Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1
Discussions; Public Archive / Re: LEO-1
« Last post by Dale Eastman on Today at 06:23:55 AM »
Quote from: 20 May @ 07:18
Sorry for getting back to you so late. I just had a Quadruple bypass surgery on my heart.

➽ hey Dale, you know me,

Yes. I do know you. As I wrote, You are a good guy. That has been my experience while interacting with you and your family. What these folks don't understand is that you and I have been acquaintances for over five years.

Because Fecalbook is such a bad platform for serious discussion I have posted this message in its entirety on my Private Social Media Platform. (PSMP) This post continues at https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1727.0
2
Discussions; Public Archive / Re: LEO-1
« Last post by Dale Eastman on May 19, 2024, 11:45:53 AM »
Quote from: 23 April @ 15:10
It’s an American flag. Tactical color scheme with the thin blue line. The thin blue line represents law enforcement line they stand between good and evil. No matter what happens. Law enforcement is Al way first on the scene. They are there to protect you or help you. I could go on and on but unfortunately most folks pay to much attention of the media painting they’re own picture for their own agenda. Don’t get me wrong, like any job, they have a few bad apples which are hated by the good apples. Your politicians tie law enforcements hands more and more, pass laws that make things harder for law abiding citizens, which criminals don’t care about the law, but they keep making it easier for criminals to continue being criminals.

Quote from: 23 April @ 15:56
Stated in 745 Illinois Compiled Statute 10/4-102:
Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes, failure to detect or solve crimes, and failure to identify or apprehend criminals.

https://casetext.com/.../article.../section-745-ilcs-104-102

Kitty also got a begrudging admission from one of the deputies here in Wisconsin, they only had 3 legal duties. Protecting the citizens is not one of those duties.

Supreme Court said the same in South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. 396 (1855)

There are also subsequent SCOTUS cases as well.

Quote from: 23 April @ 16:00
Dale Eastman yeah. We’ve had guys fired for failure to act.

Quote from: 23 April @ 16:47
Maybe I'll have to find where you're patrolling, so I can get a citation for violating a traffic law.
⚖ ⚖ ⚖ ⚖ ⚖ ⚖ ⚖ ⚖ ⚖ ⚖ ⚖
You may want to have the prosecutor explain these two Supreme Court decisions to you:

“The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751

“If a plaintiff's allegations of jurisdictional facts are challenged by the defendant, the plaintiff must support them by competent proof, or the bill must be dismissed.” Thomson v. Gaskill, 315 U.S. 442, 446

These are the questions I will be asking you in court.

1. Are you a law enforcement officer?
2. Is your office of law enforcer a government office?
3. Is the purpose of government according to the Declaration of Independence to secure the rights of Life, Liberty, the pursuit of Happiness of “the People”?
4. When you lit me up and pulled me over, had you observed me injure, damage, or harm any other person's life, liberty, or property?
5. When you lit me up and pulled me over, had you observed me about to injure, damage, or harm any other person's life, liberty, or property?
6. What, precisely, was the harm you were protecting others from when you lit me up?
7. Do you understand that if there is no harm, there is no injured party?
8. Do you understand that if there is no injured party, the plaintiff, (you), has no standing to invoke the court's authority?
9. When you lit me up, were you exercising your lawful authority that came with you being a government office holder?
10. When you lit me up, were you exercising your lawful right to rule me to tell me to pull over?
11. If I refused to pull over and just kept driving, would you have done a PIT maneuver or other increase in force to cause me to stop?
12. Do any of these increases in force have the potential to cause me harm or injury?
13. Are the offices of Judge, Prosecutor, and your office of Law Enforcement all government offices?
14. Does this mean my opponents in court, the Judge, Prosecutor, and you, are all members of government and thus are all on the same team?
15. Is it true that government's right to rule the People came from the Declaration of Independence?
16. Is it true that the Declaration of Independence claims this right to rule came from consent of the governed?
17. Can you produce my consent to be governed form with my notarized signature affixed to it?
18. Can you produce the rules I specifically consented to?
19. Can you prove early American slaves consented to be enslaved?
20. Will you admit that I did not consent to being stopped by any government official for any reason?
21. Will you admit that I did not consent to being fined, caged, injured, or killed by any government official?

Failure or refusal to answer these questions honestly, or interference keeping you from answering these questions honestly will be deemed an act of attempted enslavement of me.

Quote from: 23 April @ 17:55
Dale Eastman now why would you do that. Look I’m old fashioned. What’s right is right and what’s wrong is wrong. I don’t get into the politics of it all. Keep it simple.

Quote from: 24 April @ 12:36
Dale Eastman now why would you do that.

Because I read and understand the Natural Law laid out in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. I also have read and understand the Natural Law laid out in the Magna Carta. My questions are intended to get to the truth the ruling class doesn't want the ruled class to think about.

I'm now 67 and my best guess is I "MIGHT" have 10 more years. I suspect half that with my health being what it is.

I notice you did not address my questions in this moot court of public opinion.

I cause Cognitive Dissonance because I ask questions about the public school (Government Indoctrination Center) brainwashing.

DG Polite and respectful if you actually intend to get your point across.


Quote from: 25 April @ 17:22
Dale Eastman hey Dale, you know me, I’m not going to participate in this conversation to be belittled by people that don’t know me. I’ve been shot, blown up, and left for dead by my country. I’ve saved countless number of life’s. Ran into burning buildings, helped more people even personally, kept some sovereign citizens out of trouble and jail because I respect their beliefs. But to be called a political thug from the same people that would call the police for help, is ridiculous. I don’t agree with everything in the way the criminal justice system works, but common sense can come into play. I don’t have time to monitor people’s responses and banter back and forth. So sorry I don’t want to play, but not worth my time.
3
Canned Text Topics / Robert Higgs - No good cops.
« Last post by Dale Eastman on April 27, 2024, 12:34:17 PM »
Quote from: Robert Higgs
The whole Good Cop / Bad Cop question can be disposed of much more decisively. We need not enumerate what proportion of cops appears to be good or listen to someone's anecdote about his uncle Charlie, an allegedly good cop.
We need only consider the following:
A cop's job is to enforce the laws, all of them;
Many of the laws are manifestly unjust, and some are even cruel and wicked;

Therefore every cop has to agree to act as an enforcer for laws that are manifestly unjust or even cruel and wicked.

There are no good cops.
- Robert Higgs
4
Discussions; Public Archive / LEO-1
« Last post by Dale Eastman on April 26, 2024, 05:27:43 AM »
Quote from: Time to be determined
Sorry for getting back to you so late. I just had a Quadruple bypass surgery on my heart.

I have placed the earlier discussion below. Clicking the string of down arrows will bring them into view.
⇊⇊⇊⇊⇊⇊

hey Dale, you know me,

Yes. I do know you. As I wrote, You are a good guy. That has been my experience while interacting with you and your family. What these folks don't understand is that you and I have been acquaintances for over five years.

I’ve been shot, blown up, and left for dead [...] [I've] Ran into burning buildings [...]

Those are NOT the actions of a coward.

I’m not going to participate in this conversation to be belittled by people that don’t know me.

How does that saying go? "Sticks and stones [...]"

Facing words that irrefutably prove that what one believes is wrong requires a mindset of bravery. It requires the willingness to release wrong information and replace it with correct information.

Presenting irrefutable, correct information has been my motivation for creating my website. That motivation has not changed. Truth is what I am about.

In 2005 I had traffic on the website originating from DOJ & IRS servers. At that time the DOJ & IRS were using 26 USC 6700 & 6701 to shut down websites. No injunctions, no shut it down court orders, I presented no lies to give them an excuse to order my site shut down down. I presented the truth about tax law.

