The Epic Fail of Squatloosian Troll

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10642
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: The Epic Fail of Squatloosian Troll

Postby notorial dissent » Sat Sep 23, 2017 3:12 am

You're assuming he had them to begin with????? :naughty:
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.

operabuff
Captain
Captain
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 3:14 pm

Re: The Epic Fail of Squatloosian Troll

Postby operabuff » Sat Sep 23, 2017 9:49 pm

Famspear wrote:
operabuff wrote:Coming to this discussion late, it seems like a worthy but ultimately futile effort by Quatloosians - as the philosopher Epictetus said about 2000 years ago - "It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows."


Futile effort? I think not; we achieved our purpose. The troll came here with his stupid theory about why he shouldn’t have to pay taxes, and we clearly illustrated why his theory is wrong -- and we humiliated him in the process. Sounds like a complete Quatloosian success to me.

8)
Futile if persuading him was the object.

operabuff
Captain
Captain
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 3:14 pm

Re: The Epic Fail of Squatloosian Troll

Postby operabuff » Sat Sep 23, 2017 10:11 pm

Arthur Rubin wrote:
Famspear wrote:Yeah, section 1341. I haven't studied the subject in depth, but the theory did not work in McKinney v. United States, 574 F.2d 1240 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1072 (1979), or in Wood v. United States, 863 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1989).

EDIT: Added denial of cert. on McKinney.
Both 5th circuit, so not technically "precedent" outside 5th circuit jurisdiction. I guess it wouldn't work, though. I won't comment on the clearly unconstitutional civil forfeiture statutes, as not directly relevant to the tax protesters.
Actually, there are a few more circuits on board with this. Most recently the First Circuit in Evans & Associates v. United States, (1st Cir. March 2017); Culley v US, 222 f3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Kraft v. US, 991 F.2d 1240 (6th Cir. 1978).

So no Supreme Court precedent, but pretty widely accepted and so far as I'm aware, no contrary Circuit Court. The District Court in Evans tried to find a way around it but got reversed.

The average embezzler probably doesn't consider the negative tax consequences when embarking on his life of crime.

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7172
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: The Epic Fail of Squatloosian Troll

Postby Famspear » Sat Sep 23, 2017 11:59 pm

operabuff wrote:......Futile if persuading him was the object.


Yeah, almost none of these clowns is ever persuaded that their nonsense is nonsense. Indeed, the very nature of the problem is that they are not susceptible to logic or persuasion. I often point out to them that I'm not here to "persuade" them or "prove" anything to them.
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10642
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: The Epic Fail of Squatloosian Troll

Postby notorial dissent » Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:39 am

Famspear wrote:
operabuff wrote:......Futile if persuading him was the object.


Yeah, almost none of these clowns is ever persuaded that their nonsense is nonsense. Indeed, the very nature of the problem is that they are not susceptible to logic or persuasion. I often point out to them that I'm not here to "persuade" them or "prove" anything to them.

That is exactly and regrettably the point.

Stupidity is the hardest and most impervious substance known to the universe.
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.


Return to “US”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest