Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1
How to decode the FecalBook "People's Rights" anti-censorship link:

Change this --------------↴
https://www.peoplesrights_org/

Copy; paste; change the underscore ["_"] to a dot ["."]; enter.
2
QR Codes / How to decode the FecalBook "People's Rights" anti-censorship link:
« Last post by Dale Eastman on March 19, 2023, 12:02:41 PM »
How to decode the FecalBook "People's Rights" anti-censorship link:

---------------Change this
https://www.peoplesrights_org/

----------.----------To this
https://www.peoplesrights.org/

Copy; paste; change the underscore ["_"] to a dot ["."]; enter.
3
Canned Text Topics / Re: Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
« Last post by Dale Eastman on March 19, 2023, 11:36:18 AM »
"𝓐𝓷𝓭 𝓱𝓸𝔀 𝔀𝓮 𝓫𝓾𝓻𝓷𝓮𝓭 𝓲𝓷 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓬𝓪𝓶𝓹𝓼 𝓵𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓻, 𝓽𝓱𝓲𝓷𝓴𝓲𝓷𝓰: 𝓦𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝔀𝓸𝓾𝓵𝓭 𝓽𝓱𝓲𝓷𝓰𝓼 𝓱𝓪𝓿𝓮 𝓫𝓮𝓮𝓷 𝓵𝓲𝓴𝓮 𝓲𝓯 𝓮𝓿𝓮𝓻𝔂 𝓢𝓮𝓬𝓾𝓻𝓲𝓽𝔂 𝓸𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓿𝓮, 𝔀𝓱𝓮𝓷 𝓱𝓮 𝔀𝓮𝓷𝓽 𝓸𝓾𝓽 𝓪𝓽 𝓷𝓲𝓰𝓱𝓽 𝓽𝓸 𝓶𝓪𝓴𝓮 𝓪𝓷 𝓪𝓻𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓽, 𝓱𝓪𝓭 𝓫𝓮𝓮𝓷 𝓾𝓷𝓬𝓮𝓻𝓽𝓪𝓲𝓷 𝔀𝓱𝓮𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓻 𝓱𝓮 𝔀𝓸𝓾𝓵𝓭 𝓻𝓮𝓽𝓾𝓻𝓷 𝓪𝓵𝓲𝓿𝓮 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓱𝓪𝓭 𝓽𝓸 𝓼𝓪𝔂 𝓰𝓸𝓸𝓭-𝓫𝔂𝓮 𝓽𝓸 𝓱𝓲𝓼 𝓯𝓪𝓶𝓲𝓵𝔂? 𝓞𝓻 𝓲𝓯, 𝓭𝓾𝓻𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓲𝓸𝓭𝓼 𝓸𝓯 𝓶𝓪𝓼𝓼 𝓪𝓻𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓼, 𝓪𝓼 𝓯𝓸𝓻 𝓮𝔁𝓪𝓶𝓹𝓵𝓮 𝓲𝓷 𝓛𝓮𝓷𝓲𝓷𝓰𝓻𝓪𝓭, 𝔀𝓱𝓮𝓷 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝔂 𝓪𝓻𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓪 𝓺𝓾𝓪𝓻𝓽𝓮𝓻 𝓸𝓯 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓲𝓻𝓮 𝓬𝓲𝓽𝔂, 𝓹𝓮𝓸𝓹𝓵𝓮 𝓱𝓪𝓭 𝓷𝓸𝓽 𝓼𝓲𝓶𝓹𝓵𝔂 𝓼𝓪𝓽 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓲𝓷 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓲𝓻 𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓻𝓼, 𝓹𝓪𝓵𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝔀𝓲𝓽𝓱 𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓻𝓸𝓻 𝓪𝓽 𝓮𝓿𝓮𝓻𝔂 𝓫𝓪𝓷𝓰 𝓸𝓯 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓭𝓸𝔀𝓷𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓲𝓻𝓼 𝓭𝓸𝓸𝓻 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓪𝓽 𝓮𝓿𝓮𝓻𝔂 𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓹 𝓸𝓷 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓲𝓻𝓬𝓪𝓼𝓮, 𝓫𝓾𝓽 𝓱𝓪𝓭 𝓾𝓷𝓭𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓽𝓸𝓸𝓭 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝔂 𝓱𝓪𝓭 𝓷𝓸𝓽𝓱𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓵𝓮𝓯𝓽 𝓽𝓸 𝓵𝓸𝓼𝓮 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓱𝓪𝓭 𝓫𝓸𝓵𝓭𝓵𝔂 𝓼𝓮𝓽 𝓾𝓹 𝓲𝓷 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓭𝓸𝔀𝓷𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓲𝓻𝓼 𝓱𝓪𝓵𝓵 𝓪𝓷 𝓪𝓶𝓫𝓾𝓼𝓱 𝓸𝓯 𝓱𝓪𝓵𝓯 𝓪 𝓭𝓸𝔃𝓮𝓷 𝓹𝓮𝓸𝓹𝓵𝓮 𝔀𝓲𝓽𝓱 𝓪𝔁𝓮𝓼, 𝓱𝓪𝓶𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓼, 𝓹𝓸𝓴𝓮𝓻𝓼, 𝓸𝓻 𝔀𝓱𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓿𝓮𝓻 𝓮𝓵𝓼𝓮 𝔀𝓪𝓼 𝓪𝓽 𝓱𝓪𝓷𝓭?... 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓞𝓻𝓰𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝔀𝓸𝓾𝓵𝓭 𝓿𝓮𝓻𝔂 𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓬𝓴𝓵𝔂 𝓱𝓪𝓿𝓮 𝓼𝓾𝓯𝓯𝓮𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓪 𝓼𝓱𝓸𝓻𝓽𝓪𝓰𝓮 𝓸𝓯 𝓸𝓯𝓯𝓲𝓬𝓮𝓻𝓼 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓹𝓸𝓻𝓽 𝓪𝓷𝓭, 𝓷𝓸𝓽𝔀𝓲𝓽𝓱𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓪𝓵𝓵 𝓸𝓯 𝓢𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓲𝓷'𝓼 𝓽𝓱𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽, 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓬𝓾𝓻𝓼𝓮𝓭 𝓶𝓪𝓬𝓱𝓲𝓷𝓮 𝔀𝓸𝓾𝓵𝓭 𝓱𝓪𝓿𝓮 𝓰𝓻𝓸𝓾𝓷𝓭 𝓽𝓸 𝓪 𝓱𝓪𝓵𝓽! 𝓘𝓯...𝓲𝓯! 𝓦𝓮 𝓭𝓲𝓭𝓷'𝓽 𝓵𝓸𝓿𝓮 𝓯𝓻𝓮𝓮𝓭𝓸𝓶 𝓮𝓷𝓸𝓾𝓰𝓱. 𝓐𝓷𝓭 𝓮𝓿𝓮𝓷 𝓶𝓸𝓻𝓮 – 𝔀𝓮 𝓱𝓪𝓭 𝓷𝓸 𝓪𝔀𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓷𝓮𝓼𝓼 𝓸𝓯 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓻𝓮𝓪𝓵 𝓼𝓲𝓽𝓾𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷.... 𝓦𝓮 𝓹𝓾𝓻𝓮𝓵𝔂 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓼𝓲𝓶𝓹𝓵𝔂 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓮𝓻𝓿𝓮𝓭 𝓮𝓿𝓮𝓻𝔂𝓽𝓱𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓽𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓱𝓪𝓹𝓹𝓮𝓷𝓮𝓭 𝓪𝓯𝓽𝓮𝓻𝔀𝓪𝓻𝓭."
― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
4
What does the U.S. tax law say? / Dear IRS
« Last post by Dale Eastman on March 13, 2023, 10:33:59 AM »
Dear IRS,

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)

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?

I often ask that question rhetorically because you don't know what you don't know.
In much shorter form: Show me the law?

You can't. Neither can the IRS.
That is because things that do not exist can not be shown.

Sec. 7701. Definitions
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof -
(14) Taxpayer
The term "taxpayer" means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.

The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither the subject nor object of revenue laws.
Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922)

The term "taxpayer" in this opinion is used in the strict or narrow sense contemplated by the Internal Revenue Code and means a person who pays, overpays, or is subject to pay his own personal income tax. (See Section 7701(a)(14) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.) A "nontaxpayer" is a person who does not possess the foregoing requisites of a taxpayer.
FN3 of Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. U.S.,
470 F. 2d 585 (1972)

Let me point this out now. Your income tax is 100 percent voluntary and your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax. Now the situation is as different as day and night. Consequently, your same rules just will not apply...
-- Dwight E. Avis, Head of ATF --
IRS - House Ways and Means Subcommittee Hearings - 1953

If you are not "liable" for the income tax, you are not "subject to pay" the income tax.
If you are not "subject to pay" the income tax, you are not a "taxpayer".
If you are not a "taxpayer", then you are a "nontaxpayer".
A "nontaxpayer" is not the subject nor the object of revenue laws.
A "nontaxpayer" who is not the subject nor the object of the revenue laws is not under the jurisdiction of the IRS.

8
Discussions; Public Archive / ES
« Last post by Dale Eastman on February 16, 2023, 03:49:41 PM »
Quote from: 16 1227
🤣🤣🤣🤣 Yeah because the best way to poison us is to release clouds thousands of feet in the air for everyone and their mom to see. Obviously some conspiracy theories are true, and obviously some of y'all are paranoid AF!!
Quote from: 16 1324
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q-BZxl-Zxk
Idjit put a laugh react on the post.
Quote from: 16 1403
🤣🤣 wow I guess you don't know how condensation and sub freezing temperatures work.
Quote from: 16 1404
Lemme know when you have something intelligent to say about the vid after you have actually watched it.
Quote from: 16 1409
I take that as a no 🤣 wow. I have an environmental degree and studied climatology. What did you do, watch random YouTubes? 🤣🤣
Quote from: 16 1445
I take that as a no 🤣 wow.

Is that supposed to be an intelligent comment after you watched the vid?

I have an environmental degree and studied climatology.

And that claim, (I'll assume it's true), means exactly WHAT regarding that 3 minute, 12 second video?

What did you do, watch random YouTubes? 🤣🤣

Actually, I ignored but was aware of the contrail - chemtrail controversy. However, I did not have good enough evidence to come to a conclusion.

Now since I'm a internet virgin, having only been on the net since 1996... I'll just say, I suspect you as not being able to understand what "𝓔𝓹𝓹𝓾𝓻 𝓼𝓲 𝓶𝓾𝓸𝓿𝓮" presents.

Since I suspect you don't have the ability to concentrate on that short video, I'll just grab a still.
Please tell me what you see in this image.


Quote from: 16 1524
Wow. I guess you are not smart enough to actually comment on what the snapshot from the vid shows. Lemme help you focus your attention:

Quote from: 16 1530
Here's another from another vid on the website.

Should I believe what a guy who claims to have "an environmental degree and studied climatology" or my own lying eyes.

There's a whole bunch of information on this site to help you fix your rectal cranial inversion. https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/

Quote from: 16 1546
Dale Eastman omg. You see, engines sweat, much like we do when we're not. They create condensation. That condensation then evaporates. However it is so cold that high up in the air that the condensation immediately crystallizes into ice clouds. And the hotter the climate gets, the more humid it gets. Making it easier to see the frozen water vapor because it takes much longer for it to dissipate. And the larger the engine (like that screenshot), the more condensation is built up. You know how when the sun comes out and you can see condensation evaporating off a hot road in the summer time? Essentially the same concept. How tf do you people think they're poisoning us, to our naked eye, from 10,000 ft in the air??? They poising us with food and medicine and in some instances even our water supply. Use common sense and learn science. This is some of the most simplistic concepts in climatology.
Quote from: 16 1554
You are willfully ignoring what I posted.
So here's that image again. How about you actually comment on the area inside the red line loop.

Quote from: 16 1624
Dale Eastman I'm not responding to this stupid shit anymore 🤣🤣 I hope you people don't raise children
Quote from: 16 1704
I'm not responding to this stupid shit anymore

Asking you to explain what is right in front of your eyes is stupid shit, huh?

<Shrug> I do not need to say anything else. You've done a good job describing yourself.
9
𝑾𝒆 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑷𝒆𝒐𝒑𝒍𝒆 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭, 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝒂 𝒓𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒓𝒖𝒍𝒆 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭.

A critical examination of the alleged authority of you, government, will of necessity be an examination of where this authority is purported to originate. This examination thus begins at the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States.

This Preamble states in part:

We the People of the United States, [...] do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

An internet search finds that “To ordain is to make an ordinance, to enact a law.” Both of which are orders to others to do, or not to do, some thing. To ordain or to enact a law requires non bogus authority, else they are non binding opinions.

Since “All humans are created with the same lack of authority over any other humans,” this includes “We the People” long dead as well as any of “We the People” presently alive.

Do you, government, have any documentation or evidence that any of the “rules” in the Constitution apply to me?

As the above examinations show, you, government, do not have any non bogus authority over me.

Quoting one of the High Priests of your religious cult of lawyers and attorneys, in the 1886 case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins; 118 U.S. 356, 370; Mr. Justice Matthews proclaimed:

For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life at the mere will of another seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.

Prior to the quoted words, on that same page, the High Priest of the cult admitted to who the Sovereign is.

What is a human to do when faced with an extortionist demanding “Give me your money or I will hurt you”? What is a human to do when faced with an extortionist demanding surrender of their liberty? What is a human to do when faced with an oppressive tyrannical government extorting compliance of  its dictates? What am I to do when I learn that the government that claims authority over me is tyrannical, criminal, extortionist, and tells lies because its actions do not align with its own propaganda and organic documents?

 “[Y]ou can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.”
- Robert A. Heinlein

 YDOM! You Don't Own Me.

The best, you, government can do is prove my claim: Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

Freedom. I Won't!

Dale Eastman.
10
Discussions; Public Archive / KS
« Last post by Dale Eastman on February 16, 2023, 09:46:41 AM »
Quote from: Original Post
A video with this title:
Quote
Matt Walsh SILENCES Democrat Rep. With One Question
Quote from: KS @ 15 0959
Really? WE THE PEOPLE pay his salary. High time we get answers to ALL of our questions. 😡
Quote from: 15 @ 1552
Who the F is this "we"?
Stand up and be known as a unique single individual.
You and I are NOT "we".
You and I are NOT "We the people" long dead.
You and I are NOT "We the people" not dead.
If alive, the writers of the CONstitution could not prove they were actually authorized by the millions of individuals then alive with millions of notarized delegations of authority to speak for any of the millions then alive.
Nobody has been delegated any authority to presume to speak for this collection of individuals, dead or alive. Nobody.
I've just explained why assuming to speak for "we" anywhere at anytime is an irritation for me.

And as for who is paying... Somebody at the top knows the Federal Government and the IRS are deliberately doing a trillion dollar a year deceptive fraud.

204 words.

Dear IRS,

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)

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?

More words and more detailed info.
www.synapticsparks.info/t
Quote from: KS @ 15 1807
Dale Eastman are you done? WE are the American people and if YOU don’t like it move!
Quote from: 16 1154
Dear Ms. S,

After your reactive reply to my post, I am extremely curious about what you think and why you think what you think.

I strive to remember to identify my assumptions as my assumptions. I don't want my assumptions confused with my statements of reasoned, concluded facts. So please challenge any assumptions I've made that are in error.

Many folks think my statements of reasoned, concluded facts are wrong. Likewise, feel free to challenge my reasoned, concluded facts... With your own facts... And hence a dialog is started to find the truth.

You wrote:
Dale Eastman are you done?

Snarky comment noted and ignored.

WE are the American people

I will confirm your assumption that I live in the middle of the North American continent, somewhere south of Canada and north of Mexico, in one of the 50 𝐒tates 𝐮nited. I assume likewise for you by your posted words.

Your blanket claim does NOT actually identify who "𝒶𝓇𝑒 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝒜𝓂𝑒𝓇𝒾𝒸𝒶𝓃 𝓅𝑒𝑜𝓅𝓁𝑒".
No matter. It's an answer of sorts to my question. Thank you.

if YOU don’t like it move!

What, exactly, were you referring to when you used the word "𝒾𝓉"?

I should move if I don't like WHAT?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10