SkankBeat at losthorizons is still at it.....

[Pottapaug1938]

For a few years now, I've had a standing offer to relieve the TD crowd of their evil, illegal, unconstitutional FRNs. None of them has yet to take me up on the offer. I wonder why....

[notorial dissent]

They maybe don't have any, since I am sure a good number of them are living under assorted bridges or in paper cartons and using the computers at the local library to spin their fantasies out on LH.

[Famspear]

SkankBeat's continuing descent into utter nonsense -- even by Cracking the Code standards -- has gotten more users over there in a, shall we say, skeptical mood with respect to SkankBeat's postings. User justinprime at losthorizons dot com writes:

SB, Title 26 and its regulations themselves give a statutory remedy for terminating withholding with the payer!

I think you've really gotten off the track this time. What's worse is that you are and have been trying to get others off of the track as well. It's becoming more and more apparent. You are consistently advising others to do things that are not in line with what we know that works.

In particular, you have attempted to dissuade us from conniekay's victory. You have attempted to dissuade the reader from my Clarification Statement (results pending, admittedly). You have attempted to cast doubt on the words "payer", "payee" and even "withhold"! You have attempted to cast doubt upon the use of the 4852. You have consistently tried to get us to pursue a common law remedy, or what you perceive as common law remedy, of mailing individuals like the treasury secretary. You are the first person to accuse others of being a "troll," including myself. You've been touting CtC yet at the same time going against it's teachings. The list goes on.

What's odd is that you also have exceptional research skills. You add much to the research and history of the revenue laws. So on the one hand you add, but on the other you subtract through distraction and misdirection.

We've seen actual trolls and instigators in the forum. We've seen individuals that have a genuine interest to help but attempt to lead us down a path in the wrong direction, which they think is the right one (like Pablo).

What we have not seen, in my experience, is a provocateur that adds genuine information but at the same time intentionally leads the reader in the wrong direction procedurally. To lend genuine information is to build trust. The misdirection comes next. You misdirection seems to be taking a big step forward, in my opinion. It feels like desperation.

I hope I am wrong. If I am not, I invite you to reassess how relevant CtC really is for you. Until it is shown otherwise, I will continue to read what you write with assumption that it is to dissuade and misdirect.

(italics are in the original).

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 1f1f#27025

[The Observer]

And yet the essential problem remains: none of the CtCers ever pin skankbeat down and ask him point blank to show where he has had *any* success with his theories. justinprime has come the closest in terms of asking this question.

In particular, you have attempted to dissuade us from conniekay's victory.

What is conniekay's "victory?"

[Pottapaug1938]

And yet the essential problem remains: none of the CtCers ever pin skankbeat down and ask him point blank to show where he has had *any* success with his theories. justinprime has come the closest in terms of asking this question.

I am less than convinced that Skanky, any more than David Merrill, Harvester, Spideynw, will ever give a direct and applicable answer to any question posed to him. Skanky will duck and weave with the Crackheads, just as he does with us.

[Famspear]

SkankBeat responds:

Keep in mind that CTC was last revised 2007 and "Was Grandpa Really a Moron?" last revised 2009. A good deal of research has occurred since then.

As Peter Hendrickson points out, the W-4 is not a contract. If you read the IRC, which i excerpted earlier in the thread, you will find that although the W-4 in not a contract, there is a contract associated with it. The W-4 is a multi-purpose document. Please read the chapter on W-4s in CTC for an introduction about this.

Peter Hendrickson points out that the regulations regarding withholding agreements only apply to "employers" and "employees". But keep in mind that the true "employer" is the federal government, not the payer acting under color of law. When a worker voluntarily completes a W-4, and the government and its agents accept and act as if the worker is an "employee" "performing services" and being paid "wages", a private contract has been created, complete with offer, consideration, and acceptance.

The private contract created is only under the guise of a withholding agreement. That is why it is easy to dismiss. Here is an example to illustrate what is going on. If i were to hand my neighbor $5000, and my neighbor were to hand me the keys to his car, and i were to drive off in his car, a contract was created although it was not written down. There was a meeting of the minds. Similar is going on regarding the W-4. The difference is that one is taking an additional action by signing under oath, which binds one to one's promises.

User GK disagrees:

Wrong.

W-4 is simply a form, sworn and attested to by the 'employee', simply to dictate how the 'employer' will withhold taxes from his or her 'compensation for services'.

Guess what the instructions are if one doesn't file a w-4, or refuses to? Ever heard of 'single 0'?

The instructions by the IRS to an 'employer' are to withhold at single 0 if no W-4 agreement exists. I would say that it suggests the W-4 is optional, because regardless, the IRS will get an 'employer' to withhold.

I don't know what you mean by the 'true employer is the federal government' because neither 3401/3121 nor the W-4 has anything to do with that. If you work for a private sector company you are working for said private sector company; when did you ever turn into a federal employee?

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... sc&start=0

[Famspear]

Now SkankBeat responds to "justinprime":

The trolls are out! I hit a chord and it resonates loudly! Kewl!