You did stumble into group a of liberty minded humans. They, like me, are about TRUTH. They, like me, have figured out, or found out, that they have been lied to by "government". These folk are provably, righteously, angry... I know this because I can prove my anger is righteous.

It is my desire for you and I to continue our discussion on my website. The belittling folk can be attenuated to lower the noise level.  It is my hope to convince you to change your employment.

I myself was once a brainwashed, indoctrinated, good little submitizen (sic). I managed to shed the wool over my eyes. I managed to reject the BS I was supposed to blindly accept as truth. The programming didn't stick. I dared to think for myself. This means I am one such liberty minded human.

I was provably lied to while incarcerated in Day Jail (public school).
Even that label "public school" is an attempt to mislead. A "public school" is actually a "government school". To govern is to control. What is government attempting to control by controlling what you are taught? Or by controlling what you are not taught?

I can not imagine any government school ever putting Lysander Spooner's NO TREASON on any required reading list. Nor can I imagine any government school ever putting Frederic Bastiat's THE LAW on any required reading list. Those two writings can cause people to not think in a "government" approved manner.

Stifle the curiosity; Stifle the will to learn; Fail to teach critical thinking skills; Create a population unable to process and understand complexities. What better method of making reactive human Amoebas? What better method of creating a population that can be controlled by their emotions? What better method of creating a population that can be controlled by sound bites? What better method to blind the population to this reality?

So now you know a little about why I take the stance I take.

I previously asked you 21 questions. Consider these questions as my cross examination after the prosecutor has you testify to the alleged naughty things I did while operating a motor vehicle. Please answer my questions honestly, as if you are on the stand.

My questions are designed to highlight irrefutable truths about how government actually operates. My other goal is to cause cognitive dissonance in the  minds of believers of the lies by causing them to think about these numbered points.

These are the questions I will be asking you in court:

1. Are you a law enforcement officer?
2. Is your office of law enforcer a government office?
3. Is the purpose of government according to the Declaration of Independence to secure the rights of Life, Liberty, the pursuit of Happiness of “the People”?
4. When you lit me up and pulled me over, had you observed me injure, damage, or harm any other person's life, liberty, or property?
5. When you lit me up and pulled me over, had you observed me about to injure, damage, or harm any other person's life, liberty, or property?
6. What, precisely, was the harm you were protecting others from when you lit me up?
7. Do you understand that if there is no harm, there is no injured party?
8. Do you understand that if there is no injured party, the plaintiff, (you), has no standing to invoke the court's authority?
9. When you lit me up, were you exercising your lawful authority that came with you being a government office holder?
10. When you lit me up, were you exercising your lawful right to rule me to tell me to pull over?
11. If I refused to pull over and just kept driving, would you have done a PIT maneuver or other increase in force to cause me to stop?
12. Do any of these increases in force have the potential to cause me harm or injury?
13. Are the offices of Judge, Prosecutor, and your office of Law Enforcement all government offices?
14. Does this mean my opponents in court, the Judge, Prosecutor, and you, are all members of government and thus are all on the same team?
15. Is it true that government's right to rule the People came from the Declaration of Independence?
16. Is it true that the Declaration of Independence claims this right to rule came from consent of the governed?
17. Can you produce my consent to be governed form with my notarized signature affixed to it?
18. Can you produce the rules I specifically consented to?
19. Can you prove early American slaves consented to be enslaved?
20. Will you admit that I did not consent to being stopped by any government official for any reason?
21. Will you admit that I did not consent to being fined, caged, injured, or killed by any government official?


I make this last statement because I have actually had a judge interfere with my cross-exam of the officer. At that time I had not honed it down to the 371 words - 21 questions you have just read.

Failure or refusal to answer these questions honestly, or interference keeping you from answering these questions honestly will be deemed an act of attempted enslavement of me.

Now on the topic of enslavement, Frederick Douglass, an articulate black man, an elegant thinker, and an actual former slave has presented these words:

Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.

