Recent Posts

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
31
Misc. / Dear prosecutor,
« Last post by Dale Eastman on September 01, 2023, 08:09:37 AM »
Dear prosecutor,

Go ahead and take my ass to court for tax evasion.

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?

26 CFR 601.602 states:
Subpart F_Rules, Regulations, and Forms
Sec. 601.602 Tax forms and instructions.
(a) Tax return forms and instructions. The Internal Revenue Service develops forms and instructions that explain the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code and regulations. The Service distributes the forms and instructions to help taxpayers comply with the law. The tax system is based on voluntary compliance, and the taxpayers complete and return the forms with payment of any tax owed.
(b) Other forms and instructions. In addition to tax return forms, the Internal Revenue Service furnishes the public copies of other forms and instructions developed for use in complying with the laws and regulations. These forms and instructions lead the taxpayer step-by-step through data needed to accurately report information required by law.
Admit or deny?

The IRS develops instructions that explain the requirements of the tax law.
Admit or deny?

The instructions are to help the taxpayer comply with the tax law.
Admit or deny?

The instructions lead the taxpayer "step-by-step" through the data needed to accurately report information required by the tax law.
Admit or deny?

The Form 1040 instructions state:
Foreign-Source Income
You must report unearned income, such as interest, dividends, and pensions, from sources outside the United States unless exempt by law or a tax treaty. You also must report earned income, such as wages and tips, from sources outside the United States.
Admit or deny?

These words are in the step-by-step instructions, usually just above the instructions for line 7 on the form.
Admit or deny?

This is an instruction regarding what is required to be reported on the 1040.
Admit or deny?

The IRS be remiss (negligent) if such instructions omit telling you to supply data that the law requires?
Admit or deny?

These are the words of the Supreme Court, Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 627 (1886):
If it is law, it will be found in our books; if it is not to be found there, it is not law.
Admit or deny?

Law must specify who and what it applies to.
Admit or deny?

If the law doesn't specify that it applies to you or your property, then it doesn't apply to you or your property.
Admit or deny?

If the instructions for complying with the law do not state that the law applies to you or your property, then it doesn't apply to you or your property.
Admit or deny?

If the instructions for complying with the law do not state that you are required to report income earned from sources INSIDE the United States, then you do not have to report income earned from sources INSIDE the United States.
Admit or deny?
32
Misc. / Go ahead and take my ass to court for tax evasion.
« Last post by Dale Eastman on August 31, 2023, 11:39:04 AM »
Dear prosecutor,

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?

Title 26 USC §7203 states:
Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax
Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
Admit or deny.

26 CFR 601.602 states:
Subpart F_Rules, Regulations, and Forms
Sec. 601.602 Tax forms and instructions.
(a) Tax return forms and instructions. The Internal Revenue Service develops forms and instructions that explain the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code and regulations. The Service distributes the forms and instructions to help taxpayers comply with the law. The tax system is based on voluntary compliance, and the taxpayers complete and return the forms with payment of any tax owed.
(b) Other forms and instructions. In addition to tax return forms, the Internal Revenue Service furnishes the public copies of other forms and instructions developed for use in complying with the laws and regulations. These forms and instructions lead the taxpayer step-by-step through data needed to accurately report information required by law.
Admit or deny?

The IRS develops instructions that explain the requirements of the tax law.
Admit or deny?

The instructions are to help the taxpayer comply with the tax law.
Admit or deny?

The instructions lead the taxpayer "step-by-step" through the data needed to accurately report information required by the tax law.
Admit or deny?

The Form 1040 instructions state:
Foreign-Source Income
You must report unearned income, such as interest, dividends, and pensions, from sources outside the United States unless exempt by law or a tax treaty. You also must report earned income, such as wages and tips, from sources outside the United States.
Admit or deny?

These words are in the step-by-step instructions, usually just above the instructions for line 7 on the form.
Admit or deny?

This is an instruction regarding what is required to be reported on the 1040.
Admit or deny?

The IRS be remiss (negligent) if such instructions omit telling you to supply data that the law requires?
Admit or deny?

These are the words of the Supreme Court, Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 627 (1886):
If it is law, it will be found in our books; if it is not to be found there, it is not law.
Admit or deny?

Law must specify who and what it applies to.
Admit or deny?

If the law doesn't specify that it applies to you or your property, then it doesn't apply to you or your property.
Admit or deny?

If the instructions for complying with the law do not state that the law applies to you or your property, then it doesn't apply to you or your property.
Admit or deny?

If the instructions for complying with the law do not state that you are required to report income earned from sources INSIDE the United States, then you do not have to report income earned from sources INSIDE the United States.
Admit or deny?
33
Discussions; Public Archive / JJ
« Last post by Dale Eastman on August 31, 2023, 08:24:50 AM »
Quote from: 29 August 15:51
Dale Eastman admit or deny.

You personally know someone incarcerated for trying to do exactly what your videos indicate as "unlawful"

Admit or deny

You personally know people that have lost their personal property via State seizure for attempting what you believe to be truth.

Best case scenario here you are correct but the State keeps you in court until you are made poorer via the exercise. Worst case you end up shot by an agent of the State for your belief and defending your personal liberty.

Trust me in saying I wish you were right, but I do not believe playing within the system will work. The system can be rendered useless though if enough people break free of it. Using the "legal" against the robed devils is no good.
Quote from: 30 August 14:43 edited for visual clarity and ease of reading.
Dale Eastman here is the deal Dale. You may not believe you are required to follow a "law" that is not in some assholes books, but in reality you could very easily take a bullet for your belief.

For instance in a State that is constitutional carry I could ride around with my sweet Lucy in the passenger seat next to me perfectly legal like.

I could get stopped because I have a brake light out or get directed in traffic to a sobriety check point.

With Lucy beside me I had better not sneeze in either scenario or I could be eating bullets and my kids would be fatherless.

Would my death be allowed in their books?

Maybe they walk scott free as an accidental shooting by a LEO. It happens. Best case my family wins a few bucks but either way I'm dead and can not teach my children the things they need to learn into adulthood.

You are gambling that your assertions that have been fought in court are correct when there is plenty of evidence that they are not. Just look at all of those that have argued what you are claiming in a court.

Most lose their property and many lose their "paper" rights altogether for a period of time. My rights come not from a piece of paper or any law of man's.

So arguing man's law with the robed devils is futile. I go ahead and render unto Caesar what is his.

It is just paper after all. Any time I can avoid anything to do with Caesar I do so. I am against advocating in nearly every way trying to fight the system from within it.

The battle is in escaping the system altogether and many many people are getting to the point they desire to do so.
Quote from: 31 August 13:13
I apologize for not responding to your 29 August post until now. Sorry. I was busy attempting to have a point by point discussion with JS in this very thread under your original post.

You personally know someone incarcerated for trying to do exactly what your videos indicate as "unlawful"

Not my videos. Dave Champion's videos. So you and I are having a communication error. What are you referring to as unlawful?

I personally met Larken Rose. He was incarcerated for asking questions of the IRS. His line of inquiry was the written words of section 861. He could have done better in his defense. By standing on what the law says...

And what the law says is what the coward JS has refused to look at.

You personally know people that have lost their personal property via State seizure for attempting what you believe to be truth.

I didn't know then what I know now. The IRS reached in and illegally coerced the bank to give them $2,000.

Your using my words "Admit or deny?" is actually disingenuous to whatever point you wish to present. <shrug>

You may not believe you are required to follow a "law" that is not in some assholes books, but in reality you could very easily take a bullet for your belief.

This compound sentence of yours makes no sense.

From your words, I get the implication that you "believe" you are required to obey laws that don't exist. Have I correctly decoded your implied point?

in reality you could very easily take a bullet for your belief.

"Belief" is the wrong word. You are correct: I could very easily take a bullet for my proper conclusion from reading the law.

Why did you conclude it was important for you to point this out to me?

Do you work in mainstream (lamestream) news media?

Best case scenario here you are correct but the State keeps you in court until you are made poorer via the exercise.

Poorer how?

Dear prosecutor,

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?

Title 26 USC §7203 states:
Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax
Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
Admit or deny.

26 CFR 601.602 states:
Subpart F_Rules, Regulations, and Forms
Sec. 601.602 Tax forms and instructions.
(a) Tax return forms and instructions. The Internal Revenue Service develops forms and instructions that explain the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code and regulations. The Service distributes the forms and instructions to help taxpayers comply with the law. The tax system is based on voluntary compliance, and the taxpayers complete and return the forms with payment of any tax owed.
(b) Other forms and instructions. In addition to tax return forms, the Internal Revenue Service furnishes the public copies of other forms and instructions developed for use in complying with the laws and regulations. These forms and instructions lead the taxpayer step-by-step through data needed to accurately report information required by law.
Admit or deny?

The IRS develops instructions that explain the requirements of the tax law.
Admit or deny?

The instructions are to help the taxpayer comply with the tax law.
Admit or deny?

The instructions lead the taxpayer "step-by-step" through the data needed to accurately report information required by the tax law.
Admit or deny?

The Form 1040 instructions state:
Foreign-Source Income
You must report unearned income, such as interest, dividends, and pensions, from sources outside the United States unless exempt by law or a tax treaty. You also must report earned income, such as wages and tips, from sources outside the United States.
Admit or deny?

