases by the IRC.)

I don't think I have run across the term "trover" since law school, but, if I remember correctly, trover was an action to recover a specific thing, whereas conversion was a suit for money damages for taking that thing. (If I steal your car and crash it or re-sell it, you could sue me for conversion and get money damages; if I steal your car and still have it, you could sue me for trover and get the car back.)
Dr. Caligari
(Du musst Caligari werden!)
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Stupid questions answered

Post by LPC »

Dr. Caligari wrote:Conversion probably doesn't lie here, because it requires a taking of a specific, identifiable chattel, not a claim for fungible money. If I steal your wallet, you can sue me for conversion, but if I fail to pay you money that I owe you, the claim is for breach of contract, not conversion.
That was my point. (Or at least one of them.)

Those that live by the common law cause of action, die by the common law cause of action.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Stupid questions answered

Post by notorial dissent »

The more important question though, are those even valid causes of action any more? It was my impression that most of that had been supplanted by statute law.

It would certainly have to be state matter since I don't think there were ever Federal statutes covering it, and since it would still devolve down to a Federal issue the local courts would have to disallow for lack of jurisdiction, which should send ole Skanky right back over the edge.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
darling
First Mate
First Mate
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:35 pm
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Stupid questions answered

Post by darling »

notorial dissent wrote:The more important question though, are those even valid causes of action any more? It was my impression that most of that had been supplanted by statute law.
Statutory law can't supersede common law, silly.
I read it on LostHorizons so it must be true.
Imalawman
Enchanted Consultant of the Red Stapler
Posts: 1808
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Formerly in a cubicle by the window where I could see the squirrels, and they were married.

Re: Stupid questions answered

Post by Imalawman »

Dr. Caligari wrote:
As for the arcane legal actions...I thought that Conversion was a tort, while Trover was the action used to enforce the tort of conversions. For instance, if you take $5 from me, I would institute an action of Trover in order to get back the value which you converted. In my Trover action I would plead the elements of conversion.
I don't think I have run across the term "trover" since law school, but, if I remember correctly, trover was an action to recover a specific thing, whereas conversion was a suit for money damages for taking that thing. (If I steal your car and crash it or re-sell it, you could sue me for conversion and get money damages; if I steal your car and still have it, you could sue me for trover and get the car back.)
I think we were all pretty close - wiki to the rescue! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trover

You could probably still plead common law actions (trover might be too arcane and the court may require you to replead a modern cause of action), but you wouldn't have much case law to guide your action. You'd be better off using the statutory remedies and much better guidance and predictability.

But I'm out of my element, I'm a tax litigator, not a PI lawyer.
"Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs" - Unknown
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Stupid questions answered

Post by LPC »

notorial dissent wrote:The more important question though, are those even valid causes of action any more? It was my impression that most of that had been supplanted by statute law.
Statutes have taken over criminal law, and the Uniform Commercial Code governs most contract actions (at least for the sale of goods; contracts for services and contracts for sales of real estate still rely heavily on contract law), but actions for torts (personal injury actions, as well as actions for damage to, or loss of, property) are still governed largely by common law in most states. There are statutory "tweakings," such as statutes on contributory negligence, or special rules for medical malpractice, but the essence of the actions are still based on common law.

So the words "conversion" and "trover" are rarely used, and the common law forms of pleading have disappeared in most states, but the principles carry forward. From a 1983 decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on a dispute over the ownership of the designs for a mechanical device:
Conversion is an ancient tort, yet it is rarely the basis of a cause of action in modern times. Its prerequisites were set forth by our supreme court in Stevenson v. Economy Bank of Ambridge, 413 Pa. 442, 451, 197 A.2d 721, 726 (1964).
A conversion is the deprivation of another's right of property in, or use or possession of, a chattel, or interference therewith, without the owner's consent and without lawful justification. Gottesfeld v. Mechanics and Traders Insurance Co., 196 Pa.Super. 109, 115, 173 A.2d 763, 765 (1961). Prosser stated that "conversion is an act of interference with the domain or control over a chattel * * conversion may be committed by: * * * (c) unreasonably withholding possession from one who has the right to it." Prosser, Torts § 15 (2d Ed. 1955).
See also Baram v. Farugia, 606 F.2d 42 (3rd Cir. 1979); Baker v. Rangos, 229 Pa.Super. 333, 324 A.2d 498 (1974). Restatement (Second) Torts § 222, 222 A. 237 (comment: f "[T]he refusal to surrender a chattel upon demand is not a conversion if the person upon whom the demand is made does not have possession of the chattel at the time of demand.")

This definition, although easily stated, is somewhat more difficult in its application. Part of the difficulty stems from the common law roots of conversion. The present tort evolved from the common law action of trover.[2] This evolution has resulted in a relaxation of some of the more stringent requirements of the action. The best example of this is the gradual recognition of various forms of property which are capable of being converted; forms of property which were beyond the scope of common law trover. As stated by one commentator:
What property may be the subject of an action for conversion was at first determined on the basis of the fiction of losing and finding. Any tangible chattels could be lost and found, and so could be converted.

. . . .

Intangible rights of all kinds could not be lost and found, and the original rule was that there could be no conversion of such property. But this hoary limitation has been discarded to some extent by all of the courts.

. . . .

The process of expansion has stopped with the kind of intangible rights which are customarily merged in, or identified with some document. There is perhaps no very valid and essential reason why there might not be conversion of an ordinary debt, the good will of a business, or even an idea, or "any species of personal property which is the subject of public ownership;" but thus far other remedies apparently have been adequate. . . (Footnotes omitted).
Prosser, Torts § 15, pp. 82-83 (4th ed. 1971). See also Weiser v. Zeisinger, 2 Yeates 536 (1800) (action of trover will lie for a deed); Overton v. Williston, 31 Pa. 155 (1858) (but not for fixtures); Neiler & Warren v. Kelley, 69 Pa. 403 (1871) (action of trover will lie for conversion of stock certificates and bonds, but not for the incorporeal rights they represent); Mackay, et al., Administrators v. Benjamin Franklin R. & H. Co., 288 Pa. 207, 135 A. 613 (1927) (action for conversion will not lie for an idea, i.e., an architect's design). But see Evans v. American Stores Company, 3 D. & C.2d 160 (1955) (action permitted for conversion of sports promotion plan); Benaquista v. Hardesty & Associates, 20 D. & C.2d 227 (1959) (action permitted for conversion of architectural design).
Footnote 2 reads as follows:
In common-law practice, the action of trover (or trover and conversion) is a species of action on the case, and originally lay for the recovery of damages against a person who had found another's goods and wrongfully converted them to his own use. Subsequently the allegation of the loss of the goods by the plaintiff and the finding of them by the defendant was merely fictitious, and the action became the remedy for any wrongful interference with or detention of the goods of another.

* * * * * *

In form a fiction; in substance, a remedy to recover the value of personal chattels wrongfully converted by another to his own use.

* * * * * *

A possessory action wherein the plaintiff must show that he has either a general or special property in thing converted and the right of its possession at the time of the alleged conversion.

* * * * * *

And lies only for wrongful appropriation of goods, chattels, or personal property which is specific enough to be identified.

Blacks Law Dictionary (4th Ed.)
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.