Words, blows, or both. Stand against slavers; stand against bullies; or continue to be preyed upon because of cowardice.



5
Misc. / 7214 Cuz CRS
« Last post by Dale Eastman on April 24, 2024, 03:42:00 AM »
 
 

 
<< Previous   TITLE 26 / Subtitle F / CHAPTER 75 / Subchapter A / PART I / § 7214   Next >>
[Print]    [Print selection]
[OLRC Home]Help
 
26 USC 7214: Offenses by officers and employees of the United States Text contains those laws in effect on April 23, 2024
From Title 26-INTERNAL REVENUE CODESubtitle F-Procedure and AdministrationCHAPTER 75-CRIMES, OTHER OFFENSES, AND FORFEITURESSubchapter A-CrimesPART I-GENERAL PROVISIONS
Jump To: Source CreditMiscellaneousAmendmentsEffective Date
§7214. Offenses by officers and employees of the United States
(a) Unlawful acts of revenue officers or agents

Any officer or employee of the United States acting in connection with any revenue law of the United States-

(1) who is guilty of any extortion or willful oppression under color of law; or

(2) who knowingly demands other or greater sums than are authorized by law, or receives any fee, compensation, or reward, except as by law prescribed, for the performance of any duty; or

(3) who with intent to defeat the application of any provision of this title fails to perform any of the duties of his office or employment; or

(4) who conspires or colludes with any other person to defraud the United States; or

(5) who knowingly makes opportunity for any person to defraud the United States; or

(6) who does or omits to do any act with intent to enable any other person to defraud the United States; or

(7) who makes or signs any fraudulent entry in any book, or makes or signs any fraudulent certificate, return, or statement; or

(8) who, having knowledge or information of the violation of any revenue law by any person, or of fraud committed by any person against the United States under any revenue law, fails to report, in writing, such knowledge or information to the Secretary; or

(9) who demands, or accepts, or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly as payment or gift, or otherwise, any sum of money or other thing of value for the compromise, adjustment, or settlement of any charge or complaint for any violation or alleged violation of law, except as expressly authorized by law so to do;

shall be dismissed from office or discharged from employment and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. The court may in its discretion award out of the fine so imposed an amount, not in excess of one-half thereof, for the use of the informer, if any, who shall be ascertained by the judgment of the court. The court also shall render judgment against the said officer or employee for the amount of damages sustained in favor of the party injured, to be collected by execution.
(b) Interest of internal revenue officer or employee in tobacco or liquor production

Any internal revenue officer or employee interested, directly or indirectly, in the manufacture of tobacco, snuff, or cigarettes, or in the production, rectification, or redistillation of distilled spirits, shall be dismissed from office; and each such officer or employee so interested in any such manufacture or production, rectification, or redistillation or production of fermented liquors shall be fined not more than $5,000.
(c) Cross reference

For penalty on collecting or disbursing officers trading in public funds or debts or property, see 18 U.S.C. 1901.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 856 ; Pub. L. 85–859, title II, §204(5), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1429 ; Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834 .)
6
Discussions; Public Archive / JH
« Last post by Dale Eastman on April 21, 2024, 12:29:20 PM »
Quote from: 21 April @ 05:26
with a few modifications I can make my pickup run on vegetable oil. Can you do that with your electric piece of shit?
Quote from: 21 April @ 0553
No, but I can get electricity from the sky.
Quote from: 21 April @ 0557
sure you can. Right after you ride your unicorn 🦄 to the cotton candy fields.
Quote from: 21 April @ 0612
They're called solar panels. Maybe you've heard of them?
Quote from: 21 April @ 0638
I call them hazardsouq (SIC)
Normally I ignore typo's. As you will see below, JH has not earned getting a pass on typo's.
Quote from: 21 April @ 0638
I call them hazardous waste. Get someone to explain it to you.
Quote from: 21 April @ 0643
While they're explaining the issue... Your cell phone & computer.

I was aware of the issues of e-waste. That's why I posted what I posted. At the time of copy-pasting this nasty person's interaction with me, I searched for something to support my claim, Cell phones and computers ARE e-waste.

Electronic waste, commonly known as e-waste, refers to discarded electrical or electronic devices. This category of waste includes a wide range of products, anything from small gadgets like smartphones and MP3 players to larger appliances such as refrigerators, air conditioners, and televisions.

When properly recycled, the valuable materials within e-waste can be safely recovered and reintroduced into the manufacturing cycle, providing an opportunity for sustainable resource utilization. However, if not handled correctly, the hazardous substances in e-waste can pose significant environmental and health risks.

Quote from: 21 April @ 0655
you want to compare the levels of hazardous waste in a car or panels to my phone? You really are stupid.
Quote from: 21 April @ 0656
I don’t own a computer. Just the phone.

So how does your not owning a computer make your cell phone not e-waste at the end of its life?

Quote from: 21 April @ 0838
Why did you call me by your maiden name?
Quote from: 21 April @ 0901
you want to suck my what?
Quote from: 21 April @ 0908
You are Illiterate and not capable off having detailed discussion with others.
Quote from: 21 April @ 0911
says the brain dead leftist lunatic
Quote from: 21 April @ 0913
I have a Madm Lou

Normally I ignore typo's. As you see, JH, with a Master’s in English, does not know how to edit or delete a fucked up draft of a potential post, or he never learned to proof read what he wrote. Either way he has not earned getting a pass on typo's.

Quote from: 21 April @ 0913
I have a Master’s in English. Did you finish kindergarten?
Quote from: 21 April @ 0913
You must be a Votard.



Votard = Voting Retard. Voters that refuse to recognize voting for the lessor of two evils IS STILL VOTING FOR EVIL!

Rude and crude, that image shows my respect for any political candidate or political party. So this highly schooled moron assumed I wasn't in his party. (That part's true. And I'm not part of the other party either.)


Quote from: 21 April @ 0918
Yet you can't collect your thoughts to cogently articulate your position. Child, I am not impressed by your crayon scribbles on the internet. Present your website link so I can read your English Masters words
Quote from: 21 April @ 0926
listen up asshole, what you call facts are bald faced lies. Pull your head out of your ass. The manufacturing process creates hazardous waste. They last between 0 and 20 years and then are also hazardous waste. And they never produce enough electricity to offset their cost. But hey, live in your dream world.
Quote from: 21 April @ 1024
I check claims for validity. What, exactly, are YOU claiming are the "facts" you are claiming I have posted? I'm also checking your ability to read.
Quote from: 21 April @ 1331
https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1725.0
7
Discussions; Public Archive / GV
« Last post by Dale Eastman on April 15, 2024, 11:46:16 AM »
Quote from: 15 April @ 06:04
But do you understand air power and tanks
Quote
There is much debate over if the United States will see a second Civil War, especially with the tense 2024 election between Donald Trump and Joe Biden approaching. Many believe that if Trump loses, the Republicans or the Right will rebel and cause a second American civil war, one that many believe they will win. But can conservatives actually win a civil war? Who would REALLY win a civil war in the US? Despite what many within right-wing circles seem to believe, the right is at a massive disadvantage. This why the right can't win a 2nd civil war.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcYYgcGjrP0
Quote from: 15 April @ 07:39
any "citizen" that unjustly rises against its government is a Traitor and Seditionist.
Quote from: 15 April @ 08:35
Define "unjustly"?
Quote from: 15 April @ 12:18
ones following a lying despot trying to stay in power....
Quote from: 15 April @ 12:48
YOU: any "citizen" that unjustly rises against its government is a Traitor and Seditionist.
ME: Define "unjustly"?
YOU: ones following a lying despot trying to stay in power....

I apologize for not recognizing that you are a VOTARD shilling for which pile of shit you want as your tyrannical ruler.