These words are in the step-by-step instructions, usually just above the instructions for line 7 on the form.
Admit or deny?

This is an instruction regarding what is required to be reported on the 1040.
Admit or deny?

The IRS be remiss (negligent) if such instructions omit telling you to supply data that the law requires?
Admit or deny?

These are the words of the Supreme Court, Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 627 (1886):
If it is law, it will be found in our books; if it is not to be found there, it is not law.
Admit or deny?

Law must specify who and what it applies to.
Admit or deny?

If the law doesn't specify that it applies to you or your property, then it doesn't apply to you or your property.
Admit or deny?

If the instructions for complying with the law do not state that the law applies to you or your property, then it doesn't apply to you or your property.
Admit or deny?

If the instructions for complying with the law do not state that you are required to report income earned from sources INSIDE the United States, then you do not have to report income earned from sources INSIDE the United States.
Admit or deny?
Quote from: 31 August 16:59
Dale Eastman awww how cute. Dave can sell his bullshit book elsewhere and most rational folks will find your "admit or deny" script as annoying as I do and stop reading any point you are trying to make regardless of its possible validity. Are you sure you're not a bot? No one else that read three sentences of what you have written is.
Quote from: 31 August 18:13
What is your purpose in replying to my post(s)?
Quote from: 31 August 18:24
Dale Eastman what is your point in commenting on my post?
Quote from: 1 September 08:32
You original post was about tax, taxing, taxes, & taxation. My point, after spending years reading the income tax laws, is that the IRS has done an excellent job of brainwashing folks that if they earn a living they owe some of the money earned to the IRS.

This scam, this lie, by the IRS is provably false.

I've answered your question. Now how about you answer mine:
What is your purpose in replying to my post(s)?

34
Discussions; Public Archive / JS
« Last post by Dale Eastman on August 29, 2023, 09:47:38 AM »
Quote from: 28 August 10:54
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle A - Income Taxes
CHAPTER 1 - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
Subchapter A - Determination of Tax Liability
PART I - TAX ON INDIVIDUALS
Sec. 1. Tax imposed states:
[...]
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -
[...]

Section 5001 Imposition, rate, and attachment of tax states:
There is hereby imposed on all distilled spirits produced in or imported into the United States a tax at the rate of $13.50 on each proof gallon and a proportionate tax at the like rate on all fractional parts of a proof gallon.

Imposition of this tax creates (imposes) no liability for any one to pay it.

Section 5005 Persons liable for tax states:
The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5001(a)(1).

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 have found and read with my own eyes, the law that makes the following classes of person liable for the income tax imposed in section 1 "by clear and unequivocal language".

Sec. 2. Definitions and special rules, (d) Nonresident aliens
Sec. 641. Imposition of tax
Sec. 701. Partners, not partnership, subject to tax
Sec. 871. Tax on nonresident alien individuals
Sec. 876. Alien residents of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, or the Northern Mariana Islands
Sec. 877. Expatriation to avoid tax
Sec. 1461. Liability for withheld tax
Sec. 1474. Special rules, (a) Liability for withheld tax

The preceding classes of person are specifically pointed out as being required to pay (made liable for) the income tax imposed in section 1. This liability is imposed in language that is just as clear and unequivocal as the distilled spirits tax liability you were shown previously. This liability is not implied. There is no doubt and there is no question that those classes of person are liable for the section 1 income tax.

Working stiffs in the U.S. of America are not those persons.
Quote from: 29 August 09:26
Dale Eastman, are you trying to say that the existence of an excise tax on imported alcoholic beverages somehow invalidates the personal income tax? That doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Quote from: 29 August 10:14
You might say I'm not trying to say anything. I just presented an important chunk of what the tax law actually is. So I am a little confused as to what you are actually asking. I could be in error in assuming you didn't read and/or understand this question:

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?

Do you understand that no liability, no requirement to pay a tax on your domestic compensation for labor?
Quote from: 29 August 10:23
Dale Eastman, that would be the part right after you cut off the quotation. "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -" and then specifies the different brackets for married filing jointly, head of household, single, married filing separately, and estates/trusts.
I "understand" what you're saying, but I'm also familiar enough with the law to understand that it's false.
Quote from: 29 August 10:29
And YouTube legal 'experts' don't fare well in the world of ACTUAL law.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-court-bars-nevada-man-promoting-tax-fraud-scheme
Quote from: 29 August 10:38
I'm also familiar enough with the law to understand that it's false.

That what, specifically, is false?
Quote from: 29 August 10:41
Dale Eastman, what's false is every single variation on the 'individuals aren't actually required to pay any income tax' lie. It's a particularly harmful lie because it sucks in people who would otherwise be fighting to change the law and giving them the false belief that they don't have to...both wasting their energy and destroying their credibility. It would not surprise me at all to some day find that the government was behind this particular urban legend.
Quote from: 29 August 11:14
Okay. Thank you for explaining what I assumed you meant.

Also, Thank you for informing me that you believe the government's lies.

I "understand" what you're saying,

I don't think you do.

So I'm going to ask you again:
Do you understand that no liability means no requirement to pay a tax?

I have an answer to your posting the link to the injunction. That fellow has not paid income tax on his compensation of over 20 years. And... The IRS knows exactly who I am. I quit paying when I learned the truth.

I've some errands to run. I'll not be done until after 17:00 EDT. We can pick up the discussion then.


Quote from: 29 August 11:23
Dale Eastman, that’s like saying “do you understand that the world is flat?” Asking someone if they “understand” the urban legend you’re repeating is a particular clumsy way to try to frame the issue in terms of their not ‘understanding’ how right you are, rather than offering any credible support for your claims. It’s what people do when they know the facts aren’t on their side.

“That fellow has not paid…”
Because he says so. And he MUST be telling the truth, because…um…
Quote from: 29 August 11:41
I've just a few more minutes before I must run my errands.

that’s like saying “do you understand that the world is flat?”

By that statement you just implicitly admitted that you do not understand the issue of liability needing to be imposed.
1. Admit or deny.

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)
2. Admit or deny.

Section 5001 Imposition, rate, and attachment of tax states:
There is hereby imposed on all distilled spirits produced in or imported into the United States a tax at the rate of $13.50 on each proof gallon and a proportionate tax at the like rate on all fractional parts of a proof gallon.

Imposition of this tax creates (imposes) no liability for any one to pay it.
3. Admit or deny.

Section 5005 Persons liable for tax states:
The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5001(a)(1).

This statute creates (imposes) a clear and unequivocal on who is required to pay the tax imposed in section 5001(a)(1).
4. Admit or deny.

Take your time thinking about how you intend to answer these 4 questions. I'm away until later.
Quote from: 29 August 11:44
"By that statement you just implicitly admitted that you do not understand the issue"

I see that we're now past the dishonest implications into the blatant lies. Interesting. The fact that I'm not gullible enough to believe something does not by any sane logic imply that I don't understand it.

"Admit or deny"

Yet more verbiage that demands the assumption that your claims are true.

No need to take my time on this...I've dealt with dishonest conspiracy cultists desperate to turn their rejection of reality in favor of some BS they found on the internet into evidence of superiority over everyone else many times before.
Quote from: 29 August 11:55
Dale Eastman, as far as I can tell, you're arguing that since the law regarding a completely different tax specifies who is liable for it, the fact that the law regarding individual income tax doesn't explicitly say that the person who earned the income is the one with the tax liability means that they have none. Pretty ridiculous.
Quote from: 30 August 07:46
At this time I forgive your attempted contextomy. I do not at this time have reason to claim illintent on your part.

I specifically make a claim and then follow the claim with the question, "Admit or deny?" This is my attempt to make discussions inter-active. I do this because of past attempts at discussion with people that refuse to focus on each specific point I present.

You wrote:
that’s like saying “do you understand that the world is flat?”

I wrote:
By that statement you just implicitly admitted that you do not understand the issue of liability needing to be imposed.
1. Admit or deny.

I admit that I typo'd and forgot to add the question mark. I'm disappointed that you couldn't figure out admit or deny was both a question and a prompt for you to... Admit or deny my statement.

Your failure / refusal to answer makes be wonder... Never mind.

D-e-n-y
Four letters would have been sufficient to signify you did not agree.

I see that we're now past the dishonest implications into the blatant lies.
These are your words.
5. Admit or deny?

With those words, You just accused me of blatantly lying.
6. Admit or deny?

29 August 10:41:
Dale Eastman, what's false is every single variation on the 'individuals aren't actually required to pay any income tax' lie.
These are your words.
7. Admit or deny?

You are claiming I am lying by posting to the effect that "individuals aren't actually required to pay any income tax"
8. Admit or deny?

rather than offering any credible support for your claims
These are your words.
9. Admit or deny?

With those words you have claimed I'm not offering credible support for my claims.
10. Admit or deny?

The Supreme Court 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)
2. Admit or deny.

07:43
06:48
Quote from: 30 August 08:03
Dale Eastman, that's a LOT of typing to say that you have no capacity to support your claims, but in your imagination they're true unless someone proves (to YOUR satisfaction) otherwise, and you feel like a wall of text containing a patchwork of meaninglessly vague or questionably relevant assertions is going to confuse people enough to take that thought process seriously. Standard conspiracy cult non-logic.

For people who AREN'T desperately playing cut-and-paste with the law to justify a fantasy where it doesn't really mean what it says, this is easy to understand: there is a tax imposed on every type of income, other than that explicitly excluded, of every individual in the US.
Quote from: 30 August 09:28
The Supreme Court 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)
2. Admit or deny.

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=Boyd+v.+United+States%2C+116+U.S.+616%2C+627+%281886%29

09:29
09:18
Quote from: 30 August 09:37
Dale Eastman, the "admit or deny" mantra isn't any more meaningful than it was the first few dozen times you repeated it. And the Boyd case had nothing to do with individual income taxes - it was about whether the government can compel the production of evidence in an asset forfeiture case without a warrant.
"If it is law, it will be found in our books"
The individual income tax is "found in our books," so...
Quote from: 30 August 10:28
I'll take your response as an admission of question #2: If it is law, it will be found in our books; if it is not to be found there, it is not law.

I am NOT required to obey a law that does NOT exist.
11. Admit or deny?

10:27
10:19
Quote from: 30 August 10:32
Dale Eastman, repeating your mantra doesn’t change reality. The tax code DOES exist.

You’re raising all kinds of “FED” red flags here…it looks very much like you’re trying to 1) attack the credibility of anti-coercion values by associating them with mindless adherence to flat-earth-type fantasies and 2) convince people to do things that will give the state an excuse to punish them.
Quote from: 30 August 10:48
I'm not arguing that the tax code doesn't exist.

Now dragging your willfully ignorant focus back on point and testing your logical thinking at the same time:

I am NOT required to obey a law that does NOT exist.
11. Admit or deny?
Quote from: 30 August 10:51
“Now dragging your willfully ignorant focus back on point”

…says the guy who has substituted a barrage of disjointed tangents for anything remotely resembling support for his fantasy that people ackshewelly don’t have to pay taxes because…something.

If at some point you decide to provide that support, I’ll respond. If not, we’re done here, fedboi.
Quote from: 30 August 11:07
I am going.... Correction, I WAS going to drag your willfully ignorant ass through all the appropriate statutes one by one. Ditto the appropriate Supreme Court citations. Then I would test your ability to think logically and comprehend all these words of law.

I am NOT required to obey a law that does NOT exist.
11. Admit or deny?

Clearly on the basis of logic, you can not deny point #11.
Being unable to deny point #11, you refuse to admit point #11.

Your refusal allows me to speculate that you are a coward and you don't want to be proven wrong... One numbered step at a time.

https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1671.0
35
Discussions; Public Archive / AR
« Last post by Dale Eastman on August 27, 2023, 08:29:36 AM »
Quote from: 25 August 13:22
Love the Constitution!
Quote from: 25 August 14:10
You don't know what you don't know. This book would NEVER be on your high-school required reading list. Read it and find out why.
https://praxeology.net/LS-NT-6.htm#no.6
Quote from: 25 August 15:18
I'm going to forgive you presuming my classical education.
Quote from: 26 August 09:23
I am going to forgive your brainwashed willful ignorance.
Also, as a public service announcement, you need to tag the person you’re responding to. Like I did with you. I found your post by accident, because you did not tag me.
Quote from: 26 August 10:02
Hey, WM, this guy called me brainwashed and willfully ignorant. I'm loving it. It's been a good laugh on a very cruel morning
Quote from: 26 August 10:26
Are you for liberty or slavery?
Quote from: 26 August 11:47
I don't believe in slavery in any form at all. I am an Objectivist.
Quote from: 26 August 12:57
Well then. My apology. I didn't catch your vocal inflection the signified you were making a sarcastic comment liking the CONstitution. Here. Take mine. I can make more...


Quote from: 26 August 17:03
Anarchy is not better than democracy
Quote from: 26 August 17:21
oh, did I forget my sarcmarc? Here ya go.


Quote from: 27 August 11:35
Now is your opportunity to prove that I am logically handicapped and can't think clearly.

I am going to assume that you are capable of reasonable articulate conversation about our differing ideology(ies). But (erases what I just wrote) I've had too many discussions... er... attempted discussions with folks who will argue with me that 1 + 1 = 99... So no insult intended, I will be very meticulous about my words and verifying your words.

Failure to deny will be deemed as admission. Numbered to keep track.

These are your words:
Love the Constitution!
1. Admit or deny.

These are your words:
I don't believe in slavery in any form at all.
2. Admit or deny.

A slave is a human whose free will is over-ruled by a slave-master.
3. Admit or deny.

A slave-master is a person who has a right-to-rule another human.
4. Admit or deny.

These words are contained in the U.S. Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
5. Admit or deny?

"Created equal" means no human was created owning another human.
6. Admit or deny?