Quote:
What we have not seen, in my experience, is a provocateur that adds genuine information but at the same time intentionally leads the reader in the wrong direction procedurally. To lend genuine information is to build trust. The misdirection comes next. You misdirection seems to be taking a big step forward, in my opinion. It feels like desperation.

justinprime, the problem with this observation is that this is nothing new, such has been going on this forum since at least 2 years ago. Pablo Rodriguez, the "persona" whom you support, is a classic example of such limited hangout. After confrontation by Peter Hendrickson, his account was terminated, but not until after he did massive rewrites of many of his prior posts in an attempt to discredit and spread disinformation. Such revisionism is hardly evidence of someone acting in good faith.

Did you know that the federal government has recently sought to have "persona" management software built so that artificial consensus can be manufactured on facebook, forums, article comments, and more? Think about that, a society based on the Chinese model.

What appears to be happening on this forum as we near April 14, is the government's use of multiple "personas" to create "chatter", to fabricate consenus for things that are clearly in opposition to CTC. I tolerate it in my threads but it fools no one who has studied the forum for a while.

It is easy for the forum administrators, or anyone else, to find out who the dozen or so trolls- both active and "sleeper cell"- are who presently frequent this forum, simply by maintaining an excel spreadsheet and make note of the number and kinds of posts one makes. The fingerprint becomes obvious after a while. Having multiple "personas" is to no avail as each "persona" eventually creates the troll fingerprint.

justinprime, question for you, how many times have you quoted or referenced CTC in your posts?

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... c&start=15

And "justinprime" responds to SkankBeat (excerpts):

......I don't think you're understanding me, SB. I am questioning your motives.

Quote:
justinprime, question for you, how many times have you quoted or referenced CTC in your posts?

This attempt to deflect the attention is rather sad. But I'll play along... I don't know how many times I have referenced it. I have no need to either. The information in CtC ought to be well know to us by now. There is no need to cite a specific page number or a specific Pete quote to the readers here. I think pete would agree. He doesn't need us quoting him. We already get it. We've moved on to the next step and I feel I am doing my part in that.

In contrast, you, SB, are moving in another direction. Telling us to read CtC is an attempt to cloak yourself in legitimacy. Simply saying "CtC" and "Pete Hendrickson" over and over doesn't mean you have the interest at heart. It's as if you think saying it enough times will make us lose sight of your distractions. Saying, "Don't use the 4852 and make sure you read CtC" doesn't make us ignore that fact that you are advocating something non-CtC and something contrary to what has been proven to work, time and again.

(However, I am constantly providing links to LH and this forum on my facebook account, in other forums and social sites when I see it fitting.)

(bolding is in the original).

[Gregg]

something [that] has been proven to work, time and again.

Yep, it's pretty consistently getting people in trouble with the IRS.



The current over/under on Skankbeat getting banned is 2 weeks, beware the Ides of March, Skanky...

[webhick]

The current over/under on Skankbeat getting banned is 2 weeks, beware the Ides of March, Skanky...

That's assuming Doreen even checks out the forum anymore (does she?). She's got another round of legal problems to deal with right now.

[bmielke]

The current over/under on Skankbeat getting banned is 2 weeks, beware the Ides of March, Skanky...

That's assuming Doreen even checks out the forum anymore (does she?). She's got another round of legal problems to deal with right now.

I asked for an account over their a long time ago, (a few months) and never got a response, I would think if she denied me then I would have gotten an email saying "NO, not only NO but HELL NO!" but I did not. ( I used the same user name as here and listed my website as http://www.quatloos.com)

So I would bet that she has stopped bothering.

[webhick]

So I would bet that she has stopped bothering.

Thanks to Killbot 1.0, my eyes were watering when I read this as "So I would bet that she has stopped breathing." and thought Should we send the cops over there for a safety check?

[bmielke]

So I would bet that she has stopped bothering.

Thanks to Killbot 1.0, my eyes were watering when I read this as "So I would bet that she has stopped breathing." and thought Should we send the cops over there for a safety check?

Naw, they bitch and moan about those. Trust me I know. (Seriously this one time I had to do call the cops to check on someone, I then spent 30 minutes on the phone with a whiney deputy sheriff while he explained how he would much rather be writing tickets than checking on crazy folks.)

[Gregg]

If I thought Doreen was drowning, having a stroke etc... I'd think it only polite to wait at least a day or two.

[LPC]

And yet the essential problem remains: none of the CtCers ever pin skankbeat down and ask him point blank to show where he has had *any* success with his theories. justinprime has come the closest in terms of asking this question.

In particular, you have attempted to dissuade us from conniekay's victory.

What is conniekay's "victory?"

See http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2745

I didn't have the patience to read all of her drivel, but she apparently got at least some refunds.

The 5th post down is where skankbeat suggests she's a troll, which sets off holbrook.

[Famspear]

Various losthorizons regulars are now openly challenging the self-appointed guru, "SkankBeat":

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 7a2b#27043

SkankBeat makes statements like this:

I don't think there is debate about what an "employer" is. I directed you to the sources i am relying upon so you can fact check. An "employer" IS the federal government...

[ . . . ]

will not rebut every word that is put into my mouth. If you make erroneous conclusions about my research, that is your mistake. Do not speak for the forum in general, but specifically for yourself and your "personas".