8
Misc. / What Statute
« Last post by Dale Eastman on April 14, 2024, 06:27:57 AM »
What statute in the Internal Revenue Code, using clear and unequivocal language as required by the Supreme Court, makes a private Citizen liable for subtitle A - income taxes on his or her domestically earned compensation for labor?

SCOTUS has said:
   In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen." GOULD v. GOULD, 245 U.S. 151 (1917).

 SCOTUS has said:
... [T]he well-settled rule ... the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid... SPRECKELS SUGAR REFINING CO. v. MCCLAIN, 192 U.S. 397 (1904)

SCOTUS has said:
If it is law, it will be found in our books; if it is not to be found there, it is not law.
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 627 (1886)

9
Local Log / 12 April 2024
« Last post by Dale Eastman on April 12, 2024, 02:27:39 PM »
It has been my experience that delusional fools do NOT like their posted foolishness being openly questioned.

Quote from: OP on 11 April @ 1228
Greetings and Hello, Ladies, Gentlemen, and Votards of All Politics!!!

The provably-lying PK Simon has blocked me.

I speculate he did this because he didn't like my actually proving he was a liar. On 8 April @ 13:41 Liar Simon claimed: "I answered every question you asked."

I then uploaded a post containing the six questions he ignored along with the dates-times of the original posts containing these questions.

On 27 March @ 0747 I originally asked:
"If I stuffed $4000 worth of Federal Reserve Notes in my mattress ten years ago, why are they not worth as much today as when I earned them?"

That question was placed in front of Simple Simon four times before he addressed it.

On 1 April @ 18:38 He finally answered: "That’s called inflation"

His answer admitted that the value of $4000 worth of Federal Reserve Notes in my mattress LOST value.
His answer also admitted that If my labor value stored in $4000 worth of Federal Reserve Notes in my mattress LOST value, then some of the purchasing power of the value of my labor stored in those FRN's was stolen from me

On 2 April @ 10:43 I asked this question: What causes this "INFLATION"?
In reviewing my question I realized I needed to be more specific with my question.
On 7 April @ 16:18 I then asked, "What actions, by whom, took the purchasing power of the value of my labor stored in those FRN's?"

Simple Simon ignored the store of value issue and ignored the loss of value issue.

The entire discussion I had with Simple Simon, complete with text formatting that Fecalbook can't provide, can be read at:
 https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1715.0
10
Discussions; Public Archive / Re: PS
« Last post by Dale Eastman on April 11, 2024, 11:12:14 AM »
Quote from: OP on 11 April @ 1228
Greetings and Hello, Ladies, Gentlemen, and Votards of All Politics!!!

The provably-lying PK Simon has blocked me.

I speculate he did this because he didn't like my actually proving he was a liar. On 8 April @ 13:41 Liar Simon claimed: "I answered every question you asked."

I then uploaded a post containing the six questions he ignored along with the dates-times of the original posts containing these questions.

On 27 March @ 0747 I originally asked:
"If I stuffed $4000 worth of Federal Reserve Notes in my mattress ten years ago, why are they not worth as much today as when I earned them?"

That question was placed in front of Simple Simon four times before he addressed it.

On 1 April @ 18:38 He finally answered: "That’s called inflation"

His answer admitted that the value of $4000 worth of Federal Reserve Notes in my mattress LOST value.
His answer also admitted that If my labor value stored in $4000 worth of Federal Reserve Notes in my mattress LOST value, then some of the purchasing power of the value of my labor stored in those FRN's was stolen from me

On 2 April @ 10:43 I asked this question: What causes this "INFLATION"?
In reviewing my question I realized I needed to be more specific with my question.
On 7 April @ 16:18 I then asked, "What actions, by whom, took the purchasing power of the value of my labor stored in those FRN's?"

Simple Simon ignored the store of value issue and ignored the loss of value issue.

The entire discussion I had with Simple Simon, complete with text formatting that Fecalbook can't provide, can be read at:
 https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1715.0
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10