"Created equal" means no human was created owning a right-to-rule another human.
7. Admit or deny?

A human with no right-to-rule can NOT delegate a right-to-rule to a third human.
8. Admit or deny?

The words of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution are:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
9. Admit or deny?

The Constitution alleges its authority came from "We the People."
10. Admit or deny?

The words of Article 1 Section 1 are:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,
11. Admit or deny?

The words of Article 1 Section 8 are:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,
12. Admit or deny?

The legislative branch makes all laws, declares war, regulates interstate and foreign commerce and controls taxing and spending policies.
13. Admit or deny?

Title 26 USC §7203 states:
Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax
Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
14. Admit or deny?

The Federal Government will fine $25,000 or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
15. Admit or deny?

Government will harm you if you don't pay it.
16. Admit or deny?

Government forces people to pay it taxes.
17. Admit or deny?

Taking 100% of someone's labor and free will is slavery.
18. Admit or deny.

Taking 1% of someone's labor and free will is slavery.
19. Admit or deny.

These are your words:
Anarchy is not better than democracy
20. Admit or deny.

The true meaning of anarchy is No Rulers.
21. Admit or deny.

Democracy can be proven as Tyranny of the majority.
22. Admit or deny.
Quote from: 27 August 16:29
I never made those assertions. You did of me. You've proved the assertions you made of me, in complete ignorance of me at all, to actually be projection. Don't worry. I only minored in psych. I was unwilling to put the work in for a double major in manipulating people.
Quote from: 27 August 17:33
What we obviously have here is a failure to communicate.

These are your words:
Love the Constitution!
1. Admit or deny.

These are your words:
I don't believe in slavery in any form at all.
2. Admit or deny.
Quote from: 27 August 17:33
I had already stated those facts. Who the fuck are you to demand I do to suit you?
Was I unclear? Did I make a typo? WTF do you not get about statements of fact?
Do you need a priest, short bus or medication?
Quote from: 27 August 20:54
Now that the communication channel has no static...

A slave is a human whose free will is over-ruled by a slave-master.
3. Admit or deny.

A slave-master is a person who has a right-to-rule another human.
4. Admit or deny.
Quote from: 27 August 22:27
You obviously don't comprehend English too well. What language do you speak better? I know many and can probably relay my arguments well in French, Italian, German, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese and Texan. I also know about seven other languages but I am not fluent. Please let me know and I will tell you how I don't need to prove anything to you as I've already stated my stances on them in plain English.

If you're in need of medication or psychological counseling, you're on your own.
Quote from: 28 August 10:33
What language do you speak better?

Thank you for asking. I speak Liberty and Freedom. Two languages pro-CONstitutionalist slaves have trouble understanding. I'm happy to help you understand what you don't understand.

as I've already stated my stances on them in plain English.

Yes. You did make two claims.
Love the Constitution!
I don't believe in slavery in any form at all.

With those two claims, you have contradicted yourself.

I have proven the fact that you have contradicted yourself with my first 19 admit or deny questions.

I prefaced those questions stating:
Now is your opportunity to prove that I am logically handicapped and can't think clearly.

You have FAILED to prove that I am logically handicapped and can't think clearly.
Instead of posting logic and fact, you went the emotional route... TWICE.

I suggest you take your knowledge of your minor in psych and apply it to examining yourself. You are not the first person I have triggered cognitive dissonance in by posting facts contradicting their beliefs.

I also wrote:
I am going to assume that you are capable of reasonable articulate conversation about our differing ideology(ies).

You have proven you are NOT capable of reasonable articulate conversation about our differing ideology(ies). You have proven my assumption incorrect.

Your turn.
Quote from: 28 August 15:30
YO! Dipshit. I already answered your questions. Seriously, are you mentally retarded or done hard time? WTF is wrong with you. The only reason you remain with psyche intact is because you appear to be a friend of Wes. However, my patience is at it's end. SCROLL THE FUCK BACK TROGLODYTE.
Quote from: 28 August 18:43
YO! Dipshit. I already answered your questions.

No. You did not. If you were not lying to yourself, answers to my NUMBERED questions would have taken the format of:
1. Admit
2. Admit
3. Admit
Etc.
x. Deny.

WTF is wrong with you.

You have proven you are NOT capable of reasonable articulate conversation about our differing ideology(ies).

What institute of higher education did you attend that offered a class on name calling 101?
36
Discussions; Public Archive / WM
« Last post by Dale Eastman on August 26, 2023, 12:28:52 PM »
Quote from: 26 August 13:20
Oh I am VERY pro Constitution….I think it’s one of the greatest documents in human history. The only CON I see is this bullshit notion that anarchism is in any way feasible lol
Quote from: 26 August 13:29
Well then, I sure mis-read your posts.