...and "justinprime" responds with:

This has to be a joke. What desperation! Your arguments are unraveling. Your facade of CtC is unraveling. And I hate to say it, but your psyche may be as well.

[Famspear]

Here's how SkankBeat is beginning to look -- as seen from the perspective of his fellow losthorizons posters:

A loony protester named Skank
Sees his dignity flushed down the tank.
His ideas don’t agree
With Pete’s own C-t-C;
He’s a dim-witted, blowhardy crank.

EDIT: You know, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has the Irving G. Thalberg Award which is presented to creative producers whose bodies of work reflect a consistently high quality of motion picture production.

I think that the Illuminati should consider creating the Peter Eric ("Blowhard") Hendrickson Memorial Blowhardiness Award -- to be presented from time to time to tax protesters, sovereignignoramuses (spelling??), and other arrogant, delusional types who are found by the Illuminati to have exhibited, over the span of a career of Pathetic Prevarications, a truly exceptional level of Cluelessly Pontificating Blowhardiness. We can think of folks who might be future recipients of this award: Edward Lewis Brown, Irwin Schiff, Dave Champion, Robert Schulz, Phil Hart, Patrick Michael Mooney, Larken Rose, the new kid Marc Stevens, and of course SkankBeat.

[Pottapaug1938]

Here's how SkankBeat is beginning to look -- as seen from the perspective of his fellow losthorizons posters:

A loony protester named Skank
Sees his dignity flushed down the tank.
His ideas don’t agree
With Pete’s own C-t-C;
He’s a dim-witted, blowhardy crank.

EDIT: You know, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has the Irving G. Thalberg Award which is presented to creative producers whose bodies of work reflect a consistently high quality of motion picture production.

I think that the Illuminati should consider creating the Peter Eric ("Blowhard") Hendrickson Memorial Blowhardiness Award -- to be presented from time to time to tax protesters, sovereignignoramuses (spelling??), and other arrogant, delusional types who are found by the Illuminati to have exhibited, over the span of a career of Pathetic Prevarications, a truly exceptional level of Cluelessly Pontificating Blowhardiness. We can think of folks who might be future recipients of this award: Edward Lewis Brown, Irwin Schiff, Dave Champion, Robert Schulz, Phil Hart, Patrick Michael Mooney, Larken Rose, the new kid Marc Stevens, and of course SkankBeat.

Well, remember how we have chosen Emperors of Frickentardistan? We could come up with a whole set of titles to be awarded on the basis of de-merit. Duke of Delusion, Marquis of Mental Monstrosities, and so on....

[Gregg]

Well, I guess it's our fault, as if he hadn't seen it here blah blah blah, but our own Village Idiot Harvester, posting as Libre' has turned the Crackheads onto Marc Stevens. Even Skank is a little skeptical, though. Another cancer Harvester is spreading is him encouraging David Van Pelt by spreading his stuff also. This is Crackhead Attorney General Skankbeats reaction to that lunacy. My comments in color....

I saw the video. I think the idea that an individual is equivalent to a federal reserve bank may be a bit of a stretch. I am unable to read the cited statute with such loose interpretation. Anyways, a few interesting ideas are raised.

He want's to believe he just can't take the final leap

Keep in mind that if you claim federal reserve notes your property, and can demonstrate the transfer of your labor property for federal reserve note property in common law transaction with a payer, then the US Treasury has to prove your claim is false. If you are exercising a right, and you acquired federal reserve notes in that exercise of a right, i do no think the government can lay a hand on those notes unless it can show a valid and enforceable contract where you gave consent. You are exercising sovereign power, not a government privilege.

Unless your name is Elizabeth or you live in a country where they don't speak English, you don't have sovereign power. Kings, Queens, Emperors and countries have sovereign powers, not people in trailer parks.

However, if there is evidence, such as the form I-9, that you are subject to the sovereignty of the federal government, then you have no rigjts, you have no sovereign power, you don't own property, and the US Treasury always had a lien on everything you have been granted to acquire and use. I think this is what is going on in the income tax scam. You might want to spend some time looking at the I-9, W-4, and 1040 and see how they interrelate. Below is a thread that is starting to analyze things. Discussion of the I-9 is introduced on the second page.

He has a new magic incantation he's on, revoke your I-9. I guess he hasn't figured out that it is illegal for an employer to have employees hired after August of 1986 who do not have an I-9 on file, which means if you revoke it, they should fire you (and in court it would I think hold up that you refusing to certify you are legally allowed to work in the US that you resigned by default, if you try to sue them).

I'm getting mean I guess, but how many of these people need to made examples of?

[Gregg]

And am I wrong in thinking that it would in fact be illegal for the IRS to get your I-9 from the employer or INS?

[webhick]

And am I wrong in thinking that it would in fact be illegal for the IRS to get your I-9 from the employer or INS?

Not sure, but I know that when NH's labor department conducts an audit they usually request access to and review the W-4 and I-9 for compliance. The one time I was present for such an audit, there was a tax protester involved and the inspector repeatedly advised the employer to fire the SOB (which I'd been saying since I read the WTP packet the employee handed me).