This is something I've been working on because of... Never mind why.

Failure to deny is taken as admission.
Denials must be backed by facts... So denials will be examined and questioned.

Dear Elected Politician, {and your followers}

I have some questions I would like you to answer.

As an officeholder in a government office, you get the authority to do governmental things.
1. Admit or deny?

One of those governmental things is the authority to "govern."
2. Admit or deny?

"Authority to govern" is a "right-to-govern."
3. Admit or deny?

"To govern" is "to control."
3. Admit or deny?

"To control" is "to rule."
4. Admit or deny?

"Authority to govern" is a "right-to-rule."
5. Admit or deny?

The government office you hold delegates to you, a "right-to-govern", a "right-to-control", and a "right-to-rule".
6. Admit or deny?

That office was delegated the rights to govern, control, and rule.
7. Admit or deny?

The words of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution are:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
8. Admit or deny?

The Constitution alleges its authority came from "We the People."
9. Admit or deny?

The identified group called "We the People" can ONLY include all the people then living at the time of the ordination and establishment (September 17, 1787).
10. Admit or deny?

All government office rights to govern, control, and rule, was delegated from "We the People" existing in September 1787 by means of the United State's Constitution.
11. Admit or deny?

These words are contained in the U.S. Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
12. Admit or deny?

"Created equal" means no human was created owning another human.
13. Admit or deny?

"Created equal" means no human was created owning a right-to-rule another human.
14. Admit or deny?

A human with no right-to-rule can NOT delegate a right-to-rule to a third human.
15. Admit or deny?

Candidates for public (government) offices are humans.
16. Admit or deny?

Voters are humans.
17. Admit or deny?

No voter has a right-to-rule any other human.
18. Admit or deny?

Therefore voting can NOT delegate a right-to-rule to any candidates for public (government) offices
19. Admit or deny?

So let's you and I explore any failure of logic I might have.




In the same thread...

Quote from: 28 August 15:51
Nope…feel free to let the fireworks fly 😉😛 He’s just a rando on my friends list Bwahaha
Quote from: quote from WM 28 August 15:51
Quote from: 28 August 19:00
feel free to let the fireworks fly

Same questions for you as your CONstitution loving friend AR since you have been following the discussion enough to post your reacts.

A slave is a human whose free will is over-ruled by a slave-master.
3. Admit or deny.

A slave-master is a person who has a right-to-rule another human.
4. Admit or deny.

These words are contained in the U.S. Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
5. Admit or deny?

"Created equal" means no human was created owning another human.
6. Admit or deny?

"Created equal" means no human was created owning a right-to-rule another human.
7. Admit or deny?

A human with no right-to-rule can NOT delegate a right-to-rule to a third human.
8. Admit or deny?

The words of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution are:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
9. Admit or deny?

The Constitution alleges its authority came from "We the People."
10. Admit or deny?

The words of Article 1 Section 1 are:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,
11. Admit or deny?

The words of Article 1 Section 8 are:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,
12. Admit or deny?

The legislative branch makes all laws, declares war, regulates interstate and foreign commerce and controls taxing and spending policies.
13. Admit or deny?

Title 26 USC §7203 states:
Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax
Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
14. Admit or deny?

The Federal Government will fine $25,000 or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
15. Admit or deny?

Government will harm you if you don't pay it.
16. Admit or deny?

Government forces people to pay it taxes.
17. Admit or deny?

Taking 100% of someone's labor and free will is slavery.
18. Admit or deny.

Taking 1% of someone's labor and free will is slavery.
19. Admit or deny.
https://www.facebook.com/wes.milliken/posts/pfbid0o68YNvZeAJ6xeF1G6MxRi42wzN6G2tt8frWTBvhhBDvN66aJLCrAAxU87bH1hfgvl
37
My Commentary On The World / Admit or deny? V1.
« Last post by Dale Eastman on August 25, 2023, 11:53:14 AM »
Admit or deny?

How I will communicate with folks whose pedigree I question.

F'rinstance, when your grandfather is also your father and your great grandfather because your grandmother is also your aunt. In other words, grandpa had sex with his daughter who then gave birth to your mother, whom grandpa also impregnated to create you.

YDOM!

You don't own me.
Admit or deny?

A slave is a human whose owner's free will overrides the slave's free will.
Admit or deny?

You don't own me applies to every other human on the planet.
Admit or deny?

If you don't own me, you don't have a right to over-ride my free will when I have not initiated any harm against you or your rights.
Admit or deny?

If you don't own me, you do not have a right-to-rule me.
Admit or deny?

If you are a politician (human), these facts still apply to you.
Admit or deny?

Any human that does not have a right-to-rule me can not give (delegate) that non-existent right-to-rule me to any other human.
Admit or deny?

Your vote does not delegate your non-existent right-to-rule me to any elected politician.
Admit or deny?


38
My Commentary On The World / Light up inquiry.
« Last post by Dale Eastman on August 21, 2023, 10:27:35 AM »
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.
39
Discussions; Public Archive / Re: CG
« Last post by Dale Eastman on August 20, 2023, 08:54:21 AM »
Quote from: 20 August 06:24
You are a coward.
You have no integrity.
You are not unbiased.
Quote from: 20 August 09:52
You are a coward.
You have no integrity.
You are not unbiased.

SG Have you noticed this EEG Flat-liner likes to call others by his maiden name?
40
Discussions; Public Archive / LJ
« Last post by Dale Eastman on August 19, 2023, 11:29:40 AM »
Quote from: 19 August 10:01
Politician=criminal pos.
Quote from: 19 August 11:28
Laura Jane ➽ Politician=criminal pos.

Verifiable and provable.

Unassailable Facts

The facts presented in this section are unassailable, yet I have had mentally enslaved humans attempt to deny that certain facts are actually facts.

Facts exist that directly contradict and refute the standing lies of the Consensus Reality and the Ruling Class that created the Consensus Reality.

I have numbered these facts just in case some brainwashed moron wants to display their lack of thinking ability.
Fact 1: Your coming into existence, your creation, did not give you ownership of me. YDOM: You Don't Own Me.

Your creation did not give you any authority over me. Your creation did not give you a right to rule me, a right to control me, or a right to govern me in matters that are none of your business. Matters that are your business will be addressed later.

Likewise and in parallel:

Fact 2: My coming into existence, my creation, did not give me ownership of you. IDOY: I Don't Own You.

My creation did not give me any authority over you. My creation did not give me a right to rule you, a right to control you, or a right to govern you in matters that are none of my business. Matters that are my business will be addressed later.

These facts also apply to a third entity that is neither you nor me. This third entity is a human just like you and me:

Fact 3: A politician or a police person coming into existence, a politician's or a police person's creation, did not give that politician or that police person ownership of any other human. TDOU: They Don't Own Us.
A politician's or a police person's creation did not give that politician or that police person any authority over any other human. A politician's or a police person's creation did not give a politician or a police person any right to rule any other human, a right to control any other human, or a right to govern any other human in matters that are none of the politician's or the police person's business. Matters that are a politician's or a police person's business will be addressed later.

Facts 1, 2, & 3 in short: YDOM; IDOY; TDOU. You Don't Own Me; I Don't Own You; They Don't Own Us.

Fact 4: What one does not have can not be delegated or given to another. What does not exist can not be delegated or given to another.

Fact 5: I can not give you the keys to my neighbor's car if I don't have them. I can not give you the right to use my neighbor's car if I don't have a right to delegate such permission. And I certainly can not give the keys to you if they don't exist.

Fact 6: A Voter can not delegate or give to any politician that which the Voter does not have. What can not be delegated or given to a politician is ownership of another human; a right to rule, a right to control, or a right to govern any other human. A Voter can only delegate to any politician a right to rule, control, and govern... Themselves.

In short no voter can delegate authority over any other human. This point of logic lays bare a lie propagated by Consensus Reality and the Ruling Class about your alleged right and duty to vote.

If you and I are equal, then I do NOT have a right to rule you. Since I do NOT have a right to rule you, I do NOT have a right to make laws you are required to follow. The present erroneous Consensus Reality ignores this fact
.
Fact 7: Government is an imagined concept just like Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, and Easter Bunny are. These imagined concepts need non-imaginary humans to act for these imagined concepts: to leave children's presents under the tree; to hide the eggs; to take the teeth and leave the money.

Fact 8: Government, just like the previously listed imagined concepts, has no will to act, nor hands to do action. Government is an imaginary concept that only exists in the minds of those who confuse the concept with an actual physical thing. Humans acting as if they are Government do exist. To help you remember and understand this, just replace the word Government with Santa Claus whenever you see it.

Fact 9: What humans pretending to be (Santa) do... is lie about (Santa). What humans pretending to be Government do... is lie about Government.

Continues here with text formatting to assist in showing the points and facts:
https://naturallawmatters.net/Unassailable-Facts.html
Quote from: 19 August 11:32
Dale Eastman 💯 Also, I didn’t come with a user manual stuck up my patootie and neither did anyone else. So stop imposing your made-up laws and rules on me!
Quote from: 19 August 12:29
Yes. I accept your invitation to discuss these laws and rules you claim I ordered you to obey.

Please copy-paste the laws and rules you claim I ordered you to obey.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »